Europe’s Satcom Reset: Sovereignty, NATO-Aligned Multi-Orbit Defense and the IRIS² Industrial Push

Europe is expanding secure satellite-communications capability through a combination of sovereign assets, shared programs and multi-orbit architectures as geopolitical tension highlights the limits of legacy systems and commercial dependence.

“Recent geopolitical developments have confirmed that secure satellite communications are no longer simply an enabling technology; they have become a strategic infrastructure underpinning defense, crisis response, critical infrastructure and governmental continuity,” Afke Schaart, vice president of public affairs at Eutelsat, told Constellations.

IRIS² Anchors Europe’s Path to Space Independence

Across Europe, cooperation among states is essential to strengthening the region’s autonomy, Schaart said.

“This requires more than sovereign national capabilities alone. It requires trusted European partnerships that combine resilience, interoperability and industrial scale.” —Afke Schaart, Eutelsat

“That is precisely the ambition behind IRIS². This requires more than sovereign national capabilities alone. It requires trusted European partnerships that combine resilience, interoperability and industrial scale,” he said.

Operationally, secure satellite communications are trending toward a mix of orbital systems rather than reliance on a single layer, such as IRIS²’s blend of low Earth orbit (LEO) and medium Earth orbit (MEO) connectivity, Schaart said.

Different orbits offer distinct performance benefits – like variations in latency, coverage, and resilience. Instead of replacing each other, they’re increasingly combined in integrated multi-orbit systems designed to improve overall mission effectiveness, he said.

NATO’s is also shifting to multi-orbit systems, reflecting a move toward more diverse, layered communications, Dr. Joscha Abels, researcher and lecturer at the University of Tübingen’s Department of Political Economy, told Constellations. In NATO’s case, this initiative is more centered on resilience than sovereignty, Abels said. Recent incidents – from cable sabotage to signal jamming – have highlighted vulnerabilities, and multi-orbit networks help reduce them by enabling rerouting if one layer is disrupted, he said.

GEO’s Enduring Role in a Multi-Orbit System

Geostationary (GEO) satellites still play a central role in government communications, offering broad reach, steady coverage and high-capacity links, Schaart said.

The unique benefits of GEO are unlikely to be replaced even as other orbits gain traction, Charles Galbreath, director and senior resident fellow for spacepower studies at The Mitchell Institute Spacepower Advantage Center of Excellence, told Constellations.

“For smaller countries wanting their own satellite communications, placing a satellite in a GEO orbit accessible from their territory makes more sense than deploying a LEO constellation that would require a wider ground network extending beyond their borders.” —Charles Galbreath, Mitchell Institute Spacepower Advantage Center of Excellence

“The benefit of parking over a region of the world, I think, is undeniable,” Galbreath said. For smaller countries wanting their own satellite communications, placing a satellite in a GEO orbit accessible from their territory makes more sense than deploying a LEO constellation that would require a wider ground network extending beyond their borders, he said.

Eutelsat’s combined GEO and LEO systems give it practical capacity to support a shift toward multi-orbit services. OneWeb already delivers secure, low-latency links for governments, while IRIS² is set to build Europe’s longer-term sovereign network, he said.

“Together, they demonstrate how existing operational capabilities today can accelerate the deployment of future European programs,” he said.

Defense systems are expected to evolve toward multi-orbit designs, using GEO, LEO and potentially MEO to meet different operational needs, he said. The eventual form of IRIS² will be shaped by its institutional partners, Schaart said.

Sovereign Capability Within Cooperative Frameworks

For Eutelsat, EU and NATO initiatives do not have to compromise national sovereignty endeavors.

“We do not see national sovereignty, European cooperation and NATO objectives as competing priorities. On the contrary, Europe’s security increasingly depends on combining national capabilities with shared European programs, trusted industrial partnerships and strong transatlantic cooperation,” Schaart said.

IRIS² reflects this philosophy by providing member states with shared secure infrastructure while also allowing them to maintain control over their own national requirements and priorities, he said.

For example, Poland, which has been expanding its military space capabilities, last month pledged $745 million toward six LEO and six MEO satellites for IRIS² that will also serve as a national constellation. The country also signed an MOU with Eutelsat to collaborate on European satcom – particularly the LEO component of IRIS². Poland’s commitment to IRIS² coincides with its efforts toward national sovereignty.

