Technology-Reliant U.S. Warns of Threats to Satellites

[Tasman]

I don't think USA can find anything in China. We have so much terrain we conceal everything extremely well--and we love to hide things you all know that


There's also a big problem launching aircraft from foreign soil willy nilly. We saw that in both Gulf wars. Considering Japan would bring war to home soil first time since WWII, against slightly trigger happy Chinese, I doubt you could use even Okinawa against us.

Given the problems the USA had in finding out exactly what was going on in Iraq before GW2 I suspect you are right. It would be very difficult for US satellites to find information that China did not want them to see.

I also agree that Japan would probably be reluctant to become involved in any conflict with China. This may include not allowing US aircraft to stage out of Okinawa but I guess there would be a lot of diplomatic pressure from Washington so I am not certain of what the outcome might be. Other countries would most likely also be reluctant but that doesn’t mean that they definitely wouldn’t allow their airfields or other facilities to be used. However, aircraft like the B2 don't need staging airfields. In addition I believe the USN probably has sufficient firepower of its own to effectively deploy (and successfully defend) a large enough carrier strike force to inflict an appropriate retaliatory response. Any action against China would certainly involve multiple carrier strike groups, backed by the full power of the US fleet.

However, I can’t see any circumstances that are likely to arise where either the USA or China would allow relations to reach the stage where strikes against China by the USA, or against the USN by China, would be contemplated. It would not be in the interests of either country to allow this to happen. My understanding of the relationship between the two countries is that it has improved tremendously and that both are trying to continue in this direction. The destruction of a US satellite would certainly provoke a fierce retaliation but I can't see this happening (I hope I'm not being naive).

Cheers

 

[goldenpanda]

I don't doubt USA can launch a powerful strike using cruise missiles, B2's, and maybe even ground attack aircraft against the eastern seaboard. Just how much damage will depend on timing and surprise. China does have a lot room to disperse.

There is some question of B2's ability to operate deep inland given the new technologies involving networked radars. I am most skeptical however, about the ability of carriers to sustain air battle against land based air and coastal navy. Carrier air operations are hampered by any number of factors such as weather, range, and the need to evade attack. If you think landing is hard during exercises, try to do it down wind while the ship is turning to avoid a torpedo. As I understand it, carrier navies during WWII depended on the ability to choose their battles. They become vulnerable if they stick around to provide air cover.

As far as China is concerned, it needs to succeed just once--the capitulation of Taiwan--while it can fail again and again so long as there is capacity to continue the war. This capacity is largely in the form of national will and the manufacturing base. Neither of those should be easy to destroy.

If China actually destroys an American satellite then it has already chosen full scale war. No one understands better than Chinese how much this is against our national goals. The thorn for China is that Taiwan is not an area of compromise, at all. I'd compare it with giving California back to Mexico, but it wouldn't do justice. It is the meaning of our civilization that Taiwan should remain part of China. The west simply cannot win, because China will not lose.

 

[Waylander]

The west simply cannot win, because China will not lose.

Ah, I remember some very similar arguments from our history some 60 years ago.

 

[eckherl]

I don't doubt USA can launch a powerful strike using cruise missiles, B2's, and maybe even ground attack aircraft against the eastern seaboard. Just how much damage will depend on timing and surprise. China does have a lot room to disperse.

There is some question of B2's ability to operate deep inland given the new technologies involving networked radars. I am most skeptical however, about the ability of carriers to sustain air battle against land based air and coastal navy. Carrier air operations are hampered by any number of factors such as weather, range, and the need to evade attack. If you think landing is hard during exercises, try to do it down wind while the ship is turning to avoid a torpedo. As I understand it, carrier navies during WWII depended on the ability to choose their battles. They become vulnerable if they stick around to provide air cover.

As far as China is concerned, it needs to succeed just once--the capitulation of Taiwan--while it can fail again and again so long as there is capacity to continue the war. This capacity is largely in the form of national will and the manufacturing base. Neither of those should be easy to destroy.

If China actually destroys an American satellite then it has already chosen full scale war. No one understands better than Chinese how much this is against our national goals. The thorn for China is that Taiwan is not an area of compromise, at all. I'd compare it with giving California back to Mexico, but it wouldn't do justice. It is the meaning of our civilization that Taiwan should remain part of China. The west simply cannot win, because China will not lose.

