Demand for military satellites shows no sign of slowing down.

the use of space systems in military operations has surged during the past decade and this growth shows no signs of slowing down, according to an industry study.

Approximately 113 dedicated military satellites will be produced in the next 10 years, with an estimated value of $42 billion, predicted John Edwards, a space systems analyst at Forecast International. These satellites range in size and cost from the relatively small Israeli Ofeq communications satellite to the classified constellations operated by the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office.

The United States accounts for approximately 90 percent of global military space spending on satellite communications. "Competing in this arena is a costly enterprise, and while the U.S. moves forward alone, Europe continues to develop systems through cost-sharing partnerships," said Edwards.

Pooling resources in exchange for shared data or satellite-tasking time allows European countries to expand their satellite capabilities without increasing their expenses, he noted. This approach is especially useful within the reconnaissance sector, where more satellites amount to more coverage.

With that goal in mind, Italy, France, and Germany have established a multilateral agreement by which they will exchange set periods of satellite tasking rights on each other's reconnaissance satellites: Helios 2 and eventually Pleiades from France, Cosmo-Skymed from Italy, and SAR Lupe from Germany.

In the communications sector, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy are separately developing their Skynet 5, Syracuse III, and Sicral military communications satellites, respectively, but have agreed to bundle their services under a joint bid to supply NATO's Post-2000 secure military communications network. The proposal is under review with the NATO C3 Agency. Since full on-orbit capacity is required by the end of 2005, a decision is expected this summer, said Forecast International.

The continued consolidation and international cooperation among the various European military satellite programs will keep production numbers far below those in the United States. The major production efforts in Europe are expected to yield about 15 military reconnaissance spacecraft and another nine military communications satellites.

In terms of unit production, the market for Western military satellites may be rather small as compared to the commercial satellite market, which is geared primarily toward production of communications and remote sensing satellite constellations, said Edwards. The increasingly high value of these space systems, $377 million per unit on average, however, is attractive enough to draw the major aerospace and defense contractors to this market both in Europe and in the U.S. for years to come.

Forecast International's study did not specifically address the market for satellite communications ground terminals, but Edwards agreed with other experts that the Defense Department will need to step up investments in tactical terminals, to keep up with the rising demand for non-line-of-sight military communications.

"I think that the cost of some of these terminals, like SMART-T and USC38, scares people, to be frank," Edwards told National Defense. "When you look at a terminal that costs $1.5 million and up for a single unit and then start to run the figures on total procurement, it's mind boggling."

A satellite is easier to justify in the budget process, he noted. "If it's big, it's in space, it must be expensive ... This may be oversimplifying the issue, but it just may be that simple."

The bottom line is that "terminals lack the flash" of satellites, he added.

The Defense Department is seeking to consolidate satellite communications ground terminals to help lower the cost. "With so many terminals for an equal number of systems out there, I think that some commanders and Defense Department planners are hoping that the transformation process will yield the 'mother terminal,' one that will be compatible with all services and systems that everyone can dump their dollars into.

"Until that time the Defense Department will spread it's funding for terminals around in a wide variety of systems weakening their appropriation dollars without being able to focus on just one terminal at a high level," Edwards said.