Executive Summary of the Commercial Satellite Communications (SATCOM) Report


This document is an executive summary of a Technical Report delivered to the Naval Space Command by a commercial contractor through the Federal Systems Integration and Management (FEDSIM) Office of the GSA. The purpose of the Technical Report was to:

"determine the best match between naval communication requirements and commercial SATCOM capabilities, identifying those requirements best met by the commercial market."

This project set out to objectively analyze the commercial systems and capabilities currently providing services to a global community of users and to define the systems, applications and methodology for Naval platforms and afloat Commanders to seamlessly incorporate commercial satellite communications services into the existing Military Satellite Communications (MILSATCOM) architecture. This document is intended for use by communications planners and individuals responsible for shaping the direction of the Navy's satellite communications programs and integrating the use of Commercial Satellite Communications (COMMERSAT) services into the Naval SATCOM architecture.

Table of Contents:


Navy SATCOM Requirements

General SATCOM Requirements

Classify SATCOM Requirements

Frequency and Spectrum Considerations

Access Methods

Cost Analysis


Extract From Draft Concept of Operations

Additional Links


Commercial Satellite Communications (COMMERSAT) systems are employed aboard Naval platforms and successfully augment the military satellite communications (MILSATCOM) systems currently installed in Fleet units. The Naval Space Command, as the operational arm of the Space and Electronic Warfare Directorate within the Navy staff, sought to develop a comprehensive analysis of current and future commercial systems and evaluate their capabilities and limitations. The purpose was to identify new COMMERSAT systems to augment MILSATCOM systems and develop a concept of operations for employing these systems. The objectives of this study are to provide a technical, operational, and capabilities analysis and forecast of COMMERSAT systems to support future Navy program decisions and employment considerations.

The research team's approach was to identify all Navy satellite communications requirements, definitively quantify commercial satellite capabilities, and then match the military requirements with the commercial capabilities. The research team's analysis and evaluation were completed on regulatory agencies and considerations, spectrum and frequency issues, types of service available as well as the providers of the service, and access methods for commercial systems. A cost analysis and suggestions to cost-effectively benefit from the current set of available services as well as future offerings were also included.

A synopsis of available COMMERSAT systems as of December 31, 1995, was included in the Technical Product. It included both systems currently in operation and systems licensed by the FCC or ITU that will begin operations in the near future. The synopsis of COMMERSAT systems was broken down into three categories of service: fixed satellite services, mobile satellite services, and broadcast satellite services. The systems in each of these categories were further classified and arranged into domestic (U.S.), regional, or international services. The synopsis provides information on the service provider, the satellite system, and the technical characteristics of the individual satellites.

A high-level concept of operations is included as an appendix to this document. The concept of operations provides additional detail of the integration of COMMERSAT systems into the Navy SATCOM architecture in the near- and far-term. The concept of operations further identifies regulatory issues surrounding the use of COMMERSAT systems by the Navy and a network management strategy for each Fleet Commander-in-Chief (CINC) to monitor and control that portion of the global Naval SATCOM architecture under their command.

Back to top

Navy SATCOM Requirements

Naval platforms are versatile, highly mobile, and capable of performing multiple missions, many done simultaneously. Individual platforms have a core set of required services that can be broadly categorized as:

Equally important are emerging network requirements providing services for medical support and training in multiple disciplines, as well as a host of morale and welfare networks. Television, not only as an entertainment medium, but an important source of civil intelligence, plays a significant role as a support network.

Back to top

General SATCOM Requirements

The Navy relies heavily on the use of SATCOM for connectivity between platforms at sea because of an inability to use terrestrial-based systems and technologies such as fiber optics and microwave communications. Naval forces are globally deployed with beyond-the-horizon separation of individual platforms as standard operating procedure. This limits the use of omni-directional terrestrial Ultra High Frequency (UHF) and Very High Frequency (VHF) radio as well as directional microwave broadcasts. Because of the highly mobile nature of Navy ships, directional terrestrial type antennas are required to have unobstructed access to 360 of azimuth and over 90 of elevation to compensate for the ship's turning and rolling motion. Finally, current and future requirements demand increasingly more space segment capacity to keep pace with the technological advancement of computers and information systems.