The MOU with Poland aims to develop Poland’s space ecosystem, including future IRIS² terminals, while also looking at how current OneWeb services could provide support before IRIS² comes online, Schaart said. It shows how commercial capabilities, national goals and European programs can work together to move capability development forward, he said. Going forward, governments will look for commercial partners that can deliver secure and interoperable systems. These commercial providers won’t replace sovereign assets but will add capacity through ready infrastructure, innovation and scale, he said.

“It is not always a given that state and corporate strategy align.” —Dr. Joscha Abels, University of Tübingen’s Department of Political Economy

This isn’t just a European trend – governments worldwide are turning to private capital to access the innovation and scale of commercial space companies, noted Abels. Europe leans more on public-private partnerships than on direct public procurement, which makes major strategic programs dependent on corporate investment incentives. “It is not always a given that state and corporate strategy align,” he said.

NATO’s Approach to Layered Satcom

NATO is taking a similar approach to the EU with its Hybrid Alliance Layered Operations in Space (HALO) initiative – a network of integrated national satellite systems that allow contributing nations to maintain sovereignty and control while benefiting from the added resilience of a combined system.

Effective integration of sovereign systems and European initiatives depends on clear rules about security roles, accreditation, operational authority, interoperability, resilience and long-term viability, Schaart said. The aim is to ensure national authorities can trust the security and management of their sovereign services while still gaining the efficiencies and added resilience of broader European infrastructure, he said.

In fact, collaboration is critical for accelerating space capabilities – showcased by Poland’s progress, according to Schaart.

“The key factor is not simply acquiring technology but integrating into a broader industrial and operational ecosystem,” Schaart said. The MoU with Poland illustrates this by pairing industrial collaboration with testing access, support for user terminal development and early use of OneWeb services before IRIS², he said. These partnerships help countries speed up capability growth while strengthening their domestic industrial and tech sectors, he said.

Governments as well now expect commercial satellite providers to deliver full solutions rather than just bandwidth, Schaart said. They’re looking for partners they can trust to offer secure, resilient, interoperable services backed by real operational knowhow and long-term commitment, he said. As a result, commercial operators are becoming more central to Europe’s secure-connectivity plans, filling gaps with existing infrastructure while future sovereign systems are developed, he said.

NATO allies in larger Europe have faced challenges during the conflict in Eastern Europe, Garnet Mons, director of business development at Kratos, told Constellations. Many of them depended on commercial systems like Starlink for critical battlefield communications. But since SpaceX controls access to that network, the users have no authority over the constellation itself, Mons noted. That’s one of the main factors driving interest in developing sovereign capabilities that nations can own and operate independently, he said.

“Sovereign space means that you own operate your own capability to give you the resilience that you need so that you’re not relying on commercial operation or commercial capability.” —Garnet Mons, Kratos

“Sovereign space means that you own operate your own capability to give you the resilience that you need so that you’re not relying on commercial operation or commercial capability,” Mons said. “Because that can disappear. It can go offline. It can be revoked because of political changes.”

Cost and Capability Fuel Small-GEO Momentum

Many countries are also beginning to see the economic value of space services and are moving from early experimentation toward operational use, in some cases advancing quickly by learning from established space powers and through technology transfer, Mitchell Institute’s Galbreath noted.

“These nations are finally coming around to where the United States and Russia have been for 50 years.”

Smaller GEO satellites have gained traction as a cost-effective option for nations seeking sovereign space assets because they can be tailored to support a single large country or a group of smaller nations – for example, the Baltic states could collectively operate one sovereign GEO asset, Mons said. However, one GEO satellite serving a handful of nations could be an easy target for adversaries, Mons said. A multi-orbit architecture is needed to ensure resilience against threats like jamming, he said.

“This is what IRIS² is for,” Mons said. “This is what Germany and France been talking about with the Satcom-Bw-4 program is to have LEO and MEO satellites that and work together with GEO so that you have, resilience in the different orbits.”

“All of that aligns nicely with our strategy,” added Mons. Kratos is partnering with emerging smaller GEO providers that are still developing their space segments. Partnering with them enables the operators to have a full sovereign turnkey offering – including the satellite, launch, orbital slot coordination, insurance, ground infrastructure, the communications payload and optional financing, Mons said. This reduces traditional GEO project costs from over $400 million to around $200 million to $300 million, depending on size and capability, with financing included, he said. The focus extends beyond NATO nations to other smaller sovereign countries as well, he said.

