According to a March 26 announcement from the DOJ, United Technologies Corp. and Raytheon will need to divest Raytheon’s military airborne radios business as well as UTC’s military global positioning systems and large space-based optical systems businesses in order to proceed with the proposed merger.

The divestitures would satisfy a proposed settlement from the department’s Antitrust Division of a civil antitrust lawsuit to block the proposed Raytheon-UTC merger.

BAE Systems agreed in January to buy Collins Aerospace’s military global positioning system business — which is owned by parent firm UTC — for $1.93 billion and Raytheon’s airborne tactical radios business for $275 million.

“Today’s settlement protects the American taxpayer by preserving competition that leads to lower costs and higher innovation in critical military and defense products,” said Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim of the Antitrust Division. “The merger, as originally proposed, would have eliminated competition in the supply of military airborne radios and military GPS systems, and would have positioned the merged firm to harm rivals capable of making key components for reconnaissance satellites. These horizontal and vertical concerns are resolved by the Division’s structural remedy, which includes the divestiture of three separate business units.”

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the companies need to divest Raytheon’s military airborne radios business, including facilities in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and Largo, Florida; as well as UTC’s military GPS business to BAE Systems or another approved acquirer.

The proposed settlement would also require the divestiture of UTC’s optical systems business, including a facility in Danbury, Connecticut, to an approved acquirer.

Raytheon and UTC announced in June 2019 plans to officially merge into a new entity called Raytheon Technologies Corporation, with the deal at the time expected to close during the first half of 2020.

The goal of the satellite constellation is to “provide survivable, global, secure, protected and jam-resistant communications for high-priority military ground, sea and air assets,” according to an Air Force statement. Maj. Matthew Getts of the Air Force’s Space and Missile Center in Los Angeles said AEHF-4 “will complete the fully operational constellation for AEHF.”

This means the fourth AEHF satellite meets the minimum constellation requirements to bring global Extended Data Rate (XDR) connectivity online. XDR reportedly provides approximately 10 times more communications throughput than the Air Force’s legacy satellite system, known as Milstar. That difference in speed allows the transmission of real-time video, battlefield maps and targeting data to help combatant commanders and national leaders make optimal tactical and strategic decisions.

The prime contractor on the Air Force’s $15 billion program,, Lockheed Martin is under contract to deliver a total of six AEHF satellites. These satellites will be used by the United States and international partners including the United Kingdom, Canada and the Netherlands. The launch of the next satellite, AEHF-5, is scheduled for July 2019, Getts said.

“It’s good to return with our mission partners to see the culmination of expertise, skill and partnership that we have worked diligently toward to make this AEHF launch a success,” said Mike Cacheiro, vice president of protected communication systems at Lockheed Martin. “This is a substantial milestone for AEHF, and as we look ahead, we continue to improve and upgrade this mission to deliver these vital communications capabilities to the Air Force.”

The Mobile User Objective System, or MUOS, is a narrowband satellite system that provides smartphone-like capabilities to increase voice and data communications access, according to a Marine Corps Systems Command release.

The system provides more secure and reliable beyond line-of-sight communications, according to the release. Marines should see the first units arriving in the fleet later this year and leaders are targeting operational capability for first quarter 2019.

“The most obvious [advantage] to operating forces will be the increased accessibility,” said Capt. Shawn Avery, MUOS project office in Command Element Systems at Marine Corps System Command. “This will allow us to explore new operating concepts by pushing on-the-move voice and data connectivity to the squad level.”

All five MUOS satellites are on orbit. The new hardware allows the satellites’ signals to focus on a smaller geographic area, which increases connectivity.

“This improvement enables on-the-move access while improving overall reliability in vegetation, urban environments and other extreme conditions where legacy SATCOM was challenged,” Avery said.

Like a cellphone, the new system will be able to roam, seeking out signals as it moves from one location to the next, such as communicating in the continental United States and then immediately deploying to another area.