SATCOM enables the transmission of three kinds of information in the four service categories to fleet units geographically distributed within the battlespace:

In an attempt to leverage the ever increasing capabilities of modern communications and information systems, the Navy developed a white paper, “Copernicus”, which provided a blueprint for capturing technological change. Copernicus was designed as a user-centered command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) information management architecture that laid the foundation, through its pillars, for joint and allied operations called for in “...From the Sea”. The pillars described by Copernicus include:

As Copernicus evolved over the last 5 years, a new pillar emerged and was described in “Copernicus...Forward: C4I for the 21st Century”:

Exhibit 1 - Copernicus Architecture

The pillars of the “Copernicus...Forward” architecture provide the following four essential C4I functions:

Conceptually, platforms are linked by moving information around the information spectrum. The information spectrum consists of three integrated grids:

In order to implement the communications grid envisioned by “Copernicus...Forward,” the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) merged PMW-172 (Shore Communications) and PMW-176 (Satellite Communications) to create the Joint Maritime Communications System (JMCOMS) Program Office. The objective of JMCOMS is to “field Warrior-pull, interoperable, multifunctional, open architecture, modular systems, using NDI/COTS solutions to meet technical and programmatic requirements, both planned and emergent.” JMCOMS is both a technical and investment strategy that implements the communications portion of Copernicus and whose objectives and priorities are to:

As shown in Exhibit 2, the JMCOMS notional communications architecture for Copernicus relies heavily on SATCOM systems to provide TADIXS connectivity and more on HF data networks for over-the-horizon communications and Single Channel Ground and Air Radio System (SINCGARS) and UHF systems for line-of-sight (LOS) communications. However, SATCOM coverage is implied for all areas as a backup to HF, UHF LOS, and terrestrial networks.

Exhibit 2 - JMCOMS Vision for Naval Networks

While the core set of services remain relatively constant for the Navy to accomplish assigned missions, the attributes of the requirements are changing significantly. Recent and emerging requirements are capitalizing on technological advances to fight and win with fewer personnel and platforms. The level of sophistication of sensors and weaponry, and the electronic environment surrounding the battlespace, demand more information for the engaged forces - sooner, faster, and more precise. Similarly, the need to maintain situational awareness of tactical, highly mobile air, land, and sea forces in a Joint environment with multiple coalition forces operating in and around population centers raises the information transfer requirements even higher. The pipeline that accommodates the requirements of these new tools is satellite communications. Exhibit 5-3 lists current Navy SATCOM requirements and emerging requirements are listed in Exhibit 5-4.

Back to top

Classify SATCOM Requirements

With the use of cryptographic equipment among U.S. and Allied forces and a lack of technological capability on the part of potential third-world enemies to design and build sophisticated jamming and detection systems, a portion of Navy SATCOM requirements have application to COMMERSAT services given that other basic requirements (data rate, coverage, and power) can be satisfied. The principal reason for using MILSATCOM to satisfy certain requirements is to provide assurance for a specialized set of capabilities that COMMERSAT was not designed to provide. These protection attributes include:

COMMERSAT may provide some of these capabilities unintentionally due to a particular system design or configuration, but certain designs may increase the vulnerability to various forms of electronic warfare (EW). Navy SATCOM requirements that do not need this set of protection attributes are candidates for COMMERSAT systems. In such cases, the satisfaction of the secondary attributes of the circuit requirement (data rate, coverage, power) must be met. There are many examples and instances of COMMERSAT systems that do not fulfill these secondary attributes (particularly coverage) and MILSATCOM systems may still be needed to satisfy the requirement. The Navy is adopting COMMERSAT usage, where feasible, as a force multiplier to free up critical MILSATCOM bandwidth for increased tactical information flow.

SATCOM requirements can be assigned to MILSATCOM or commercial satellite systems based on the type of protection required (if any) for the circuit. The assignment of a SATCOM requirement to a MILSATCOM or COMMERSAT system is dependent on the criticality of the information, the survivability required of the circuit in accomplishing a particular mission, and the availability of satellite resources. The basic algorithm used by DISA to allocate SATCOM circuit requirements to the appropriate SATCOM system is shown in Exhibit 3. This algorithm was used to allocate the Navy SATCOM circuits to either MILSATCOM or COMMERSAT systems, based on a Major Regional Conflict (MRC) scenario against of foe of limited technical means to jam or intercept SATCOM transmissions. Note that this algorithm will require modification as new LEO/MEO COMMERSAT and interim GBS services become operational.