You lost when you decided to turn your back on the rest of the world when North Korea built their new toy.

 

[Firehorse]

I posted this clip on another tread, but it's relevant here too!

Havoc in the Heavens: Soviet-Era Satellite's Leaky Reactor's Lethal Legacy

IMO, this spin that

The out-of-control falling US spy satellite is expected to crash into North America

may be to prepare the world opinion for the USAF shooting it down, as a tit-for tat to the PRC ASAT test. It could be that this "falling US spy satellite" is being allowed to fall on purpose!

 

[gf0012-aust]

IMO, this spin that may be to prepare the world opinion for the USAF shooting it down, as a tit-for tat to the PRC ASAT test.

The US first demonstrated ASAT capability 27 years ago, they don't need to kill their own satellite to demonstrate capability. They already have.

In fact they have 3 publicly declared and demonstrated ASAT capabilities.

 

[eckherl]

I posted this clip on another tread, but it's relevant here too!

Havoc in the Heavens: Soviet-Era Satellite's Leaky Reactor's Lethal Legacy

IMO, this spin that may be to prepare the world opinion for the USAF shooting it down, as a tit-for tat to the PRC ASAT test. It could be that this "falling US spy satellite" is being allowed to fall on purpose!

No - we do not need to prove anything, been there done that how many years ago, kind of a mute statement for my country to make at this point.

It has already been reported that this satellite in question was launched in December 2006 and had a on board computer fail immediately after we tried to activate it, so its been floating in no mans land for all this time and would eventually come tumbling down from space, all we are trying to do is warn everyone ( countries ) that there is a possibility that it could land on their territory.

 

[defhurl]

Based on a 1000 mile combat radius of F-15E's flying out of afghanistan they would be able to strike any target in the xinjiang province.

The USAF wouldn't risk bombers entering china without escorts so somewhere in central china would be a good place to hide.

The F-22 doesn't have the legs to reach far into china, and the US navy has very limited range at the moment with its Super Hornets.

The F-22 with four 600 gallon external tanks would be a great escort. Even with the extra drag it could still cruise above Mach 1 and have a combat radius well over 1000 miles, once it reachs the combat zone, the external tanks are dropped and the F-22 has full internal fuel and stealth to get the mission done and return home. Im not even sure if external tanks have even been cleared on the F-22 though.

I dont know the distances, frankly i have no idea where xin province is but the South Korean Osan air base will most likely be used for combat operations into China.

@osan.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123084390

 

[Firehorse]

No - we do not need to prove anything, been there done that how many years ago, kind of a mute statement for my country to make at this point.
It has already been reported that this satellite in question was launched in December 2006 and had a on board computer fail immediately after we tried to activate it, so its been floating in no mans land for all this time and would eventually come tumbling down from space, all we are trying to do is warn everyone ( countries ) that there is a possibility that it could land on their territory.

Well, does the US have that capability now- are those missiles and F-15s that carry them ready to go? Or will they have to resort using BMD interceptors in AK or CA? Or maybe even SLBMs on SSBNs? It will be very embarassing indeed if the Russians or Chinese will have to shot it down!

 

[eckherl]

Well, does the US have that capability now- are those missiles and F-15s that carry them ready to go? Or will they have to resort using BMD interceptors in AK or CA? Or maybe even SLBMs on SSBNs? It will be very embarassing indeed if the Russians or Chinese will have to shot it down!

What is the point in shooting it down, it is already on a downward spiral, and who said anything about the U.S even wanting to make a attempt at shooting at it,all sensitive equipment will either be burned up or destroyed after impact. if the Russians or Chinese want to take a shot at it then they have that right if it is going to impact in their territory.

 

[Firehorse]

Again,

US spy Sat targets North America
Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:13:12

The out-of-control falling US spy satellite is expected to crash into North America, says the American Air Force General Gene Renuart.

"We're aware it is a fairly substantial size. And we know there is at least some percentage that it could land on ground as opposed to in the water,” said the Head of the US Northern Command.

