june/july 2018...evolving market trends”. photo courtesy of elbit gmc 6 | june/july 2018 global...

1www.globalmilitarycommunications.com | June/July 2018

Global Military Communications Magazine

June/July 2018

Fro

nt c

over

pho

to c

ourt

esy

of R

ucku

s N

etw

orks

http://www.globalmilitarycommunications.com

2 www.globalmilitarycommunications.com | June/July 2018


http://bit.ly/2GiFxjT



X-band Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)- page 34. Photo US Navy

GMC

No part of this publication may betransmitted, reproduced or electronicallystored without the written permission fromthe publisher.

DS Air Publications does not give anywarranty as to the content of the materialappearing in the magazine, its accuracy,timeliness or fitness for any particularpurpose. DS Air Publications disclaims allresponsibility for any damages or lossesin the use and dissemination of theinformation.

All editorial contentsCopyright © 2018 DS Air PublicationsAll rights reserved

DS Air Publications1 Langhurstwood RoadHorshamWest Sussex, RH12 4QDUnited KingdomT: +44 1403 273973F: +44 1403 273972admin@dsairpublications.comwww.globalmilitarycommunications.com

EditorAmy [email protected]

SalesChristopher [email protected]

SalesSam [email protected]

Circulation ManagerElizabeth George

[email protected]

Editorial DirectorRichard [email protected]

Managing DirectorDavid [email protected] Contents

News review 4/5

How drone detection is used in security 6

Beyond radios: Improved communication for first responders usingSmart devices 8

No strings attached – Why militaries no longer need to trade offsecurity and scalability in wireless deployment 12

Developments in hosted payloads 16

Federal Agency data is under siege 20

Driving the UK Space sector 24

Satellite interference: A growing problem for the military? 28

X-band Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): Optimizing satellitecommunications to maximize UAV advantage 32

If you would like to supply information for future issues of GMC pleasecontact Amy Saunders, Editor.

Pho

to c

ourt

esy

Luci

ad

mailto:[email protected]











Lincad wins contract with Team Leidos tosupply batteries to MOD

GMC

Lincad, UK supplier of batteries, chargers and power management systemsfor military applications, has won a multi-million pound contract with TeamLeidos to supply a wide range of primary cells and batteries for the UK Ministryof Defence.

Consisting of mainly lithium as well as some other cell chemistries, mostof these products must be suitable for mission-critical environments andtherefore have to be approved to UK Defence Standards. Lincad uses itsextensive in-house testing facilities to approve product and to demonstratecontinued product performance over time.

In addition, Lincad will be employing its capacity to package and labelsupplied product for all modes of transport, including full adherence with thestringent IATA regulations. The company’s own Dangerous Goods SafetyAdviser (DGSA) supports all aspects of product supply.

Lincad has been supplying a range of primary cells and batteries to theMOD since 2010 and this present contract is set to run for three years with thepossible option of a one-year extension.

Peter Slade, Lincad’s Joint Managing Director, commented: “Not only arewe experts in the design and manufacture of bespoke batteries, we also haveextensive experience in the supply of large volumes of smaller cells andbatteries from other cell and battery manufacturers. Winner of the Supply Chainaward at the Made in SE Awards 2017, we have forged excellent relationshipswith a number of the world’s leading cell and battery manufacturers to satisfyMOD requirements.”

Team Leidos, led by Leidos Europe Ltd, is helping to implement the MOD’sLogistic Commodities & Services Transformation (LCS[T]) programme whichis designed to enhance and improve the UK’s defence supply chain. Providingessential procurement, distribution and storage services for MOD material,Team Leidos is working to transform the supply chain by integrating a complexmixture of services, at low risk, using a modern suite of systems.

Photo courtesy of Lincad

Comtech Telecommunications has announced that during its fourth quarter of fiscal 2018, its Santa Clara, California-based subsidiary,Comtech Xicom Technology, Inc., which is part of Comtech’s Commercial Solutions segment, has received a contract for morethan $4.8 million from a US military integrator for high-power satellite communication (SATCOM) travelling wave tube amplifiers(TWTAs).

“The US Military counts on Comtech Xicom Technology to deliver sophisticated, high-power amplifiers. Over the past fiveyears, Comtech Xicom hasmanufactured hundreds of amplifiersfor this application,” said FredKornberg, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of ComtechTelecommunications Corp. “Ourcustomers can count on ComtechXicom to deliver high-power SATCOMproducts on time and with highquality.”

Comtech Xicom Technology, Inc.,a world leader in high-poweramplifiers, manufactures a widevariety of tube-based and solid-statepower amplifiers for military andcommercial satellite uplinkapplications.

The product range encompassespower levels from 8W to 3kW, withfrequency coverage in sub-bandswithin the 2GHz to 51GHz spectrum.Amplifiers are available for fixed andground-based, ship-board, andairborne mobile applications.

Comtech Telecommunications wins $4.8 million follow-oncontract for high-power military SATCOM TWTAs

Photo courtesy of Comtech Xicom Technology GMC




Schiebel completes successful S-100 trialsfor the Belgian Navy

Photo courtesy of Schiebel

GMC

Schiebel effectively demonstrated the exceptionalsearch and rescue as well as maritime surveillancecapabilities of the CAMCOPTER® S-100 UnmannedAir System (UAS) from 21 June to 1 July 2018 to theBelgian Navy.

Schiebel’s trials for the Belgian Navy aimed atbuilding an enhanced knowledge base and developinga successful concept of operations for the use of UASin support of search and rescue (SAR) as well asintelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR)missions. For the demonstration flights, designed toshow the suitability of the CAMCOPTER® S-100 forthese capabilities, the helicopter was equipped withtwo payloads, the L3 Wescam MX-10 and theOverwatch Imaging PT-8 Oceanwatch, as well as anautomatic identification system (AIS) receiver and arescue drop box. The flight trials included varioussearch and rescue scenarios in a land-based settingin Lombardsijde and in a maritime environment in thenaval port of Zeebrugge.

“The trials with the S-100 have been verysuccessful and have taught us a lot about the possibilities of such systems and sensors, the ability to operate in Belgian’s confinedairspace, opportunities for the domain of coastal security and prospects for further developments,” said Lt. Commander D. Biermans,who is in charge of the Belgian Navy’s Maritime Tactical UAS (MTUAS) Project Team. “Given the complexity of introducing aMTUAS within the Navy and its impact on the concepts of operation and tactics, this was a first informative step and will be part ofa series of tests and experiments with a variety of vehicles and sensors.”

The flights were the first S-100 customer demonstration with the recently integrated PT-8 Oceanwatch payload. This revolutionarywide-area maritime search capability offers a powerful naval patrol capacity and thus solves the challenge of searching for smallobjects over vast areas. The employed combination of two payloads proved to be an ideal solution for the tested scenarios.

“With its small footprint, exceptional capability and state-of-the-art payloads, the CAMCOPTER® S-100 is the perfect platformfor maritime and land-based SAR missions,” said Hans Georg Schiebel, Chairman of the Schiebel Group. “Our tried and testedhelicopter continuously proves to be the most capable and successful vertical takeoff and landing UAS.”

Elbit Systems offers COTS solutions optimal for upgradingmilitary platformsLeveraging its strong position in the aircraft upgrade market and the recent acquisition of Universal Avionics (“UA”), Elbit Systemsis to showcase at the upcoming exhibition in Farnborough a unique offering of commercial systems for military upgrade programs.

Defense budgets constraints and a widening requirement to comply with civilian airspace regulations drive a growing demandfor commercial cockpit solutions for military platform upgrades. Cost efficiencies, shorter time to market and full compliance withCommunications, Navigation, and Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) regulations make Commercial of the Shelf(COTS) avionics optimal for upgrading military platforms.

Addressing these growing needs Elbit Systems,together with its wholly owned subsidiary UniversalAvionics, presents a unique portfolio of COTS CNS/ATM compliant solutions for upgrading Para-militaryand military aircraft including helicopters, transportersand special mission aircraft.

The offering to be showcased in the Companybooth #1354 (Hall 1) at Farnborough includesUniversal Avionics’ Flight Management Systems(FMS), Primary Flight Display system andcommunication systems alongside Elbit Systems’Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS), Head-UpDisplay (HUD) and wearable HUD product line.

Yoram Shmuely, EVP and General Manager ofElbit Systems’ Aerospace Division commented:” Ourleadership in the field of upgrading military platformsour technological edge in the commercial aviation areatogether with UA’s portfolio, enable us to promote thisunique offering that is optimally suited to address theevolving market trends”.

Photo courtesy of Elbit GMC




Detecting unauthorised drone useThe use of drones or unmanned aerial vehicles provides a valuable service for many industries and sectors both in theUK and around the world. Jobs that once required the rental of expensive equipment or were dangerous to carry outsuch as pylon inspection, roof inspection and crop monitoring can now be done with ease using the latest dronetechnology. But while most drones are used for legitimate tasks such as crop monitoring or building surveys there area small number of users who may opt to use the technology for delinquent or criminal activities. Ben Duke of COPTRZexplains how to detect and monitor against unauthorised drone use.

Photo courtesy of Pexels

The use of drones or unmanned aerial vehicles provides avaluable service for many industries and sectors both in the UKand around the world. Jobs that once required the rental ofexpensive equipment or were dangerous to carry out such aspylon inspection, roof inspection and crop monitoring can nowbe done with ease using the latest drone technology.

Small wonder then that the market for drones is set toexplode. According to a recent report by Price WaterhouseCoopers it is estimated that there will be around 76,000 dronesflying in UK airspace by 2030 with drones contributing up to£42 billion to the UK economy.

Why the need for drone detection?But while most drones are used for legitimate tasks such ascrop monitoring or building surveys there are a small number ofusers who may opt to use the technology for delinquent orcriminal activities. While the number of crimes committed bydrones is still quite small it is certainly on the increase, during2016 the UK police received 3456 reports of that’s a 352 percentincrease on the year before.

The list of criminal activities a drone can be used for is almostendless. Today’s drones use state-of-the-art imaging equipmentwhich can be used to commit a range of crimes including spyingon individuals to obtain PIN numbers, identifying the weak pointsof property security systems, carrying out corporate espionage

by covertly monitoring employees or buildings and smugglingcontraband across borders and into prisons. There are evenreports of drones being used by criminal gangs to intimidatelocals.

The criminal use of drones isn’t the only problem, there isalso a risk of careless and reckless drone flying causing a dangerto other aircraft by accidentally flying into restricted airspace or






causing death or injury to people on the ground if they crash inheavily populated areas. While it is a crime for causing death bydangerous driving, there is no such equivalent for dangerousdrone flying.

