shooting down a spy satellite

[bekosh]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

It was president Reagan who ordered a missile shot down with another missile during his promotion of the "star wars" program.Years later it turned out that the missile that was to have been shot down did in fact have a self destruct and it exploded by activating the self destruct.
I do think that this might be a highly publicized repetition of the same bluff.

As I recall, those allegations came from a former employee of a sub-contractor that had a grudge and were never proven.

It doesn't really matter because the system today is much more advanced. This isn't a test of an unproven system.

Keep in mind, this isn't new capabilities for the Aegis/Standard Missile system. This is just adding back in capabilities that were originaly removed to comply with the ABM Treaty.

 

[i386]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

It is compleatly DEAD which makes it hard to self destruct

Not at all. The engineers that design these things are a lot smarter than me. If I were designing a self destruct system I would most definitely design it to work when when you need it the most. When the satellite is dead. It's called a redundant power system. If I can come up with that, I know they can come up with something even better. I'm still betting on them wanting to make a point to China and I hope they succeed.

Sure, it's all speculation, but I find it more than reasonably possible. Dead or not.

 

[bjcsc]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

It might be a better idea to let in land in China. They could copy it and maybe we could get cheaper satellites from them in the future...

Wish I could watch that missile launch from the ship...

 

[JB]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

I don't think "shoot down" is correct terminology for what they intend to do. When you shoot something down you disable it so that it falls down. That is not what they contemplate. They think they want to destroy it so that the debris reenters in pieces, not as a whole.

WHY? Guessing at others' motives is a fool's errand.

As for "can they do it?" The Chinese have already destroyed one defunct weather satellite (ours) using technology they. . .um. . ."got" from us. It is a bit more challenging than destroying an ICBM.

 

[mscher]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

I say fire when ready.

Nothing wrong with showing the rest of the world we still "have a pair".

Reagan made it work

 

[turfman]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

Well; I guess I am the only one who wants it to take out china?

 

[v1_0]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

Here's why we're shooting it down... because China shot down one of our old communications satelites not too long ago. Why does that matter? Well ordinarily it wouldn't. In fact if it were Germany, or even Iran, it wouldn't. But we don't have a standing nuclear policy with those countries. We do with China, because if we ever have to go to war with China, if we fight it out on the ground, we'd lose 100,000 plus of our own soldiers to win (and we would still win, despite what people say, our high kill ratios make that possible, even against their million man army, which now has a little less than a million men. But the cost would be more than we would want bear). Instead, we would use our primary strike nuclear capabilities. Now of course there is one major problem that, and I'm sure you've already thought of it, but here it is in case you hadn't... If we nuke them, they will attempt to nuke us, because they also have primary strike capabilities (although they don't have secondary strike capabilities like we do, even in a best case scenario, it is likely that they could still launch up to 35 ICBM's after being hit). Now that would normally make it completely absurd to consider such a policy, right? Right. Enter SDI. Now those of you who think we spent 5 trillion dollars on SDI and got nothing for it, you can just sit this one out. In case you're too young or too old to know what SDI is, that's our missile defense system. Now since our SDI could easily handle shooting down all of their ICBM's (let alone the few they could launch after being struck, that makes the nuclear option viable again. Still paying attention?

Ok, now since our SDI relies on the use of satelites to track the ICBM's, if China has the ability to thwart our SDI capabilities by shooting down our satelites, then once again the nuclear option is off the table. Still with me? But, in order for China to shoot down one of our satelites, they had to use their own satelites to precisely track the satelite that they shot down. So there it is... we have to show that we have the capabilty to shoot down their satelites before they can disable our SDI which puts the nuclear option back on the table and assures that they won't pursue any type of war against the US.

... and you thought world politics was boring ...

SgtMaj

Ahhh... But do THEY know that we know that they know that we know?

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

I don't know.

 

[puddle jumper]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

AAAAAAAAAAAA can any one say target practice.

 

[v1_0]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

SgtMaj, I suspect that the lesson is for Iran - not China. China is presumably advanced enough to build ICBMs that have a chance of fooling/evading interception. I'm pretty sure they got a good idea of how the SDI works on their last technology shopping spree....

 

[wildmaninal]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

I haven't heard anything lately on any of our news stations, but my mother said they were just talking about it on the chat room she was viewing and the people on there said that they did take it down. Don't take my word for it though.

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

That is correct, it was a success! Good job US Navy!

 

[aspeck]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

Yep, direct hit

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

They shot it down because one of the techs who built it used to date Jenna Bush and there is a naked photograph of her taped to the inside of one of the panel doors ... they don't want Larry Flynt to get his hands on it!

 

[SgtMaj]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

SgtMaj, I suspect that the lesson is for Iran - not China. China is presumably advanced enough to build ICBMs that have a chance of fooling/evading interception. I'm pretty sure they got a good idea of how the SDI works on their last technology shopping spree....

Iran doesn't have the capability to even reach us. Iran will go for Israel anyway, and they don't care if they are wiped out in the process because they believe that they will all go to heaven for it... which is why Israel, or the US will simply put a 2000lb GBU into the reactors before they have the opportunity to create such weapons.

No, this message is certainly for China... and there isn't SDI evading tech. out there yet. Unlike some planes, missiles are very easy to track.

