Air University

Stephen R. Lorenz, Lt Gen, Commander

Air Command and Staff College

Jay H. Lindell, Brig Gen, Commandant

Dale L. Hayden, Col, PhD, Dean

Barak J. Carlson, Lt Col, PhD, Director of Research

John T. Ackerman, PhD, Series Editor

James Rothenflue, Lt Col, PhD, Essay Advisor

Air University Press

Dr. Shirley B. Laseter, Director

Bessie E. Varner, Deputy Director

James S. Howard, Content Editor

Joleen Horton, Copy Editor

Mary P. Ferguson, Prepress Production

Daniel Armstrong, Cover Design

Please send inquiries or comments to

Editor

The Wright Flyer Papers

Air Command and Staff College (ACSC/DEI)

225 Chennault Circle, Bldg. 1402

Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6426

Tel: (334) 953-6810

Fax: (334) 953-2269

E-mail: ACSC@maxwell.af.mil
AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE

AIR UNIVERSITY

Transformational Satellite 

(TSAT) Communications

Systems

Falling Short on Delivering

Advanced Capabilities and Bandwidth 

to Ground-Based Users 

Maurice M. McKinney

Major, USAF

Air Command and Staff College

Wright Flyer Paper No. 27

Air University Press

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama

July 2007
ii

Disclaimer

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely 

those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the 

United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. 

Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited.

This Wright Flyer Paper and others in the series are 

available electronically at the Air University Research 

Web site http://research.maxwell.af.mil and the AU 

Press Web site http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil.
iii

Foreword

It is my great pleasure to present another of the Wright 

Flyer Papers series. In this series, Air Command and Staff 

College (ACSC) recognizes and publishes our best student 

research projects from the prior academic year. The ACSC 

research program encourages our students to move beyond 

the school’s core curriculum in their own professional development and in “advancing air and space power.” The 

series title reflects our desire to perpetuate the pioneering 

spirit embodied in earlier generations of Airmen. Projects 

selected for publication combine solid research, innovative 

thought, and lucid presentation in exploring war at the operational level. With this broad perspective, the Wright Flyer 

Papers engage an eclectic range of doctrinal, technological, 

organizational, and operational questions. Some of these 

studies provide new solutions to familiar problems. Others encourage us to leave the familiar behind in pursuing 

new possibilities. By making these research studies available in the Wright Flyer Papers, ACSC hopes to encourage 

critical examination of the findings and to stimulate further 

research in these areas.

JAY H. LINDELL

Brigadier General, USAF

Commandant

Abstract

The Transformational Communications Office’s (TCO) 17 

December 2003 report states, “The current SATCOM and 

data relay systems are unable to meet future bandwidth demands. They lack capacity, in both aggregate data rate and 

the number of users they can support. . . . Furthermore, the 

life expectancies of the existing space segments and much of 

their associated terminal and management segments do not 

extend beyond the 2010–2015 time frame.”1 These shortfalls 

and the military’s insatiable demand for bandwidth led to 

the creation of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) TSAT.

TSAT’s five-satellite constellation will be capable of delivering advanced capabilities to the war fighter via 8,000 radio frequency (RF) links and between 20 and 50 laser communication (lasercom) links. These advanced capabilities 

will deliver significant communications bandwidth by incorporating advanced laser and RF technologies, softwareconfigurable terminals, packet switching, network management, and interface standards. All of these technologies will 

rely on Internet protocol (IP) interoperability as the enabling 

technology for connecting the war fighter.

The thesis of this paper is that the advanced capabilities provided by TSAT are limited and will not be sufficient 

to serve the ground-based portion of the communications 

network supporting network-centric warfare (NCW). To 

validate this proposition, this study will start by identifying space-based systems that will enable NCW, discuss the 

requirements for ground-based NCW, and finally determine 

the combination of spaced-based systems sufficient to deliver advanced capabilities to the war fighter.



Preface

I have enjoyed researching the transformational satellite (TSAT). This topic was particularly interesting because 

I was a communications officer for the 264th Combat Communications Squadron at Peoria Air National Guard Base, 

Illinois. Our mission was to deliver satellite communications (SATCOM)/wideband communications to austere locations anytime and anywhere. I felt that on my return to 

my Guard unit, I would be equally versed in current and 

future SATCOM and wideband technologies.

However, the selection of TSAT as a research topic and 

completion of this study was not possible without the help 

of Lt Col James Rothenflue. I would like to thank Colonel 

Rothenflue for the temporary duty assignment to Kirtland 

AFB, New Mexico. Prior to that I had not selected a research 

topic. In fact, I had no idea of what I wanted to research. 

It was during that trip that I selected TSAT as my research 

topic. I would also like to thank Colonel Rothenflue for the 

guiding comments in finishing this study. His comments 

kept me focused and on track to completion. I hope that it 

met his expectations.

I would also like to thank my wife, Lori, and our three children, Maurice II, Jacob, and Kaeleb, for their support and 

understanding. Thanks for putting up with my long days 

and short nights. Without your encouragement and support, 

I could not have completed Air Command and Staff College. 

God willing, we will have a safe and relaxing summer, and I 

look forward to our first family vacation in years.

vii



Introduction

The vision of the Transformational Communications 

Architecture (TCA) is to enable new mission capabilities by removing communications as a constraint.