Governments also recognise the risks that reckless orcriminal drone flying represents. In May 2018 the UK governmentintroduced new legislation which places restrictions on droneswith the capability of flying above 400ft and restricts flying within1km of an airport boundary. New drone pilots will also have topass an online safety test. Drone pilots who breach therestrictions face unlimited fines and up to five years in prison.

How to detect and monitor against unauthorised drone use?While new legislation may help reduce the number of incidentsit is likely that determined criminals will still attempt tocompromise security systems with the use of drone technology.So it is important that organisations take appropriate measuresto limit the risk by implementing effective drone detectionsystems.

The most effective drone mitigation systems use a multi-layered approach which consists of a network of video cameras,infrared and RF sensors which are managed by analyticssoftware to detect, monitor and control drones which aretrespassing on the property. This system can then be integratedwith traditional security measures such as on-site personneland local law enforcement to provide 365-day protection foremployees and property.

One such system is AeroScope from DJI. AeroScope canbe deployed as a fixed or portable solution which is able todetect drones in extreme and hostile environments includingthose with high levels of humidity which often causes problemsfor other drone detection systems. Once detected drones canbe tracked in real time and signal data can be retrieved to helpidentify the location of the pilot.

How can AeroScope be deployed?DJI AeroScope can be deployed as a portable or fixed solutionto detect trespassing drones within a fixed area. The systemhas a variable range depending on its location and the size ofthe antenna being used. Typically, fixed units have a largerantenna which can cover an area up to 25 square miles. Compactportable units are able to cover an area up to 10 square milesdepending on the terrain.

Portable units are completely self-sufficient and come in ahard case which is easily transportable allowing the unit to beused by mobile security personnel at an airport or other secureenvironments. The mobile operator will receive alerts fromtrespassing drones along with drone serial number, currentairspeed and the location of the pilot. Once identified, securitypersonnel can attend the pilot’s location to warn the individual

that restricted drone usage is in operation.Fixed systems use a number of large aerials located around

the site which are connected to a central monitoring station.Because fixed antenna units have a much larger range theycan cover greater distances than mobile units. Typically, a fixedantenna will have a range of up to 25 square miles allowingsecurity teams to cover an entire site such as an airport apronor prison from a single monitoring station.

Who is AeroScope for?AeroScope is designed for use by security professionals andlaw enforcement services to protect property and individuals.To ensure personal data is protected companies that wish touse the system have to be approved prior to use by DJI. Keymarkets for the drone detection system include airports, prisonsand open-air stadiums. The organisers of events that take placein large open areas such as festivals and concerts are alsoconsidered suitable users for the system.

The type of system required is dependent on the facilities tobe protected. A combination of fixed and mobile units can bedeployed to help protect large areas such as airport perimetersand military installations. While fixed units are most suitable forfacilities which have onsite security personnel available to monitorthe central management station, mobile solutions are best suitedto smaller sites or those covering one-off events. GMC

DJI AeroScope. Photo courtesy of DJI




Beyond radios: Improved communication forfirst responders using Smart devicesFirst responders perform a vital role in today’s world, andensuring they have the right equipment to save lives is ofthe utmost importance. Here, Bart Adams, Director ofProducts and Innovation at Luciad (a Hexagon GeospatialCompany), opines on improved communications systemsfor first responders using smart devices.

Bart Adams, Director of Products and Innovation atLuciad

First responders working in fire and rescue services mustadhere to a complex set of obligations during emergencies.Much of the time, these obligations must be carried out inextremely hazardous environments while responders are underintense time pressures. Naturally, effective communications areessential to carrying this out, and doing so in a fashion thatdoes not expose responders or members of the public tounnecessary risk.

In the fast-paced first responder environment, effectivecommunications can be defined as ensuring that information(such as tactical plans, data on emerging hazards and thelocation of crew members) can flow seamlessly between incidentcommand centres and operational teams. All availableinformation on the incident, including intelligence on risks andhazards, also needs to be assessed by the incident commander,and all relevant information and tactical direction then needs tobe passed on to crews. At the same time, incident commandersmust be able to quickly identify what resources (for example,firefighting equipment) are available, as well as the locationsand status of all deployed crews. They also need to be able toidentify and request resources as needed from other emergencyservices teams. Finally, communications need to be logged forpost-incident analysis, which is a key part of ensuring thatdecisions can be justified and accounted for. So,communications in this environment are multi-faceted, complex,and an incredibly important part of saving lives.

Rapid communicationMiscommunication can be deadly. Incident environments canchange incredibly quickly and new hazards, such as collapsingbuildings or released contaminants and chemicals, can quicklychange a situation. If changes are miscommunicated,responders’ ability to respond properly could be severelyhampered; for example, firefighters could be directed to thewrong part of a building and misunderstand where hazards are.Following this, harm could come to both the response crew andmembers of the public.

Communications need to be fast, and decisions need to be

relayed seamlessly to everyone who needs to be aware of them.This is no easy task because the intensity of the incidentenvironment is a significant barrier to communications. Forinstance, during a dwelling fire an incident commander outsideof a building will have broad awareness and will be able tocommunicate freely with responders and partner agencies, butalso has to manage a large number of risk factors without beingable to physically see what is going on inside the environment.In comparison, a responder inside of a building wearingbreathing apparatus and in ‘offensive mode’ has a more focusedawareness of the incident, but a much more limited ability tocommunicate with team members.

Radio technologiesAll in all, when it comes to emergency technologies, there is alot to think about to ensure that everyone is safe and that anincident is dealt with in the most efficient possible manner.Command, Control, and Communications (C3) technologies andbest practices should act as enablers both for first respondersactively combating incidents, for incident commanders directingefforts and for senior commanders monitoring multi-agencyresponse efforts. Some current communication methods are stillrelatively basic, however, and can actually hinder efforts.

At this time, many first responders rely on digital or analogueradio systems and paging tools for communication. There aremany styles of radio communication, with the majority beinggoverned by strict rules and the use of codes or key terms toavoid information overload. This method does not always workeffectively, however. The US Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA) has stated that, despite all the strict rules inplace, responders: “are often overwhelmed by excessinformation on the radio.” FEMA has highlighted other issueswith radio communications; for example, firefighters generallyassume that all equipment given to them is fireproof and highlydurable and subsequently do not pay much attention to wherea radio is worn, or they will not think to wear a fireproof radiocase. This means that non-fire-retardant radios are oftenexposed to the effects of fire and steam and are thereforevulnerable to damage and signal loss, meaning that firefighterscould lose communications altogether at a critical moment.Panasonic Toughpad-with incident




http://bit.ly/2bgHaP9



As well as radio, location technology (such as GPS) andphysiological monitoring can be used to track the locations offirst responders attending emergencies. This allowscommanders to track movement as well as heart rates, smoketoxicity levels, and can monitor when responders are entering adangerous zone.

Analyzing the dataThe data produced by all of these tracking and communicationsdevices is immense, but all of it needs to be analysed andunderstood in order for an incident to end as successfully aspossible. With this in mind, being able to visualize this data isessential, and helps to vastly improve communications,par ticularly given the complex nature of hazardousenvironments.

Electronic systems which help to make sense of this plethoraof data are currently being used for C3, the SAFECommandsystem developed by Airbus Intelligence is a good example.This is in use across a number of UK fire services for both mobileC3 and vehicle routing. However, paper is still in widespreaduse for planning and informing communications, and whilst thismay seem convenient, building plans used by responders maybe outdated due to renovations, and it is difficult to use paper toinform distributed multi-agency emergency service responses.Paper can also easily be lost or damaged.

The networks used for voice communications vary fromregion to region. For example, in the UK first responders arereliant on the private Airwave TETRA network operated byMotorola but are also in the process of transitioning to theambitious 4G Emergency Services Network built on EE’scommercial network. This switch to 4G has resulted in push todevelop smart devices to solve the operational issues associated

with existing methods. There is also hope that this ‘digitaltransformation’ in emergency service communications willimprove operational safety and effectiveness.

A mobile device for accurate communicationsOne such solution has been tested by Belgian fire brigades aspart of a European research project investigating the use ofembedded mobile communications systems. This project iscalled the Artemis ASTUTE emergency services demonstratorand was developed by two Belgian software companies: Luciad(a Hexagon company) and IOS International. The project wasput together to provide adaptive situational awareness, and toallow for effective communications between first responders andcommanders. It was also developed with future use cases inborder control and the military in mind. The overall aim of theproject was to develop a mobile device that could be used foraccurate communications, while decreasing the need for verbalcommunications, and reducing information overload.

The solution was designed with the incident environment asits core focus. It enables decision support and tacticalcommunications by making use of physiological data, locationdata, environment data and information on hazards. On theground, the system is implemented onto Android-basedruggedized devices, tablets for commanders, and smartphonesfor first responders, in order to conveniently provide them withinformation on a device with a look and feel that they arecomfortable with. The solution uses building information to builda map for responders to navigate around, and other datacollected provides information such as the physiological stateof first responders as well as live situational data in order toprovide decision support. The system also provides responderswith critical alerts in response to ‘as-it-happens’ data – for

Artemis Astute Firefighters




Photo courtesy of Luciad

GMC

example, a first responder will receive an alert when they areapproaching a room containing dangerous goods.

Responders and commanders can communicate via bothtext and annotations on the map in the system; thesecommunications can include tasks, known dangers and areaswhere intervention from responders is necessary. All thisinformation can then be sent to relevant crew members. Thismeans that commanders can send responders visualinstructions that can be seen and assessed at a glance, ratherthan responders having to rely on orders sent through potentiallyunreliable radios. All communications are also recorded toenable information sharing with third parties, such as insurersand professional standards bodies.

The ASTUTE demonstrator was tested by six Belgian firebrigades in Merksplas, Hasselt, Ninove, Cherloi, Dendermonde

and Genk. Information on all of the needs and requirements ofthe first responders was sourced from public safety stakeholderssuch as the Belgian Crisis & Emergency Management Center.The system was used in a search and rescue simulation by fireresponders who had received no prior training on the system,and a System Usability Score was provided afterwards to assesshow well it worked as a means of communication. Commanderswere asked to organize and monitor the operation, to annotateand communicate an unsafe situation, and to interpret imagerytaken by fire responders as part of the simulation. Aftercompletion of the project in 2014, commercialization of theASTUTE prototype started, primarily targeting fire and publicsafety markets.

