{"id":88135,"date":"2009-11-10T18:46:24","date_gmt":"2009-11-10T10:46:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp-productionenv-bjg9h2g2bgg5b8aa.southeastasia-01.azurewebsites.net\/news\/xtar-vice-president-discusses-fcsa-future-military-bandwidth-acquisition-strategies\/"},"modified":"2009-11-10T18:46:24","modified_gmt":"2009-11-10T10:46:24","slug":"xtar-vice-president-discusses-fcsa-future-military-bandwidth-acquisition-strategies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/news\/xtar-vice-president-discusses-fcsa-future-military-bandwidth-acquisition-strategies\/","title":{"rendered":"Xtar Vice President Discusses FCSA, Future Military Bandwidth Acquisition Strategies"},"content":{"rendered":"

[11-10-09] For both commercial satellite providers and their potential U.S. military customers, the process of meeting the needs of the modern warfighter through commercial networks has produced a long, frustrating and repetitive conversation. While the reality that the U.S. Department of Defense<\/strong> (DoD) cannot meet its own mission requirements through a military-exclusive communications network stands very clear, regulations, politics and the economy continue to act as obstacles to an efficient bandwidth acquisition strategy.
\n    However, there is good news for those involved. The impetus of the conversation has shifted from questioning whether or not commercial satellite providers can meet the requirements to analyzing the costs of building a military\/commercial network and the means and ways of which it can be achieved.
\n    In August, the DoD and the U.S. General Services<\/strong> (GSA) announced they would combine the civilian and military commercial satellite acquisition vehicles into a one-stop shop leading to the creation of the Future ComsatCom Services Acquisition (FCSA).
\n    Bill Schmidt, Xtar<\/strong>\u2019s Vice President of Government Services and spoke with Satellite News about FCSA and the future steps that are needed to change the way the military buys commercial communications.<\/p>\n

Satellite News: The issue of commercially provided satellite communication for military operations has been discussed and debated for a long time and the military is now saying that it better understands the need for commercial bandwidth. At this point in the conversation, do commercial companies still deal with resistance to the idea from the military and the government?<\/h2>\n

Schmidt<\/strong>: \u201cThere are certain members of the DoD senior leadership that have agreed that commercial satellite communications does play an important part of accomplishing the military\u2019s mission. The see the numbers \u2013 80 percent of the military\u2019s requirements are currently met by using commercial satellite communications. In Southwest Asia, we\u2019ve heard numbers as high as 95 or 97 percent. But, there are still many in the DoD that firmly believe military operations should be carried over military-exclusive satellites. There are also some in congress that think it should all be military or all commercial satellite communications. In my opinion, there has to be a healthy mix of both. There are some communications that need to go over the hardened military satellites to handle some of the missions out there.\u201d<\/p>\n

Satellite News: What caused these strong biases toward one solution or another to form?<\/h2>\n

\nSchmidt<\/strong>: \u201cThere are a number of factors involved \u2013 perceptions, political factors, budgetary issues, acquisition regulations \u2013 they all contribute to it. The fiscal and political realities of today\u2026 they are just not going to get the money they want to do that. Neither Congress nor taxpayers, as evidenced by TSAT being cancelled, support unnecessary spending. TSAT was just too expensive.\u201d<\/p>\n

Satellite News: What are the regulatory obstacles for commercial satellite acquisition?<\/h2>\n

\nSchmidt:<\/strong> \u201cThere is one misconception that I have heard several people say, and that is that the federal acquisition regulations don\u2019t allow commercial providers and the government to do multiple-year contracts. However, I\u2019ve had government experts tell me that there is no reason you can\u2019t do multiple-year contracts and buys. I\u2019ve been in the aerospace industry pushing 25 years and I don\u2019t ever recollect seeing a government contract that didn\u2019t have the termination for convenience clause in it. Meaning, if they don\u2019t get the funding in a subsequent year, they can terminate the contract.\u201d<\/p>\n

Satellite News: Are there consequences to these misconceptions?<\/h2>\n

\nSchmidt: <\/strong>\u201cThe government and military end up not taking advantage of some of the pricing that goes on with multiple-year buys, they are not taking advantage of securing valuable space or capacity that\u2019s needed. There are a whole host of advantages of longer-term contracting. There is no political or regulatory obstacle that can\u2019t be overcome that would allow the government to better forecast and acquire commercial capacity capacity on a more beneficial basis to the government, taxpayer and most importantly, the warfighter. These issues also affect the speed at which we can cater to their needs. As the military still tends to acquire commercial satellite on the spot market, it has placed the military further back in the commercial provider\u2019s line of customer as vendors tend to build for what they perceive as the viable market and currently, that market remains broadcast and other media. Those segments are driving the market.\u201d<\/p>\n

Satellite News: Does FCSA, the DoD and GSA\u2019s new acquisition vehicle, address the regulatory issues?<\/h2>\n


\nSchmidt:<\/strong> \u201cFCSA is moving along quite nicely. I think the program is a reflection of the government\u2019s desire to better aggregate and manage requirements for commercial satellites. However, while FCSA is a good step, we still think the government and the DoD still have a long way to go. When it comes to an acquisition strategy, we still need to discuss future planning and ask ourselves questions about the process. How is the military going to buy bandwidth to meet their requirements? Short-term or Long-term? Those are some of the discussions we would like to have with the DoD. We understand that the analytical data is not perfect. It never is. But, our concern is that, at some point in the future, they may have a requirement to support the warfighter and the capacity just won\u2019t be there. For a lot of what\u2019s being done by the U.S. military in the world, commercial satellite more than meets the requirements to carry out the mission. We, as an industry, would just like to see the DOD better communicate some of their future requirements.\u201d<\/p>\n

\nSatellite News: Where in the military do you see the most cooperation and agreement over the issues that commercial providers have?<\/h2>\n

\nSchmidt:<\/strong> \u201cAs you get a new generation of military officers and politicians coming to the top \u2013 the YouTube generation \u2013 we\u2019ll see greater acceptance of commercial. They know it works and they know how it works and they know it can provider more immediate solutions.\u201d<\/p>\n

\nSatellite News: As the military plans its long-term strategy in Afghanistan, what is the long-term strategy for commercial providers with government and military customers?<\/h2>\n

 Schmidt<\/strong>: \u201cUnfortunately in today\u2019s world, there are always going to be hotspots and we\u2019re finding that hotspots are popping up in more areas. We at Xtar see the continued increased need for commercial capacity whether it is our capacity or other commercial vendors regardless of what happens in Afghanistan. Our operations can shift to a variety of military operations. One of the best things about commercial capacity is that it is ubiquitous. It\u2019s everywhere and available anywhere.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[11-10-09] For both commercial satellite providers and their potential U.S. military customers, the process of meeting the needs of the modern warfighter through commercial networks has produced a long, frustrating and repetitive conversation. While the reality that the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) cannot meet its own mission requirements through a military-exclusive communications network stands […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-88135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88135"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=88135"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88135\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}