Key Takeaways from WSBR’s discussion on the future of COMSATCOM in support of the U.S. Department of Defense

In reflecting upon all of the events that have taken place this year, I look back upon a particular industry roundtable as one which shed a great deal of insight upon how the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the satellite communications (SATCOM) industry should proceed in 2015 – and beyond: Hosted by the Washington Space Business Roundtable, “The Future of SATCOM in Support of DoD: A Commercial Perspective – What’s Next After WGS?” demonstrated what commercial SATCOM providers must consider in meeting the Pentagon’s needs in the context of today’s rapidly changing world.

As moderated by SpaceNews Editor-in-Chief Warren Ferster and held in Washington, D.C., I was proud to represent Inmarsat’s U.S. Government Business Unit in this important discussion. Here are my four key takeaways from the roundtable, which can be viewed in its entirety.

1. Before looking beyond WGS, we should first be asking how existing SATCOM resources can best be utilized right now.

What’s most important right now is not looking beyond WGS – Wideband Global SATCOM – but instead, utilizing what’s available today in the most effective manner. The satellite industry and U.S. government can work together to create a more synchronized, integrated architecture that enables increased interoperability between these systems, to include the full space and ground network. (This would include terminals designed to work in multiple bands across both military and commercial satellite systems.) Doing so will help reduce costs to the taxpayer, while better supporting government end-users by filling gaps in capacity where WGS coverage is limited or nonexistent. It will also make additional capacity readily available when usage surges due to world events.

2. Drawing a direct cost comparison between bandwidth on commercial SATCOM (COMSATCOM) and U.S. government SATCOM is difficult and largely immaterial.

Since 2005, the U.S. government has asserted that it is much more expensive to lease COMSATCOM than to use its own military satellites, such as WGS. However, as the full operational life-cycle cost of government operated assets is unknown and arguably indeterminate, these claims are not an “apples to apples” comparison that accurately reflects the value of COMSATCOM to the U.S. government. Furthermore, the U.S. government directly benefits from capital investments the commercial satellite industry makes to serve non-government customers — just as individuals benefit from using a rental car, without having the expenditure of purchasing or maintaining the car long-term. Nobody would claim that it is more efficient to own a car in every city, even though the daily cost of renting is higher than the daily cost of owning your car at home. The rental company assumes the costs and risks of keeping a fleet available for you — and everyone else — and profits only when multiple customers keep the usage high. The same is true for satellites. While I encourage the government to review its internal business practices with an eye on improving planning and procurement, I believe COMSATCOM is undeniably an effective and affordable solution for meeting bandwidth demand when applied appropriately.

3. Future SATCOM requirements from the Pentagon will continue to be difficult to predict, but our industry can still make sound capital investments based on the more predictable commercial market.

We recognize that WGS and other MILSATCOM provide a vital government function and will be operational for decades to come. However, government applications continue to have insatiable demand for reliable SATCOM access. Historically – and predictably into the future as well – these bandwidth demands will continue to outstrip available in-orbit capacity. This is where commercial SATCOM adds operational flexibility and resiliency to government communications, allowing the U.S. government to directly benefit from investments made by commercial SATCOM companies.

4. There are multiple opportunities for commercial providers to support U.S. government customers through:

• Mobility: Government and military forces must have the ability to deploy globally on short notice for Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (AISR), military activity on the ground, humanitarian relief programs, and other efforts that require quickly deployable capability worldwide. The COMSATCOM industry already has assets in place worldwide that can accommodate bandwidth needs as global “hot spots” move and change unpredictably;
• Interoperability: The commercial SATCOM industry and the government can work together to achieve better interoperability through integration of space and ground assets, including SATCOM terminals that will seamlessly switch between systems and bandwidths;
• Varied and High-Throughput Bandwidth: As government demand for more resilient high-throughput bandwidth in multiple frequencies continues to grow rapidly, we can continue to provide complementary capacity, worldwide, in an increasingly contested space environment;
• Managed Services: Similar to the private sector, the U.S. government is increasingly moving toward shared services and cloud outsourcing delivered as a managed service, leveraging capital investments and infrastructure developed initially for the private sector. Commercial SATCOM should follow this same business model, allowing the government to tap into our infrastructure in a cost-effective manner on a flexible, as-needed basis.

Throughout our history, Inmarsat has supported the global mobile satellite communication needs of the U.S. government, and we believe that an open and honest dialogue between commercial satellite industry executives and government officials benefits all parties as we seek to create a more capable and cost-effective SATCOM network. Thanks to roundtables like these, that’s exactly what we’re doing.