Whilst the research prototype was developed specificallyfor first responders, the solution could also be used in order toenable the ‘Smart Soldier’ which is increasingly important intoday’s military. For example, using a similar system, unitcommanders could communicate via map annotations andexchange tactical plans, allowing contextual data from C3systems to be integrated into communications. Complexmanoeuvres could also be communicated remotely, rather thanvia tactical radio or paper. These systems, like the ASTUTEdemonstrator, are not complete replacements of tactical radiosystems as they often utilize tactical radio networks for datatransfer in austere locations (locations devoid of infrastructure).Instead, these new systems can build on the communicationscapabilities of existing networks and can provide an additionalchannel to augment the clarity of communications.

These types of systems are already increasingly beingimplemented by armed forces. For example, the US Armyacquired Systematic’s SitaWare suite as part of their ongoingreplacement of systems like the Tactical Ground ReportingSystem (TIGR), and their ongoing push to integrate C3 systemsinto the Command Post Computing Environment (CP CE). Othermilitaries are also implementing similar communicationtransformation strategies as smart devices evolve to becomemore suitable for the military environment. No doubt as othercommunications and data channels open, such as losslessremote video streaming, embedded physiological monitoring,and high-quality satellite video streaming, they will also be usedto help improve decision making and communications in boththe emergency service and military environments.

In essence, as communications systems improve alongsidethe rapid evolution of Smart technology, this will most definitelyopen both military and first responder communications to new levelsof accuracy, whilst also improving operational safety.

http://bit.ly/297Mdms




No strings attached – Why militaries nolonger need to trade off security andscalability in wireless deploymentWireless communications have completely changed theface of the modern battlefield. Military missions havebecome increasingly dependent upon wirelesscommunications technology due to ease of use and greaterflexibility. Chris ‘CT’ Thomas, Federal Solutions Architect,Ruckus Networks (an ARRIS company), outlines howwireless networking provides mission success, withoutmaking compromises on security and scalability.

Chris ‘CT’ Thomas, Federal Solutions Architect,Ruckus Networks

Federal agencies are in the midst of a technologicalparadigm shift. With the passage of the Modernizing GovernmentTechnology (MGT) Act and proliferation of remote access andBYOD across the public sector, now more than ever, agenciesare on the cusp of decoupling from fixed workstations andembracing the age of mobile. Yet, military organizations havebeen slow to adopt wireless technologies for a myriad of reasons.Much of the challenge is rooted in the complex dimensions ofmodern militaries. In short, militaries have struggled to balancethe need to both maintain high security consistency against thedesire to be flexible, scalable and easy to manage.

Fortunately, military agencies have the opportunity toovercome such adversity, and marry both the practicality ofwireless access and the challenges of security through newtechnology and processes, rather than viewing them as mutuallyexclusive – all with no strings attached.

Military wireless is the futureChallenges ranging from aged building infrastructure to extremeand remote terrain has resulted in slow adoption of widespreadwireless networks for military agencies, whether domesticallyor in-theatre. That is changing, albeit slowly, as military agenciesworldwide embark on expanding wireless technologies as partof broader modernization efforts. For example, to increasemission readiness, the US Marine Corps has announced aconcerted investment in broader wireless use. The ultimate goal:To make wireless Internet as ubiquitous in defense as it is incivilian life.

It is easy to see why this change is taking place – wireless

networking provides significant benefits over all-wireddeployments: Easier installations, greater scalability of networkresources, increased agility, and less reliance on physicalpresence of Ethernet ports.

Consider the case of a field medic treating a combat traumavictim. Advanced, secure wireless enables that medic to beginrelaying key vital signs and other potentially lifesavinginformation back to medical facilities to begin preparations forsurgery or other trauma care.

Another example of wireless use in military applications isin more efficient supply chain and logistics management. Sincemilitary agencies are among the largest logistics managemententerprises on Earth, using mobile devices and connectedInternet of Things (IoT) sensors can enable better and fasterinventory assessments to streamline supply orders, increaseefficiency and minimize backlogs.

Indeed, consider the recent words of Paul Mehney, Directorof Public Communications for the United States Army’s ProgramExecutive Office Command, Control, Communications-Tactical(PEO C3T): “By going wireless, command-post setup andteardown times may be reduced by hours, and less cable andprotective flooring have to be transported from location tolocation,” Mehney said. “Soldiers can be untethered from theirworkstations for improved collaboration. Most important, networkdowntime is significantly reduced. Following command-postsetup, units can turn on their secure Wi-Fi hot spot and thenetwork can come up first instead of last, in as little as minutesinstead of hours. And soldiers can stay connected longer whenjumping the command post.”

However, adopting wireless is not a panacea for networking;the increased benefits of wireless also lead to new challengesthat will need to be addressed.

Challenges of security and scaleUnlike wireless networks in the private sector, military networksrequire an added degree of security. Even devices reportingseemingly mundane energy information can reveal potentiallyCloudpath Image from Collateral




http://bit.ly/297HX9O



Photo courtesy of Ruckus Networks

Photo courtesy of Ruckus Networks

important information about a facility’s use to adversaries. Theyalso require scale found in only the largest private telecomorganization; militaries operate globally with an ever-evolvingslew of network-connected devices.

Alone, the challenges of security or scale are relatively easyto manage. They have also traditionally been at odds with eachother; deploying wireless infrastructure and devices on largescale has been hard to do while also maintaining high levels ofsecurity. Inevitably, users bring and connect unauthorizeddevices, fail to properly enable security credentials, or neglectroutine security patches and updates.

Compounding these two challenges are the complex andvaried environments in which militaries must operate; mostbusinesses can reliably predict they will deploy wireless solutionsin office buildings. Militaries must consider buildings, ships,aircraft, battlefields, temporary installations and more.

Merging practical scalability and security for better militarywirelessWhat can military agencies do to mitigate the challenges thatcome with both ensuring security while also keeping wirelessscalability practical? Militaries should adopt the newly-emergingindustry paradigm of self-service, certificate-based on-boardingprocesses for network devices.

These certificate-based on-boarding processes, along withtheir management platforms, enable a host of advantages overtraditional manual on-boarding procedures including the abilityto pre-approve devices and automatically configure devices tocomply with ordained security standards.

By putting network management into the cloud and creatingcertificate-based, self-onboarding, these platforms, like Ruckus’Cloudpath Enrollment System, bring network management awayfrom the network edge and back to central IT services, providingnumerous benefits.

With certificate-based security, network end-users no longerneed to worry about passwords or lockouts; securitycredentialing is done once, after which a certificate lives at thedevice level. In the case of reported compromise – a lost deviceor detected security threat – the credential access can berevoked or altered via the cloud.

Such certificate-based security ensures that network andsecurity administrators have complete control over whichdevices belonging to which users, are authorized to access to

which resources. Simply put, certificate-based security allowsgranular user and device access control on your network.

Furthermore, it allows militaries to reduce network supportfootprints at installations translating to the need for fewer supportstaff and freeing up resources like food, lodging, andtransportation for more mission-oriented personnel. And, withself-onboarding portals and automated security, Cloudpath ESalso reduces IT tickets, freeing up resources for less menialtasks; some of our private-sector adopters have seen upwardsof 20-person hours saved per week per 1,000 users.

Furthermore, being network and device agnostic, theinteroperability of self-onboarding platforms results in fewerconcerns over the wide array of devices requiring differentconfigurations.

Don’t let compromise get in the way of mission successDefense agencies are in the middle of a major wave in ITmodernization. Multiple new technology advances in dataanalytics, IoT, and cloud computing are transforming operationsin ways that promise to cut costs and increase efficiency. Andwith the traditional barriers to widespread wireless deploymentquickly being overcome, it is only natural that expanded andeasier wireless makes its way into military applications.

Today’s military missions increasingly rely on technology forcommunications, control and logistics capabilities. Those in turn,rely on easy to use, scalable and secure networks. Wirelessnetworking offers even greater flexibility and efficiency, but too oftencame with tradeoffs between security and scalability; now it is possibleto have both without tradeoffs. Time to start taking advantage ofwireless; your mission success depends on it. GMC




http://bit.ly/2GKT9rE



EGNOS payload, to be hosted on the EUTELSAT 5 West B satellite. Photo courtesy of European Global NavigationSatellite Systems Agency (GSA)

Developments in hosted payloadsHosted payloads are an attractive way of gaining accessto space at reduced cost, and within a reduced timeframe.The benefits are many, but several government agenciesare hesitant in their use due to security concerns. Theoverall hosted payload market is a growing one however;here, we take a look at notable recent developments.

Launching satellites is an expensive business. From design,manufacturing, insurance, launch and operation, the costs canrun into the hundreds of millions, depending on the parameters.And that’s if everything goes smoothly – the years of planningand design can be further lengthened by launch delays, whichcan be costly and extremely inconvenient.

Hosted payloads offer an extremely cost-effective solution,ideal for small start-ups or government agencies. The hostedpayload model allows a communications module to be attachedto a (usually) commercial satellite, which shares the satellite’spower supply and transponders, but operates independently.

With a hosted payload, entities gain access to in-orbitcapabilities without having to pay the entire cost of building andlaunching a satellite. Other benefits of the hosted payload modelinclude reduced time to orbit.

So, what can you achieve with a hosted payload? The sameas many other satellites – Space Situational Awareness (SAA),data collection, Earth observation, communications, R&D, etc.The possibilities are endless, making the hosted payload modelhighly attractive for many. With budgets constrained in manygovernment agencies right now, hosted payloads are expectedto grow in the coming years, however, some defence sectorsare still uneasy over their use, given that they don’t control theentire satellite.

Eutelsat to host next-generation EGNOS payloadWhile some government agencies remain uncertain over thesecurity of hosted payloads, particularly when it comes to military

applications, there are fewer concerns for key non-defenceprojects.

In March 2017, the European Global Navigation SatelliteSystems Agency (GSA) selected Eutelsat Communications todevelop, integrate and operate its next-generation EGNOSpayload, to be hosted on the EUTELSAT 5 West B satellite, thatis due for launch end of this year. The new payload marks areplenishment of current EGNOS capacity and is expected tostart service in 2019 for a duration of 15 years. Airbus Defenceand Space is building the satellite’s commercial Ku-band payloadand the EGNOS payload, while the platform is beingmanufactured by Orbital ATK.

EGNOS is a European Geostationary Navigation OverlayService that acts as an augmentation service to GlobalPositioning Systems (GPS) to improve the accuracy andreliability of positioning information. EGNOS also provides acrucial integrity message regarding the continuity and availabilityof a signal which is essential in aviation where GNSS alonedoes not satisfy operational requirements set by the InternationalCivil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) for use in critical flight stages,such as final approaches. With the addition of EGNOS, whichhas been certified for civil aviation since 2011, systems suchas GPS and Galileo can satisfy ICAO standards.

