C3/GPS/Satellite systems effectiveness in war with sophisticated enemy

[PREDATOR]

During a war with an enemy like Iraq, or operations in Yugoslavia, high tech military systems show themselves from the good side. GPS/Satellite/Communications; interaction between ground mechanized units and command centers/AWACS/Air Force with RF; Ability to have real time battlefield situation projected on the onboard computers with every friendly/enemy unit designated. everything works as the whole big flexible system. This facilitates defeat of the enemy Radar/Sam/Com.Center positions and positions of regular army units/installations with high precision and within a short amount of time.

However, in case of war with sophisticated enemy all above schemes wont work on 100% as it was with Iraq, Yugoslavia, or even as it could be with Iran. Sophisticated enemy will attack satellites, jam GPS/Communication signals (jammers working on different frequencies within limit). All these and other methods in combination with enemy's modern air defense missile systems with sophisticated signal processing and parallel computers is a serious threat. After the failure of the global communications/command systems, the units like T90 and Mig35 will be extremely dangerous.

C3 systems are important and should be incorporated in every type of mechanized combat unit or even infantry hardware. However, each type or small group of units should be capable of surviving and succeeding on the battlefield in case of global C3 failure. I think that integrated elements of artificial intelligence and signal processing are very important, and should be incorporated in every semi/autonomous combat unit (UAV/Other platforms). And every such kind of unit should be trained/capable of acting not only with the interaction with huge C3 but also on its own.

[Todjaeger]

A number of nations have moved beyond C3 systems, using C4 or even C5 integration. Along with that are various levels of redundancy and backup systems. Also, the location of many of these systems makes attacking them difficult, even for other advanced nations.

Take spy satellites like those used by the US for instance. The US operates them in constellations to provide coverage, with additional satellites in the constellation so that one or more satellites can suffer a failure, yet coverage will still be available. Many of these satellite constellations are also located in high orbits, making it difficult for them to be attacked. Adding into the mix that there are potentially multiple constellations, the situation becomes even more complex...

On the other side, a number of the weapon systems also have alternate navigation systems which might be employed as well, in the even of a systemic failure of something like the GPS. Inertial nav systems, or perhaps terrain recognition, some of the forthcoming tri-mode seekers... In order to defeat these systems, the device itself would need to be attacked. This again is something easier said than actually carried out.

What sort of methods would be able to counter the array of different comm, elint and guidance systems available? Personally jammers do not sound very feasible except maybe (emphasis on MAYBE) at a local level. By their very nature, jammers are hot emitters which are easy to detect and could be countered with an electronic attack or anti-radiation munition.

From other discussions, conflicts need to be looked at from a systemic response, not a platform response. Therefore thought needs to be given to how the system can be attacked, how it can compensate for any attacks underway, as well as its ability to launch counterattacks and how the original attacker can deal with the counterattacks.

-Cheers

[PREDATOR]

From other discussions, conflicts need to be looked at from a systemic response, not a platform response.

Right, that is why it is wrong to think that jammer can be detected and easily destroyed. Yes it can be! If some weak country buys a few of even high tech jammers and tries to fight against US, that wont work for them. But as i mentioned in my previous message; multiple jammers working on different frequencies on the wide area and secured by S-300(Antey/ 400 series) together with electronics warfare systems on aircrafts will create a serious problems.

[Duffy]

Right, that is why it is wrong to think that jammer can be detected and easily destroyed. Yes it can be! If some weak country buys a few of even high tech jammers and tries to fight against US, that wont work for them. But as i mentioned in my previous message; multiple jammers working on different frequencies on the wide area and secured by S-300(Antey/ 400 series) together with electronics warfare systems on aircrafts will create a serious problems.