Table 1 apportions the Navy SATCOM requirements into three categories. The first category are those basic C2 circuits critical to tactical and strategic decision making and the successful coordination of operations in a Joint operation environment that typically must have the protection abilities afforded by MILSATCOM. The second category are operational and tactical circuits that may or may not require protection from jamming and LPI/LPD capabilities, based on the technical capabilities of the foe, the loading factor of MILSATCOM assets in the theater, and the assigned mission of the units. The circuits in this category will be allocated by the Commander-in-Chief (CINC) to MILSATCOM or COMMERSAT systems based on a prioritization of the circuits given the current mission(s) and tactical environment. As the mission(s) and tactical conditions change, the circuits can be reallocated to meet new operational security requirements. Depending on the mission and tactical environment, these circuits would benefit from the greater bandwidths available on COMMERSAT systems or can be allocated to COMMERSAT systems to reserve MILSATCOM bandwidth for higher priority circuits. The third category circuits are generally voice or support circuits that will typically be allocated to COMMERSAT systems, but may be reallocated to MILSATCOM systems for specific missions or because COMMERSAT systems do not meet the required data rate, coverage, or power requirements. Emerging SATCOM requirements (listed in the table in italics) are shown to give a sense of the growth of SATCOM circuit requirements in the future.

Exhibit 3 - Apportioning Algorithm

Table 1 - Apportioned Naval SATCOM Requirements
AAW/ASW/ASUW C&R Nets BF/BG FOTC Broadcast BF/BG Ops/Admin
C2 & Tac War Secure Voice BGIXS POTS
DAMA/Navy Orderwire FLTBCST/HSFB Secure Telephone
Joint Air Coordination JDISS-GENSER & SI VVFDT
JMCIS JWICS Aircraft Maint. Imagery
Low-Speed Tactical SIPRNET ASVT
MAGTF Nets SSIXS DSCS Emerg. Comm. Restoral
NKMS TACINTEL Multi-Purpose Marine Video
SATHICOM   Navy Logistics
Special & Tailored Tac   Public Affairs VTC
TADIXS-A & B   Quality of Life (MWR)
Theater Unique   Sailor Phone
TIBS   Telemedicine/Medical Imagery
WWMCCS/GCCS   Tomahawk

Depending on the scenario and the threat, many of the circuits marked as candidates for COMMERSAT may use MILSATCOM or COMMERSAT. The categorization of the SATCOM circuits is highly dependent on the capabilities of the enemy and the mission. The currently planned orbiting capacity of MILSATCOM will not keep pace with the increase in capacity required by new communications and information systems, the large bandwidth requirements of new services such as video and imagery, and the added demands for information to feed new sensors and weaponry. As the demand for SATCOM bandwidth increases (by the year 2010 Joint peacetime requirements are expected to increase 400 percent and wartime requirements by 500 percent over 1995 levels), the probable method for allocating circuits will be to assign MILSATCOM-only circuits to the protected systems first. The remaining circuits will be allocated to MILSATCOM systems (providing some or minimal protection capability) and/or COMMERSAT systems based more on secondary attributes such as data rates and required coverage rather than protection requirements.

Back to top

Frequency and Spectrum Considerations

In general, each frequency band has its own unique advantages. While complementing the capabilities of the other bands, the UHF band offers terminals that are operable in adverse weather conditions and highly suited for mobile operations. UHF primarily supports single channel per carrier (SCPC) and DAMA and is both highly susceptible to jamming and heavily congested.

The SHF band provides a highly desirable satellite transmission medium due to characteristics not available to the UHF band, including wide operating bandwidth to support high data rates, narrow uplink bandwidth, and inherent jam resistance. It supports primarily frequency division multiple access (FDMA) and some DAMA and is relatively immune to all but heaviest weather. This is useful for focused coverage from multi-beam and spot antennas.

The EHF is the most survivable and secure frequency of the three, but its terminals are the most expensive. It provides low and medium data rates and has the potential to support high data rates. EHF service is degraded by heavy rain, snow, hail, and other weather conditions. It supports users with a need for robust protection and survivability, anti-jam, anti-scintillation and LPI/LPD. It is primarily used with TDMA services.

The UHF frequency band, including the L- and S-bands, are often used to provide assured access but are the easiest to jam. The X-band is valuable spectrum and is being used as one of the frequencies for common data link in the line-of-sight mode as well as providing secured access for services needing limited or moderate AJ capability. Table 2 compares the advantages and disadvantages of the frequencies bands.

