Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Military Science Fiction Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: space warfare
alexander the great    4/26/2007 12:48:17 PM
i have been doing some research on space and space combat apperently space warfare is on the military minds but what has my mind turning is can we actually have space warfare do we have the technoligical advances to do such things, if we did have space combat do we have the weapons for it
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
TrustButVerify       5/1/2007 12:22:00 PM

the US has already proven that treaties mean nothing to it. look at the ABM treaty

space is probably not weaponised yet because the technology isnt reliable enough yet, when its cheap enough and reliable enough LEO wil look like an arms dump

I disagree with your first line, but agree with your second line. Back in the days of SDI, one man opined that the signing of the 1972 ABM Treaty was "an admission that neither party could make the technology work." That's only accurate up to a point. By 1972 the Soviets had already developed and fielded the S-200 (aka SA-5 "Gammon") with a significant ABM capability which was never publicly acknowledged by the Kremlin. With that, and the subsequent development of the even more capable S-300 (SA-10), the USSR was able to deploy ABM systems willy-nilly without regard of the ABM treaty. This alone is sufficient to justify a U.S. withdrawal, but the changing strategic situation of the 1990s probably had more to do with it. And as a final point, if the U.S. didn't care about the treaty in the first place (as you seem to be saying), why bother withdrawing in the first place? Just build and test the interceptors, forget about legalities.
If anyone would like to continue this particular part of the discussion, I'll gladly start a thread in the Air Defense or Strategic Nuclear Weapons boards and we'll carry it on over there.
 
Quote    Reply

Herr_Alvaro       5/2/2007 5:08:39 PM
Space Warfare is already a fact,
not long ago the CHINASE shoot down a satellite LINK  and believe me when I say that the US and RUSSIA have been conducting similar test in the past, especially using satellites with mounted weapons on them to shoot down other satellites or even ballistics missiles.
Space Warfare is long from beeing carried by Starships but this doesn´t mean it doesn´t exist one in the present times and that this would not get more interesting and complex in the next decades.

Adios
 
Quote    Reply

alexander the great       5/3/2007 4:37:27 PM
I am already aware of the fact that we have satellites with weapons mounted on them, but thats doesn't mean its much of space combat, what i want to know is if in the next 50 yrs we well have technological advances to promote space warfare not on starships because theirs no way we can build something that big that has the power to make it out of the atmosphere but more in the sense shuttles with mounted weapons, and i would like to see a space shuttle that can rom around the universe and see what else is out thier
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    Facts - Not Speculation   5/3/2007 4:58:01 PM
LINK

US based A-Sat history...
The nation's first operational antisatellite weapon system was brought into being by Space Systems Division during 1963 and 1964. A ground-based system known as Program 437, it employed Thor missiles with nuclear warheads which could be shot into space accurately enough to destroy or disable a hostile space-based weapon or satellite. The Secretary of the Air Force approved the system's development in February 1963. Thor boosters were modified, combined with ground equipment from deactivated Thor missile sites in England, and deployed to Johnston Island in the Pacific. There they were maintained and operated entirely by Air Force military personnel. After four test launches without live warheads--three of them successful--the system was declared fully operational in May 1964, with Air Defense Command as the using command. The capability remained in place, though with few dedicated launchers and a temporary loss of warheads, until 1970.
 
In 1975, SAMSO began to develop an advanced concept for a follow-on antisatellite weapon system that would not use nuclear warheads. The most promising technology employed a miniature homing vehicle launched into space by a two-stage missile released from an F-15 fighter. The miniature vehicle used a longwave infrared sensor to acquire its target, steered toward the target by selectively firing small rocket motors, and destroyed the target by force of impact. The system was known as the Air-launched ASAT, and it achieved a high degree of technological success. Its first free-flight test took place successfully in January 1984. In September 1985, the ASAT was successfully tested against an orbiting satellite, which it destroyed by impact. Despite further successful tests, the Air-launched ASAT program was terminated by the Air Force in March 1988 because of budgetary constraints and Congressional restrictions.
 
 
 
Russian based A-Sat history...

Russia and Anti-Satellite Programs

In 1963-1964 the Soviet Troops of Defense (PVO) established two new commands: PRO and PKO. PRO, meaning antimissile defense, was charged with detecting, intercepting, and destroying enemy ballistic rockets, while the PKO, meaning anti-space defense, was responsible for "destroying the enemy's cosmic means of fighting" (Reference 106). In 1992 the USSR Space Units which include PRO and PKO were essentially transferred to the CIS United Armed Forces. However, on 7 May 1992 the armed forces of the Russian Federation were established with specific air and space defense missions.

To implement a space control regime and to fulfill its space defense obligation, the PKO began developing ASAT capabilities. Today, the Russian Federation is commonly believed to have acquired four basic ASAT systems with varying degrees of effectiveness. However, the operational status of these systems is a topic of considerable debate.