If your jamming across a broad spectrum then your targeting and tracking radar would be affected would it not. Flooding the air with radio waves would hurt the defender more than the attacker I would think. Especially if the location of the air defense is fixed or has been in place long enough to have been targeted

[PREDATOR]

No, please do not understand what i wrote as black or white... When i was talking about using all the integrated systems it should be obvious that all such elements of electronics/high tech warfare would be used appropriately. It doesnt mean u have to use something near each other or simultaneously. It is a huge theory on using particular hardware in particular situations, battlefield environment, and area. And by the way S-300/400 systems are mobile (and not only these systems are mobile), it takes around 15 minutes for them to move away to another area. Sophisticated enemy has a lot of flexible options and knowledge in applying all such measures to get maximum efficiency. And the war with such an enemy will be far not like a war with Iran/Iraq or any other pretty big country. I hope you understood what i mean.

[GI-Gizmo]

So far no nation has developed devices or tactics strong enough to defeat the sophisticated US hegemony to the point where our technology ceases to work. In 2003 Iraq purchased GPS jammers and placed them around important targets in Baghdad, they were taken out using JDAMs. China is pouring money and manpower into developing gadgets that precisely aim to
disrupt or destroy US technological advantages. Alot of GPS jammers, communications signal jammers and eavesdroppers, IFF jammers and ghost-emmiters, radar jammers and specialized radars to target stealth aircraft have appeared at defense expos overseas lately.
Chinese defense manufacturers have built and displayed/exported several generation of this type of equipment. China is developing microwave weapons, particle beam weapons, high energy lasers and electromagnetic pulse weapons. The Chinese are working on anti-satellite weaponary, missiles, EMP, jammers and lasers. There is also alot of hype recently over the Chinese idea to use ballistic missiles as carrier killers. The real threat currently is from their ability to disrupt and infiltrate US computer networks, both government and private. Network warfare, using the internet to attack financial institutions, utilities, commerce and everything else connected is a real danger in the near future. If and when major powers clash in the 21st Century it will be unrestricted warfare to the extreme. Anything that can be thrown at the enemy will probably be used, lawfare, economic warfare, terrorism/asymmetrical, media aspect, conventional battles, air, sea and land forces, space warfare, weather, network warfare and everything else imaginable including NBC weaponary.

Unrestricted Warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare)

[Duffy]

Yep I think Gi-Gizmo has it, I think the biggest vulnerability to the US is Network warfare.

[PREDATOR]

So far no nation has developed devices or tactics strong enough to defeat the sophisticated US hegemony to the point where our technology ceases to work.

Highly doubt it... Never overestimate capabilities! You cannot be enough sure to state that.
I did not say anything about a point where your technology would cease to work, i said that effectiveness of the whole technology will be far below 100% than it was in Iraq.

[Duffy]

Predator I think I understand what you are saying but military communication and data links are not that simple to jam. To confuse a JDAM so it misses its target is nothing compared to jamming say a data link with a UAV. Also people talk about taking out satellites like its no big deal. Telecommunications satellite yes no big deal ,but GPS /spy & military communication satellites are way way up there just tracking them can be difficult. I doubt an ICBM would have enough fuel to get close even without a war head. The Peacekeeper America's newest ICBM full load out weight is 195 thousand pounds, The Delta IV weighs in at around 1.6 million pounds 99.99 % of that is fuel. Electronic warfare is hard to debate do to the fact theres not a lot of information as far as capability's. Both to jam and to counter.;)

[Todjaeger]

Right, that is why it is wrong to think that jammer can be detected and easily destroyed. Yes it can be! If some weak country buys a few of even high tech jammers and tries to fight against US, that wont work for them. But as i mentioned in my previous message; multiple jammers working on different frequencies on the wide area and secured by S-300(Antey/ 400 series) together with electronics warfare systems on aircrafts will create a serious problems.

No, the reason something like a jammer can be relatively to detect is that in order for it to jam, it is actively transmitting or 'hot'. The only way to have the jammer evade detection from a number of devices designed to locate and triangulate the position of emitters for the jammers to stay off.

A variety of ARMs (anti-radiation missiles) exist which detect sources of emissions and then home in on them. It is also possible that some of the newer figher radars used by the US and allies can engage in electronic attack, emitting a large enough radiation pulse to potentially burn out the emitter the jammer is using.