—TCA Baseline Version 1.0

The United States military relies heavily on the use of satellite bandwidth as a part its overall strategy in winning current and future battles. For example, during Desert Storm the 

US military forces numbered 542,000 and had 99 megabits 

per second (Mbps) of satellite bandwidth available.2 In Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) 

bandwidth rose to 3,200 Mbps while US forces were reduced 

to 350,000.3 Now, DOD planners are projecting the need for 

approximately 16 gigabits per second (Gbps) of bandwidth to 

support a large, joint-service operation by 2010.4

This study’s thesis is that the real-time intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities provided by 

TSAT will not be sufficient to serve the ground-based portion of the communications network supporting NCW. To 

validate this proposition, this study will begin by identifying 

TSAT’s and other space-based systems’ advanced capabilities that will enable NCW. Then the minimum requirements 

for DOD ground-based NCW will be discussed and finally, 

alternatives sufficient to deliver advanced capabilities and 

bandwidth to the future war fighter will be recommended.

In 2002, the intelligence community (IC), the DOD, and the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) communities collaborated on the design, synchronized acquisition, 

and coordinated deployment of an interoperable, multisegment 

transformational communications architecture (TCA).5 After 18 

months of work focused on evolving the TCA, the team delivered the TCA Baseline Version 1.0 document.6 The document 

provides a technical foundation for the development of US government communications capabilities for the next 20 years.

The TCA consists of eight categories. As shown in figure 1, 

each category has multiple communication-systems programs 

designed to enable advanced capabilities. The technologies in 

each category are designed with the same goal of removing 

communications as a constraint to the war fighter.
As shown in figure 1, the Space/Airborne Systems category consists of 13 programs. Seven of the programs support existing space/airborne-communications systems, 

one program was terminated, and the five other programs 

will support next-generation satellites. The seven existing 

space/airborne programs are the Defense Satellite Communications System (DSCS), Milstar, communications relay, commercial SATCOM, airborne systems, and NASA’s 

Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) and 

TDRSS-continuation. In 2004, the National Reconnaissance Office’s (NRO) optical relay communications architecture program was terminated. The NRO now plans to 

use TSAT for data relay purposes.7

The five next-generation secure-satellite systems that 

promise to deliver additional bandwidth and IP capabilities 

to the war fighter are TSAT, advanced extremely high frequency (AEHF), Wideband Gapfiller System (WGS), Mobile 

0. TCA

1. Space/Airborne

1. Systems

5. Launch

1. Systems

7. Terrestrial

1. Comm

8. Advanced

1. Technology

6. Terminals

2. Space/Air/

1. C2-Systems

3. Information

1. Assurance

4. Network

1. Management

1.1 DSCS & Milstar

1.2 AEHF 1-3

1.3 WGS

1.4 TSAT

1.5 MUOS

1.6 APS

1.7 Interim Polar

1.8 TDRSS

1.9 TDRSS-C

1.10 Comm Relay

1.11 ORCA

1.12 Commercial SATCOM

1.13 Airborne Systems

Figure 1. TCO Roadmap Tool Work Breakdown Structure (Reprinted from Transformational Communications Office, “Transformational Communications Architecture Version 1.0” [U], 17 December 2003, 2. [U/FOUO] This information is extracted and has 

been cleared for public release: distribution unlimited.)
User Objective Systems (MUOS), and advanced polar system 

(APS). This study will focus on the five next-generation satellite programs within the space/airborne-systems category.

The TSAT constellation will provide advanced lasercom 

and RF technologies connecting space- and ground-based 

communications to the Global Information Grid (GIG). The 

AEHF satellites will provide protected communications to 

support strategic assets with upgraded extremely high frequency (EHF) protected/survivable features. The WGS is 

a “follow-on” generation for wideband communications.8 

The MUOS is the next-generation narrowband solution 

providing critical connectivity for more than 80,000 ultrahigh frequency (UHF) devices, such as small antenna radios (as small as one foot) found in tactical ground vehicles, 

hand-held manpacks, and airborne systems.9 The APS is 

the next-generation laser-satellite communications system 

supporting the North Polar Region.

The TCA end-to-end architecture will enable access to 

the terrestrial GIG via three segment domains, user terminals, terrestrial infrastructure and networks, and space.10

The user terminal segment consists of space, airborne, and 

terrestrial user terminals and performs the RF or optical 

handling, waveform-communications processing, traffic 

shaping, dynamic bandwidth management, and network/

security protocols.11

The terrestrial infrastructure and network segment interfaces the TCA with the GIG and other terrestrial networks. 

Specifically, it enables connectivity between the space-segment 

and continental-United States (CONUS) networks.12 In essence, 

data would traverse DOD gateway terminals and connect to 

terrestrial fiber networks, allowing high-speed connectivity to 

ground-based networks.

Lastly, the space segment demonstrates an “independent 

and interoperable” philosophy.13 Meaning, TCA uses ground 

connectivity and interoperable high-bandwidth TSAT crosslinks so NASA, DOD, and IC systems have block utility and 

can fully support their missions without depending on successful and timely deployment of other TCA programs.14

Simply put, TCA is the architectural blueprint from which 

TSAT and other space-based platforms will be built.
Space-Based Bandwidth Capabilities

Basically, TSAT is the overall system. The satellites are part of that, the ground segment is part of 

that, and TMOS is part of the overall TSAT system. 

[TSAT missions operations system]

—Troy Meinke, Air Force TSAT Program Manager

So what is TSAT? Some people may confuse TSAT with 

TCA. To the war fighter, TSAT is just one node in a host of 

other TCA satellite programs. Simply put, TSAT is a secure, 

protected, wideband, five-satellite constellation capable of 

providing worldwide coverage to the war fighter. More importantly, it will be the only fully laser cross-linked satellite 

constellation providing EHF, X-band, and Ka-band frequencies supporting airborne intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance (AISR) and other next generation satellite 

constellations such as AEHF, MUOS, WGS, and APS.