Table 2 - Advantages and Disadvantages of Frequency Bands
Band Uplink Frequency Downlink Frequency Advantages Disadvantages
UHF 960 MHz -

1215 MHz

225MHz -

328.6 MHz

  • Omni gain antennas
  • Line-of-sight not always required
  • Light weight and inexpensive terminals
  • Highly suited for mobile operations
  • All weather capability
  • Capacity of bandwidth is very low by today's standards
  • Low data rates (typically less than 16 Kbps)
  • Need large satellite antennas, especially in the GEO
  • Highly susceptible to jamming
L 1.6315 GHz -

1.6605 GHz

1.530 GHz -

1.559 GHz

  • Moderate antennas about 2 ft or less
  • Negligible Atmospheric effects
  • Popular in terrestrial communications
  • Moderate to low capacity
  • Susceptible to jamming
C 5.925 GHz -

6.425 GHz

3.7 GHz -

4.2 GHz

  • Immune to atmospheric effects
  • Popular SATCOM band, but congested
  • Bandwidth (~500 MHz) allows video and high data rates.
  • Requires large antennas
  • Large footprints
  • Interference due to terrestrial microwave systems
X 7.9 GHz -

8.4 GHz

7.25 GHz -

7.75 GHz

  • Negligible attenuation and other atmospheric conditions
  • Not widely available for civilian use, used mostly by the U.S. and Russian militaries
  • Provides higher resolution pictures than L- and C-band
  • Requires a relatively large separation angle between satellites to prevent interference
Ku 14 GHz -

14.5 GHz

11.7 GHz -

12.2 GHz

  • Moderate cost hardware
  • Spot beam footprint permits use of smaller earth terminals, may be 1-3 m wide in moderate rain zones
  • Attenuated by rain and other atmospheric moisture
  • Spot beams generally focused on land masses
Ka 27.5 GHz -

31.0 GHz


43.5 GHz -

45.5 GHz

17.7 GHz -

21.2 GHz

  • Micro-spot footprint
  • Very small terminals, much less than 1 m
  • High data rates 500~1000 Mbps
  • Severe rain attenuation
  • Obstruction interference due to heavy rainfall

Most commercial satellite operators provide fixed satellite services (FSS) using the C- and Ku-bands. These bands are now congested. In the U.S., industry is now applying for Ka-band frequencies. Organizations such as Hughes, Lockheed Martin Corp., AT&T Corp., Motorola, and GE American Communications have filed applications with the FCC to participate in the next generation of satellite services using Ka-band frequencies. These applicants seek to use Ka-band spectrum to provide high-speed computer links, video telephony and multimedia services direct to small, low-cost dish antennas at homes and businesses in the United States and elsewhere. The Ka-band frequencies are the final frontier in satellite communications because it is the last open spectrum still available for commercial use. Ka-band is being sought by a LEO system, geostationary (GEO) systems, and possibly conflicting terrestrial uses such as wireless and multichannel television services . The military has also been allocated Ka-band for use with current (Milstar) and future (possibly GBS) satellite systems. The FCC will award licenses for the Ka-band satellite services in the future. The process is likely to take many years due to the increasing number of systems being proposed for the limited spectrum.

Back to top

Access Methods

In considering a network where many earth stations require access to the same bandwidth of a single transponder, six formats are available. Networks within the same transponder use the same format, but a high capacity earth station accessing more than one transponder in the same satellite could have equipment that would allow it to transmit and receive satellite signals in each of the formats. Table 3 shows the advantages and disadvantages of each access method:

Table 3 - Advantages and Disadvantages of Access Methods
Access method Advantages Disadvantages
  • Uses all available bandwidth
  • May cause intermodulation
  • Frequency reuse is only possible with sufficient spatial isolation to avoid co-channel interference
  • Bandwidth cannot be easily assigned to another user since user are assigned fixed amounts of bandwidth
  • Less capacity than CDMA
  • Efficient use of transponder bandwidth
  • Provides economic benefits in heavy route networks and maximum output
  • Prevents interference between users by strict adherence to time slot schedules
  • Allows variation in allocation (more or fewer timeslots to the user) of timeslot based on current user needs
  • Has much less stringent power control requirements, since interference is controlled by time slots allocation instead of by processing gain resulting from coded bandwidth spreading
  • Creates transmission delay for other earth stations waiting to use the transponder bandwidth
  • All sites must “burst” at the network's capacity data rate which be inefficient use of the spectrum
  • Requires large earth segment investment due to the greater RF power and larger antennae sizes to support each site bursting at capacity
  • Can be expanded but there is a limit to the number of sites that a given burst rate can accommodate
  • Relies on spatial attenuation to control intercell interference
  • Mainly used in digital telephony
  • Economical because of dynamic allocation of channels and efficient use of transponder
  • Reliable and easily deployed
  • Expansion is simple and affordable
  • No dedicated station-to-station trunk group assignment
  • Available interfaces to the public networks are limited and require additional signaling converters to work properly
  • Digital SCPC/MCPC are advantageous in their low start-up costs for small networks
  • Reliable, economical, and easily deployed
  • Providing routing is difficult due to the use of control channels in an analog system
  • Connections between remotes must be established through the hub, resulting in a double satellite hop with an additional delay
  • Very little or no frequency jamming because CDMA design affords some flexibility in parameters such as center frequency, spread rate, and power level
  • Provides a higher performance and a larger capacity
  • Frequency reuse exists without causing excessive interference (i.e., co-channel interference)
  • Security - codes can only be decoded by the intended receiver
  • Vulnerable to the “near and far” problem- the problem of very strong undesired signals at a receiver swamping out the effect of a weaker desired user's signal
  • High initial equipment cost
Spread Spectrum
  • Prevents interference
  • Security, only the intended device can decode the spreading pattern
  • Mitigates multipath fading and interference on radio links because the wide bandwidth introduces frequency diversity
  • Higher capacity comparable to non-spread access methods
  • Higher equipment cost
  • Large amounts of bandwidth are required

Back to top

Cost Analysis

Table 4 provides the expected costs for the four major proposed MSS systems offering voice, data, and fax capabilities that are likely to be launched. Significant differences in terminal and space segment costs are apparent in the table. The terrestrial charges that would be incurred using each of these systems has not been finalized by the COMMERSAT providers.

Table 4 - Comparison of Expected MSS Usage Costs







ICO Global


# of Satellites1 48 66 12 12
Start of Service Mid-1998 4Q, 1998 3Q, 2000 4Q, 1999
System Design Bent-pipe On-board processing Bent-pipe Bent-pipe
Cost per Minute2 $.60 $3.00 $1.00 $2.00
Terminal Cost2 $750 $2500 $750 $700

1 Active satellites in orbit, additional satellites on orbit as spares not included in total.

2 Based on published pre-launch information, subject to change.

Terrestrial long-distance charges are highly important when considering the new generation of LEO/MEO-based MSS systems. With the exception of Iridium, each of the proposed new systems is based on the traditional bent-pipe network architecture. With a bent-pipe system, all call processing functions are performed by terrestrial-based switches located at the nearest gateway hub to the mobile terminal. Because the LEO/MEO satellites are orbiting much closer to the surface of the earth, their coverage cells are much smaller than the typical earth disk coverage provided by a geostationary system, such as Inmarsat. Because of the smaller coverage, calls placed on these systems are routed to the nearest gateway, which may be a few hundred to a few thousand miles away. For calls placed in the Indian Ocean region to the U.S., this could leave thousands of miles of distance left for the terrestrial portion of call and may incur significant long-distance or double hop space segment charges to complete the call.

Iridium is the only system not affected because its system design incorporates on-board signal processing and satellite crosslinks. With Iridium, calls are routed from one satellite to another until a connection is established with a gateway in the destination country. This minimizes the cost of additional long-distance charges. Exhibit 5-22 shows the differences in the proposed LEO MSS system designs.

Exhibit 4 - Comparison of MSS Architectures

Back to top


The information demands of modern warfare exceed the capability of legacy MILSATCOM systems and the SATCOM requirements are growing exponentially. The driving forces behind the growth in requirements includes:

COMMERSAT systems will provide much needed augmentation to the total throughput capabilities of MILSATCOM systems. High data rates and the ready availability of COTS equipment suitable for shipboard application address the requirement for “large pipes” with short procurement cycles, providing rapid response to the warrior. COMMERSAT systems have inherent limitations such as susceptibility to jamming, operational security, coverage limitations, antenna size requirements, and EMI from shipboard systems which limits use to information exchange, administrative, and support services.