The EGNOS GEO-3 payload on EUTELSAT 5 West B willcomprise two L-band transponders that will act as anaugmentation, or overlay, to GNSS messages. Data from GNSSmeasurements received by an interconnected ground networkof positioning stations across Europe will be transferred to acentral computing centre, where differential corrections andintegrity messages will be calculated and then broadcast byEUTELSAT 5 West B to users. The new payload will be the firststep towards the deployment of the EGNOS next generation,EGNOS V3. This new generation of EGNOS will augment bothGalileo and GPS, and is planned to be qualified by 2022. EGNOSV3 will provide a higher level of performance and robustnessthan the current EGNOS legacy services, as required by thegrowing use and reliance on such services.




SSL to demonstrate hosted payload security for US AirForceThe role of hosted payloads has been on the rise in recent yearsas demand for space-based communications increases fasterthan actual capabilities. However, as previously highlighted,hosted payloads have not been widely accepted by governmentagencies because they are uncertain about the levels of securityavailable.

Innoflight, Inc., a veteran-owned business specializing inelectronics systems for defence and aerospace, plans to alleviatethose fears. In September 2017, SSL announced that it hadbeen selected by Innoflight to provide a high-fidelity simulationenvironment for testing the security of hosted payloads oncommercial satellites.

The capability, which is being developed for the US Air ForceSpace and Missile Systems Center (SMC) as part of its SecureIP Payload Accommodation Demonstration Project, will enableSMC to demonstrate cybersecure payload hosting scenarios,concepts of operation, and cybersecurity controls. It will alsodemonstrate advanced, secure Internet protocol connectionsbetween a government payload operations centre and thehosted payload using the existing satellite operator’s networkinginfrastructure, eliminating the high cost of specialised space-based communication systems.

“SSL has significant experience integrating hosted payloadsinto our leading commercial spacecraft platform, the SSL 1300,”said Richard White, President of SSL Government Systems.“Our commercial experience positions us well to provide theprecise test environment that Innoflight requires to demonstratehow its secure interface solution will ensure cybersecurity forUS government missions. This work will become an integral partof SSL’s secure interface for hosted payloads and will make thebenefits of the hosted payload model more readily accessibleto both government and commercial customers.”

The hosted payload interface is expected to play a key rolein enabling resilient, next-generation space architectures. “A keyfactor in our selection of SSL to work with us in support of SMCwas the company’s leadership in commercial satellite design,”said Jeffrey Janicik, President of Innoflight. “Our test environmentwill benefit from SSL’s global reach and high-level experiencewith hosted payloads and secure communications.”

SES-15 begins operations for WAAS hosted payloadDespite longstanding uncertainty surrounding the hostedpayload model, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

has placed its faith in hosting some of its payloads onboardcommercial satellites for the last two decades, making significantcost and time savings.

January 2018 saw SES-15 begin operations at the 129degrees West orbital position, providing services over NorthAmerica, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. The all-electric satellite, which took six months to reach its orbitalposition and complete testing, carries a hybrid payload of Ku-band wide beams and Ku-band High Throughput Satellite (HTS)capabilities with connectivity to gateways in Ka-band.

In addition to providing key inflight connectivity andentertainment services, SES-15 also carries a Wide AreaAugmentation System (WAAS) hosted payload, which will enablethe FAA to augment existing GPS with the goal of improvingaccuracy, integrity and availability of the system for the aviationindustry.

The 14-year contract for the hosted payload was awardedby Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems, and includes 11 yearsof on-orbit operations with options to extend on an annual basis.At the time of the contract award, President and CEO of SESGovernment Services, Pete Hoene, stated: “We are honouredto have been chosen by Raytheon and the FAA to host thispayload on our satellite. This is a great example of how thecommercial satellite industry can provide the US Governmenttimely and affordable access to space.”

The FAA’s WAAS is a highly-accurate navigation systemdeveloped from 1994 for civil aviation. It provides horizontal andvertical navigation for approach operations for all users at alllocations. It covers almost all the National Airspace System(NAS), providing augmentation information to GPS receivers toenhance the accuracy and reliability of position estimates.Signals from GPS satellites are received across the NAS atwidely-spaced Wide Area Reference Stations (WRS) andforwarded to the WAAS Master Station (WMS) via a terrestrialcommunications network. There, the WAAS augmentation

United Launch Alliance launches SBIRS GEO-4 earlywarning satellite

SES 15 launch. Photo courtesy of Arianespace




messages are generated; these contain information that allowGPS receivers to remove signal errors, vastly increasingaccuracy and reliability. The messages are sent form the WMSto uplink stations, where they are transmitted to navigationpayloads on satellites.

Those satellites broadcast the messages on a GPS-likesignal, and the GPS/WAAS receiver processes the messageas part of estimating position. WAAS also provides indicationsto GPS/WAAS receivers of where the GPS system is unusabledue to system errors or other effects. It’s an essential system intoday’s world.

NASA sees GOLD hosted payload launchIn the same month as the SES-15 satellite with its FAA hostedpayload coming online, January 2018 saw the successful launchof SES-14, which will provide coverage of the Americas, AtlanticOcean, Western Europe and Northwest Africa with HTSservices, and Ku and C-band wide beam services. NASA’sGlobal-Scale Observations of the Limb and Disk (GOLD) hostedpayload also has a place onboard SES-14.

“Using a host satellite makes access to space quicker andmore cost efficient, while meeting the increasingly moresophisticated needs governments have nowadays. SES hasextensive experience in hosted payload projects and is well-suited to meet these needs,” said Pete Hoene, President andCEO of SES Government Solutions. “We are very excited abouthosting GOLD and looking forward to it starting its importantmission in space.”

NASA’s GOLD hosted payload features an ultravioletimaging spectrograph to measure densities and temperaturesin the Earth’s thermosphere and ionosphere in response to Sun-Earth interaction. It aims to revolutionise scientists’understanding of this part of the space environment and itsimpacts on low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite drag, and ionosphericdisruptions of communication and navigation transmissions.GOLD will take unprecedented images of the temperature andcomposition changes over a hemisphere.

GOLD is a result of collaboration among several world-leading entities. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center isproviding overall NASA program management, while theUniversity of Central Florida’s Florida Space Institute is the GMC

Photo courtesy of Thales

Principal Investigator for the project. The GOLD instrument wasbuilt and will be operated by the University of Colorado BoulderLaboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics. SES and itsfully-owned subsidiary SES Government Solutions, meanwhile,are providing the host satellite, mission operations, and sciencedata transport.

Detecting missile launches with hosted payloadsWith global tensions on the rise, early warning systems ofimpending attacks have become more important than ever.Accuracy is key, as we’ve learned from the recent false ballisticmissile alert issued by the Emergency Alert System in Hawaii,which caused large-scale panic and chaos. Accordingly, satellitesystems have long been utilised to provide timely, accurate data,and there’s definitely a place for hosted payloads within thesesystems.

In January 2018, United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V rockettook flight, transporting the SBIRS GEO-4, an early warningmissile satellite, into orbit. SBIRS GEO-4 is the fourthgeostationary satellite in the Space Based Infrared System(SBIRS), a constellation of satellites that use infrared sensorsto detect and track missile launches. The SBIRS GEO-4 satellitecarries two infrared sensors: A scanning sensor which watchesthe full disc of the Earth for infrared events, and a ‘staring’ sensorto detect smaller short-range missiles which do not produce asmuch infrared radiation.

In addition to its geostationary satellites, SBIRS also usesfour hosted payload sensors mounted onboard satellites in highlyelliptical orbit (HEO), including the National ReconnaissanceOffice’s Trumpet-class signals intelligence satellites. TheseSBIRS-HEO sensors provide additional observations of Earth’spolar regions, which are less visible from geostationary orbit.

SBIRS is designed to provide the USA with advance warningof an enemy nuclear strike, while also allowing the country tomonitor other missile and rocket launches around the world. Aswell as detecting missile launches, SBIRS is also used forintelligence-gathering, helping to identify and characteriseevents that result in the emission of infrared radiation and toimprove general battlefield awareness. Two further geostationarysatellites, GEO-5 and GEO-6, were ordered in 2012 for launchin the next decade.




http://bit.ly/297Mdms



Nick Jovanovic, VP Federal ofThales eSecurity Federal

Federal Agency data isunder siege

GMCQ&A

Thales Defense & Security, Inc. (TDSI) isa global company serving the defense,federal, and commercial markets withinnovative solutions for the ground tactical,airborne and avionics, naval/maritime, andsecurity domains.

In addition to mission-critical communic-ation systems, the company provideshelmet-mounted displays and motiontracking technologies; SATCOM terminals;advanced sonar systems; air trafficmanagement navigation, surveillance, andsimulation; and data protection solutions.

Furthermore, TDSI serves as a gatewayfor technology, leveraging Thales-widesolutions—such as combat managementsystems; naval, airborne, and ground ISR;and electronic warfare—to address USrequirements.

With more than 65,000 employees in 56 countries, Thales is a globalleader in technology solutions for the aerospace, transport, defence andsecurity markets. Its unique capabilities include the design and deploymentof equipment, systems and services to meet complex securityrequirements. Amy Saunders spoke with Nick Jovanovic, VP Federal ofThales eSecurity Federal (a division of Thales Defense & Security, Inc.),to discuss the findings of the 2018 Thales Data Threat Report, FederalEdition.

Image courtesy of Thales

GMC: Can you provide an overview of the 2018 Thales Data Threat Report,Federal Edition, and elaborate why it’s needed today more than ever?Nick Jovanovic: Our 2018 Thales Data Threat Report, Federal Edition, issuedin conjunction with analyst firm 451 Research, polled US federal IT leaders aboutdata security, data breaches, spending practices, and a gamut of other security-related issues.

This year’s report is especially relevant because it tells us federal agencydata is under siege. 71 percent of respondents report their organization wasbreached sometime in the past. Of those organizations, 57 percent have beenbreached in the last year – a number that is three times the rate of just two yearsago (in our 2016 report, 18 percent reported a breach within the last year, and inour 2017 report, 34 percent reported a breach within the last year). The 57 percentrate statistic is the highest of all verticals we measured in this year’s report (othersinclude the healthcare industry, the retail industry, and the financial servicesindustry) or any region surveyed.

These statistics indicate data breaches remain pervasive within the federalgovernment, and that the current methods being used to secure agency dataare not working as effectively as they could. There also appears to be someconfusion over how to best protect critical data. Respondents cite data-in-motionand data-at-rest solutions as being the most effective at preventing breaches,but their spending decisions don’t align with this sentiment. While 73 percent areincreasing spending, 56 percent are spending that money on endpoint and mobiledefenses, and only 19 percent are spending it on data-at-rest security.