The lasercom cross-link and RF hybrid terminals will 

also provide wideband connectivity between terrestrial data 

networks such as the GIG bandwidth expansion (GIG-BE) 

and battlefield networks such as the War Fighters Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T), Joint Tactical Radio Systems 

(JTRS), and existing satellites such as Milstar and DSCS.

Figure 2 shows TSAT’s direct and indirect connectivity to 

AEHF, MUOS, WGS, and APS. The TSAT laser cross-links 

running at 10 to 40 Gbps will interconnect the five-satellite 

constellation. The EHF and Ka-band will connect to lowerbandwidth satellites such as WGS, APS, MUOS, AEHF, and 

satellite ground stations as fast as 300 Mbps, while the RF 

links will connect to forward-based ground terminals as 

fast as from 256 kilobits per second (Kbps) to 45 Mbps.

In addition to its laser and RF advances, TSAT will be 

the only next-generation, laser-based, secure, protected, 

wideband satellite communications capable of delivering 

medium-data-rate (MDR) communications-on-the-move 

(COTM) to as small as one-foot terminals.15 This technology will 

allow mobile forces to communicate while moving swiftly, 

eliminating the vulnerability of troops otherwise forced to 

pause to communicate. Therefore, the TSAT program is a 

critical element of the DOD’s vision for removing commu4
Figure 2. Top-Level View of TCA (Reprinted from TCO, “Transformational Communications 

Architecture Version 1.0” [U], 17 December 2003, 2. [U/FOUO] This information is extracted and has been cleared for public release: distribution unlimited.)

nications constraints and enabling IP connectivity to deployed forces on land, sea, and air.

Figure 3 shows the Air Force Space Command roadmap 

for TSAT and other space-based programs. The TSAT constellation is projected to have initial operational capability 

(IOC) between 2015 and 2016. The first launch is tentatively scheduled for 2013. However, as depicted in figure 

5
6

Figure 3. Military Satellite Communications, 1960–2020. (Reprinted from Christine Anderson, director, Military Satellite Communications [MILSATCOM] Joint Program Office, briefing, SMC/MC SCAPR [Space and Missile Center/MILSATCOM Southern California Aerospace Professionals], “Military Satellite Communications, Global Network, Global Power,” 14 February 2005.)

3, there is a gradual migration from WGS in approximately 

2005, to AEHF in approximately 2007, and then to TSAT 

in approximately 2013. Fortunately, for the war fighter, the 

other space-based satellites will stay in orbit and interoperate with TSAT via lasercom or RF.

Satellites are just one component of TSAT. The ground segment, also known as the TMOS segment, performs network 
7

management and gateways access. TMOS will give TCA the ability to act as a broadband, on-demand global Internet based on 

IP, incorporating key emerging network technologies like quality of service provisioning and bandwidth guarantees.16 The IP 

communication is designed to allow users access to information from multiple platforms using a single terminal. More importantly, it will allow war fighters access to the terrestrial GIG 

anywhere, anytime.

The TMOS segment will require extensive software programming. The critical part of TMOS will be writing nearly 

five million lines of software code, which accounts for about 

80 percent of TMOS program development.17 As TMOS defense contractor Ray Kolibaba, vice president of space systems at Raytheon, succinctly stated, “We’ve done programs 

in the range of 2.5 to 3 million lines of code . . . but this is 

a challenge. This is a very aggressive program.”18

In January 2006, the DOD awarded the TMOS contract to 

Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems and Solutions. The Pentagon says that “awarding the TMOS contract now decreases 

TSAT program risk by providing an integrating construct for 

network architecture and design, and allows the awarded 

contractor to begin work on formal network interface definitions and specifications.”19 Clearly, the Pentagon’s goal is to 

have TMOS in place before the first TSAT launch in 2013.

Space-Based Alternatives

This discusses the four other next-generation space-based 

alternatives (WGS, AEHF, MUOS, and APS) that promise to deliver additional bandwidth and capabilities to the war fighter. 

These space-based systems are interoperable with TSAT’s 

five-satellite constellation and will connect via lasercom and/

or RF links to enable high-bandwidth data transfers.

Wideband Gapfiller System

The WGS is the next-generation wideband satellitecommunication system. The WGS five-satellite constellation will provide communications capacity in the military 

X-band and the high-capacity two-way Ka-band to support 

mobile and tactical personnel. It will provide worldwide 
8

weather resistant communications in X-band and support 

dispersed MDR users in Ka-band.

The name gapfiller is somewhat misleading because preliminary estimates indicate that a wideband gapfiller satellite will provide transmission capacity up to 2.4 Gbps.20 In 

fact, WGS transmission capacity exceeds the entire existing 

DSCS and Global Broadcast Service (GBS) constellations.

Advanced Extremely High Frequencies

The AEHF, will be applied in Milstar III, a three-satellite 

constellation that will provide mid-latitude and equatorial 

tactical, protected, and survivable strategic communications. Each satellite will have a capacity of about 250 Mbps, 

and each military service will communicate with the satellites through their own procured terminals.

The AEHF system will have up to 12 times the total 

throughput of Milstar II. In some scenarios, single-user data 

rates will increase from a maximum of 1.544 Mbps (MDR) 

to 8 Mbps (high data rate [HDR]).21 The protected AEHF will 

be interoperable with the other Milstar series satellites.