Renuart explained 'as it looks like it might re-enter into the North American area', and called for contingency plans to deal with the impact or assist Canadian or Mexican authorities.

Military agencies are doing an analysis to determine which pieces most likely would survive re-entry, said the General.

However, he cautioned that officials won't have much detail on where or when it will crash until it begins to move through the atmosphere and break up.

Renuart said there were no worries about the sensitive technologies on the satellite falling into the wrong hands and added that the main cause of concern for the time being was making preparations for the incident.

Defense experts claim the threat from the satellite expected to crash into Earth in late February or early March would not be eliminated by destroying it with a missile because that would create debris that would then re-enter the atmosphere and burn up or hit the ground.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=41040&sectionid=3510212

So, it may be desirable to shoot at it!

 

[eckherl]

Again,

So, it may be desirable to shoot at it!

The statement that you just posted clearly states that by shooting at it will not eliminate the threat of falling debris, it could actually make it even worse by having multiple pieces slamming into the ground.

 

[Firehorse]

Yes, I'm aware of that. But, having smaller fragments may be better than a big chunk- they may burn out easier and/or cause less damage.
I completely forgot to mention that even though a US jet intercepted ballistic missile recently, but it was a boost fase one. My point here is that those ASAT tests were done 27 years ago, - precisely- the Appolo Moon landings were also done even earlier- is there current capability do that? In case of ASAT, I guess it's more of a rhethorical question, as we all know that NASA can't repeat the manned Moon landings yet.

 

[eckherl]

Yes, I'm aware of that. But, having smaller fragments may be better than a big chunk- they may burn out easier and/or cause less damage.
I completely forgot to mention that even though a US jet intercepted ballistic missile recently, but it was a boost fase one. My point here is that those ASAT tests were done 27 years ago, - precisely- the Appolo Moon landings were also done even earlier- is there current capability do that? In case of ASAT, I guess it's more of a rhethorical question, as we all know that NASA can't repeat the manned Moon landings yet.

As gf0012-aust has mentioned earlier, we have done it three times with public knowledge, who knows how many other times this has been accomplished. As far as landing on the moon goes, why do we need to, been there done that also. I have always wondered what other nasty surprises that the Department of Defense and NASA have placed in space, we do walk with alot of confidence in this subject.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yes, I'm aware of that. But, having smaller fragments may be better than a big chunk- they may burn out easier and/or cause less damage.
I completely forgot to mention that even though a US jet intercepted ballistic missile recently, but it was a boost fase one. My point here is that those ASAT tests were done 27 years ago, - precisely- the Appolo Moon landings were also done even earlier- is there current capability do that? In case of ASAT, I guess it's more of a rhethorical question, as we all know that NASA can't repeat the manned Moon landings yet.

Read the posts for subtlety.

The first successful tests were done over 27 years ago. Have you been looking at what public tests have been done at a BMD level in the last 3 years? Have you considered that a BMD multistage test done now negates the previous ASAT technology of air lobbing a sat killing exercise?

As for temporal excuses. The US has successfully initiated and maintained laser targetting from an orbitting mass to a determined earth location at over 384,000 km. The capability has not degraded, and yet its a 48 year old technology. Aging of the capability is not relevant, it demonstrates latency way beyond the capability of any other nation in almost 50 years.

How about making the effort to understand the issues of how technology demonstrated = latency and how current tech advances mean that the chances of those systems being real and relevant are much higher than theory in absentia.

You do realise that any nation conducting a shoot against someone elses asset without prior would cause a little precendent that would make things very very uncomfortable for the technologically inferior state?

You do understand that the kind of sat kill that china conducted does mean lots of fragments - and that has been clearly articulated in the aviation press. Kinetic kills cause massive fragmentation - and china is already unpopular due to some of the flotsam fallout from her prev flag waving exercise.

NASA hasn't done a moon shot for over 25 years, and yet they've sent deep space missions and maintained contact beyond Mars. (all the while maintaining comms - comms main at that distance says a considerable amount about targetting and latency issues. Meanwhile those nations who decry the decline tare yet to land anything on the moon - let alone launch Mars and Venus probes, deep space telescopes etc......

I'm putting my money on the technologically superior power to be able to roll out the capability when it needs to with a far shorter cycle time.

