DoD: No more one-size-fits-all satellites - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times

DoD: No more one-size-fits-all satellites

To bring down satellite program costs, the Defense Department will no longer seek costly “one-size-fits-all” satellites, Josh Hartman, special adviser to the Pentagon acquisition chief, told the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee on Thursday.

Instead, the Pentagon will move toward less complex, shorter-lived systems geared for specific missions and regions. That should lead to lower price tags, more orders for industry, and better Defense use of “rapidly advancing technologies,” he said.

Hartman also warned that several “static” budget years are ahead for defense space programs. He told the panel that will mean few, if any, new program starts in the foreseeable future. The Pentagon must “evolve our [existing] systems” and “resist piling additional capabilities” on those satellites, he said.

In his written testimony, Hartman quoted a 2008 study of the U.S. space industrial base conducted by the Pentagon’s Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG).

“The recent focus on transformational systems has hampered the execution pace required to maintain legacy capabilities. Stability in the workforce and the department’s desires must be achieved,” the study said.

The Defense Department must retool its space acquisition efforts, it said.

“Successful programs are those that have realistic cost and schedule expectations, are well understood, have stable budgets, experienced and stable staffs, and have a spiral development acquisition strategy.”

To begin curing the Pentagon’s satellite-purchasing woes, defense officials “need to evaluate alternatives to the large complex systems, and use less complex systems when we can do so without compromising the missions our satellites need to perform,” Hartman said in his written testimony. “Our needs neither can, nor should they be satisfied from one orbit with single mega-sensor acquisition model.”

Hartman pointed to the difficulty in developing satellites that could bring all things to all U.S. war fighters, no matter where they might be operating.

“Different users require different amounts and types of data at different times, from different sensors. Users in [U.S. Southern Command] might require foliage-penetrating radar or EO while that capability will largely go unused by [U.S. Central Command],” according to his written testimony.

U.S. Pacific Command “needs open ocean surveillance of ship tracking, while [U.S. European Command] might need to understand the pattern of low-level IR events,” Hartman wrote. “The operational tempos in all of the Areas of Responsibility (AOR) diverge greatly and require different timeliness of access, volume, or fidelity. Developing a system that can satisfy all users all of the time is unsustainable if not impossible.”

Subcommittee member Rep. Rick Larson, D-Wash., endorsed pursuing simpler space systems. “Sometimes,” he said, “ho-hum is better than wiz-bang.”

Hartman envisions a “change in our business model” that will spawn “an architecture distributed to multiple nodes and layered to provide right level of capability to the right … regions at the right times.”

The Pentagon will use more commercially available components and “multiple sensors from different sized of spacecraft and non-space platforms,” he said.

Pentagon officials also want greater competition on the military’s space programs, and Hartman told the lawmakers the envisioned shift of focus should bring that — but at the subcontractor level, not the prime contractor level.

TSAT Clean-Up

Hartman cited the Transformational Satellite program, which Defense Secretary Robert Gates has proposed terminating, as an example of program efforts to avoid.

The space acquisition official told lawmakers the department “is still in the midst of cleaning up from TSAT.”

Work is underway, for example, to figure out how to apply the fruit of the multibillion-dollar TSAT development effort to upgrades of existing satellites such as the military’s Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) constellation.

Chairwoman Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., worried that the space industrial base might suffer if TSAT were killed and the Defense Department shifts to simpler satellites and longer lives for existing fleets.

Hartman responded that his office has asked TSAT subcontractors to look at the effects of ending the program.

Development Account?

Tauscher and other subcommittee members sounded alarms about the U.S. defense space firms to do research and development.

Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said that when push comes to shove each budget cycle “R&D is often the easiest thing to squeeze.”

Tauscher said she and Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, have discussed creating a special DoD account solely for space research efforts. She said military space program managers are “doing too much research and development” after a satellite’s requirements are finalized.

Marion Blakey, president and CEO of the Arlington, Va.-based Aerospace Industries Association, said “R&D is under-funded.” With Congressional action, she warned, the nation might not “get the robust investments” necessary to facilitate “leap-ahead technologies.”

Hartman agreed, saying more funding for long-term work is needed.

Crowded Space

Hartman also said satellites might need better protection.

“We must begin to consider the implications of a contested environment in space,” he told the panel. “There is no debate that protection, dissuasion, and deterrence must be a part of our National Security Space Strategy.”

New threats mean the Defense Department should buy more satellites.

“Deploying architectures with constellations of just a few satellites leave the nation incredibly vulnerable and invites our adversaries to target our systems,” he said. “The bang for the buck is too great for them to pass up. Survivability must be a consideration in our acquisition processes and our current acquisition model only reinforces this vulnerability.”