GMC: What can you tell us about these breaches, and why are they becomingso prolific?Nick Jovanovic: There are some obvious reasons for these breaches: Criminalhackers want valuable citizen PII; nation-state hackers with their own agendasseek to infiltrate agency databases; chronic funding and staffing issues remain aproblem; and most federal agencies are stuck with some of the oldest systemsand software found anywhere. But, that’s not the whole story. Security spendingdecisions are also playing a sizable factor. As I noted above, federal agenciesare not spending their IT security dollars on solutions that will most effectivelyprotect data. Endpoint and mobile solutions are seeing the biggest spendingincrease (even though they’re rated at the bottom in terms of effectiveness) anddata-at-rest security is seeing the lowest spending increase (even though it’s




cited as highly effective).Additionally, initiatives pushing for IT modernization within

the federal government mean more data is being stored in thecloud; in big data repositories; being used for IoT purposes;and being stored in containers. This digital transformation iscreating new risks, because each environment, and each vendorwithin these environments, requires a unique approach toprotecting data.

I think it’s worth further expanding on our cloud technologyfindings. More so than commercial enterprises, governmentagencies are making a massive shift to the cloud. This bearsout in the stats:

• Nearly half (45 percent) of US federal respondents usedmore than five Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) vendors;

• 48 percent used more than 100 Software-as-a-Service(SaaS) applications; and

• Over two-thirds (72 percent) of respondents expressedconcerns about increased vulnerabilities from sharedinfrastructures, followed by custodianship of encryption keys(62 percent) and security breaches in the cloud (68 percent).

Even though federal agencies have strong compliancestandards (NIST 800-53; FedRAMP; and the Federal RiskManagement Framework), it appears agencies are not able tocatch all of the non-compliant usage. Look at how frequently wehear about AWS S3 buckets left out in the clear with sensitiveinformation for hackers to mine.

There’s also the issue with keeping control of keys in thecloud. A basic security maxim is that those who control the keyscontrol access to the data. Yet, federal agencies have apreference for the cloud provider to control the keys (34 percent)over local key control (32 percent). Interestingly, this is a potentialviolation of the same compliance standards I cited earlier.

GMC: In a world where some 68 percent of US respondentsbelieve they are ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ vulnerable to a databreach, why are more people not taking action sooner tosafeguard their networks? What are the challengesinvolved?Nick Jovanovic: Many people still think data security (especiallyencryption) is complex and has a performance problem. As notedin the report, the top two perceived barriers to data securitydeployment are complexity (49 percent) and performanceimpacts (41 percent). This long-standing, dated, and increasinglyinaccurate notion needs to be put to bed. Performance concernstend to be a relic of the early days of encryption solutions, whensoftware-based encryption was the rule, and performanceimpacts were real.

Fortunately, data security platforms like ours, and SaaS-based data security applications, are making complexity indeployment, management, and operation a thing of the past.

There is also a perception among federal agency ITpersonnel that management of enterprise encryption keys willbe overly challenging, which further complicates an ITenvironment fraught with budget and staffing limitations. But,federal government agencies can simplify encryption key

management and secure their data by selecting encryption andkey management technologies that offer smart, centralizedapproaches and work across clouds, on-premises and in datacentres. Many federal agencies are already exploring thisapproach, as illustrated by the 47 percent of respondents whoplan to implement ‘bring your own key’ solutions to remotelymanage their cloud deployments. This security strategy will assistthem in better protecting and controlling their data.

GMC: The use of commercial cloud services is boomingright now, but some 72 percent of report respondentsexpressed concerns about increased vulnerability fromshared infrastructures. What are the risks associated withcloud-based services, and how can a data-centric securityapproach help?Nick Jovanovic: Agencies are responsible for the security oftheir data both on-premises and in the cloud. As their workloadsmigrate to multiple cloud providers, they must be confident inthe security of their data. Agencies must be in compliance withinternal and industry data protection mandates. Their data mustbe protected in the event a subpoena is issued to their cloudprovider. They should also be able to move data quickly fromone cloud provider to the next.

To better understand how a data-centric security approachcan help, check out the below cloud computing ‘sharedresponsibility’ graph.

Image courtesy of Thales Image courtesy of Thales

See the common theme? That’s right, it’s data. While thereis a shared responsibility between the cloud provider and itscustomers, the customer is always on the hook for ensuring ithas the means to protect its data.



Some solutions to meet the shared responsibility modelmight include:

• Bringing your own encryption for physical or virtual serversrunning from your premises to multi-cloud environments;

• Using tokenization with dynamic data masking to make iteasy to protect sensitive data and to add policy-based datamasking to applications; and

• Leveraging a centralized key and data access policymanagement solution to provide customer controlled keymanagement and data access.

GMC: The 2018 Thales Data Threat Report, Federal Edition,found that 93 percent of respondents plan to increasespending this year. Why isn’t this as good as it first seems?Nick Jovanovic: Despite 78 percent of respondents citing data-in-motion security and 77 percent citing data-at-rest securityas being most effective at preventing breaches, agencies areprioritizing increases in data-at-rest security spending dead last.Endpoint and mobile defenses spending is increasing for 56percent of respondents and data-at-rest security spending isincreasing for only 19 percent.

Unfortunately, we’re not spending our IT security dollarswhere it will protect data best.

GMC: What does the future landscape of the cybersecuritysector look like to you? What steps need to be taken to

ensure data security?Nick Jovanovic: According to the Report to the President onFederal IT Modernization, we need to reduce the federal attacksurface through enhanced application and data-level protections:

“…agencies should shift their focus to placing protectionscloser to data, specifically through improved management andauthentication of devices and user access, as well as throughencryption of data – both at rest and in transit. This approachcurtails an attacker’s likelihood of gaining access to valuabledata solely by accessing the network, and it has the potential tobetter block and isolate malicious activity.”

We agree. Organizations need to adopt a defense-in-depthapproach, move away from an over-reliance on network andendpoint security, and create a comprehensive data-centricapproach to securing their agencies.

With increasingly porous networks, and expanding use ofexternal resources (SaaS, PaaS and IaaS most especially)traditional endpoint and network security are no longer sufficient.When implemented as a part of the initial development (for easeof implementation versus retrofitting at a later date), data security– most especially, encryption – offers increased protection toknown and unknown sensitive data found within advancedtechnology environments.

The alternative? Federal agencies will continue to suffer,and we will see even higher breach rates next year.

Photo courtesy Shutterstock

GMC




http://bit.ly/2LgqWLv



Patrick Wood, Director ofInternational Business Development,UK Country Executive at LockheedMartin

GMCQ&A

Photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin UK is the UK-based armof Lockheed Martin Corporation.Headquartered in London and with 16 keysites across the UK, Lockheed Martin UKemploys approximately 1,700 people fromCuldrose in Cornwall to Faslane inScotland.

Lockheed Martin UK is a strategic partnerto the Government and a major contributorto the UK economy. As the fifth largestsupplier to the Ministry of Defence, wespend approximately £1 billion each year,supporting over 1,000 companies in oursupply chain. Our investment in the F-35programme alone will sustain up to 20,000UK jobs during the production phase.

Lockheed Martin UK was created in 1999 under Lockheed Martin tocombine all of the entity’s UK companies under one banner. LockheedMartin is a global security and aerospace company primarily concernedwith research, design, development, manufacture, integration andsustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services.Some 2,000 people are employed at Lockheed Martin UK across 16 sites.Amy Saunders met with Patrick Wood, Director of International BusinessDevelopment, UK Country Executive at Lockheed Martin – SpaceSystems, to find out his vision for the company and his assessment of thespace sector.

Question: Lockheed Martin has been heavily involved in the global spacesector for many years now. What is the company currently working on?Patrick Wood: Lockheed Martin has decades of experience in the global spacesector. As a company, we have built more interplanetary spacecraft than anycompany and all US companies combined. We’ve been involved in missions toMars since 1976, when Viking 1 touched down, and we’ve worked with NASA onevery orbiter and lander that’s gone there. It is in our business’ DNA to supportthe advancement of space exploration, partnering with public and private playersto go even further in the exploration of our universe.

We are currently working on a range of missions to advance deep spaceexploration. Mars being the horizon, Lockheed Martin is a key NASA contractor,whether it is the Orion Mission to transport astronauts safely into deep space ormissions such as MAVEN, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) and MarsOdyssey that have gathered innumerable data to draw a clearer picture of theRed Planet. What used to be merely a dream is now within our reach and atLockheed Martin, we have a clear vision of what that reality looks like. Ourapproach relies on the development of a Mars Base Camp, a sound, safe andcompelling mission architecture centred around an orbital outpost where scientist-astronauts can perform unprecedented, real-time scientific exploration of the RedPlanet. Lockheed Martin is also supporting the development of deep spacehabitats. We are taking part in NASA’s Next Space Technologies for ExplorationPartnerships (NextSTEP) through which we are studying the capabilities neededto support human pioneering in deep space. Habitats, known formally as‘exploration augmentation modules,’ are essential for the exploration of the outerboundaries of space.

But going to space is just the beginning, what matters is what you can dowhen you get there. Lockheed Martin builds the technology that gets things donein space, whether it is exploring the solar system, predicting the weather, delivering

Driving the UK Spacesector




precise GPS or supporting global security and defencecooperation.

Question: You’ve been with Lockheed Martin UK sinceSeptember 2017; what experience do you bring to the role,and what vision do you have for Lockheed Martin UK goingforwards?Patrick Wood: I bring more than 30 years’ experience and deepexpertise in the space industry, having occupied key rolesspanning executive leadership, programme management,engineering, technology, quality, operations and manufacturing.Having trained as an engineer, my experience is as diverse asdefence, commercial and scientific missions from low Earth orbitto geostationary. Before joining Lockheed Martin, I was ChiefExecutive Officer of Surrey Satellite Technology, Ltd., andpreviously held leadership positions with Airbus Defence andSpace.

What’s important in my background is that I understand therich heritage Britain has in aerospace and I want to ensure thatas a country we continue to build on it. I know the market andthe opportunities well and I want to ensure that Lockheed Martinhelps to develop the impressive supply chain we have here.

In the last 30 years working in the defence and space sectors,I have come to realise the truly collaborative nature of aerospacemanufacturing. If you take a satellite as an example, it is strikingthat the flight computer might be designed and manufactured inItaly, while the RF equipment’s could be designed andmanufactured in Germany and the full product assembled inthe United Kingdom. Lockheed Martin’s approach is built onglobal partnerships. The company operates in 70 countriesworldwide and focuses in each country on teaming with localsuppliers, growing local talent, and creating local jobs. Thatstrategy builds value for international customers and strengthensin-country technical expertise and industrial capabilities. I lookforward to building on the corporation’s considerable globalpresence to help our customers forge new partnerships.