Additional, the total 'system' in use by the US and allies has a number of redundancies built in, as the importance of information dominance and situational awareness has grown. With this growth, the various systems used have grown and evolved, as has the various redundancies. Keep in mind that much of the system was either originally designed to counter the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact nations, or is an outgrowth from that system.

So far, a convincing way to counter a comprehensive C4ISR system has not IMO been presented.

-Cheers

[PREDATOR]

So far, a convincing way to counter a comprehensive C4ISR system has not IMO been presented.

-Cheers

There has no been such a war yet...so convincing way is stil not "presented", but when it will be...."presented" there wont be another chance to change anything. thats my point. what u say makes sense...but... that is just a formal and very small amount of theory rather than real convincing fact. Sophisticated enemy (which i dont think even China is right now...) will first strike satellites and will begin with electronic warfare. And i think that what i say makes sense. Its better to analyze than think that you already have 100% system and nothing can beat it...thats not serious...

[GI-Gizmo]

Highly doubt it... Never overestimate capabilities! You cannot be enough sure to state that.
I did not say anything about a point where your technology would cease to work, i said that effectiveness of the whole technology will be far below 100% than it was in Iraq.

I definently agree that it is stupid to underestimate your opponent, expect them to know everything, have amazing technology and tactics and to fight hard and dirty relentlessly. It would also be foolish to overestimate your own force, expect problems and delays, espect things to go wrong and plan for the worst things to happen at the worst moments. If the US had to fight a near pear opponent then I'm sure they would have more then a few tricks up their sleeves. Hopefully our strength, technology and strategy would allow us to destroy their arms and sleeves in a crippling opening blow before they could even pull their tricks out. There is no doubt that realistically our capabilities in several areas would be countered and our advantage marginally to severly diminished due to enemy measures. The US has such an advantage in certain areas and has so many redundant ways to maintain it even during war that it would be extremely unlikely and difficult for an enemy to completely level the playing field when it comes to technological superiority. Obviously, that is just an informed opinion and no war, direct or proxy, has been fought between the US and a near pear in the 21st century yet so there is no real way to tell what would happen. As far as a formidable enemy being able to diminish the entire US technological engine far below the readiness, reliability and superior state that we have while fighting in Iraq, a formidable enemy would definently be able to do some damage to restrict, retard and ruin our advantage.

[Todjaeger]

There has no been such a war yet...so convincing way is stil not "presented", but when it will be...."presented" there wont be another chance to change anything. thats my point. what u say makes sense...but... that is just a formal and very small amount of theory rather than real convincing fact. Sophisticated enemy (which i dont think even China is right now...) will first strike satellites and will begin with electronic warfare. And i think that what i say makes sense. Its better to analyze than think that you already have 100% system and nothing can beat it...thats not serious...

There are only two things which are 100%, these are death and taxes respectively.

Having said that, while there are ways to reduce the efficiency and effectiveness of various C4 systems... The US and allies are continually developing and improving the technology and methodology. Something which people who write/post about ways various nations or powers can counter the advantages a country like the US, frequently seem to forget or ignore that the US has the same or similar ew systems available in their arsenal as well. This also means that the US can conduct testing where they try and 'break' their own system, to see where weaknesses are and how to improve the system overall.

When I get a chance, I will post more on the issue of targeting satellites.

-Cheers

[Bonza]

There are only two things which are 100%, these are death and taxes respectively.

Having said that, while there are ways to reduce the efficiency and effectiveness of various C4 systems... The US and allies are continually developing and improving the technology and methodology. Something which people who write/post about ways various nations or powers can counter the advantages a country like the US, frequently seem to forget or ignore that the US has the same or similar ew systems available in their arsenal as well. This also means that the US can conduct testing where they try and 'break' their own system, to see where weaknesses are and how to improve the system overall.

When I get a chance, I will post more on the issue of targeting satellites.

-Cheers

Absolutely agree. The notion that the warfighting ability of the United States is static, that they would rest on their laurels while other nations closed the military gap with them, is completely ridiculous.