Network management will be easier to implement as more and more COTS-based equipment and software is included in the Naval architecture because of adherence to commercial network management standards. The NCTAMS or similar CJTF gateway will serve as the regional network management center for naval networks and independent units in that region. Remote monitoring and control precludes single point of failure and allows flexibility to support mobile forces. System operation will become invisible to the operator.

The MILSATCOM architecture and equipment will evolve to incorporate new technologies and applications. Dual-use or multi-frequency satellites with crossbanding or crosslinks will become more prevalent. Multi-band antennas will be fielded for their inherent flexibility and will provide a natural evolution to MMBA technology in the far term.

The Navy should bundle circuit requirements in a region and lease a whole transponder to satisfy those requirements. Current and future COMMERSAT requirements should be communicated regularly to COMMERSAT service providers to ensure Navy requirements are considered in the design and pre-launch planning phases of commercial spacecraft.

Back to top

Extract From Draft Concept of Operations

The space segment component of the Naval SATCOM architecture is an integral part of the Copernicus architecture that supports command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) services to the naval warrior. The architecture links ashore Command Centers/Commanders (globally dispersed) with tactical forces afloat (also globally dispersed) as well as with Force, Group, Unit and Warfare Commanders embarked on the afloat platforms. The services providing information to the ashore network fall under the umbrella of Global Information Exchange Services (GLOBIXS) and are the commercial equivalent of Fixed Satellite Service (FSS). Those services providing support to the tactical forces are broadly categorized as Tactical Information Exchange Services (TADIXS) and constitute the commercial equivalent of Mobile Satellite Service (MSS). Finally, services that support the flow of information from sensors and shooters within the battlespace are categorized as Battle Cube Information Exchange Services (BCIXS) and are composed of a mix of SATCOM and line-of-sight (LOS) radio frequency (RF) systems. The MILSATCOM systems providing these services include Ultra High Frequency (UHF), Super High Frequency (SHF), and Extremely High Frequency (EHF) systems. Commercial services are in the L-, C- and Ku-bands.

COMMERSAT currently consists of leased services that support a vast array of information requirements. Commercial services are used primarily to satisfy the afloat requirements for delivering high data rate information such as video and imagery, and to free up capacity on military systems. Commercial SATCOM has been used on a limited scale, but has demonstrated the potential to provide high data rate (HDR) services (1.544 Mbps +) to meet surge demands, including contingency restoral for other military communications systems.

Operational experience has demonstrated that no single SATCOM system is capable of satisfying all maritime C4I requirements for the globally dispersed Naval Forces and command structure. An integrated approach that leverages the best attributes of each system to optimize support for Joint Operations while providing varying levels of service, robustness, and survivability is essential in meeting the information needs of modern warfare. The commercial and military satellite systems considered for this Concept of Operations (CONOPS) are shown in Exhibit B-1.

The COMMERSAT systems incorporated into the Naval SATCOM architecture have several limitations of importance to military planners. The principal limitation is the general lack of protective features offered by commercial systems. Features such as anti-jam (AJ), anti-scintillation (AS), and low probability of intercept (LPI)/low probability of detection (LPD) have not been incorporated into the system designs of these commercial services. Some protection may be afforded as an incidental by-product of a particular system's design and requires training and command emphasis to ensure operational and transmission security procedures are strictly adhered to while using these systems. The other major limitation of commercial systems are regulatory impediments to their use in foreign countries. The use of commercial systems is regulated in every country. Special operating agreements and site licenses may be required for their use within the national boundaries of a country. The commercial service providers generally pre-negotiate these agreements with the regulatory agencies of each country. However, the specific agreements and the restrictions placed on their use may vary widely from country to country. While operating in international waters, the Navy will not be restricted in their use, but shore-based units and units operating in the littoral may be affected by regulatory restraints imposed by the host nation.

Table 5 - Near and Far Term SATCOM Assets
  Near Term (Present - 2005)1 Far Term (2005 +)
Military 5 UHF Follow On (UFO)

3 UFO w/ Interim GBS (or leased svc)


2 EHF LDR (Milstar I)

4 EHF MDR (Milstar II)

4 UHF/EHF w/ LDR crossbanding


4 EHF MDR w/ crosslinks

Commercial FSS Commercial C/Ku-band providers Commercial C/K

Back to top