Question: What is your assessment of the British spacesector, and what are your hopes and expectations post-Brexit? How can Britain become a leader in space systemstechnology and what changes are required to encourageinnovation?Patrick Wood: I see huge, yet still largely untapped, potentialfor the British space sector. Britain has a fantastic heritage as

one of the pioneers in the global space race. It was Ralph Smith,a scientist at the British Interplanetary Society, in 1946 who firstsuggested adapting rockets to enable them to carry humansinto space. Fast forward to the 21st century, the launch of the UKSpace Agency in 2010 was an encouraging step and crystallisedthe hopes many in the sector had to see the UK take a moreprominent role in the global space race. Following the morerecent success of Tim Peake’s mission to the International SpaceStation and the Rosetta mission in 2014, the Space IndustryAct 2018, passed by the UK Parliament in March 2018, is atimely and exciting milestone to lay the foundations of the Britishspace sector post-Brexit.

The Space Industry Act 2018 provides the critical frameworkto build UK spaceports, enabling Britain to properly compete inthe commercial space sector. It allows for the creation of theadditional legislation required to progress commercial spaceactivities including both orbital and sub-orbital activities as wellas horizontal and vertical launches from the UK. Small satelliteslaunch, scientific experiments, further developments for newtechnologies, infrastructures and services are now within reachfor UK space players.

In the coming years, we hope to see the first commerciallaunch in the UK, a key milestone in achieving the realisation ofthe Space Industry Act’s full potential. One day you could go onholiday by travelling in a driverless car controlled via satellite toa spaceport, catching a hypersonic plane to fly through theEarth’s atmosphere to get to your destination. We very muchsee this piece of legislation as critical to underpin a moreprominent and leading role for Britain in space systemstechnology. The UK has the lofty ambition of independentlylaunching its first satellite by 2020. With the country formallyleaving the European Union in 2019, there is a fantasticopportunity but we need to make sure that the UK space sectorcontinues to get the support it needs.

We must acknowledge that the dynamics at play havechanged. In the 20th century’s global space race, the playerswere governments representing their national interests. The lastdecade has seen the emergence of strong private sector playerswho have demonstrated their credentials as credible contestantsin the global space race. So, if the keyword for the last centurywas competition, this century’s motto would be cooperation –cooperation between public and private players to achieve thefull potential that commercial and military space applicationshold.





Brexit also raises interesting questions around the future ofthe UK’s space capability. We have already seen one instancewhere Brexit is having an impact. Galileo, the flagship nextgeneration pan European navigation system has up to this point,been developed across certain member states including theUK. However, with Brexit on the horizon, doubts have been raisedaround the UK’s continued involvement. These discussions poseperhaps the first real test of the UK’s commitment and aptitudeto developing space capabilities. There are several things thatcould ensure a smooth transition for UK space more generally:Lessons which are being learnt through the Galileo experience.First, clear ground rules must be established for how the UKand Europe will continue to interact post Brexit. Second, whentendering for space capabilities, the UK must decide what typeof capability it wants and what the parameters are of thatcapability. Finally, the UK must ensure the right balance ofinformation sharing and collaboration between industry,government and academia.

The UK is already home to leading space manufacturers,such as satellite services providing for more than 250 billions ofpounds of GDP in the UK economy. By allowing commerciallaunches from the UK, the Space Industry Act means Britaincan become a one-stop destination for space businesses,making it competitive to attract the sector’s most innovative globalplayers.

Question: Which one technology do you feel shows the mostpromise for the defence sector, and how is Lockheed MartinUK working to progress that technology?Patrick Wood: Artificial intelligence is making strides in thespace industry and contributing to significant advances in deepspace exploration. In the near future, space probes guided byartificial intelligence reaching distant planets will no longer beinconceivable. Effectively, this means unmanned space missionscould take place without any human interactions from Earth.Now, this reality is fraught with questions and challenges stillleft unanswered.

What happens once the mission has gone beyond the rangeof communication? How does a probe know to return to Earth,without a human prompt and order to do so? How can we sustainspace missions that span decades, with the possibility thatgenerations of scientists and engineers would have gone beforetheir return to Earth? Lockheed Martin has invested significantresources in developing and fur thering the industry’sunderstanding of this technology. GMC

Question: What are the biggest threats to MilSatCom today,and how is Lockheed Martin responding to these threats?Patrick Wood: Military satellite communications have becomeessential in modern warfare. The benefits of satellitecommunications for global security and defence are now widelyunderstood, but less so are the cyber threats that riskundermining our global and national security. The world is seeingglobal proliferation of malicious and criminal cyber activity at atime when people and organizations are becoming moredependent on cyber capabilities in all aspects of our lives.

Today’s advanced persistent threats now have knowledgeof the vulnerabilities within systems and platforms acrossdistributed networks. They are targeting supply chains. And theyare keeping up with the exponential rate of advances intechnology, using techniques such as steganography,cryptography, and reverse engineering for example. It’s criticalthat organizations have models that accurately represent themovements of an adversary in cyberspace to truly understandthe extent and severity of threats out there today.

While most of our work in the cyber security space is highlyconfidential for security purposes, we have developed modelsfor tackling such threats that we can discuss more publicly. TheCyber Kill Chain, for example, is a simple and highly effectivemodel that encourages you to think like an adversary. It includesseven steps to enhance visibility into a cyber-attack and to createactionable intelligence that enriches an analyst’s understandingof an adversary’s tactics, techniques and procedures. Since weunveiled it more than 10 years ago, the model has been adoptedby both government and commercial partners as cornerstonesfor their own threat mitigation activities. The seven steps are:

1. Reconnaissance;2. Weaponization;3. Delivery;4. Exploitation;5. Installation;6. Command and control; and7. Action-on-objectives.

Question: What are your expectations for Lockheed Martinin 2018 - what do you hope to achieve?Patrick Wood: In 2018, Lockheed Martin will continue buildingon its legacy as a driving force of the global space industry andcontribute to furthering the exciting developments we are seeingboth in commercial and military space applications.





http://bit.ly/2IlL2Px



There are varying opinions on whether the state of RFinterference in the military has improved or not. There are somewho believe it has, on the whole, improved in the last 10 years,while others believe the situation has deteriorated. What isagreed upon, however, is that interference is an important issue,particularly as demand for bandwidth and services grows. Muchof this demand will need to be met by the commercial sectorwhich, from the military point of view, carries high risk in termsof resilience and reliability, but is more cost effective.

Having said this, the commercial sector has worked hard toreach a balance in terms of interference which, although asignificant problem, remains manageable. As a result, there isa lot to be learned here. Interference in the military is a highlyunique and multi-faceted issue; remember, to the military it istreated as a ‘threat,’ whereas commercially it is seen as‘disruptive.’ So, what are the main challenges and what solutionsare available now (and are needed for the future) to maintainsecure and reliable military satellite communications?

The challenge of military interferenceAlmost everyone with a stake in the milsatcom sector will admitthat the challenges facing military users and operators arecompletely distinct to those in the commercial satellite world.Chris Dunn, Consultant at 3SDL Ltd and former SpecialistEducation Manager, UK MOD, agrees that “it’s bad enough whena commercial provider might lose their feed for say, an importantsporting event. But some of the intensive and critical operationswe do across the globe will ultimately fail without dependableC2. This could lead to quite catastrophic outcomes consideringtoday’s ever evolving threats.” Interference within the militaryspace is quite literally life or death.

Even from the satellite operator’s view, military customerspresent a challenge as they are “subject to higher demands inservice optimization, more efficiency on their satellite links (whichrequires high modulation schemes) and less interruptions forcritical-mission applications,” according to Ruben Marentes,Technical Advisor and former Director of the RF OperationCenter at Intelsat Corporation.

Although instances of interference and jamming areextremely rare when using military X-band satcom, eachinstance has to be addressed and managed as if it were a hostileact by a potential adversary. Colin Neal, Spectrum PolicingManager at Airbus, says that “we adhere to the same processfor any instance using Spectrum Monitoring and GeolocationSystems to characterise, locate and isolate the interferencesource quickly and efficiently.”

Clearly, intentional jammers want to cause as muchdisruption as possible without detection, making it extremelydifficult to firstly identify the cause of the interference, let alonesolve it. In this case, prevention is often better than a cure.

But unintentional interference is still the key problem,especially when it comes to multiple countries and servicesoperating in one region. Consider the number of satellitenetworks in use by the numerous coalition forces during theongoing war in Afghanistan. In regions of high military activityinvolving numerous nations, things can easily becomecomplicated.

Satellite interference:A growing problemfor the military?Is satellite interference a growing problem within certainmilitary spheres? Martin Coleman, Executive Director ofthe Satellite Interference Reduction Group, opines.

According to Dunn, interference is very often “not adversarialor intentional, but can be genuine unintentional errors and‘frequency fratricide.’ However, this is absolutely understandablein the current global environment where we often need to workwith other countries’ militaries and systems, utilising a vast arrayof different kit and on different parts of the spectrum.”

Andrew Bond, Sales and Marketing Director of satellite RFdistribution expert, ETL Systems, says “the unique environmentin which VSAT’s operate is one of the biggest challenges for themilitary.” Very Small Aperture Terminals (VSATs) are widely usedwithin this sector but according to Bond, “discussions at IRGworkshops and events suggest that VSATs are one of the biggestcauses of interference, or at least that is what many report.”VSAT systems can easily be set up incorrectly and can causeserious issues on the satellite itself which “may go undetected.This is caused by a combination of poorer training and fieldexperience, as well as more regular deployment and moving ofVSAT networks in a theatre of operations,” Bond added.

Naturally, with military staff in constant rotation, it is difficultto keep up with the necessary training and education to ensurestaff are capable of using, installing and maintaining satelliteterminals and networks. As a result, human error is very often acause of interference.

On top of this, Neal adds that within the military “the varietyof different operating environments brings the need for a widevariety of terminal types all with their own individual satcom link

Martin Coleman, Executive Director, iRG

Andrew Bond, Sales and Marketing Director ofsatellite RF distribution expert, ETL Systems




Chris Dunn, Consultant at 3SDL Ltd Colin Neal, Spectrum Policing Manager at Airbus

needs. Each arm of the British Forces faces its own uniqueproblems, the rotational nature of the roles and the restrictionon numbers can mean that in some instances the maintenanceof the satcom link, during certain periods, may not be the primaryrole for an individual. The assigned maintainer may have thequalification but not necessarily the hands-on expertise, he/shemay have been trained but Skill Fade makes him/her lesseffective. This is where the satellite service provider can help byunderstanding the environment within which the operator isworking, understanding the pressures associated with theresponsibility of providing and maintaining that vital satcom link.”

