Secure satellite communication is a key requirement for ADF ability to undertake joint and integrated operations in a multi-domain operational environment. Known as satcom, it forms the informational backplane and foundation of modern warfare. Without this critical space support, military forces in the air, sea and land domains are deaf, dumb and blind. They cannot fight.
So it was crucial that Australia pay for secure and resilient satcom capability to replace commercial satellites that are at or close to the ends of their operational lives. Defence Joint Project 9102 (JP9102) was to be based initially on three to five communications satellites in geosynchronous orbit (GEO) at 36,500km above Earth’s surface. It was to offer nationally independent satcom for the ADF.
On 4 November, the government scrapped JP9102. The move has generated uncertainty about the future of a critical ADF capability. There is also anger in the Australian commercial space community over the negative signals the decision sends about government support for the space sector.
The government justified cancelling JP9102 thus:
…with the acceleration in space technologies and evolving threats in space since the project’s commencement, Defence has assessed that a single orbit GEO-based satellite communications systems would not meet strategic priorities …. As such, Defence has decided to cease its current procurement activity with Lockheed Martin Australia for a single orbit GEO-based satellite communications system …. Instead of a single orbit solution, Defence must instead prioritise a multi-orbit capability increasing resilience for the Australian Defence Force.
Certainly, relying on satellites in a single, geostationary orbit is no longer enough for the ADF. Yet the decision to cancel JP9102 can be challenged. For example, why did the government simply did not rescope the project to bring forward acquisition of low earth orbit (LEO) and medium earth orbit (MEO) satellites, thus opening greater opportunities for Australia’s commercial space sector to participate? This could have occurred in a timely manner would complement Lockheed Martin’s delivery of the three to five GEO satellites under the original contract.
As it now stands, Defence has indicated that its strategy going forward is to continue to rely on existing architecture. The Defence Department statement says ‘… Defence’s current satellite communications capabilities support the immediate needs of the organisation.’
But there is risk in this, because the existing satellites are expiring. Defence notes that the ADF uses a hosted ‘…payload on an Optus C-1 satellite, ultra-high frequency channels on Intelsat IS-22, a commercial satellite; and proportional access to the US Space Force’s Wideband Global SATCOM system (WGS) network, which Australia gained by paying for WGS-6’, one of the satellites in the system.
Defence indicates that Optus C-1 will reach the end of its life in 2027—that is, in three years. The satellite has already had its life extended and has had its GEO orbit altered to extend it further. But it wanders in its position, so it isn’t very useful for anything other than naval forces. The authoritative source Gunter’s Space Page also notes that IS-22, launched in 2012, is designed to serve for 18 years, so it will expire in 2030. WGS-6, launched in 2013, is designed for 14 years, so it will reach the end of its service life in 2027.
The WGS constellation is being replaced by more sophisticated versions of these satellites in a program called Protected Tactical Satcom (PTS). If Australia wants access to PTS services, it will again need to pay the United States somehow. As with WGS, it would run the risk that the US would take bandwidth priority in a crisis.
PTS satellites are due to be launched between 2028 and 2029, just as Australia will lose its current GEO satcom services. So, any delay by government in deciding on what will replace JP9102—be it in LEO or indeed using several orbits—will present the risk of a capability gap emerging. Sticking with JP9102 as it was, and introducing LEO and MEO components together would have avoided the risk and preserved Australian control over a critical capability.
With the cancellation of JP9102, the government must quickly declare its new plan. Simply stating that Australia will ‘continue to rely on existing satellite communications’ isn’t good enough when that capability won’t last long and when getting results from a new project will take years.
The government cannot kick this can down the road to the 2026 National Defence Strategy and its associated spending plan, the Integrated Investment Program. There simply isn’t time. The project will need to be declared and go out for tenders, then any bids must then be reviewed, a prime contractor chosen and adequate funding provided before the satellites can be made and, finally, launched.
Ideally, Australian companies should be allowed to compete. But the way that JP9102 has been handled by government—following last year’s cancellation of the civilian project National Space Mission for Earth Observation—hardly inspires confidence in government commitment to the Australian commercial space sector.
