In modern warfare, connectivity is no longer just a utility; it is a weapon. This was the central theme of the recent GSOA (Global Satellite Operators Association) webinar, “Securing the Future: Satellite Communications for Defence & Security.”
Moderated by Paul Wells of the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD), the panel brought together industry leaders from ST Engineering iDirect, SES, MDA Space, and Global Invacom to discuss a critical pivot in military strategy: the move from static, encrypted pipes to dynamic, resilient networks that can fight through jamming, interference, and cyberattacks.
The video and transcript are available ⬇️
As the battlefield becomes increasingly congested and contested, the experts argued that “security” can no longer be defined solely by the strength of an encryption key. Instead, the future belongs to operational resilience.
The discussion outlined several pillars that will define the next generation of defence satellite communications (SatCom).
The panel emphasized that in an era where “information is as critical as ammunition,” the ability to communicate under fire is non-negotiable. Traditional SatCom systems were designed for benign environments. The new standard requires systems that assume the network is under constant attack. Resilience is about the entire supply chain, spectrum dominance, and the ability to pivot instantly when conditions change.
A single satellite in a single orbit is a sitting duck. The industry is moving toward a layered approach that combines low Earth orbit (LEO), medium Earth orbit (MEO), and geostationary Orbit (GEO) assets. By utilizing diverse waveforms and multiple orbits, defence forces create a “moving target” for adversaries. If one link is jammed or destroyed, the network automatically reroutes traffic through another layer, ensuring mission continuity.
The complexity of managing traffic across thousands of satellites and multiple orbits exceeds human capacity. The panel highlighted the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in resource management. AI is being deployed to optimize network performance in real-time, detecting interference and automatically reallocating resources without human intervention. This speed is vital for staying inside the adversary’s OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act).
Hardware is becoming a bottleneck. The shift toward software-defined ground systems allows for rapid reconfiguration. Instead of shipping new hardware to the front lines to change a waveform or protocol, defence forces can now push software updates remotely, instantly upgrading capabilities or patching vulnerabilities.
While encryption protects the content of a message, Low Probability of Detection/Intercept (LPx) protects the sender. Reducing the Radio Frequency (RF) signature is critical to protecting troops from geolocation and kinetic targeting by enemy forces.
The webinar concluded with a clear message: the technology to secure the future of defence communications exists today, but it requires a shift in mindset. It needs governments and industry partners move away from rigid, stove-piped legacy systems toward flexible, open-architecture ecosystems that can evolve as fast as the threats they face.
Webinar transcript
This transcript has been edited-for-clarity.
Panelists:
- Paul Wells: Moderator (UK Ministry of Defence)
- Dave Davis: ST Engineering iDirect
- Bob Potter: Global Invacom
- Stuart Sanders: SES
- Andrew Staniland: MDA Space
Paul Wells: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the GSOA webinar looking at some of our activities in terms of the future secure SatCom environment. My name is Paul Wells. I’ve been asked to chair against these experts that we’ve got alongside us. I’d like to introduce Bob Potter from Global Invacom, Stuart Sanders from SES, Dave Davis from ST Engineering iDirect, and Andrew Staniland from MDA. Good afternoon, all.
My background is very much on SatCom space, but also more recently—and actually where I started my career—is on military SatCom. Particularly in the world where we are today, which is an ever-changing world in space, I look at things from a defense perspective. How do we actually counter the threat? So at the end of the day, the UK as a nation, and actually all our allies, are able to maintain that critical global connectivity that is so reliant on today’s industry.
The threat continuum is something you’ll hear all the way through the session. It covers everything from the worst-case scenario, which would be all-out nuclear exchange—hopefully, we won’t get there, but we have to prepare for that—right the way through to classic threats of interference, denial, and jamming. Understanding that threat continuum is quite key from a defense and security point of view.
Where we’re looking now is that diversity of solutions covering highly hardened core military for that last-ditch survivable critical command and control, right the way through to the extensive use of commercial SatCom. We are looking very much more at how we do that hybrid SatCom networking and how we bring what has always been the legacy PACE (Primary, Alternate, Contingent, and Emergency) comms plans and actually get more flexible to adapt to the threats facing us.