Mobility and Software Integration Strengthen Space Resilience

While nations can leverage small GEO for a lower barrier to entry, unified, standards-based ground infrastructure gives them the ability to interoperate while still allowing them to go fully sovereign if required. The software-based architecture adds additional flexibility, Mons said.

Recent conflict zones have also driven design choices. Large, fixed SATCOM gateways have become easy to target in both the Middle East and Eastern Europe. A gateway that can’t move “is an easy target,” Mons said. Pairing small GEO satellites with mobile gateways changes that equation. Gateways mounted on trucks, with concealed tri-fold antennas, can be set up for an operation and then relocated immediately. Kratos demonstrated the concept with a truck-mounted gateway that stays hidden until deployed and then is driven off to a new location.

These requirements are shaping how Kratos is engaging with European customers. The company is presenting small GEO as a turnkey package that includes the satellites, the standards-based ground infrastructure and the mobile gateway options European nations have begun requesting, Mons said. Movable gateways are already being procured for small GEO systems.

The turnkey offering also adds an SDA function that lets nations handle their own resilience and interference monitoring, including geolocating jamming on a micro-GEO and checking commercial constellation activity, Mons said. Because Kratos’ OpenSpace platform is software-defined, new mission capabilities and updates can be added without hardware refreshes – avoiding the tech-debt issues that have burdened legacy space programs, Brian Bracy, senior director of solutions architecture at Kratos, told Constellations.

“You can tightly integrate missions that used to be completely separate – like space domain awareness, electronic warfare and satcom – and run all three in linked workflows,” he said.

“We’re not just talking or making plans. We’re rolling capability out… we’re taking action,” said Mons.

Industrial Limits and Program Timelines

Meanwhile, industrial capacity, bureaucracy and funding are all bottlenecks hindering Europe’s space expansion. The problem is the attempt to solve every issue simultaneously, said Mons.

“That’s why they’re struggling,” Mons said. “All of those issues are a priority.”

The core constraints break into three parts: time, money and talent, Bracy added.

“It’s a three-legged-stool,” he said. “It’s not that there’s not talent – but do you have enough talent, money and enough time to build all those things?”

Additionally, regulations slow down decision-making, and the lack of skilled personnel limits how fast any new initiative can scale, Mons added.

Currently, Europe’s industrial base isn’t large enough to keep pace with adversaries’ development of their space capabilities, Jared Rayes, capture manager at Kratos, told Constellations.

“They’re kind of reluctant in having to rely on the U.S., but they’re hamstringing themselves with the policies that they’re putting out, saying that they need to buy European,” Rayes said. “That’s a challenge that they need to overcome and that’s a challenge that we as Kratos are looking into to overcome by partnering with some of these European businesses.”

This is a balancing act for the EU, Abels said. The union turns to major industry leaders because they offer the strongest prospects for delivering complex space capabilities. At the same time, the EU needs to cultivate startups, which are driving much of Europe’s current innovation, he said. Right now, the EU is trying to support early-stage companies through public programs that compensate for limited venture capital, while awarding large strategic contracts to established players, he said. “The challenge is ensuring that industrial consolidation does not come at the expense of innovation,” Abels said.

Europe’s path forward can be narrowed to three practical requirements, according to Mons:

• Make (and keep) decisions: Stable execution matters more than continual reevaluation. “After you make those decisions, follow through – you’ve got to keep it,” he said.
• Form partnerships: Work in Germany, Poland, Romania and Latvia shows the value of bringing external capability to accelerate local industry, train local teams and support sovereign operation; and
• Provide funding: Actual budget release is essential; MOUs and frameworks don’t move programs.

“One of the quotes we used when I was working in the Pentagon was that vision without funding is hallucination,” Bracy recalled, emphasizing Mons’ third point.

Explore More:

Sovereign Buyers and Scaled Systems Define the Industry’s New Operating Model

French-German Ministers’ Meeting Lauds IRIS² As ‘Europe’s Digital Backbone,’ Want 2-GHz Spectrum Reserved for It

Nations Turn to Sovereign Space for Stability and Resilience