Mobile User Objective Systems

The MUOS is the next-generation narrowband satellite 

communications system. The MUOS is the successor to the 

Navy’s UHF follow-on system and is the key transport element 

in the Advanced Narrowband System (ANS). It will provide 

narrowband global satellite communications (UHF 64 Kbps 

and below) connectivity for voice, data, and handheld combatsurvivor-evader locator units.22 The MUOS will provide narrowband beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) communication to support mission objectives across all branches of the military.

Advanced Polar Systems

The APS is next-generation laser satellite communications systems supporting the North Polar Region (from 

65 degrees north latitude to the North Pole at 90 degrees 

north).23 Starting in 2012, the APS satellites will provide 

next-generation protected EHF band, Ka-band, and laser 

satellite communications capability in the North Polar Region.24 The current APS plan is to acquire three satellites 
9

and associated ground infrastructure for $1.2 billion.25 The 

goal of APS is to provide tactical and strategic users who 

require anti-jam and low probability of detection of EHF 

satellite communications. The protected polar-satellite communications will support submarines, aircraft, and other 

platforms and forces operating in that region. In addition 

to TSAT, these four supporting space-based systems, WGS, 

AEHF, MUOS, and APS, are critical for increasing additional bandwidth to the war fighter and removing communications as a constraint to real-time information.

Network-Centric Warfare

Bandwidth Requirements

The ability to link closely and share intelligence 

and reconnaissance through an effective command 

and control structure gave U.S. forces [during OIF] 

the ability to operate with enormous speed and 

with unprecedented flexibility.

 —Gen Richard Meyers,

 —former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

 — Staff

The military’s insatiable demand for battlefield bandwidth has no apparent end. All services are planning to 

deploy some form of tactical terminals to “foot soldiers,” 

which will result in increased communications traffic. This 

means communications-on-the-move technologies will require higher bandwidth. It also means embedded satellite 

terminals with connections to line-of-sight (LOS), BLOS, 

and IP (voice, video, and data) and Web services will increase bandwidth and user requirements.

The military services are continuing to plan new spacebased, ground-based, and forward-deployed wireless tactical networks to bring information-retrieval systems to 

war fighters who all seek the same goal—shared battlefield 

knowledge. From a ground-based perspective, shared battlefield knowledge starts with the Joint Tactical Radio Systems, software-programmable tactical radios that transmit 

and receive voice, data, and video communications. More 

importantly, the JTRS provides interoperable communications among the military services. 
10

The US military forces are developing and buying the JTRS 

as a family of radios called a cluster.

26 The Army-led cluster 

1, JTRS, is for Army and Marine ground-based vehicles and 

Army helicopters, as well as for Air Force ground-based tactical air controllers. Cluster 2 is for special operations forces 

and handheld radios and manpacks. Cluster 3 is for ships 

and fixed sites. Cluster 4 is for aircraft radios, and cluster 5 

is for handhelds, manpacks, and small radio sets such as the 

Army’s Future Combat Systems platforms. By 2010, about 

2,358 JTRS terminals are expected to be operational in the 

protected communications inventory for the Air Force, Navy, 

Army, and Marines.27 Beginning in 2010, the Army currently 

plans to purchase about 10,000 JTRS radios per year.28

Army

First, at all levels of command within the Army, the 

current demand for bandwidth is larger than the 

supply––shortfalls of as much as an order of magnitude (or up to 10 times the amount of supply) can 

exist. Second, shortfalls in the supply of bandwidth 

will persist at some command levels through and after 2010, when the capabilities associated with the 

Army’s transformation begin to be put into the field.

 —Congressional Budget Office,

 — “The Army’s Bandwidth Bottleneck,”

— — August 2003

Three major programs are expected to increase the Army’s 

bandwidth demand by 2010 and beyond. The Army plans to 

field the JTRS, WIN-T, and Multiband Integrated Satellite Terminal (MIST). The JTRS will boost bandwidth in what the Army 

calls the “lower tactical Internet,” and WIN-T and MIST will 

boost bandwidth demand in the “upper tactical Internet.”29

By 2020, the Army plans to buy a total of 106,000 JTRS 

radios, which would be sufficient to equip about one-half 

of its forces.30 If each JTRS radio maximum throughput is 

about 2 Mbps, then total projected maximum throughput 

for 100,000 radios is 200 Gbps. This bandwidth demand 

exceeds any space-based TCA bandwidth supply.

The WIN-T and MIST are major components of the Army’s 

plans to improve communications between the brigade, di-
11

vision, and corps command levels. To take advantage of the 

bandwidth provided by the WIN-T’s high-capacity radios, 

the Army plans to upgrade the associated satellite terminals as well. The MIST program will provide improved satellite communications. Coupling WIN-T equipment and software to the new satellite terminals will deliver a maximum 

engineering throughput of about 24 Mbps and an effective 

bandwidth of about 2.5 Mbps.31 While JTRS does not encompass all the Army bandwidth requirements, it does give 

a snap shot of the future bandwidth expectations.

Air Force

Austere infrastructure and the operational requirements of the operations plan for OIF necessitated 

secure SATCOM to provide superior situational 

awareness and vital command and control of combatant forces. The resulting impact was that enemy 

forces were literally reduced to ineffectiveness even 

before they had awareness of being targeted.

 —Lt Gen Larry J. Dodgen, commanding general,

—US Army Space and Missile Defense Command

The Air Force bandwidth requirements will most likely come 

from unmanned, high-altitude, long-range aircraft for reconnaissance and persistent theater surveillance. Since TSAT 

will be placed in the geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO), highbandwidth communications to airborne assets such as the 

Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), and Global 

Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle will most likely have direct lasercom connectivity to TSAT. However, only 20 to 50 devices 

will have simultaneous connectivity to TSAT’s laser links.

The Air Force will take full advantage of next-generation 

satellite communications systems. As depicted in figure 

4, the speed in which data is transmitted to the user increases exponentially as space-based technologies evolve. 

For example, simply issuing an air tasking order in 1994 

took about 1.02 hours through the Milstar I satellite system. However, that improved tremendously over the past 

decade, as DOD moved to Milstar II, which cut the time for 

an air tasking order down to about 5.7 seconds. Introduc-
12

Figure 4. Evolution in SATCOM (Reprinted from Christine Anderson, director, MILSATCOM Joint Program Office, briefing, SMC/MC SCAPR, “Military Satellite Communications, Global Network, Global Power,” 14 February 2005.)

tion of the AEHF satellite constellation in 2008 will drive 

that time down to an estimated 1.07 seconds, while TSAT 

satellites will transmit the data in less than 1 second.
13

Navy/Marines

The software communications architecture (SCA) being developed by the Raytheon Company will allow US Navy ships 

and ground facilities to communicate with high-bandwidth 

next-generation satellites. The software-based approach underlies the Navy Multiband Terminal (NMT) program. According to the Michelle Bailey, manager, Communications 

Program Office, “The terminals will allow Navy ships and 

ground facilities to communicate with future communications satellites, such as the WGS and AEHF satellites.”32

The Navy’s NMT terminals will communicate on the EHF 

and X-bands, but will have the flexibility to operate on the 

new satellites Ka- and X-bands.33 The terminal is designed 

to remain locked on a satellite in heavy seas with 35 degree 

rolls.34 The Navy also projects that NMT will serve as a bridge 

between legacy systems and future satellites such as TSAT.

Mitigating Bandwidth Shortfalls

If you know your enemy and know your self, you 

need not fear the result of a hundred battles.

—Sun Tzu, Chinese general

The Pentagon is spending billions to “know” the enemy. In 

fiscal year 2006, the DOD expects to spend more than $23 

billion to develop, acquire, and operate satellites and other 

space-related systems.35 The DOD believes the rationale for 

spending billions on space-related systems is justified because 

the next-generation satellites and space-related systems are 

intended to provide war fighters with real-time information 

that will allow forces to precisely locate and attack targets.

Current Status

Currently, the TSAT program is projected to cost between 

$12 billion and $18 billion for the entire constellation.36 In 

2003, to help pay for TSAT, the Air Force scaled back its 

acquisition of the AEHF satellites under development.37 In 

the fiscal year (FY) 2006 defense budget, Congress gave 

the Pentagon about half of the $836 million it wanted for 

TSAT.38 Congress also directed the Air Force to focus on 
14

maturing the needed technology for the TSAT program and 

allocated 120 million of the 436 million dollars for TSAT to 

analyze whether more satellites like the WGS or the AEHF, 

would be needed prior to the first TSAT launch. If so, that 

$120 million could go to fund the WGS or the AEHF system 

instead. In November 2001, the AEHF system contract was 

awarded to the Lockheed Martin Space Systems and TRW 

Space and Electronics team for the system development 

and demonstration phase of the new program. As of 2003, 

the Air Force had budgeted $4.8 billion for developing and 

acquiring the first three satellites.39

The WGS contract was awarded to Boeing Satellite Systems in January 2001. At an estimated cost of $1.5 billion, the implementation plan calls for a minimum of three 

geosynchronous spacecraft and associated ground-control 

software.40 This program is being managed as a DOD commercial acquisition and is not subject to the same milestones and review process required by AEHF, APS, MUOS, 

and TSAT.

The Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command 

(SPAWAR) has been charged with the acquisition responsibility for MUOS. On 24 September 2004, Boeing was awarded 

a $2.1 billion contract to build the first two satellites and 

associated ground-control elements for the MUOS system. 

The contract also provides for options on three additional 

spacecraft. With all options exercised, the contract for up to 

five satellites has a total potential value of $3.26 billion.41

Under the Army’s current plans, the likely total investment in the WIN-T, JTRS, and new SATCOM terminal will 

range from 19 to 24 billion dollars through 2020. In the 

defense program covering fiscal years 2003–2007, overall 

spending for the Army’s digitization programs is projected 

to average 4.1 billion dollars annually. The WIN-T, JTRS, 

and new SATCOM terminal account for about one-third 

of the 28 percent of total digitization funding allocated to 

communications between 2003 and 2007. The remaining 

two-thirds of that funding is designated for upgrades to the 

Army’s large fixed-base satellite communications terminals; for command-and-control programs associated with 

the fire-support and intelligence nets; and for other, less 

expensive, less complex radio systems.42
15

The Navy plans to invest $1.4 billion in its Navy Multiband Terminal and Software Communications Architecture. The SCA will allow the NMT will to operate in “low, 

medium, and extended data rate (LDR, MDR and XDR) 

waveforms.” The Navy anticipates initially communicating 

with WGS and AEHF and then migrating to TSAT. They believe their NMT investment is justified because it will allow 

them to take advantage of TSAT’s future gigabyte up-anddown-links capability.43

Expectation Management

As Military Information Technology explains, TSAT users 

fall into two broad categories: high-data-rate access users 

and low-data-rate access users. The HDR access provides a 

data rate of 2.5 gigabits to 10 gigabits per second through 

lasercom. However, only 20 to 50 or so of these links would 

be available, and they will most likely be dedicated to major intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets in 