So, the first question is: How are your organizations adapting to delivering military communications in this new stressed world to provide that resilience? I’d like to go to Dave Davis on that question.
Dave Davis: Thanks, Paul. There are two elements to this: the technical element and the human element. On the technical side, we are building a platform which is multi-orbit, multi-frequency, and has that PACE built into it. It allows you to flex, with the critical element being a network management system that allows for that flexibility.
But it’s also about partnerships and collaboration. We are working with organizations that would be considered legacy competitors to make sure the end user has the best technologies available. For example, we have the 450 modem. It can host up to seven waveforms. So we could have an SCPC waveform, a sovereign waveform, and the traditional iDirect waveforms.
We also need to work with other partners that do tropospheric scatter, UHF, HF, etc. More and more, we’re looking at new technologies like optical links and the 5G world where non-terrestrial and terrestrial networks are combining. One of the core things we’re looking at is what we call A3: AI, Analytics, and Automation. The end user doesn’t have to do any manual switching; it’s all done automatically.
Additionally, we look at technologies like Low Probability of Interception (LPI) and anti-jam. But then you get into the difficult world of export control. Finally, it comes down to education and the human element—mission command. If you lose one com stream, how do you work with no communications?
Paul Wells: Thank you, Dave. Some really interesting views. Bob?
Bob Potter: Thank you, Paul. We’re Global Invacom, probably more traditionally known as a VSAT or transceiver provider. Our pivot towards MilCom is to provide a terminal solution. For resiliency, we offer a quick-deploy terminal so that in the event of emergencies, we can quickly move.
We’ve developed an XY terminal because that gives us multi-orbit capability in the simplest possible configuration. The antenna is made up of four major modules which are interchangeable, providing multi-band capability integrated with our transceiver technology. The transceiver includes the LNB, the BUC (Block Upconverter), OMT, and TRF. This simplifies the deployment. You simply connect up the correct RF feed tube and you’re ready to auto-deploy onto any of the satellite constellations.
We’re looking at standards for interfacing for control and for the data plane. We are capable of hosting DIFI-connected devices for digital RF over IP connectivity. Lately, we’ve been looking at I/Q for greater bandwidth and resiliency.
With the XY terminal, we’re capable of any of the four major orbit connectivities. We have electronic pole switching built into our transceivers, offering greater flexibility for beam switching in the event of interference. In the future, we’ll be looking towards hosting SDRs (Software Defined Radios) and standard waveforms so we can have network roaming.
Paul Wells: Good themes there regarding multi-orbit, multi-tracking, and adaptive switching. Stuart, over to you.
Stuart Sanders: Thanks, Paul. One of the key things in adapting to the challenge is dialogue. The dynamic with government customers has changed from a hard sell to a constructive dialogue and a willingness to be open about what we can and cannot do.
I was responsible for delivering the O3b mPOWER program. We tend to talk about technical solutions, but it’s also important to understand the commercial aspect. The MGS contract, which is a NATO contract, is inherently flexible. It allows the user community to move capacity globally from region to region. It allows them to bring their own equipment, and it supports the Protected Tactical Waveform because it’s an open “bent pipe” system.
“Hybrid networks” in the government context can mean a lot of different things. It can mean multi-orbit or a combination of ground systems. We need to be open to all of those by having flexible solutions and working to open standards.
We also need people who can talk “apples to apples” with the customer base. I hired a lot of people from the Skynet program, and that has been a big boon. Ideally, governments would like a resilient, layered solution that includes their sovereign government-owned solutions alongside commercial solutions. There is a commercial challenge in doing that—creating an “orchestrator of orchestrators.” We need to make sure commercial interests are protected so we aren’t commoditized.
Paul Wells: Thank you, Stuart. I’ll come back to that commoditized approach later. Finally, for this opening question, I’d like to get Andy’s view.
