Military History
|
How To Make War
|
Wars Around the World
Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Space Operations
Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page
Subject:
Anybody see a down side to orbital bombardment?
DarthAmerica
2/19/2008 1:51:59 PM
We get global navigation and communications coverage via our space assets. Would there be a down side to putting up a constellation of orbital bombardment satellites to fullfill our prompt global strike requirements? -DA
Quote
Reply
Show Only Poster Name and Title
Newest to Oldest
farscape
2/19/2008 2:56:49 PM
Non-nuclear, I assume?
Downsides? A new space race by the space-faring powers to do same. Death of existing space treaties (although they are focussed on the deployment of nukes in space), with all of the ramifications of that. The passage of orbitting weapons systems over certain countries is bound to provoke some sort of response.
Questions. Is it technologically feasible to "recall" or abort a weapon during re-entry? How easy would it be to defend against?
Quote
Reply
DarthAmerica
2/19/2008 3:18:48 PM
Non-nuclear, I assume?
Downsides? A new space race by the space-faring powers to do same. Death of existing space treaties (although they are focussed on the deployment of nukes in space), with all of the ramifications of that. The passage of orbitting weapons systems over certain countries is bound to provoke some sort of response.
Questions. Is it technologically feasible to "recall" or abort a weapon during re-entry? How easy would it be to defend against?
Yes, you can recall. Especially if the RV is some kind of guided hypersonic cruise vehicle. The US would be in the best position to defend itself. For others, very limited options if any.
-DA
Quote
Reply
DarthAmerica
2/19/2008 3:20:15 PM
By recall I mean deorbit into the sea and you lose the weapon.
-DA
Quote
Reply
Herald12345
2/19/2008 4:12:57 PM
Down side is orbital decay. Those weapons will come down EVENTUALLY and function EXACTLY as we designed on somebody.
Messy.
Herald
Quote
Reply
DarthAmerica
2/19/2008 4:28:11 PM
Down side is orbital decay. Those weapons will come down EVENTUALLY and function EXACTLY as we designed on somebody.
Messy.
Herald
Can't we compensate for that by purposely deorbiting them prior to their departure from controlled flight? We do that with satellites today. Or even put them into a parking orbit for service and recovery? Though that later suggestion would cost more than simply disgarding them IMHO and using a quick launch system to reconstitute expired satellites as needed. Although some quick math suggest that an orbit altitude practical for a quick responsive orbital weapon would decay rather quickly. The conventionally armed SLBM or ICBM would probably do this job better except for the huge political cost and risk associated with BM launches which is what I was hoping to avoid. No treaty prohibits convetional weapons in space.
Thinking about this a bit, most nations would never even know they were under attack until...
-DA
Quote
Reply
Herald12345
2/19/2008 4:47:28 PM
This is the problem. For the weapons to be time effective you need to keep them in close orbit. close orbit is subject to drag. To decay them on command and drop them as intended you need secure telemetry. Any control telemetry is subject to spoof jam or hijack.
This is why US strategic weapons are ultimately self guiding and self contained as much as possible.
I don't think we'll put up anything that a hacker can bring down on US.
Herald
Quote
Reply
hybrid
2/19/2008 5:48:35 PM
Theres also the bit where it still costs too much to put even a few hundred kilos up into orbit let alone say constellations of killsats and such into orbit. Good rule of thumb I've found is the kinetic energy equivalent depending on its orbit, wiki has a pretty decent breakdown of this
Specific Orbital Energy
.
At sub-orbital we can see that we're not very effectively converting our mass to energy and we'd probably be better off chucking a standard bomb at someone (unless you impart a LOT of velocity to said object on its down path). LEO gives us a lot more potential energy to work with. roughly 30 odd MJ per kilo, or roughly 6-7 times the equivalant of an objects mass if it were TNT. For example a 250kg vehicle in this case would have rough explosive power of about 1200 to 1500 kg of TNT. Mind you none of this counts momentum or anything else being imparted to the target.
And of course the downside is the cost to get it up there in the first place, 250kg to LEO assuming we use something like the Russian Dnepr rocket costs approximately $2200/kg (its significantly higher for US launch systems but we'll ignore that for now), that means for the 250kg package you have just spent $550,000 just to get it up there. Now multiply that package by say 1000, thats $550 million bucks just for LAUNCH. Nothing else. Double or triple those cost numbers if you want US systems to launch the packages. Maintenance costs alone would rapidly cost the equivalent of buying DD(X) every year at least. It would be a hard sell even in the best of times under those kinda conditions.