space and in the air.44 As depicted in figure 5, others on the 

LDR end can still use about 8,000 simultaneous RF data 

links, which will provide connectivity to strategic assets and 

tactical users as well as the AISR platforms.45

The way TSAT is currently being promoted to the Army, 

Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Special Forces is wrong. Specifically, TSAT is being promoted as the next-generation 

satellite that will provide high-bandwidth and advanced capabilities to the war fighter, thereby removing “communications as constraint” on the battlefield. What the promotional 

material should say is: TSAT is the next-generation satellite 

that will provide high-bandwidth and advanced capabilities 

to approximately 8,000 RF users and 20 to 50 near-space 

lasercom war fighters, thereby removing communications 

as constraint to users who will have the proper system capabilities and authorization to access TSAT.

Recommendations

For TSAT to be truly successful, this paper has three recommendations. First, the TSAT Program Office (TSAT PO) must 

manage customer expectations. Currently, the Navy, Army, Air 

Force, Marines, and Special Forces all believe that their next-
16

Figure 5. TSAT’s Space and Ground Segments (Reprinted from Christine Anderson, director, MILSATCOM Joint Program Office, briefing, SMC/MC SCAPR, “Military Satellite Communications, Global Network, Global Power,” 14 February 2005).

generation high-capacity bandwidth systems will directly connect to TSAT’s high-capacity lasercom and/or RF links.

As discussed in chapter 3, by 2020, the Army plans to 

have nearly 106,000 JTRS terminals in use. According to 
17

the Army, the JTRS are being designed for use in “wide-band 

network waveform (WNW) to provide high-capacity bandwidth.”46 One could argue that it is unlikely that the Army 

will simultaneously attempt to connect 100,000 terminals to 

TSAT during peacetime. But it’s safe to say, that during war, 

at least 8,000 or more simultaneous connections are likely.

The Air Force probably believes its Global Hawk, Predator, AWACS, JSTARS, and other manned and unmanned, 

high-altitude, long-range AISR aircraft will have a monopoly on TSAT’s lasercom links. While this may or may not 

be true, if the Air Force continues to procure about five 

Global Hawks per year (13 procured between FY 2004 and 

FY 2006) the Global Hawk fleet could be nearly 60 aircraft 

by the time TSAT reaches IOC in 2015. TSAT is planned to 

provide 20 to 50 lasercom links.47

The Navy Multiband Terminal is designed to provide “the 

Navy with a flexible framework to add new systems, the 

service will be able to integrate future systems such as the 

Transformational Communications Satellite . . . quickly.”48 

The Navy plans on fielding NMT terminals on ships, submarines,

and shore-based antennas. Simply put, the TSAT PO needs to 

manage customer expectations while researching for alternatives

to increase TSAT’s simultaneous lasercom and RF user base.

The second recommendation is to clearly identify which 

space-based and ground-based systems will access TSAT’s 

lasercom and RF links. During the research for this paper, it 

was discovered that COTM means different things to different people and organizations. While both space-based systems will provide COTM, TSAT will support only MDR speeds, 

and MUOS will support only LDR. This means that if the 

Army plans to procure 10,000 JTRS radios per year starting 

in 2010, they should decide early which users will access 

MUOS and which will access TSAT. In essence, the wrong 

JTRS procurement decision in 2010 and beyond could lead 

the Army to waste precious American tax dollars.

The final recommendation is to begin research on laser 

and RF engineering solutions that could possibly increase the 

number of TSAT’s lasercom and RF links without procuring 

another $18-billion TSAT system. For example, the creation 

of dense wave division multiplexing (DWDM) exponentially 

increased terrestrial fiber capacity and bandwidth. DWDM 

works by combining and transmitting multiple signals si-
18

multaneously at different wavelengths on the same fiber. In 

effect, one fiber is transformed into multiple virtual fibers, 

thereby increasing bandwidth and number of users/systems 

supported. More importantly, DWDM networks can transmit 

data in IP, asynchronous transfer mode, synchronous optical 

networking, and Ethernet and handle bit rates between 100 

Mbps and 2.5 Gbps. Therefore, DWDM-based networks can 

carry different types of traffic at different speeds over an optical 

channel.49 Maybe some of the $120 million Congress directed 

the Air Force to use on “maturing the needed technology for 

the TSAT program” could be used to research “DWDM-like” 

technologies for TSAT lasercom and RF waveforms.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study has discussed TSAT’s capabilities. It also discussed other space-based satellite systems 

such as MUOS, APS, WGS, and AEHF. It demonstrated 

that TSAT is only capable of providing approximately 8,000 

RF links and 20 to 50 lasercom links. This means a large 

shortfall in supporting future service requirements.

This study concluded with three recommendations for 

the TSAT PO. The first recommendation is for the TSAT 

PO to manage customer expectations. The second recommendation is that the TSAT PO identifies the organizations 

which space-based and ground-based systems will access 

TSAT’s lasercom and RF links. The final recommendation 

is to invest funds in researching advanced laser and RF 

techniques that could potentially increase lasercom and RF 

link capacity. Fortunately, even with TSAT’s shortfalls, the 

next generation satellite communication systems vision of 

enabling advanced capabilities and “removing communications as a constraint” to the war fighter is still valid, but the 

scope of TSAT’s vision is limited by TSAT’s user capacity.

Notes

(All notes appear in shortened form. For full details, see the appropriate 

entry in the bibliography.)

1. Transformational Communications Office (TCO), “Transformational 

Communications Architecture.”

