Originally posted by Josh
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Gripen, The best Stealth, Sixth Generation fighter!!!!1111 ~ Bill Sweetman
Collapse
X
-
-
Limited application
Originally posted by citanon View PostDepending on the satellite and the orbit you can actually hide or reposition them. A combination of two would make certain satellites hard to attack. Of course not all satellites used by the military are suitable for that sort of defensive strategy.
I believe the X-37B has performed burns that have thrown amateurs off its track temporarily and it does have the advantage that since it is supposed to come back to earth anyway, it doesn't have to overly stress about burning up its fuel pre-maturely--it means earlier end of mission, but not destruction of the platform.
The MISTY satellite apparently did managed to 'disappear', but that was with a lot of effort and subterfuge, not an easy to replicate event.
Practically most satellites are observable by amateurs from the moment they launch and generally can't maneuver and continue doing their job successfully. Satellites in GEO and the NAVSTAR constellation effectively can't move at all and do their job. Having fall back systems, either on orbit, ready to launch, or terrestrial airborne, is the only practical response to an attack. Having a policy of deterrence where you engage someone else's vital assets (not necessarily in orbit) as a stated response to an ASAT campaign might be a way to prevent such an engagement from the outset.
EDIT: Additionally, an attack might not necessarily need to be guided or against a specific target. The DPRK for instance has no space assets and would have nothing to loose orbiting millions of ball bearings into reverse orbit tracks of likely targets. There's also the previously mentioned effect of multiple satellites being fragged and their debris destroying additional targets. It wouldn't make them popular even with the PRC, but they aren't likely to care.Last edited by Josh; 01 Jul 14,, 22:04.
Comment
-
Another reason for air-breathing recce platforms; there's still a rumor out there that Lockheed is in the middle of developing the SR-72."There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Josh View PostA LEO satellite could be repositioned at the expense of total life of the satellite...but you would likely have to continue to change its orbit such that this wouldn't be practical for very long in conflict. You would also have to have to have some idea an attack was likely or coming; if the first move in a conflict is to begin an ASAT effort, there likely wouldn't be sufficient reaction time to move anything in LEO. If at the beginning of a conflict you preemptively started moving your satellites, that would make them safer for the near term but degrade your long term ability as you used up the on orbit life of your assets - you might survive the conflict but have a future massive degradation of systems in the following peace. Its not a very good set of options.
I believe the X-37B has performed burns that have thrown amateurs off its track temporarily and it does have the advantage that since it is supposed to come back to earth anyway, it doesn't have to overly stress about burning up its fuel pre-maturely--it means earlier end of mission, but not destruction of the platform.
The MISTY satellite apparently did managed to 'disappear', but that was with a lot of effort and subterfuge, not an easy to replicate event.
Practically most satellites are observable by amateurs from the moment they launch and generally can't maneuver and continue doing their job successfully. Satellites in GEO and the NAVSTAR constellation effectively can't move at all and do their job. Having fall back systems, either on orbit, ready to launch, or terrestrial airborne, is the only practical response to an attack. Having a policy of deterrence where you engage someone else's vital assets (not necessarily in orbit) as a stated response to an ASAT campaign might be a way to prevent such an engagement from the outset.
EDIT: Additionally, an attack might not necessarily need to be guided or against a specific target. The DPRK for instance has no space assets and would have nothing to loose orbiting millions of ball bearings into reverse orbit tracks of likely targets. There's also the previously mentioned effect of multiple satellites being fragged and their debris destroying additional targets. It wouldn't make them popular even with the PRC, but they aren't likely to care.
Technology is also changing. The ability to refuel satellites in orbit is going to be developed. Technology to conceal satellites are probably already here. Think of the heat shield on the James Webb telescope. Is that really the first time they've tried that in space?
As for nk, they are dead in 3 weeks no matter what they do.Last edited by citanon; 01 Jul 14,, 23:04.
Comment
-
Physics
Originally posted by citanon View PostTechnology is changing and attacking satellites is hard. No nation is going to be able to simultaneously take out a large fraction of LEO satellites, and no one can continuously track a satellite over its entire orbit. If a satellite were to engage in a slight change in orbit in conjunction with concealment measures it will complicate the kill chain considerably. Even if you use some fuel in the process, its better than outright losing the asset.
Technology is also changing. The ability to refuel satellites in orbit is going to be developed. Technology to conceal satellites are probably already here. Think of the heat shield on the James Webb telescope. Is that really the first time they've tried that in space?
As for nk, they are dead in 3 weeks no matter what they do.
We should perhaps make a new thread if you want to continue, we're clearly no where near the original (rather silly) topic of the thread.
Comment
-
Originally posted by citanon View PostTechnology is changing and attacking satellites is hard. No nation is going to be able to simultaneously take out a large fraction of LEO satellites, and no one can continuously track a satellite over its entire orbit. If a satellite were to engage in a slight change in orbit in conjunction with concealment measures it will complicate the kill chain considerably. Even if you use some fuel in the process, its better than outright losing the asset.
Comment
-
I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that US military satellites have pre-planned maneuvers to shift orbits en masse so that each has a new trajectory yet overall coverage is maintained across the fleet. This would seriously complicate efforts of an adversary who had spent time refining the trajectories of various satellites and conducting extensive planning about which assets to expend ASATs to take out.
By maneuvering all or much of the fleet, not only do various satellites need to be tracked until their trajectories can be plotted once again, they will have to be reexamined until it can be determined which satellite is which. It would be easy to waste valuable ASATs destroying satellites of marginal military value after such a maneuver.
While ultimately such a maneuver will not provide long lasting protection for US space assets, it would undoubtedly buy a fair amount of time and degrade any ASAT efforts.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Versus View PostThe thing with this "generation thing" looks to me like saying that the hot 45 year old women is less attractive than the ugly 23 year old, because she is an "older" generation.
GCI vs autonomous SA vs supported SA vs being an active contributor to the COP - and being able to make decisions without AWACs support if necessary as your on board systems enable you to pick and choose the fight
what never ceases to amaze me is the lack of understanding of what VLO/LO actually means to the pilot
Comment
Comment