Interference naturally involves two parties, and so resolutionrequires communication and the sharing of information. Sadly,Dunn believes one of the barriers to effective interferencemitigation in the military is a “reluctance to admit problems dueto concern regarding security implications.” Of course, it isentirely understandable that military users are protective of theiroperations. After all, as Dunn says, “there are justifiableapprehensions in admitting issues regarding interference, inconcern for providing valuable feedback and intelligence toadversaries in the battlespace.” But this does, however, limit theability for those being interfered with (whether that’s military orcommercial) to identify the cause of the interference, significantlylengthening the time to resolution.

Within the commercial sector, Carrier ID (CID) has been auseful tool for identifying the cause of interference andquickening the resolution process. This has proved especiallyvaluable in solving large VSAT burst-mode terminal networks.Unfortunately, given the reluctance of militaries to share theirlocation with non-cleared personnel, CID as it stands, is not anapplicable solution within the military. Having said this, therehave been attempts to set up a special military-suitable CIDwhereby only the CID number of military terminals are available,as well as the satellite operator responsible. In the case ofinterference, the ‘interfered’ simply contact the satellite operatorwho are then responsible for contacting the military user directly.

Future potential for RFIMarentes believes that the RFI situation has improved in themilitary space with “more and more services supporting militaryapplications in commercial satellites than ever before” andsatcom maintaining “reliable performance, at a competitive priceand with a reach/coverage sometimes unavailable to othersystems.”

One example is the introduction of the Digital Payload inIntelsat EpicNG satellites. Marentes explains that the digitalpayload allows new restoral and relocation options previouslyunavailable to Intelsat Operations. “For example, if a customeris experiencing RFI on a frequency where remote sites areoperating then the RF Operations staff can command the digitalpayload to be adjusted and the carrier can then quickly move toa different frequency range away from the interference without

the uplinker making any changes on their end.”Dunn is of the opinion that interference is a “growing issue

for how we [the military] operate around the globe.” He alsoagrees that the military is increasingly having to utilisecommercial bandwidth due to demand for services across theworld: “We now often have to contend with utilising whatevercapacities, both commercial and military, that might be availableto fore-fill our ever increasing and often rapid demand to enableour effective C2 networks.”

This shared arena where, according to Marentes, “servicesare impacted by all types of interference,” can make it difficultfor military users as “not all customers have the same amountof resources to respond to unintentional interference and theirlack of action can disrupt mission-critical operations.”

Neal adds that “military satcom is protected by strict terminalcertification, this maintains terminal quality which in turnimproves link budget accuracy and minimises instances of anyunintentional interference. Military grade terminals are oftenoperating within harsh and unforgiving conditions and suppliersare usually investing significant amounts to maintain quality androbustness.” This is not always the case in the less tightly-controlled commercial bandwidth sector, meaning a potentialfor more interference. He goes on to say that military usersexperience little adjacent satellite interference (ASI) within x-band (a band reserved for use by only military and governmentusers), saying: “I think that is linked to terminal control,exceptional satellite design and the fact we do not have non-compliant operators on the satellites.” This being the case,heightened interaction between military sectors and commercialsectors, within the Ku-band environment, could increase thelikelihood of interference for military users.

Collaborating for the futureIt is absolutely essential that milsatcoms are error free. Considerthe ship at sea, the aircraft on a remotely engineered runwayand the small isolated team on the ground, all waiting for theinflux of usable data that doesn’t arrive. The absence of thatdata may impact humanitarian efforts, the inability to patrol ano-fly zone or the relay of vital imagery, all of which could belinked to a possible loss of life scenario. Data and informationsharing has never been more critical.

In the modern military environment, Neal says that “bearersfor many military satcoms are provided by commercialcompanies, either directly contracted to or through third partyproviders.” But Dunn says that this being increasingly the casecould worsen the state of interference: “As our demand everincreases across the entire useful spectrum, often conflictingwith commercial requirements, this [interference] may get worse.”This means that the military world must work with the commercialsector, collaborating on interference mitigation strategies andbeing open to communication.

The commercial satellite sector is in a good place with




regards to interference, as we are all aware commercial Ku-band providers/operators have had to deal with high levels ofinterference for years, and will likely do for years to come, sothere is a lot that can be learnt from their experiences. At thesame time, Neal believes if the military are planning to augmenttheir military satcom capacity with commercial Ku-band (as anexample) as a bearer “they should understand the limitations oftheir provisioned link and assess how this will impact theeffectiveness of the operation, identify the processes adoptedby the provider to mitigate the effects of interference and whatvisibility they will have of the incident. They must also impresson the service provider the level of support required not onlyduring peacetime but also, if necessary, during a transition periodand wartime.” Clearly, the challenges of operating during wartimeare distinct to those of peacetime, for example, the likelihood ofintentional jamming by the aggressor and unintentionalinterference between allies in regions of high activity.

IRG, has, for a good few years, been the conduit betweenequipment providers, satellite operators and satellite users, aconduit through which ideas have been exchanged on thetechnical solutions to the interference problem. The group feelsthat it is well equipped and is willing to facilitate the conversationsneeded between both the military and commercial satellitesectors. Our relationship with both means that we can provideforums for debate and discussion and encourage the creationof new tools and techniques needed for interference mitigationin the future.

Neal agrees that the military can learn from the commercialsatcom sector by “maintaining a close watch on commercialsatcom to see how it develops systems/processes to mitigateinterference.” The comsat sector has introduced several newsolutions over the last decade capable of remotely monitoring,detecting and correcting errors that are equally as applicable inmilitary scenarios.

Of course, it’s equally as important to ensure bettercommunication between allies in wartime, to prevent thepossibility of ‘frequency fratricide,’ as mentioned by Dunn, andaccidental interference. To this end, according to Neal, it makessense to “maintain and exercise agreements with allies to shareinformation, resources and expertise. An overall view of thespectrum and an understanding of the true impact of anunauthorised signal on not just your satellite may furnish theoperator with the last piece of the interference jigsaw puzzle.” Itshould be noted that the sharing of information is military tomilitary, the commercial satcom provider operates, in theseinstances, as an information collector and possible solutionadvisor.

Similarly, allies should encourage one another to get onboard with CID or at least a CID solution that provides its benefitsin a secure manner. If we, IRG, the military and comsat sector,and other organisations could make a real go of developing aCID scheme suitable for all, we could make interferenceresolution possible by just picking up a phone. Many maintainthat CID is not a solution for intentional jamming, but it doesmake it easier and quicker to differentiate between unintentionaland intentional interference through a process of elimination.Working with the political influence of militaries, commercialsatellite operators have a much better chance of being able todo something about jammers, too.

As Dunn maintains, we can ensure “rapid identification ofpotential interference, and then enable resolution of issues”through an “effective collaborative and secure feedback system.”The military actually has a huge opportunity here, in terms of ashared feedback system.

Within the military there is a strict chain of command. Allstaff are tightly controlled and must record and report everyoccurrence of interference to command. In some cases, theyeven record how they solved the interference. With so muchdata on hand, it makes sense to use this data, potentially sharedbetween allies, to build an AI/ML framework capable of analysingit and identifying trends and patterns. With this information, itcould even be possible to predict cases of interference,Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock




especially in the event of politically-motivated jamming (usinginformation about events, cultural festivals, inflamed regions etc.).Although we don’t have the technology capable of this yet, ithas potential to overhaul the way we manage satelliteinterference in the military.

Of course, there are methods and technologies available tosatellite operators with high throughput satellites (HTS) to limitthe effects and prevent interference. According to Marentes,“having alternate paths,” i.e. redirecting the satellite traffic to anRF segment away from interference, and “introducing error-correction schemes to the satellite links,” can overcome mostcases of interference. This works by intuitively adjusting thesignal where there is interference in order to minimise its effectwhilst maintaining the service at a lower quality. Although thesemethods may increase OPEX, it can create much-neededresilience in milsatcoms.

This flexibility however may not be possible. There areinstances where satellite and ground terminal configurationsneed to be fixed, many nations are operating with systems thatstill require “nailed up bandwidth/throughput” so any form ofData/RF adaption is not possible, according to Neal.

Bond believes that where poor product quality is in evidenceit must be improved, saying that: The best approach tointerference mitigation is about “getting the right products inplace to reduce errors.” Poor product quality is a major cause ofinterference in the commercial sector and something manyassociations, including IRG and GVF, and operators are puttingmeasures in place to prevent. Neal believes: “For the military,aging equipment and its supportability is the major source ofunintentional interference, an issue that is difficult to resolvewhen many systems were built as one offs and are notcommercial off the shelf solutions.”

But if we improve the quality of satellite equipment, we mustalso work to improve the training given to those personnel thatoperate them. According to Neal, “training of users is the key toestablishing, maintaining and recovering mobile satellite links.”

This is especially the case given the number of different terminalsand services needing to be maintained within the militaryenvironment. Neal believes militaries should “look to providevaried levels of satcom training, not terminal specific training,[and] ensure within that training that the fragility of satcom isexplained.”

This approach would give military users, the people on theground, a broader, in-depth understanding of satellite on thewhole as well as an understanding of the implications of satelliteinterference and wider issues.

ConclusionThe military sector is unlikely to be able to meet the increasingdemand for more and more services, and as such will have torely on the commercial sector in a large number of cases. Giventhe future of LEO constellations, as well as ever increasingcapacity in GEO for satcom, the military should be more proactivein considering the wide variety of commercial satcom that willlikely be available in the future. This will offer flexibility andresilience across varied platforms and throughout the orbitalregimes.

But of course, operating in the less tightly controlledenvironment of comsat could mean an increase in interferencefor the military. At the same time, both sectors have their ownways of dealing with incidences and there is a lot that can belearned from both. By collaborating on innovations anddevelopments, and communicating information more openly, themilitary sector can make sure their use of comsat servicesdoesn’t impact operations. In my mind, it is about building anunderstanding on both sides of the fence and using thecombined resources of the two sectors to bring about newtechnologies for interference mitigation. Most importantly, wemust ensure interference is not ‘out of sight out of mind.’ With anincreasingly congested and contested space domain lookinglikely in the future, it’s time to put measures in place now toensure error-free milsatcoms in the future. GMC

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock




X-band Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs):Optimizing satellite communications tomaximize UAV advantageIt is no secret that the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) is increasing. Market projections reflect growth in thisglobal market of over 14.5 percent CAGR over the next decade, estimated to be $20.71 billion in 2018 and $52.3 billionby 2025. This growth is being fuelled by rapid advancements in smaller, lighter, and more efficient sensor payloads andequipment, airframes and engines, which together give UAVs greater endurance, longer range and greater autonomy.Greater autonomy naturally implies an ability to operate beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) from the operator, which impliesthe use of satellite communications (SATCOM). While the typical consumer answer has traditionally been the use of thecommon Ku-band radio frequency (RF) spectrum, military and government consumers have X-band, a powerful SATCOMoption available exclusively to them. X-band is purposefully reserved for government use only because it offers significantall-weather performance advantages, operational flexibility, and cost savings. Todd Dudley, Director, International BusinessDevelopment at XTAR explains.