Andrew Staniland: Thanks, Paul. It’s always nice going last because you can just agree with everybody else. MilSatCom is an odd basket; we go a little bit slower than the rest of the market. We’ve had hybrid networks for 20 years—Skynet 5 has multi-orbit, multi-frequencies, and multi-providers—but it wasn’t designed as a hybrid network. Now we are talking about designing a hybrid network properly.
The way defense procurement happens doesn’t go as fast as we want, but it does allow us to be flexible. For example, digital payloads. We talked about those 30 years ago, and now almost every satellite is a digital payload. MDA is working on software-defined satellites so we can modify things in orbit.
Geopolitics has turned everything on its head. We were moving towards commercial SatCom, but now sovereignty is on the table again. People are looking for in-country manufacturing and ownership.
Regarding the people side, an example from my new company is the ESCP (Enhanced Satellite Communication Project – Polar) program. It was announced not as a contract, but as a partnership between MDA, Telesat, and the customer to collaboratively design what they want. It’s not “put it out to tender and buy something.” It is “work in partnership to build together.”
Paul Wells: Thank you, Andrew. The next question is: Apart from funding, what things would you like governments to feed in to help your offerings? Is it better use cases, threat briefings, or procurement?
Andrew Staniland: Normally we talk about going faster and having an intelligent customer. Those are important, but hard to deliver. What Canada has done on ESCP is game-changing. Historically, governments have been nervous about open collaboration.
One thing that would change the world is the ability for the government to say, “You know what? We’ve got this requirement wrong. We have to stop.” SatCom is moving fast. We’ve let decision-making and procurement get out of hand; it goes too slowly. We are wedded to things that are obsolete by the time they are launched. It’s difficult for civil servants to say “stop,” but the ability to say “We’re doing the wrong thing, let’s start again” would be a game-changer.
Paul Wells: Stuart, anything further to add?
Stuart Sanders: The right kind of dialogue with the government is important—having direct feedback on use cases. We need brutal feedback to ensure we deliver in a timely manner. Meaningful ops-to-ops threat briefings are essential so we can take action.
The single biggest difference is procurement processes. It’s very difficult to find the decision-makers. Also, regarding supply chain vetting, we need proactive briefings from the government on where they expect to see supply chain issues so we can get ahead of them.
Paul Wells: Next question. What technical developments do you see as being needed for future hybrid SatCom networks?
Bob Potter: To a certain extent, standards. I know that’s not always the right thing in the military world, but it does allow you to join multiple networks or beam hop. With the SDR approach, you have to rely on the content providers showing up with the waveforms.
We are looking at multi-beam. Multi-beam offers a high degree of Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) if used correctly. We already have that with flat panels or ESAs (Electronically Steered Arrays). I think we’ll start to see innovative solutions combining the high gain of reflectors with the high-speed beam switching of ESAs.
Dave Davis: I agree on standards. We need people to work together. Interestingly, a competitive platform has forced us to work together: Starlink. The elephant in the room is Starlink, and Amazon’s LEO will add weight to that. Starlink has forced consolidation.
The specific technology enabler will be the antennas. We need to get them mass-produced and get the price down. Also, the ability to be all things to all people—having a sovereign waveform to shut yourself off from the world, but still be able to switch to an open waveform.
Paul Wells: I agree. Moving to audience questions. From Ian Nichols: “Is the PACE model still utilized given the rise of SD-WAN?”
Dave Davis: Yes, it is. Even with SD-WAN, you need backhauls. But interestingly, many organizations are moving to a “PAN” model: Primary (commercial, high throughput), Alternate (highly resilient, lower bandwidth), and None. You have to get used to working with that.
Paul Wells: Next question regarding NTN (Non-Terrestrial Networks). What role will it play in secure defense communications?
Stuart Sanders: It is a multi-faceted topic. We are looking to introduce the ability to support 5G with our MEOsphere. How much governments adopt it will be interesting. Direct-to-Device (D2D) is also coming to market.