 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       5/3/2007 5:37:31 PM
It is only a matter of time before a Spaceship One-style suborbital vehicle is developed with weapons capable of attacking other aircraft, other spacecraft, and other satelites. The technology is pretty mature. It is also seen by the Airforce as being politically expedient because they anticipate greater political opposition to permenantly orbiting space weapons compared to a space fighter/bomber which is essentially a very high altitude version of contemprary craft.
 
Quote    Reply

Treadgar       5/5/2007 9:59:41 AM

Thanks everybody for the informative links. I was around when word was getting out through magazines like Aviation Week, and even Analog that the Russians were developing ASAT capabilities. I remember reading about a test where the Russians managed to move an ASAT next to one of their worn out satellites then detonated the ASAT. I also read about the Russians using lasers to blind the VLS (Visible Light Sensor) on an American satellite. This kind of thing has been going on since before I was born, when the so-called “Space Age” was just beginning.

 Treaty or no treaty things are going on in back rooms right now, the only difference is maybe you don’t have ashtrays heaped up with cigarette butts anymore. Some people might be upset by the backroom boys and girls plotting how to fight space wars, but you can’t wish it away. So what to do? I’d say protect those satellites. TrustButVerify has some ideas for that. First make the satellites more maneuverable, second make your system redundant with more “hot” spares, and third, having backups staged and ready to go. These are important points, and they’re working on them right now.

 As for the first point (maneuverability) I think satellites will definitely become more maneuverable. I can see these lofted into orbit and equipped with electric ion space drives similar to those that have been used for deep space probes. This doesn’t give you the ability to make quick evasive maneuvers, but you could change up your orbit enough to make targeting much more difficult. You might want to have some chemical rockets on board for quick moves. These types of satellites would obviously be more expensive (but with economies of scale maybe not so), so you’d want to include the other options, a redundant net of hot satellites, and the ability to launch satellites quickly to replenish your satellite net.

 The idea of launching them from Vandenberg and Patrick would be good to start with, but I’d ultimately want something more flexible. Here Softwar brings up the F-15 launched ASAT weapon, and I would say that this might be a cheap way of launching smaller, cheaper satellites as needed. This would make the launch infrastructure harder to target because they could be launched from multiple locations. In fact Dale Brown plays with this idea in many of his books, only he calls them “NIRTS”, or Need It Right This Second, satellites.

 One thing for sure, space war is going to be expensive…

 Treadgar
 
Quote    Reply

andyf    dale brown   5/6/2007 4:24:40 PM
hes a very annoying writer.
too many new technologies coming from the same small company, the baddies have got old kit and are inept
oh, and hes obsessed with bombers
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       5/7/2007 11:27:39 AM

on top of space warfare i have found a weapon called "rods of god" its not built yet but it is a work in progress  check out the link and tell me what do you think about this because this paving the road for space warfare



people talked about the rods from god thing for taking out very deep bunkers etc but an article i read went into the math and it's not likely they would penetrate well.  seems the earth's rotation is enough to "tumble" the rod by moving the centre of gravity of the rod out of line with it's direction of travel which would result in the rod shedding it's energy in the surface layers. 
they aren't very practical as wmd due to the amount of mass you would have to put in orbit to get that kind of effect.  they are likely not going to be all that handy as tactical weapons because the plasma sheath around them cuts off their own sensors as well as any means of comms to take advantage of outside guidance.  lots of power but once you drop it you better hope it's a stationary target kinda weapons. 
 
Quote    Reply

TrustButVerify       5/7/2007 11:39:53 AM
NIRTS reminds me of the ALBM concept (Skybolt being the poster child), and I've heard proposals for reviving the concept for satellite launch in recent years. It's not as tried-and-true as conventional pad-to-orbit technology but thanks to SpaceShipOne it has a great deal of visibility. I think countries operating on a lesser budget might very well prefer to go this route for microsat and ASAT weapon platforms.
It also means that my hoary, dusty, crumbling old tomes about SDI and Soviet ASAT research are going to be useful again.
Can anyone say whether the Russians were able to intercept targets in geostationary orbit? That's where the real money is, of course- hitting comm satellites. Of course it's possible to jam and disrupt them though ground-based means, but all this stuff pales in comparison to actually blowing one up. You just can't imagine how important SATCOM is running an AOR these days.

On a secondary note, I wonder how much ground support (tracking radars, communication nets, etc.) was required for one of those co-orbital interceptors which the Soviets were fond of.
 
Quote    Reply

Treadgar    Dale Brown   5/7/2007 8:22:02 PM
"hes a very annoying writer.
too many new technologies coming from the same small company, the baddies have got old kit and are inept
oh, and hes obsessed with bombers"

I agree, I liked him when he first started out. Flight of The Old Dog was good, it started to go down hill after that.

Treadgar
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics