Could anti ballistic missile systems be modified to destroy satellites?

[Falstaff]

I guess that everyone here read about the Chinese anti satellite test last week, AFAIK they used a modified ballistic missile.

I'm wondering if rather than developing a dedicated system some existing anti ballistic missile systems could be used or modified to destroy satellites?

A system capable of shooting down incoming ICBMs or long range ballistic missiles has to hit its target outside the atmosphere at very high relative velocities.
Even modern AAW destroyers can track LEO satellites and I'm pretty sure it's a peace of cake for any dedicated anti missile system to do so.

So wouldn't it be easy to give e.g. a PAC-3 a littlebit more KE if needed and destroy satellites?

IMO the technoloy is there...

I'd like to hear your points of view! Thx!

 

[Grand Danois]

Well, my point of view is that it could quite possibly be done with an extended rocket stage and burn. THAAD would probably be more suited for that, with much higher specification wrt to operational altitude, range and more specialised warhead.

But launching an ASAT from an F-15 might be a better idea, as it is a more flexible way to position yourself in time and space in the path of the satellite you wish to shoot down.

Vought ASM-135 ASAT

0.02€

 

[LancerMc]

The ASAT was cancelled but with China's recent success in their test, I think that work will rapidly brought back.

The USAF Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence system is designed to shot down warheads, but I wouldn't be all surprised if the USAF added a secret ability to shoot down satellites too (There is no actual evidence of that). Though the U.S. military is pretty good a hiding the true capabilities of many military systems.

 

[Grand Danois]

The ASAT was cancelled but with China's recent success in their test, I think that work will rapidly brought back.

Actually, my suspicion is that this type of ASAT exist as a black program for political reasons (weaponisation of space), and operational reasons (satellite countermeasures.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

So wouldn't it be easy to give e.g. a PAC-3 a littlebit more KE if needed and destroy satellites?

It might need rather more than a tad more KE.

The ASM-135 is more than three times heavier than the PAC-3, I think it would need a large first stage booster.

There have also been experiments on launching satellites using aircraft to get the rocket up to altitude before launching the payload into space. Some of this work could be feed into an anti-satellite system.



Chris

 

[Tasman]

Actually, my suspicion is that this type of ASAT exist as a black program for political reasons (weaponisation of space), and operational reasons (satellite countermeasures.

I would be amazed if there was not a black program. In the event that the chips were down and a major conflict with another nuclear power was likely it seems to me that taking out an enemy's communications, together with a substantial part of its surveillance and, perhaps, weapon guidance systems, would be a high priority. Also the USA (and other countries for that matter) just could not afford for an enemy to take out some of its satellites and not be able to retaliate by doing the same. I would also be surprised if there is not a black program, at least in the USA, to look at ways to defend satellites from attack, given their importance to both military and non military operations.

Cheers

 

[goldenpanda]

But how could they develop a dependable system without ever testing it? THAAD failed many times against lower targets.

A fighter launched system is severely limited in how much it can scale up in size and height. Sure the Pegasus used large planes but it failed quite often. Is that program still around?

 

[Grand Danois]

But how could they develop a dependable system without ever testing it? THAAD failed many times against lower targets.

Do you also apply this logic to PRC systems?

 

[goldenpanda]

Do you also apply this logic to PRC systems?

We tested 3 times and succeeded?

 

[Grand Danois]

We tested 3 times and succeeded?

What system?

Nope. Provide an example of an important PRC system that has the same record as THAADS, and which you think doesn't work.

The thing is, that it has an excellent record when you consider how new the system is and how it has been tested. You set very high standards.

 

[goldenpanda]

I didn't realize I announced any standard. I just stated some obvious facts. You turned them into wounded pride.

 

[Grand Danois]

I didn't realize I announced any standard. I just stated some obvious facts. You turned them into wounded pride.

Nope, just don't agree on the logic you apply. Put it in perspective.

Used my DT quota for today. More fun tomorrow.

(Actually not, I'll be too busy!)

 

[DarthAmerica]

A fighter launched system is severely limited in how much it can scale up in size and height. Sure the Pegasus used large planes but it failed quite often. Is that program still around?

This is simply not true. Fighter launched systems are proven and in fact on going under cleverly hidden R&D disguised around delivering "payloads" to LEO. That payload could be anything that would in the rocket up to several hundred kg. For higher orbits Pegasus would be able to deliver heavier payloads. In fact Pegasus has operated with a perfect operational record since 1996...

http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/Pegasus/pegasus_history.htm

...thats 37 missions. Rapid space launch to LEO/MEO and ASAT capabilities are going into their 3rd and 4th generations in the USA. These are firmly established capabilities.

DA