[Todjaeger]

Okay, now that I have more time, I will attempt to address a few issues raised by the original poster.

IMO no one, not even the US, is capable of carrying out a space campaign on the scale required to seriously degrade or completely disable the US satellite constellations without resorting to nuclear weaponry AND being detected prior to the success of the space campaign. In point of fact, I have my doubts that even with the use of nuclear weaponry, there would be a successful campaign.

Granted, a few nations might have the ability to target a single, or even perhaps a few satellites in LEO where the orbit is within a few hundred miles of Earth. A number of the important satellite constellations would need to lose several (4+) satellites to begin to degrade the coverage. Given that more than a few of these constellations are in Geo and/or high orbits where they circle thousands of miles from Earth, the equipment required to locate and track becomes more complex, as does what is required to successfully target a satellite.

In order to successfully launch such an attack if the resources were available, it would require a launch into orbit, something that the USAF NORAD would definately notice and track, as well as calculate likely destinations for the launched payload. If suddenly there were several sudden launches out to deep orbits, the US would most likely detect the attempt and then raise an alert if some variety of warning signs were seen.

-Cheers

[PREDATOR]

well..i was not talking about not being detected! Of cuz such an action would show itself pretty soon. What you wrote in ur last message makes some sense, however it is again just a plain logical thinking, and actually has nothing to do with my first post! (you may re read it..). I actually dont understand what are you trying to convince me in?

I stated my opinion very clearly, and not only in the first message.

[Todjaeger]

well..i was not talking about not being detected! Of cuz such an action would show itself pretty soon. What you wrote in ur last message makes some sense, however it is again just a plain logical thinking, and actually has nothing to do with my first post! (you may re read it..). I actually dont understand what are you trying to convince me in?

I stated my opinion very clearly, and not only in the first message.

In the original post on this thread the following statement was made.

However, in case of war with sophisticated enemy all above schemes wont work on 100% as it was with Iraq, Yugoslavia, or even as it could be with Iran. Sophisticated enemy will attack satellites, jam GPS/Communication signals (jammers working on different frequencies within limit). All these and other methods in combination with enemy's modern air defense missile systems with sophisticated signal processing and parallel computers is a serious threat. After the failure of the global communications/command systems, the units like T90 and Mig35 will be extremely dangerous.

C3 systems are important and should be incorporated in every type of mechanized combat unit or even infantry hardware. However, each type or small group of units should be capable of surviving and succeeding on the battlefield in case of global C3 failure. I think that integrated elements of artificial intelligence and signal processing are very important, and should be incorporated in every semi/autonomous combat unit (UAV/Other platforms). And every such kind of unit should be trained/capable of acting not only with the interaction with huge C3 but also on its own.

Note the Bolded text. So far, a convincing explanation of how the global C5ISR in use by the US or the C4ISR used by NATO and allied forces has not been forthcoming. Potential methods have been mentioned which might be able to cause some local degradation in C4ISR. Given that the underlying technology for those methods is also available to the C4ISR users, it is questionable just how effective some of the suggestions would be.

As I understand it, the whole point of having a C4ISR system is to provide information to the units and commanders so that they may set the terms for any engagement by knowing where their assets are, and knowing what assets their opponent has and where they are. To conduct attacks upon a C4ISR is to attempt to degrade, disrupt or outright destroy the flow of information and orders between units and commanders, and therefore lessen the ability of an opponent to make as effective use of their respective forces. This means that a C4ISR system is of high importance and is going to be protected accordingly.

Hence the interest in how a technologically advanced peer or near-peer threat nation would go about overcoming an opponent's C4ISR system, which by its very nature, should and would be used to detect and respond to attempts to disable it. I will attempt to give an explanation of what I mean below.