2. “Satellite Bandwidth.”
19

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. TCO, “Transformational Communications Architecture,” i.

6. Ibid.

7. “NRO Stops Plans.”

8. “Transformational Communications Study.”

9. Ibid.

10. TCO, “Transformational Communications Architecture,” 5.

11. Ibid., 6.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid., 7.

14. Ibid.

15. Anderson, briefing. The MILSATCOM Joint Program Office is the 

DOD’s primary acquirer of satellite communications systems to satisfy 

war fighter requirements.

16. “Lockheed’s Team Wins.”

17. Bates, “T-Sat Ground Network.”

18. Ibid.

19. “Lockheed’s Team Wins.”

20. Elfers and Miller, “Future U.S. Military Satellite.”

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid.

24. Frankel, “Space Acquisitions.”

25. Ibid.

26. Keller, “Transformational Communications.”

27. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “Army’s Bandwidth Bottleneck,” appendix A, 2.

28. Ibid., 3.

29. Ibid., Summary.

30. Ibid., 3.

31. Ibid.

32. Brown, “Warfighting and Ground Terminals.”

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid.

35. Levin, “Defense Acquisitions,” abstract.

36. Ibid.

37. “Transformational SATCOM (TSAT).”

38. Frankel, “Space Acquisitions.”

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid.

42. CBO, “The Army’s Bandwidth Bottleneck,” appendix A, 1.

43. Kenyon, “Telecommunications Standard Key.”

44. “Special Report: USA’s Transformational Communications.”

45. Anderson, briefing.

46. CBO, “The Army’s Bandwidth Bottleneck,” chap. 2, 1.

47. Lorenz, briefing. As shown on the Global Hawk funding profile.

48. Kenyon, “Telecommunications Standard Key.”

49. As defined in http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/D/DWDM.html.

21

Acronyms

ACSC	 Air Command and Staff College

AEHF	 advanced extremely high frequency

AISR	 airborne intelligence, surveillance, and

reconnaissance

ANS	 Advanced Narrowband System

APS	 Advanced Polar System

AWACS	 Airborne Warning and Control System

BLOS	 beyond line of sight

CONUS	 continental United States

COTM	 communications on the move

DOD	 Department of Defense

DSCS	 Defense Satellite Communications System

DWDM	 dense wave division multiplexing

EDR	 extended-data rate

EHF	 extremely high frequency

FY	 fiscal year

Gbps	 gigabits per second

GBS	 Global Broadcast Service

GEO	 geosynchronous Earth orbit

GIG	 Global Information Grid

GIG-BE	 GIG bandwidth expansion

HDR	 high-data rate

IC	 intelligence community

IOC	 initial operational capability

IP	 Internet protocol

ISR	 intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance

JSTARS	 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System

JTRS	 Joint Tactical Radio Systems

lasercom	 laser communications

LDR	 low-data rate

LOS	 line of sight

Mbps	 megabits per second

MDR	 medium-data rate

MIST	 Multiband Integrated Satellite Terminal

MUOS	 Mobile User Objective Systems	

NASA	 National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NCW	 network-centric warfare

NMT	 Navy Multiband Terminal

NRO	 National Reconnaissance Office
22

OEF/OIF	 Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi

Freedom

RF 	 radio frequency

SATCOM	 satellite communications

SCA	 software communications architecture

SPAWAR	 Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

TCA	 Transformational Communications Architecture

TCO	 Transformational Communications Office

TDRSS	 Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System

TMOS	 TSAT Missions Operations System

TSAT	 transformational satellite

TSAT PO	 TSAT Program Office

UFO 	 UHF follow on

UHF	 ultra high frequency

US	 United States

WGS	 Wideband Gapfiller System

WIN-T	 War Fighters Information Network-Tactical

WNW	 wide-band network waveform

XDR	 extended-data rate
23

Bibliography

“Airborne Lasercom Terminal (ALT) Lasercom Optical Terminal.” GlobalSecurity.org. http://www.globalsecurity.org/

space/systems/lasercom.htm (accessed 1 September 

2005).

Anderson, Christine, director, MILSATCOM Joint Program 

Office. Briefing. SMC/MC SCAPR (Space and Missile 

Center/MILSATCOM Southern California Aerospace 

Professionals). “Military Satellite Communications, 

Global Network, Global Power,” 14 February 2005. 

http://www.californiaspaceauthority.org/images/

pdfs/040831-milsatcom-anderson.pdf.

Bates, Jason. “T-Sat Ground Network Promises Increased 

Data Flow.” Space News Business Report, 21 February 

2005. http://www.astronomyandspace.com/spacenews/

archive05/Tsat_0221.html.

Brown, Peter J. “Warfighting and Ground Terminals: The Satellite Edge.” Telecomweb Online, 1 July 2005. http://www

.telecomweb.com/news/satellite/viasatellite/13636.html.

Child, Jeff. “UAV Control Systems Hunger for Compute 

Density.” COTS Journal, January 2006. http://www

.cotsjournalonline.com/home/article.php?id=100449.

Congressional Budget Office. “The Army’s Bandwidth Bottleneck,” August 2003. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/

45xx/doc4500/08-28-Report.pdf.

“Contracts,” United States Department of Defense, DOD 

News, 2 February 2006.

Dickey, Beth. “Sticker Shock.” GOVEXEC.com, 15 July 2005. 

http://www.govexec.com/features/0705-15/0705-15 

na2.htm.