 

[v1_0]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

and there isn't SDI evading tech. out there yet. Unlike some planes, missiles are very easy to track.

First: I have no inside track on this, and can only put (known to the media) existing pieces of tech together.

That said: the places are difficult to track for at least 2 reasons - they change course, and they have encorporated stealth technology to reduce the radar signature. However, planes also move slower - the Patriot missile system was originally intended to be anti-plane, rather than anti-missile.

All of the SDI anti-ICBM missiles I have read about all use radar. Applying stealth technology - using shape and materials/coatings - to warheads should be possible. Changing course is also possible, and could probably be calculated ahead of time/programmed in.

Although, that may even be overkill - if you recall during the 1st gulf war, our patriot missile system had trouble with the scuds because they would break up. This points to another method of evading (defeating the intent of) anti-ICBM missiles.

 

[SgtMaj]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

First: I have no inside track on this, and can only put (known to the media) existing pieces of tech together.

That said: the places are difficult to track for at least 2 reasons - they change course, and they have encorporated stealth technology to reduce the radar signature. However, planes also move slower - the Patriot missile system was originally intended to be anti-plane, rather than anti-missile.

All of the SDI anti-ICBM missiles I have read about all use radar. Applying stealth technology - using shape and materials/coatings - to warheads should be possible. Changing course is also possible, and could probably be calculated ahead of time/programmed in.

Although, that may even be overkill - if you recall during the 1st gulf war, our patriot missile system had trouble with the scuds because they would break up. This points to another method of evading (defeating the intent of) anti-ICBM missiles.

If we used radar, it would take us a lot longer to pinpoint missile launches. As it is, we can pinpoint the location, altitude, velocity, and trajectory of a missile launch within only a couple of seconds. One reason ICBM's are not stealthy is that missiles can't mask their heat or noise signatures, not to mention that the location of every land-based ICBM silo in the world is well known, and they are closely watched. Before the doors on any silo can open up a foot, NORAD is already aware of it.

All ICBM's deploy their warheads upon re-entry, and they can carry many warheads, each of which can destroy a city. SDI targets the missiles before that point, and destroys not only the missiles, but also the warheads before they become armed. The patriot missile system is not SDI or a viable ICBM defense. They are used only for theatre missile attacks.

Here's some more facts that back up my original thought... the missile that "shot down" the satelite didn't contain a warhead. So instead of exploding the satelite, it basically hit it with a big hammer. That would be ineffective at hiding secret technologies used on board, and wouldn't do much, if anything to alleviate the toxin problem, which by the way, they said would only have affected a 2 football field sized area.

 

[bekosh]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

First: I have no inside track on this, and can only put (known to the media) existing pieces of tech together.

That said: the places are difficult to track for at least 2 reasons - they change course, and they have encorporated stealth technology to reduce the radar signature. However, planes also move slower - the Patriot missile system was originally intended to be anti-plane, rather than anti-missile.

All of the SDI anti-ICBM missiles I have read about all use radar. Applying stealth technology - using shape and materials/coatings - to warheads should be possible. Changing course is also possible, and could probably be calculated ahead of time/programmed in.

Although, that may even be overkill - if you recall during the 1st gulf war, our patriot missile system had trouble with the scuds because they would break up. This points to another method of evading (defeating the intent of) anti-ICBM missiles.

High-speed/high-altitude aircraft are a harder target than ballistic missiles. Aircraft can change course, evade, use ECM in reaction to defenses, come at you from unexpected directions. Ballistic missiles are, well, ballistic. Once launched they can't maneuver, change course or react to defenses. No decoys, no ECM, no dodging. Just just plodding along, blind and dumb on a fixed course.

Stealth doesn't work for ballistic missiles, you are kinda limited to that long round metal shape. Not stealthy at all. You can't really change the shape of the warheads either, they need to be a stable aerodynamic shape. Besides, the final intercept is done by infra-red, before warhead deployment.

As for the Patriot & DS, both the Patriot and the Aegis were toned down to comply with the ABM treaty at the time. The Patriot being deployed now is the PAC-4 version with all that capability added back in.

Right now you have 3 nations with deployed(ing) missile defenses, USA, Russia & Israel. Within 5-10 years that'll grow, with India, Japan & Taiwan deploying. Expect Europe to get in on the act at some point as well.
Just think, we maybe with 15-20 years of the ballistic missile being rendered obsolete and finally ending the insanity of MAD.

 

[Windykid]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

Here's why we're shooting it down... because China shot down one of our old weather satelites not too long ago. Why does that matter? Well ordinarily it wouldn't. In fact if it were Germany, or even Iran, it wouldn't. But we don't have a standing nuclear policy with those countries. We do with China, because if we ever have to go to war with China, if we fight it out on the ground, we'd lose 100,000 plus of our own soldiers to win (and we would still win, despite what people say, our high kill ratios make that possible, even against their million man army, which now has a little less than a million men. .

SgtMaj

UHHHYYEAAA! For a SGM you should check your numbers again, Because china has a heck of bigger army than that.

 

[QC]

Re: shooting down a spy satellite

I am in favor of anything, anytime, that scares anybody, into leaving us alone!