“This system takes a lot of stress off of the operators, allowing them to walk around on patrol without the range constraints of terrestrial networks, Avery said.

Users will now have access to the Defense Information System Network, or DISN. In the past, Marines had to hold terrain and bring in cable links to provide that access, which increased operational exposure, or lease costly commercial capabilities.

Communicators can now access and move more data more quickly in austere environments than before.

Until now infantry companies had limited SATCOM access but with this technology, officials say that company commanders can put Marines beyond line of sight with fewer worries about losing connectivity.

Versions of MUOS technology have been previously fielded with Marine units over the past six years, according to the release, in the AN/PRC-117G.

A vehicular kit also AN/VRC-114’s to accept MUOS, according to the release.

That system firmware will be updated and three new antenna kits added for different op configurations.

But some questions remain. The terminals to make use of the satellites have been slow-going and forces have relied largely on the satellites’ legacy capabilities. In addition, a broader, Department of Defense-wide approach to space has raised questions about what the Navy’s next task on orbit will be.

Rear Adm. Carl Chebi serves as the Program Executive Officer Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (PEO C4I) and the Program Executive Officer Space Systems (PEO Space Systems). He spoke with C4ISRNET in May on what comes next.

C4ISRNET: Let’s start with an overview of the latest with MUOS.

REAR ADM. CARL CHEBI: We are planning on getting back into operational testing next summer. We’re working with the operational test force, with the fleet. I think we have a path toward getting into, and successfully through, operational test. Our ground sites are up and running. The fleet at the Navy, as well as the Air Force and Army, are in the [process of] procurement of radios to support the MUOS waveform. We’ll go into operational test in June or July of 2019. It will be four-to-six months after that, by the time the report actually comes out.

C4ISRNET: On the ground side, that process has been a little slower than expected. How do you gauge progress?

CHEBI: We’re not waiting for operational test to field this capability. We worked with U.S. Strategic Command to get Early Combatant Command Use, for training and testing only. You can imagine the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and especially the Army, are very interested in using this capability sooner rather than later.

C4ISRNET: When you say the capability, does that mean using both payloads and not just the legacy payload?

CHEBI: All five satellites are airborne; they’ve been accepted. We’ve been using a legacy payload to supplement our legacy [Ultra High Frequency Follow-On] satellite. I’m talking about the WCDMA capability. That’s a game changer from a data and a usability perspective and will make a big change definitely. Right now, we have Early Combatant Command Use for training and testing. We are waiting for Strategic Command to come back to us about expanding that to all users and outside contract users. I’m thinking within the next month or so we’ll have that approval to move forward.

C4ISRNET: One of the things a lot of folks wonder is whether there is an appetite for additional MUOS satellites or whether you are studying the idea of additional satellites.

CHEBI: With regards to what we are going to do to maintain this capability, that could be additional satellites … a different satellite … commercial use. We’re looking at all options right now.

We’re also looking at what are our opportunities are today so we can extend the life of our constellation. No decision has been made on where we’re going to go in the future. We’re working right now to define what that timeline’s going to look like.

C4ISRNET: Then the bigger question is: what’s the Navy’s role in space, now that all the MUOS satellites are up?

CHEBI: When I think about space, I think about the capability space can provide from a communication perspective, an intelligence perspective, a weather perspective. And I’m trying to push our workforce, push the capabilities that we’re responsible for.

Looking at all the other capabilities that are currently existent in space, how do I leverage those across the other domains? How do I take intelligence data from space and integrate it with the inter-warfare domain? That’s been one of my major focus areas toward the organization. Leveraging the existing capability and also being informed as new capabilities are fielded, whether it’s to the National Reconnaissance Office, or to the Air Force. How do we inform their requirements, so it meets our needs in the future?

C4ISRNET: What are you doing now to better integrate some of that information?