 

[Firehorse]

All are good points, but still, the shuttle Columbia didn't land as planned, the PRC has a lunar probe, and, in the event of US SAT set to crash in China's or Russia's populated areas they may or may not coordinate ASAT measures with the US. And, what if it crashes in Koreas or Japan? I don't think neither of them can reach high enough to ensure its destruction/fragmentation!

USAF seeks to harden satellite defences

 

[gf0012-aust]

All are good points, but still, the shuttle Columbia didn't land as planned, the PRC has a lunar probe, and, in the event of US SAT set to crash in China's or Russia's populated areas they may or may not coordinate ASAT measures with the US. And, what if it crashes in Koreas or Japan? I don't think neither of them can reach high enough to ensure its destruction/fragmentation!

USAF seeks to harden satellite defences

You're missing the previous point considerably. Landing on the moon, shuttle events and shallow space lunar probes do not have any relevance to ASAT intercepts. Deeep space tracking and lunar based comms do demonstrate clearly a comms capability - and ipso facto, a targetting capability. Again. No other country has even the remotest close track record for long distance laser comms and targetting designation. Killing any space assets (let alone LEO) involves that capability

For over 48 years, the US has for 24/7/365 been able to laser designate from an orbiting platform at a range of over 380,400km. That means targetting capability. Lunar probes are not comparable. Its like watching greyhound racing.... as opposed to the complexity of a gymkhana

You haven't understood that you don't need to have an ASAT capability to intercept and kill a decaying satellite. Once a target enters the atrmosphere its a BMD target anyway - not an ASAT target. So even if Japan and Sth Korea are in the terminal descent basket, they have the capability to intercept and target the satellite.

In addition, the US keeps all nations informed about these issues (as other nations are supposed to do as well as part of their obligations) - the US is certainly not going to keep principle allies out of the progress and decision loop. You do understand that the US is the only country that has access to Japanese comms? Thats how Japan managed to interact at RIMPAC with all the other non US participants. Comms is not an issue.

 

[Firehorse]

I just used those examples to point out that others aren't that backward in their space-related development. Well, it's good to learn that TBMD can engage a falling SAT! How about using a nuke to ensure that no debries reach the ground? Maybe not with this one, but a bigger man-made object?

 

[Todjaeger]

I just used those examples to point out that others aren't that backward in their space-related development. Well, it's good to learn that TBMD can engage a falling SAT! How about using a nuke to ensure that no debries reach the ground? Maybe not with this one, but a bigger man-made object?

And what reason would there be for a nuclear device (and all that entails) to be used against a satellite on re-entry? In what sort of situation would there be less trouble from the device detonation than from the impact?

From a historical perspective, AFAIK Skylab was the largest man-made satellite to enter the atmosphere from a decaying orbit. IIRC Skylab was approximately 78 tons and virtually all of it burned up during re-entry, except for some small pieces which impacted some remote areas of Western Australia. IMS a young person (late teens or early twenties) found some of the pieces and then boarded a flight to the US with some of them to win a contest about recovering parts of Skylab. As such, it would be logical to assume that any pieces which survived were quite small.

With regards to a mil/def spy satellite coming down from a decaying orbit, the item I would be concerned with would be the powerpack. That I would expect would be large enough and have sufficiently robust shielding, to withstand re-entry and as such where it would impact could be an item of concern if it appeared to be headed towards an inhabited area.

Using a nuclear device to deflect it would IMV make things worse, there would be the effects of the EMP and any radiation/fallout from the nuclear warhead, as well as the possibility that the powerpack would be ruptured or vapourized, increasing the amount of airborne radioactive material.

If someone is going to suggest means of something, I would also suggest consideration be given to the why, since that will effect what is considered an acceptable outcome.

-Cheers

 

[Firehorse]

Havoc in the Heavens: Soviet-Era Satellite's Leaky Reactor's Lethal Legacy

I agree that it may do more harm than good, but nuking a nuclear powered SAT before it enters the atmosphere may prevent bigger damage on the ground, if it were heading toward a populated area.
I wonder, if that SAT was in trouble since '06, why the shuttle didn't attempt to retrive it? what were they thinking?!