In its efforts to deliver modern satcom capabilities to the warfighter, the Pentagon has historically struggled to synchronize the launch of next-generation satellites with ground-based infrastructure. Terminal program managers on both the military and the commercial side are preparing for their programs to be affected now that budgets are scrutinized more than ever, however, most have not yet seen a major impact on key programs.
The issue of synchronization — aligning the space and groundside so the satellites once in orbit have terminals to connect with them — continues to be a major challenge. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) cited a 2009 report in testimony last year before the Senate Armed Services Committee’s subcommittee on strategic forces, which found that none of the five space systems in development requiring user terminals were aligned with the launch of the satellites.
The delays and cost overruns in the space segment are well documented. The Navy’s postponed launch of its next-generation Mobile User Objective System Satellite (MUOS) communications satellite has created a push to develop other options to diminish a pending gap in critical tactical mobile communications. The Navy has faced a nearly 50 percent jump in contractor costs for the $6 billion system, and originally had expected to launch the first of MUOS’ 10 satellites in 2008.
Advanced EHF (AEHF), the next-generation of global, highly secure, survivable communications systems for warfighters within all services that will provide 10 times greater total capacity and offer channel data rates six times higher than that of Milstar II communications satellites, was five years behind schedule when the first satellite was launched in 2010, according to GAO reports. The $5.6 billion program when it began in 2001, ended up costing nearly twice that much and yielding one less satellite, the GAO reported.
FAB-T, the largest Air Force protected satcom terminal program designed to provide protected wideband satellite communications in support of command and control of U.S. nuclear forces, begins final qualification testing in 2012 and fielding in 2013. However, the FAB-T program milestones come after years of slipped schedules (original production was for 2007 and later was set for 2010), and after the Air Force stated its interest in seeking a second prime contractor for the program.
GAO has described both AEHF and FAB-T programs as examples of space programs in need of schedule synchronization between satellite construction and development of user equipment and software. It calculated that just 2 percent of the FAB-T terminals will be ready when AEHF is declared operationally capable, which is defined as two satellites operating in orbit. After the August 2010 launch of AEHF, the Air Force plans to launch two more AEHFs through 2012.
Christina Chaplain, director of acquisition and sourcing management in GAO, told lawmakers in March 2010, “A long-standing problem in DoD space acquisitions is that program and unit costs tend to go up significantly from initial cost estimates, while in some cases, the capability that was to be produced declines. This problem persists.”
Jerry Goodwin, vice president of government business development for ViaSat, says that the U.S. government has always bought the ground and space segment separately, and notes that it is a typical problem that was evident with MUOS, Advanced EHF and even TSAT before the program was cancelled. “It’s the way the government buys things; it’s a structural problem and I don’t see much evidence of it changing,” he says.
Chris Quilty, senior vice president at financial analyst firm Raymond James, agrees, contending that the government’s costly satellite and terminal alignment challenges are due to the programs’ disparate structure and the way programs are managed. “It’s the fact that there are entirely different program offices, budget categories and management structures that drive those silos. It’s the failure of administration and management to properly coordinate,” he says.
It is difficult to dispute that the Pentagon has a tough job prioritizing and coordinating development programs across services that often have a unique set of end-user requirements. The Air Force Milsatcom Systems Directorate oversees the DoD and the military’s $2.4 billion annual budget for space-based global communications. Col. David Goldstein, deputy director, Milsatcom Systems Directorate, explained that aligning Milsatcom terminal segments to their corresponding space segments has remained “fairly constant for the past several years.” The directorate compares the projected fielding of terminals with the projected availability of satellites at their Initial Operational Capability (IOC) and Full Operational Capability (FOC) program milestones.
“Despite the challenges posed by synchronizing terminals development, platform installations and satellites availability, the Milsatcom community has shown remarkable resilience in sustaining warfighter communications over the years while delivering new capabilities to meet ever increasing demands for satcom,” Goldstein says.
He notes that by the time the full constellation of AEHF satellites launches, there will be significant numbers of AEHF-capable terminals fielded, such as the Army’s Secure, Mobile Anti-Jam, Reliable Tactical-Terminal (SMART-T), the Navy Multi-band Terminal (NMT), FAB-T programs and other EHF-capable terminals.
Email
Comments
Print
Reuse