CHEBI: There are technical aspects, there are relationships. I was a fighter guy. If I had an air warfare capability gap, I would look at the aviation community only. That was my look at it. Today, from an aviation domain capability gap, we should be looking at what the surface force can provide to us, the sub-surface service can provide to us, and also what the space domain can provide to us.

So, first it’s relationships and then there is a technical aspect. How do I get that information from a space domain into my aircraft, into my surface ship, into my submarine? Both of those answers are being looked at right now. We have a group that looks specifically at that.

C4ISRNET: How do you think that’s going?

CHEBI: The process I’m talking about is called the Naval Aviation Enterprise Capability-based Assessment Integrated Process. It is looking at system-of-systems capabilitites across domains and how we would address capability gaps.

The program at PEO C4I and Space stood up around eight or nine months ago and continues to expand. I think we have good relationships with NAVAIR and NAVSEA, as we go forward with this. I think that they’re asking for this information. This information provides us with data analytics, so we can make informed investment decisions on how we close the capability gaps.

C4ISRNET: Can you give me an example of a gap?

CHEBI: If I have a long-range targeting problem in the aviation domain, how do I close that gap so I can launch my long-range weapon? Do I look in the aviation community with investment in the E-2D [Advanced Hawkeye platform], or the F/A-18 [Hornet jet], or do I look at what the submarine force can provide me, the surface force can provide me, or the space domain can provide me?

I want to take in all the domains to close our capability gaps.

C4ISRNET: And previously space wasn’t thought of, or it was thought of as later in the process?

CHEBI: I would agree with that statement. One of our objectives with this whole process is that N2/N6 [the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare] and N96 [the Director of Surface Warfare] and N98 [the Director of Air Warfare] are all talking to each other as you go forward with our investment decision. They are informed across all the domains.

We’re starting to see that already today. The dialogue we’re having across the undersea warfare, the surface warfare, the aviation and space domains is improving each and every day. We do working groups and we include all of the stakeholders from all those domains in those working groups so that we’re better informed.

C4ISRNET: What do improved relationships mean for the war fighter?

CHEBI: I think it means better informed investment decisions up front and better integrated capability at the end.

C4ISRNET: How do you manage the information assurance, or the cybersecurity risk of some of these systems? We’re seeing nearly every system, or every system that’s connected to the network, is now at risk.

CHEBI: The overall cyber strategy is kind of a defense-in-depth strategy. So, keep them from getting into our networks, into our systems. And that is very powerful. We have a very good defense.

Eventually they will get in. So how do we detect that they’re in? How do we limit their ability to move horizontally? And then how do we extract them as soon as we possibly can? We have multiple programs going after all those aspects, across our programs of record here.

C4ISRNET: Cybersecurity specifically related to satellites has become a hotter topic in the last six-to-nine months, but have you gone back and taken additional steps to ensure nothing has been tweaked or tampered with?

CHEBI: Across all our programs, we’re doing a hard look from a cyber posture perspective — including MUOS, including ground stations, including the terminals.

C4ISRNET: Is this double-checking and making sure everything is as secure as possible?

CHEBI: The cyber threat is a moving goalpost. This is not a one-time look, wondering ‘Are we good?’ Because there’s going to be a new threat. It’s a continuous process to look at what our cyber posture is, and where there’s room for improvement, where industry is going, what technology we can introduce from industry into our systems.

Industry officials, such as Skot Butler, the president of Intelsat General Corporation, see the move as a Band-Aid for the Pentagon’s bandwidth needs over the next few years. But Butler is also optimistic about the long-term opportunities for commercial satellite operators to work with the Department of Defense.

For starters, the satellite terminals the Army uses for the Air Force’s Wideband Global Satcom system are not designed to be small in size, weight and power. That can cause problems for ground forces who are hoping to be able to set-up and move communications outposts quickly. Commercial satellite operators now routinely use smaller terminals.