Andrew Staniland: Like every manufacturer, we are looking into it. It reminds me of the early 90s with handheld satellite phones—everyone thought it was the next great thing. I think D2D is more likely to be a defense application than a commercial one. For defense users, the ability to go anywhere and connect is vital.
Paul Wells: There is a question from an anonymous attendee: “What specific defense and security challenges are you seeing SatCom solve?” I’m happy to answer that: Critical C2 (Command and Control) of mobile platforms, welfare, and massive data distribution to get information to the end user inside the enemy’s OODA loop. The second part is: “How are your ground segment and multi-orbit technologies evolving?”
Bob Potter: Ground terminals are becoming ever more flexible. We are seeing multi-band feeds to switch between X, Ka, or Ku bands. Flat panels are tremendous for LEO and MEO, but anyone who has tried to go from LEO to GEO with a flat panel knows about scan loss. But being offered the flexibility of simultaneous multi-band and multi-beam means we aren’t far away.
Paul Wells: From Graham Meek: “Considering responsive space, is this being considered as part of the SatCom domain?”
Andrew Staniland: It is being considered for everything. The global interest in alternative launch sites indicates a big appetite for faster launch capabilities. Companies like Open Cosmos are launching operational capabilities at a high pace. We are going to see rapid responsiveness to launching new capabilities.
Dave Davis: High Altitude Platforms (HAPS) will play a key role; they are quicker to deploy. Also, software-defined satellites can be re-rolled mid-mission.
Paul Wells: A question regarding congestion: “How will anyone be able to reduce the size of their terminals if Starlink has occupied all low-level orbits?”
Dave Davis: Two letters: Q and V.
Paul Wells: That leads to the next question for Stuart. “We are seeing a shift in commercial constellations to frequencies above Ka band (Q, V, W). Is there a similar direction in defense?”
Stuart Sanders: It is an interesting topic. Years ago, we dealt with interference in Ku band. We moved to Ka band, and it was quiet, but that doesn’t last forever. Higher frequencies come with disadvantages like weather susceptibility. We are looking to put Ka, Q, V, and Ku band at GEO and Ka/Q/V in non-GEO. With non-GEO, the manufacturing regime allows for constant upgrades and the introduction of new frequencies.
Bob Potter: Beams will get narrower, which means pointing and tracking is going to be the challenge, especially at 50 or 80 GHz.
Paul Wells: From Graham Meek: “The biggest issue with the military environment is the lack of continuity of personnel. Do you see this changing?”
Andrew Staniland: That’s a “hospital pass.” It’s the way it has always been. How do you deal with it? Stop thinking about requirements and start thinking about the Concept of Operations (CONOPS). If you write a good CONOPS, nobody cares what you build as long as it delivers the concept.
Dave Davis: Procurement should be done by civil servants who maintain knowledge, while uniformed personnel rotate to provide different views. Also, simplify the end-user terminal with AI and automation so the training burden is less.
Paul Wells: From Shahida Barick: “Why won’t the UK pay to join the European Union’s 150 billion secure connectivity project?”
Andrew Staniland: I’m not a politician, but I think we will probably end up joining it because it’s the right thing to do. My nervousness would be whether we achieve true collaboration. I hope we find a way to join Iris2 because it will be the backbone of future European sovereignty.
Paul Wells: Final question: “What is your individual take on the European Iris2 project?”
Dave Davis: Corporate view: It’s a massive program bringing powerful capabilities. Personal view: I hope it doesn’t become another Galileo that goes on and on without delivering.
Bob Potter: Watch this space. Since we are UK-based, we can’t get involved, so we watch.
Andrew Staniland: Corporately, we’d love to be involved, but Canada isn’t European. Personally, I think it’s going too slowly and is too confusing.
Stuart Sanders: It is absolutely wonderful. [Laughs]. It is important it doesn’t become another Galileo. We recognize the opportunity. It’s complicated and challenging, but a very important project for SES and Europe.
Paul Wells: We’ve come to the end of our allotted time. Thank you to the panelists—you’ve been brilliant—and thank you for the questions. Cheers, all.