C3/GPS/Satellite systems effectiveness in war with sophisticated enemy

[hackoon]

If anything Technology helps with the problems of logistics. If technology allows a country to advance so rapidly that it stretches its troops and supply lines to the brink of failure. This would be a tactical blunder and not a technological failure.

Technology helps with by reducing volume but logistics consists of far more dimensions then just volume or weight. But please also consider complexity - a highly specialized device needs a very complex infrastructure to produce and maintain it. An AK-47 needs certainly more ammunition but you can buy ammunition and rifle everywhere! This avoids stretched supply lines for example.

It is not about if or not the technology can fail because in the end it is human decisions which often overvalues the gains of technological progress. The Idea that more sophisticated fire-power outweighs stupid military commanders didn't work neither in Afghanistan nor anywhere else, but it often helped that stupid people stayed for too long in important positions.

You can neutralize technology with a wide range of countermeasures which often result being a lot cheaper. For example by luring an enemy into a terrain which is not designed to fight with electronics - see the Iraq.


Admin. Text deleted. You need to read the forum rules before posting again. That kind of commetary could result in you having a half life on here as it would be perceived as trolling.

 

[Duffy]

Technology helps with by reducing volume but logistics consists of far more dimensions then just volume or weight. But please also consider complexity - a highly specialized device needs a very complex infrastructure to produce and maintain it. An AK-47 needs certainly more ammunition but you can buy ammunition and rifle everywhere! This avoids stretched supply lines for example.

It is not about if or not the technology can fail because in the end it is human decisions which often overvalues the gains of technological progress. The Idea that more sophisticated fire-power outweighs stupid military commanders didn't work neither in Afghanistan nor anywhere else, but it often helped that stupid people stayed for too long in important position

Ya maybe your wright, But I don't see the DoD handing out Visa cards to US solders so they can shop for equipment at Walmart. It would be to hard to budget. Have a good day hackoon

 

[Palnatoke]

If your jamming across a broad spectrum then your targeting and tracking radar would be affected would it not.

Not necessarely. The trick is ( or can be) that you know at which frequvencies you jam at a given point in time. You can then use math/electronics to filter your own jamming.

This is the opposite of what can be done with f.ex. an APAR radar. An APAR radar broadcasts it's signals in frequvencies that, in time, are pseudo-random (f.ex. a random list of frequvencies, which are then not random, but pseudo-random). The observer/target of the radar will only recieve "white noise". There will be no clear signal (at a given frequvency) which can distinquish it from the background noise - because the frequvencies are in random order. But when the radar recieves the return signal (which is white noise) it knows "the list". It knows exactly at which frequvencies it has to "listen" to recover the signal from the background noise (see f.ex a "lock-in amplifier" here "the list" will be a signal of refference).

 

[Baechtel]

Warning signs?

...USAF NORAD would definately notice and track, as well as calculate likely destinations for the launched payload. If suddenly there were several sudden launches out to deep orbits, the US would most likely detect the attempt and then raise an alert if some variety of warning signs were seen...

@Todjaeger--What might those "warning signs" consist of? Wouldn't it be possible (obvious question) to mask bad intentions?

Thx,

 

[Todjaeger]

@Todjaeger--What might those "warning signs" consist of? Wouldn't it be possible (obvious question) to mask bad intentions?

Thx,

From memory, NORAD (or whatever it is called now...) monitors when there are launches into space along with estimates of the where the endpoint of the launch will be. This is done to detect ICBM/IRBM and similar potential first strike launches. In point of fact, a number of the rockets used for satellite launches are/were derivatives of ballistic missiles. The monitoring would also be done to ascertain whether or not a particular launch might be part of a FOBS, again as part of a potential first strike.

Given the potential impact on electronics and comms systems, as well as just an outright nuclear strike, the US is interested in knowing what is going where in space.

With that in mind, if suddenly a number do devices began getting 'close' to US satellites, I would imagine that would trigger some US responses. Given just the sheer volume of space out in deep orbit, questions in the US would be asked if the new satellite xx launched by country yy, is closing with 'our' satellite zz.

-Cheers

 

[Baechtel]

@Todjaeger--Thanks for the quick reply. At the risk of asking a simple-minded question (I'm a non-military writer, working on a book), what's to differentiate a benign launch into space from a launch that has invidious intention--not a nuclear first-strike, but a launch that (for instance ) put an anti-satellite weapon in the neighborhood of one of "our" birds?

Again, thx,

 

[rip]

Not necessarely. The trick is ( or can be) that you know at which frequvencies you jam at a given point in time. You can then use math/electronics to filter your own jamming.

This is the opposite of what can be done with f.ex. an APAR radar. An APAR radar broadcasts it's signals in frequvencies that, in time, are pseudo-random (f.ex. a random list of frequvencies, which are then not random, but pseudo-random). The observer/target of the radar will only recieve "white noise". There will be no clear signal (at a given frequvency) which can distinquish it from the background noise - because the frequvencies are in random order. But when the radar recieves the return signal (which is white noise) it knows "the list". It knows exactly at which frequvencies it has to "listen" to recover the signal from the background noise (see f.ex a "lock-in amplifier" here "the list" will be a signal of refference).

Wide-band RF detection systems that discriminate signal strength only by bearing ( E and H fields strength meters) have been around forever. Deterring that jamming is taking place and what direction it is coming from is very easy. That may not mead that you can overcome the jamming (gadget) but locating its source is not difficult.

 

[ketti]

the Global Positioning System is a satellite-based navigation system made up of a network of 24 satellites placed into orbit. its really effective in wars

 

[surpreme]

the Global Positioning System is a satellite-based navigation system made up of a network of 24 satellites placed into orbit. its really effective in wars

What I would like to know what will happen when your enemy has the same system ? If both countries have the same technology what then. Also if both have the skill to jam communication and destroy satellites whats next. Back to the drawing board again I don't know????