Why Europe’s IRIS² constellation is in trouble
Ever since its unveiling in 2022, the EU’s Interconnectivity and Security by Satellite (IRIS²) constellation has been a roller coaster of ups and downs. Initially belittled as an underwhelming “me too” project, IRIS² gained purpose after Russia invaded Ukraine and Musk’s antics made Europe uncomfortable relying so heavily on Starlink to connect soldiers on the battlefield.
Then the costs came in. Initially estimated at €6 billion, the program ballooned to €10.6 billion while still in the ideation phase. Delays also quickly ramped, as the in-service date slipped from an (overly) optimistic 2024, to 2026, to 2028, to 2030, and now potentially 2031.
Meanwhile, the full constellation of 290 satellites across MEO and LEO is expected to produce only 3.3 terabits per second of capacity, of which 2 Tbps will come from LEO. The LEO portion is the equivalent of two ViaSat-3 satellites in GEO or two Starlink V3 satellites in LEO – but for a multiple of the cost. And while there’s more to a good constellation than raw capacity, the numbers are thoroughly underwhelming. Telesat Lightspeed will have an estimated 10 Tbps – five times as much as IRIS² from less than 200 satellites.
Increasingly costly, bloated, and delayed before the first satellite is even launched, IRIS² is at risk of losing government and industrial support. This begs the question, why is IRIS² in so much trouble?
Quilty Space has identified the following reasons:
1. Too many competing interests. IRIS² is supposed to have service in Ka-band, military Ka-band, Ku-band, and maybe UHF, with “hardgov,” “lightgov,” and commercial service across two different orbits, possibly with hosted payloads. User terminals are supposed to be multi-purpose, multi-waveform, multi-orbit, and phased array. This is a long list of requirements that adds complexity to the satellite design and huge complexity to the ground, slowing the program while driving up costs.
2. Confused identity relative to Starlink. IRIS² got purpose as a sovereign replacement to Starlink, but the constellation is considerably smaller, its user terminals are poised to be much more expensive, and its launch requirements are too small to generate a flywheel effect like the symbiosis between Starlink and the SpaceX Falcon 9. Europe already has military communications satellites – Sicral in Italy, Syracuse in France, SATCOMBw in Germany, Spainsat in France, and Govsat-1 in Luxembourg, plus the OneWeb LEO constellation. Europe doesn’t need another satcom network, it needs a better one, but it is unclear IRIS² will be that.
3. Active fault lines. Despite being a pan-European program, Italy and Germany have already intimated they want national constellations of their own. The French government is a partial owner of the OneWeb constellation through Eutelsat, as is the British government even though the latter isn’t part of the EU. The large number of national interests complicates IRIS² and slows the program down relative to constellations with single owners.
4. Industrial support. Although established as a public-private partnership, the government partners (the European Commission and ESA) were unable to secure the desired private contribution because Airbus and Thales Alenia Space bowed out, leaving SES, Eutelsat and Hispasat to hold the bag. Both SES and Eutelsat are stretched financially and operationally due to recent acquisitions, while Hispasat is being acquired by the Indra Group.
Over the past 3-4 years, the IRIS² program has cast a long shadow on the European space industry, which is eager for the work but weary of the premise. As progress and momentum have built, IRIS² has become a freight train, pulling the industry in a singular direction. But the industry-led SpaceRise consortium and the European Commission both preserve the right to scrap the current approach if deemed unfeasible. As key supplier data comes in this year and potentially in early 2026, the question is, will they?
Source: https://www.spaceintelreport.com/europes-iris2-organization-contractor-selection-likely-cost-and-schedule-are-now-openly-questioned/