Dodgen, Lt Gen Larry J. “Space-Enabling the Potential of Our 

Joint Warfighter.” U.S. Army Space & Missile Defense 

Command/U.S. Army Forces Strategic Command, Quest 

for Space Magazine, 2005. http://www.smdc.army.mil/

pubaff/05Press/Space.html.

Elfers, Glen, and Stephen B. Miller. “Future U.S. Military Satellite Communication Systems.” Crosslink, Winter 2001/ 

2002. http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter

2002/08.html.
24

Frankel, Michael S. “Space Acquisitions: Committing Prematurely 

to the Transformational Satellite Program Elevates Risks for 

Poor Cost, Schedule, and Performance Outcomes,”GAO-04-

71R. Washington DC: General Accounting Office, 21 November 2003. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0471r.pdf.

Keller, John. “Transformational Communications.” Military & 

Aerospace Electronics, May 2005. http://mae.pennnet

.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=Articles&Su

bsection=Display&ARTICLE_ID=228230.

Kenyon, Henry S. “Telecommunications Standard Key to Transformation.” SIGNAL Magazine, December 2004. http://

www.afcea.org/signal/articles/templates/SIGNAL

_Article_Template.asp?articleid=582&zoneid=116.

“Key Requirements Review Completed for Transformational 

Communications Satellite.” C4ISR: The Journal of NetCentric Warfare, 17 June 2004.

Levin, Robert E. “Defense Acquisitions: Incentive and Pressures that Drive Problems Affecting Satellite and Related 

Acquisitions,” GAO-05-570R. Washington, DC: General 

Accounting Office, 23 June 2005. http://www.gao.gov/

new.items/d05570r.pdf.

“Lockheed’s Team Wins $2.02 Bn [billion] TSAT-TMOS Contract.” 

Defense Industry Daily, 30 January 2006. http://www

.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/01/lockheeds-team

-wins-202-bn-tsattmos-contract/index.php.

Lorenz, Maj Gen Stephen. Air Force director of Budget. Briefing. 

“U.S. Air Force FY 06 Budget Rollout, Making the Whole 

Joint Team Better.” Air Force Financial Management 

(SAF/FM), 2006. http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/ 

media/document/AFD-070221-116.pdf.

Martin, Donald H. “A History of U.S. Military Satellite Communication Systems.” Crosslink, Winter 2002. http://

www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2002/01

.html.

McCarter, Mickey. “Satellite Transformation.” Military Information Technology, Online Edition, 13 June 2005. http:// 

www.military-information-technology.com/article

.cfm?DocID=989.

Meink, Dr. Troy, and Dr. Lawrence Robertson. “Transformational Communications––New Satellite System Uses 

Network Routing to Provide Information Connectivity to 
25

the Warfighter.” AFRLHorizons.com, June 2005. http://

www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Jun05/VS0410.html.

“Mobile User Objective System (MUOS).” GlobalSecurity.org. 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/muos

.htm.

“NRO Stops Plans for Laser-Optic Data-Relay Satellites.” 

C4ISR: The Journal of Net-Centric Warfare, 14 December 

2004.

Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System, Department 

of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2005. Washington, 

DC: Department of Defense, February 2004. http://

www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2005/

fy2005_weabook.pdf.

Robertson, Dr. Lawrence. “A Multi-Access Laser Space Terminal Systems for Transformational Communications.” 

AFRLHorizons.com, June 2005. http://www.afrlhorizons

.com/Briefs/Jun05/VS0409.html.

“Satellite Bandwidth.” GlobalSecurity.org. 14 September 2005. 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/band 

width.htm.

 Sawyer, Ralph D. Sun Tzu––Art of War. Boulder, CO: Westview 

Press, 1994.

Singer, Jeremy. “Congress Gives U.S. Air Force Half of T-Sat 

Budget.” Space News Magazine, 20 January 2006.

“Special Report: The USA’s Transformational Communications Satellite System (TSAT).” Defense Industry Daily, 

19 July 2005. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ 

2005/07/17-week/index.php.

TCO, “Transformational Communications Architecture Version 

1.0” (U), 17 December 2003, 2. (U/FOUO) Information is 

extracted and has been cleared for public release: distribution unlimited. 

Teets, Peter, acting secretary of the Air Force. “Statement of 

the Hon. Peter Teets at Hearings (Senate Armed Services Committee) on the FY 2006 Defense Authorization 

Budget Request for Space Activities.” SpaceRef.com, 17 

March 2005. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr

.html?pid=15800.

Thakur, Vijainder K. “Transformational Satellite Communications System (TSAT).” www.kuku.sawf.org, 21 July 2005. 

http://kuku.sawf.org/Emerging+Technologies/1797

.aspx.
26

“Transformational Communications.” Chips, January–March 

2005. http://www.chips.navy.mil/.

“Transformational Communications Architecture (TCA)” USMC 

Concepts & Programs, 2005. http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc

.mil/p&r/concepts/2005/PDF/Ch2PDFs/CP05%20

Chapter%202%20Enabling%20Capabilities%20pg%2010

0_Transformational%20Communications%20Architecture

%20(TCA).pdf.

“Transformational Communications Study (TCS).” GlobalSecurity

.org, 1 September 2005. http://www.globalsecurity.org/

space/systems/tcs.htm.

“Transformational SATCOM (TSAT) Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT) Advanced Wideband System.” 

GlobalSecurity.org, 1 September 2005. http://www.global 

security.org/space/systems/tsat.htm.

Wirbel, Loring. “Technology Goes to War: Space Nets Take 

Commanding Role.” EE Times Online, 4 April 2003. 

http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20030414S0017.