Quote
Reply
Latest
News
Most
Read
Most
Commented
Hot
Topics
WEAPONS: Unjammable Wire Controlled UAVs
RUSSIA: Russia Claims a Lot More Than Ukraine
ARMOR: Russia Rebuilds Its Tank Forces
ARTILLERY: Fire Weaver and Long Spike
ARMOR: Evolution of Tank Warfare in Ukraine
SURFACE FORCES : Ada Class Corvettes
ARMOR: Evolution of Tank Warfare in Ukraine
WEAPONS: Putting a Spike in North Korean Aggression
AIR WEAPONS: The Ukraine Unmanned Systems Force
PROCUREMENT: The Russian Smuggling Industry
AFGHANISTAN: Afghanistan March 2024
ATTRITION: Patterns of American Combat Casualties
ELECTRONIC WEAPONS: Norway Again Attacked by Russian Jamming
SURFACE FORCES : Unmanned LUSV Ships at Sea
MURPHY'S LAW: China Harasses Foreign Investment it Encouraged
PROCUREMENT: Russian Demand and North Korean Arms Production
PROCUREMENT: Russian Demand and North Korean Arms Production
WARPLANES: F22 Gets an End Date
ARTILLERY: More Truck Mounted Artillery for Ukraine
SPACE: Russian Roscosmos Retreating
INTELLIGENCE: Americans Use AI to Plan Airstrikes
SPACE: Russian Roscosmos Retreating
ARTILLERY: More Truck Mounted Artillery for Ukraine
AIR DEFENSE: Russian Air Defense Tries Something New
SUBMARINES: Stumbling Through Submarine Repairs
SPECIAL OPERATIONS: A Decade of CIA Operations in Ukraine
SURFACE FORCES : Despised LCS Survives with Upgrades
SYRIA: Syria March 2024
WARPLANES: F-35 Aircraft in Action
LEADERSHIP: Russia’s Wartime Economic Crisis
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Armor: New American M10 Tank
Air Weapons: Western Russia Under Attack
Artillery: Artillery Ammunition Quality and Quantity
Surface Forces: Russian Black Sea Fleet Disappears
WARS China: China Needs South Korea More Than North Korea
Surface Forces: Naval Reload Realities
Air Weapons: Dealing With FPV UAVs
Special Operations: Somali Pirates are Back
Armor: K2 Tanks For Everyone
WARS Russia: Can Russia Continue the War After 2024?
WARS Korea: Korea March 2024
Logistics: The Black Sea Blockade
Procurement: Ukraine War Crippled Russian Arms Exports
Attrition: Russian Losses so Far in Ukraine
Procurement: French Support for Ukraine
NBC Weapons: Chinese Biowar Laboratories in California
ATTRITION: Russian Losses so Far in Ukraine
PROCUREMENT: French Support for Ukraine
ARMOR: New American M10 Tank
AIR WEAPONS: Western Russia Under Attack
ARTILLERY: Artillery Ammunition Quality and Quantity
SURFACE FORCES : Naval Reload Realities
PROCUREMENT: Ukraine War Crippled Russian Arms Exports
ARMOR: K2 Tanks For Everyone
AIR WEAPONS: Dealing With FPV UAVs
SPECIAL OPERATIONS: Somali Pirates are Back
LOGISTICS: The Black Sea Blockade
PROCUREMENT: Ukraine War Crippled Russian Arms Exports
PROCUREMENT: Ukraine War Crippled Russian Arms Exports
PROCUREMENT: Ukraine War Crippled Russian Arms Exports
PROCUREMENT: Ukraine War Crippled Russian Arms Exports
PROCUREMENT: Ukraine War Crippled Russian Arms Exports
KOREA: Korea March 2024
CHINA: China Needs South Korea More Than North Korea
SURFACE FORCES : Russian Black Sea Fleet Disappears
ARTILLERY: Artillery Ammunition Quality and Quantity
Russia: Can Russia Continue the War After 2024?
Russia: Russia Claims a Lot More Than Ukraine
Procurement: French Support for Ukraine
Attrition: Russian Losses so Far in Ukraine
Armor: New American M10 Tank
Warplane Weapons: Western Russia Under Attack
Surface Forces: Naval Reload Realities
Armor: Russia Rebuilds Its Tank Forces
Procurement: Ukraine War Crippled Russian Arms Exports
News
How To Make War
Wars Around The World
Austin Bay's On Point
StrategyTalk
Dirty Little Secrets
Features
Al Nofi's CIC
Videos
Photos
Jokes
Community
Military Discussion Boards
Military Jokes
Military Photos
Military Book Reviews
StrategyPage
Account Manager
Login
Feedback
About Us
Search
Advertise With Us
Search