In addition, the advancements of high-throughput satellites, like the Intelsat EpicNG family of satellites, allow for military drones to do more and help soldiers on the ground receive more data, more quickly as they move through the battlefield. This can be critical as military leaders often say they want increased situational awareness.

But Butler said he would like to see Congress and the Defense Department codify commercial wideband satellite bandwidth into the Pentagon’s annual spending plans. DoD has relied on commercial satellite operators for years for coverage in specific areas or to augment government offerings. A new program of record like the one Butler proposes could cover the costs of potential experiments and demonstrations to help smooth out the acquisition process moving forward.

It would also provide commercial satellite operators an opportunity to invest for future government needs and give Pentagon leaders peace of mind that they will be able to get the coverage they need.

“There wasn’t a clear answer, and this was a way to buy some time,” Butler said of the appropriation. “If we know we’re part of their long-term solution, it really helps us” make investments for future government needs and to meet specific requirements.

Already, Intelsat has been investing in ways to make it easier for drones to switch between satellite beams and for their satellites to become more resilient to jamming.

Congressional and DoD leaders have been hesitant to fully commit to a plan about how they will use commercial satellite bandwidth in the future. Part of that is due to a long-running Pentagon study, known as the Analysis of Alternatives, that examines the DoD’s future communication needs. That study is expected to wrap up this year.

In addition, because the Defense Department needs to recapitalize several of its other major satellite programs at the same time, there is a school of thought that delaying a decision on the future of wideband satellite communications could delay some financial pain.

But Butler says government leaders need to decide on a satellite architecture — perhaps one made up of both commercial and government satellites, perhaps one with hosted payloads where government sensors are attached to commercial satellites, or perhaps one in another form — to help ensure industry and government can provide the best services.

The Air Force’s dual-payload mission included an experimental satellite bus, known by the acronym EAGLE, and a secretive communications satellite, the Continuous Broadband Augmented SATCOM spacecraft (CBAS).

The Air Force had kept the identity of CBAS (pronounced “sea bass) under wraps until April 6. Even after acknowledging its existence, the service declined to identify the the contractor who built CBAS and only released a short description dressing the spacecraft’s mission.

“The mission of CBAS is to augment existing military satellite communications capabilities and broadcast military data continuously through space-based, satellite communications relay links,” the Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center said in a release.

In the lower position of the payload shroud, attached to aft of the CBAS, sat the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) Augmented Geosynchronous Laboratory Experiment satellite, dubbed EAGLE. Developed by Orbital ATK for the Air Force Research Laboratory, EAGLE is both a satellite and bus platform hosting a suite of other experiential payloads for the Department of Defense.

EAGLE’s primary mission is to demonstrate a maneuverable vehicle design which can transport up to six payloads to GEO, according to a ULA release.

One payloads on board the EAGLE is the Mycroft satellite. Named after the older brother of Sherlock Holmes, the Mycroft is a mini satellite designed to deploy away from the EAGLE only to return within one kilometer of its parent spacecraft. From there it will evaluate the EAGLE’s surroundings using an space situational awareness camera and sensors to perform guidance, navigation and control functions on the EAGLE, according to an Air Force fact sheet.

“Together, EAGLE and Mycroft help train operators and development of tactics, techniques and procedures during exercises or experiments to improve space warfighting,” the fact sheet reads. “Other experiments hosted on the EAGLE will detect, identify and analyze system threats such as man-made disturbances, space weather events or collisions with small meteorites.”

Mycroft is a follow-up to the ANGLES satellite which was launched in 2014 and ended its mission in November. ANGLES was used by the Air Force to evaluate space-based threats and to expand techniques used to maneuver closer to specific objects on orbit.

The satellites launched Saturday were part of the Air Force’s multi-manifested mission called Air Force Space Command (AFSPC)-11. The Air Force declared the launch a success shortly after 2 a.m. EDT on Sunday in a press release.

Raytheon’s Infrared Imaging Space Experiment (IRISX), was also included in the launch. The IRISX is an electro-optical instrument placed in geostationary orbit, to test new concepts for persistent Earth viewing, the company said.

“IRISX will explore the applicability of advanced imaging and data processing techniques for Department of Defense remote sensing applications,” according to a release. “The results will be used to verify, validate, and update physics-based phenomenology models in order to advance the scientific knowledge underlying imaging techniques.”

While commercial leaders have only had peeks inside the ongoing effort through a commercial cell and engagements, one executive hopes industry will be incorporated to the long term.

“Our objective really is to be designed into the long term architecture,” Skot Butler, president of Intelsat General Corporation, told C4ISRNET in an interview at the annual Satellite 2018 conference.

“There’s numerous things that we as a company and as an industry we’ve said we want from the DoD over five years or more, he said. “All of those elements to me ultimately feed up to one thing, which is, as an industry we want to know what our place is. We want to know we have a place in the architecture in the long term and we are not an afterthought and are not only there for surge. We’re not a last resort or anything like that.”

The new spending plan congressional leaders unveiled March 21 unexpectedly includes $600 million for the Air Force to extend its wideband satellite communications program by two satellites.

The Air Force’s Wideband Global Satcom program currently consists of 10 satellites, the first of which launched in 2007, and has a total price tag of $4.3 billion. Boeing is the program’s prime contractor and the last satellite in the program had been expected to launch in fiscal 2018.

But budget documents from the House accompanying the bill call for an additional $600 million for what’s described as “full funding for WGS 11 and 12.”

For years, industry leaders have said they want certainty from their DoD customer in large part so they can plan future investments,

“We’ve made the case for longer term contracting for some time, not spot market, one year, [overseas contingency operations] funded,” Butler said.

Butler added, that as industry, it would be great for the government to come out and articulate where commercial fits into its new architecture, that it’s an enduring requirement for them as well as the kinds of things that DoD would like industry to do that’s it’s not doing currently.

This greater certainty, and earlier incorporation into the architecture, would give publicly traded companies the opportunity to outline possible features that are specific to government customers and justify these unique investments, Butler said.

As industry leaders at the conference boasted technological advancements, policy experts gathered on the other side of the convention center to discuss their role in this new rapidly developing market.

Commercial satellite operators are particularly interested in this field of technology because it may allow them to keep one satellite on orbit longer than expected. It would also allow operators to shuffle their fleet and provide more flexible services, which could benefit the Department of Defense.

“We know this industry is out there and it’s something that commercial companies are interested in doing,” said Tahara Dawkins, the director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) commercial remote sensing regulatory affairs office. “What we need to do is enable it.”

Dawkins said five American companies have received licenses for on-orbit servicing. Under current law, operators need approval from multiple government agencies for different aspects of servicing missions in space. The FCC regulates spectrum, the FAA oversees launch, and Dawkins’ NOAA office licenses remote image sensors.

The National Space Council has proposed streamlining the entire space licensing process under a single authority within the Department of Commerce, but no such action taken has been taken as of early March.

“If we restrict this industry to a place where they’re not commercially viable, then this gets driven overseas,” Dawkins warned.

Lisa Kuo, director of commercial space programs for the Aerospace Corporation, cautioned against a hands-off approach to regulating the industry during its development period.

“At the very beginning, everybody’s going to be doing their servicing in a very different fashion,” Kou said. “We need to make sure that while on-orbit servicing is in its infancy, we set clear guidelines and policies so that everyone can follow suit until everything is a lot more standardized.”

Orbital ATK’s in-orbit servicing vehicle designs will predate any such industry standardization. The company is preparing to launch its first Mission Extension Vehicle (MEV) this year and announced at the conference the development of its Mission Extension Pods and Mission Robotic Vehicle, each designed to provide life extension to geostationary satellites running out of fuel.

The two new rendezvous vehicles are based on the Mission Extension Vehicle, but could be attractive to different customers that don’t need the full range of capabilities the MEV offers. The Mission Robotic Vehicle will function as a bus, transporting multiple Mission Extension Pods out to orbit and installing them onto client satellites. Once docked, the pods will be able to provide up to 5 years of life extension and orbit control to the receiving spacecraft.

Both Orbital ATK and the panelists at the conference were in agreement that the in-space servicing industry will continue to advance rapidly in the coming years.

“The holy grail of on-orbit servicing is not to extend life,” said Kou. “This is just the first step.”

“We fully intend to do more than just geo-life extension systems,” said Joe Anderson, the director of Mission Extension Vehicle Services at Orbital ATK. “Ultimately we want to develop an entire fleet of in-orbit service vehicles, including in-orbit assembly vehicles.”

Orbital ATK is currently being purchased by Northrop Grumman for $9.2 billion. Pending regulatory approval, the deal is anticipated to be completed within the first half of 2018.

The Air Force’s Wideband Global Satcom program currently consists of 10 satellites, the first of which launched in 2007, and has a total price tag of $4.3 billion. Boeing is the program’s prime contractor and the last satellite in the program had been expected to launch in fiscal 2018.

But budget documents from the House accompanying the bill call for an additional $600 million for what’s described as “full funding for WGS 11 and 12.” It does not offer further details, but does mention Congress is concerned the Department of Defense may end up replenishing all of its major satellite programs at the same time.

The WGS satellites had not been mentioned in the president’s budget request.

The move is likely to rattle the commercial satellite industry.

The new money comes as the Pentagon is involved in a broader discussion about how it will acquire satellite bandwidth in the future. In late 2016, DoD leaders kicked off a high-profile study, known as the analysis of alternatives, to examine potential paths forward and work more closely with industry.

For years, commercial satellite operators have been trying to win a greater share of Defense Department business and viewed the end of WGS as a way to make further in-roads. But the addition of two more satellites would provide more bandwidth for the military and theoretically minimize the opportunity for commercial operators to sell wideband communications services to the Pentagon, at least in the short term and until the Air Force has a clearer path forward on satellite communications.

WGS bandwidth is commonly used for tactical command and control, communications, and computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, battle management; and combat support information.

Small satellites range in mass from a few kilograms to half a metric ton. These mini satellites can be used for gathering intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities at a fraction of the cost of larger satellites that the government typically launches into orbit.

“The government has a couple of really strong reasons to go and use small launch and small satellites,” said Dan Hart, president and CEO of Virgin Orbit, which recently signed a contract to launch several smallsat payloads for the U.S. Air Force. “One is the economics, but the other is resilience.”

Resilience has been a key factor in the Pentagon’s approach to space technology, especially in recent years as adversaries such as Russia and China begin to act more aggressively in space. DoD officials are increasingly viewing space as a potential battlefield and are designing spacecraft accordingly. Part of their concern includes ensuring satellite communications remain in tact during conflict.

“If you have large centralized satellites, they’re vulnerable to attack if conflicts arise,” Hart said. “If you can put a capability across 50 satellites, you thoroughly complicate the adversaries’ targeting problem. If they only cost $10 million to $20 million to put up, instead of $1 billion, well, you can just replenish them.”

But some Defense Department officials are skeptical about Hart’s line of thinking. The Pentagon’s embrace of small satellites for military use has been limited. Small satellites’ size often limits the payloads they can carry and the amount of critical information they can gather. In October 2016 senior Air Force officials said they were uncertain about the future of the technology and that small satellites also lack the self-defense capabilities necessary to ward off an attack, leaving them cost-ineffective.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has taken an interest in small satellites as an avenue to prepare for a more militarized space environment. The agency is currently working on several programs aimed at developing small satellite technology such as miniaturized sensors and laser communication systems for relaying information back to ground. Stephen Walker, the director of DARPA, has said the agency is looking at how to leverage industry partners working at low-Earth orbit and how the Pentagon buys smaller, cheaper satellite buses.