The all-weather performance of the X-band RF spectrum –and X-band UAVs – centers on X-band’s extreme resistance toa form of atmospheric attenuation known as ‘rain fade.’ X-bandSATCOM, at 7.25-8.4GHz on the RF spectrum, sits below the10GHz threshold where the size of water droplets, ice particles,salt fog, and even airborne dust and sand, begin to causereflection and refraction – i.e. attenuation – of an RF signal.This isn’t magic, it is science: Lower frequencies attenuate lessand thus travel further than higher frequencies through severeweather conditions, as depicted in Chart 1:

There are three common ways that Ku- and Ka-band UAVscan counter the effects of weather:

1. Additional Link Margin. The first and most commonmeasure to address weather attenuation is to add additionallink margin (bandwidth and power, if available) to maintain theSATCOM link. This quantity of additional bandwidth and power,known as space segment, can be enormous – and enormouslyexpensive – as Figure 1, below, demonstrates: For operationsin a Mediterranean climate, a Ku-band UAV requires 140 percentmore space segment than an X-band UAV for the same level ofservice availability. A Ka-band UAV requires 510 percent morespace segment than an X-band UAV. The additional space

segment required for Ku- and Ka-band UAV operations in atropical environment can be far higher. X-band UAVs naturallyenjoy extremely high service level availabilities while using verylittle space segment.

2. Adaptive Coding and Modulation (ACM). Ku and Ka-bandSATCOM users may also have to use ACM to help counterattenuation. This method applies different combinations ofmodulation and forward error correction (FEC) to a data streamto counter the effects of weather attenuation as a signal degradesin poor weather. ACM can significantly degrade throughput,however, and is particularly difficult to use with certain types ofdata streams because, when active, ACM can slow down voicecommunications and live video feeds, quickly rendering themunusable in bad weather. Because of X-band’s all-weathercharacteristics, X-band UAVs do not need to employ ACM, andcan transmit extremely stable voice, data, and even high-definition video links with extremely high service levelavailabilities.

3. Uplink Power Control (UPC). UPC is another way tostabilize a SATCOM link being impacted by weather attenuation.UPC increases transmit power from a UAV during poor weather,

Photo courtesy of US Navy




although this option is not generally an option on UAVs becausethey generally do not want to carry the extra size or weight of ahigher-power amplifier for this occasional-use scenario.

The science behind X-band SATCOM performanceIn the example below, a SATCOM link is closed between a UAVoperating above Benghazi and a tactical operations centerlocated in Tripoli without the use of ACM or UPC. As Figure 1demonstrates, an X-band UAV would require less than 1dB oflink margin to successfully operate in this region. A Ku-bandUAV would require 2.6dB of link margin, which equates to 140percent more space segment than an X-band UAV. A Ka-bandUAV would require 8.1dB, which equates to 510 percent morespace segment.

X-band UAVs perform naturally well in inclement weatherwithout the use or additional cost of these technologies, makingthem far more effective - and lethal - than their weather-dependent counterparts.

Typical Rain Attenuation for 99.5 percent Availability (Tripolito Benghazi)

X-band’s extreme resistance to rain attenuation is matchedby its extreme resistance to attenuation from sandstorms andairborne dust, both very real concerns in today’s theatres ofoperation.

The table below provides some data taken from the paper‘Mathematical Model for the Prediction of Microwave SignalAttenuation Due to Dust Storms’ to illustrate the effect offrequency on RF signal attenuation in dust.

Predicted Dust Storm Attenuation for Dust Particles of 50 µm

As shown in the table, signal attenuation at X-band is loweven for storms creating visibilities of only 10m. As with rainattenuation, significant additional amounts of space segment(400-500 percent more) should be incorporated into the satellitelinks to overcome attenuation due to dust storms. If notaddressed, these figures translate directly into link instability,which needlessly risks lives and mission failure.

If addressed, these figures translate directly into additionalfinancial costs, which needlessly drain financial resources thatcould be spent on providing boots, bullets, and additional combatpower.

Operational flexibility – and high throughputWhile Ku and Ka-band satellites are rapidly trending towardssmaller, more focused high throughput satellite (HTS) beams,there are distinct advantages to operating on X-band’s large 4°and 4.5° spot beams. Namely, X-band UAVs can more easilysupport a much larger battlefield/surveillance area than Ku orKa-band UAVs on HTS.

Narrow spot beams can significantly challenge a commanderwho needs the ability to dynamically re-task his in-flight UAVassets anywhere under his authority without having to worryabout invisible HTS boundary seams, hand-off issues, andkeeping his datalinks – and the soldiers, sailors, airmen, andMarines who depend on them – alive.

As Figure 3 demonstrates, wider spot beams offer X-bandUAVs an impressive amount of operational flexibility to a militarycommander.

Chart 1

Figure 1: Ku- and Ka-band UAVs can require significantly morespace segment (and cost) than X-band UAVs

Photo courtesy of US Navy

Figure 2: Signal attenuation due to suspended dust particles.Source: http://www.jpier.org/PIERM/pierm06/11.09021906.pdf

http://www.jpier.org/PIERM/pierm06/11.09021906.pdf




The traditional ‘trade-off’ for using larger spot beams, ofcourse, has been lower rates of data throughput. Not so with X-band. Both Ku and Ka-band have strict limits on EIRP/powerdensity because Ku and Ka-band satellites are spaced as closeas 2° apart, and sometimes closer (Figure 4). Because X-bandsatellites are spaced a minimum of 4° apart, X-band UAVterminals can operate at higher, more efficient spectral powerdensities and thus can often achieve higher throughput permegahertz (bits/Hz), than on Ku or Ka-band. While actualthroughput depends on many factors, in one field test, X-bandachieved bits/Hz efficiencies 2.5 times greater than Ku-band onHTS, measured on the same SATCOM terminal.

These two aspects of X-band UAVs – the use of broad spotbeams, and an ability to operate at higher spectral powerdensities - make long-range, high-endurance battlefield supportor maritime surveillance missions not only easy, but affordableas well.

Cost savings - and MILSATCOM compatibilityThe cost savings associated with operating at higher, moreefficient spectral power densities and with lower link marginscan be staggering, when recognizing that a military commanderhas to purchase 140 percent more Ku-band space segmentand 510 percent more Ka-band space segment for Ku and Ka-band UAVs than for X-band UAVs. These costs savings rapidlymultiply even further when the second-order effects of havingan all-weather X-band UAV ISR/strike capacity are fully realized:

All-weather UAV operations allow our military forces to deter,disrupt and/or destroy a target more quickly, in any weathercondition, and move more quickly to the next target set. This inturn preserves critical resources - and saves lives and combatpower as well.

What many UAV operators, planners, and acquisition officesdon’t know, however, is that many countries, like the UnitedStates, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany,Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, andmany others can save staggering amounts of annual O&M costsby purchasing and using X-band UAVs, because these countrieshave already invested in their own X-band military satellitecommunications (MILSATCOM) constellations. Recognizing thisimportant strategic investment, an X-band UAV can fly withoutany additional bandwidth costs at all, saving millions of O&Mcosts each year, allowing their military to generate even morecombat power on limited budgets. The Wideband GlobalSATCOM (WGS) constellation is openly available to US militarycommanders and the UAV units who support them – but only ifthey and the DoD acquisition chains and program offices whosupport them know about these important strategic satelliteassets.

The road aheadSome DoD program offices have already taken advantage of X-band SATCOM. The US Navy’s MQ-4C Triton UAV, for example,is a more capable, all-weather variant of the US Air Force’s olderRQ-4 Global Hawk. The UK’s Protector UAV is a more lethal,all-weather X-band variant of the Sky Guardian/CertifiablePredator-B UAV. What is good for the goose is good for thegander: It would next be good to examine an X-band capabilityfor the US Air Force’s RQ-4 Global Hawk itself, as well as theUS Army’s MQ-1 Gray Eagle UAV, the US Navy’s smaller MQ-8Firescout and MQ-25 Stingray UAVs, and all non-program-of-record BLOS UAVs that are routinely contracted to provideservices to the DoD, so each could finally take advantage of X-band’s unique all-weather warfighting properties – at zero O&Mcost for bandwidth.

ConclusionThe tech market over the last 30 years has reacted veryfavourably to products that reduce the size and weight,operational flexibility, or cost of a product or service. UAVs and,more broadly, SATCOM, is no different. SATCOM terminalmanufacturers already recognize X-band’s unique advantagesand are producing smaller, lighter X-band terminals that deliverthe performance that their go-anywhere, all-weather sensorsprovide, and that their go-anywhere, all-weather missionsdemand.

More broadly, X-band UAVs successfully exploit many of X-band’s natural properties to provide an excellent option forwarfighting commanders who demand all-weather, high-throughput performance and greatly increased operationalflexibility. While doing so, X-band UAVs operate more efficientlyand can significantly lower the DoD’s O&M costs, helping theDoD to sustain and generate even more combat power, savelives, and accomplish the mission – even in the harshest weatherconditions on the planet.

Figure 3: The use of X-band’s larger spot beams,combined with bits/Hz efficiencies greater than Ku-band on HTS, allow X-band UAVs higher throughputand a greater operational flexibility than their Ku-and Ka-band counterparts.

Figure 4: While X-band satellites are spaced at least4° apart, commercial satellites are typically spaced2° apart. This difference in spacing allows X-bandterminals to operate at higher, more efficient spectraldensities. Higher spectral power densities allowsmall, X-band antennas to transmit at greaterefficiencies and throughput – even 2.5x greater thanKu-band on HTS. GMC

“X-band’s extreme resistance to rainattenuation is matched by its

extreme resistance to attenuationfrom sandstorms and airborne dust,both very real concerns in today’s

theatres of operation.”




http://bit.ly/2NLm933




http://bit.ly/28ViDgT

june/july 2018...evolving market trends”. photo courtesy of elbit gmc 6 | june/july 2018 global...

Documents