Two nations, named X and Y, are near-peers and unfriendly towards each other. At some point, relations between the two nations break down to the point that hostilities might commence. Nation X, wishing to succeed in a conflict with nation Y, attempts to disable portions of nation Y's C4ISR by launching rockets into space to attempt to destroy spy and navigation satellite constellations. Nation Y would detect the launches, and then knowing that an attack by nation X was imminent if not already underway, could then launch their own reponses, while their C4ISR is still intact. This response could be anything from a countermeasure to defend their satellites and C4ISR infrastructure, to attacks upon nation X's C4ISR and/or infrastructure, to eliminating portions of nation X's armed forces so that they can no longer exploit any openings created within the C4ISR of nation Y.

At this point, I am not really attempting to convince anyone of anything regarding the loss of a C4ISR system. Should a modern force no longer have it available, their effectiveness and unit cohesion at anything other than a small/local level will suffer drastically. What I am attempting to find out is what/how such a loss is to be caused by an opposing force so that they can exploit it. The two methods mentioned so far IMO have been questionable in terms of being realistically effective.

1. Jammers: Can block or interfere with friendly equipment and systems and are easily detected due to how they operate.
2. Anti-satellite systems: Generally unable to reach in quantity where needed in to engage satellite constellations, and the attempt is fairly easily detected while in-progress.

What might be worth reading about is how the US military conducts an air defence rollback. I mention this because a good portion of the rollback is accomplished by disabling or destroying an opponent's Command, Control, Communications and Surveillance infrastructure as opposed to just destroying enemy SAM, AA and air combat units.

-Cheers

Edit: Additional comment just occurred to me. It is quite clear given the operational history that the US and allies have, they have equipment and tactics designed to over an enemies C3ISR infrastructure. What I am interested in finding out is how some other power would attempt to overcome the C4 or C5ISR in use by the US and allies.

[PREDATOR]

Two nations, named X and Y, are near-peers and unfriendly towards each other. At some point, relations between the two nations break down to the point that hostilities might commence. Nation X, wishing to succeed in a conflict with nation Y, attempts to disable portions of nation Y's C4ISR by launching rockets into space to attempt to destroy spy and navigation satellite constellations. Nation Y would detect the launches, and then knowing that an attack by nation X was imminent if not already underway, could then launch their own reponses, while their C4ISR is still intact. This response could be anything from a countermeasure to defend their satellites and C4ISR infrastructure, to attacks upon nation X's C4ISR and/or infrastructure, to eliminating portions of nation X's armed forces so that they can no longer exploit any openings created within the C4ISR of nation Y.


What might be worth reading about is how the US military conducts an air defence rollback. I mention this because a good portion of the rollback is accomplished by disabling or destroying an opponent's Command, Control, Communications and Surveillance infrastructure as opposed to just destroying enemy SAM, AA and air combat units.



First to say...to significantly decrease the effectiveness of the US space intelligence/communication system...one doesnt have to launch bunch of missiles in a space to destroy all US satellites physically. thats pretty strange that u think about this in such a formal obvious way... "Sophisticated enemy" has its own satellites with built in EM/other warfare modules for conducting electronic warfare in space.... So...its not how u think about it would be.

And another thing is air defense u mentioned about...u think destroying enemy's C3 systems will be so easy? i highly doubt it... all its control command points will be secured by mobile air defense systems like s400/s300 Antey. which wil be also secured by TOR/BUK systems all supporting installations/ground mobile groups will be secured by these systems as well.. remember one thing...all above mentioned systems are highly mobile... it would take 5 minutes to deploy/undeploy them... do not forget also that enemy has AWACS aircrafts/Mig 31 groups. I dont know how come u think so easy about it all....but.....well.....all that absolutely does not seem to be easy to destroy.. like u describe in few words... doesnt it make sense what i say? or i am wrong somewhere?

[Mod edit]Predator, please use proper English. "You", not "u", "I" not "i", etc. I refer you to the Forum Rules (http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php).[/Mod edit]

[Waylander]

Why are we talking about some country X and some country Y?
I think it is obvious which, in PREDATOR's view, is the highly sophisticated enemy he is talking about.

So what is this really?
Another Russia vs US/NATO threat.

I doubt that anybody here thinks that forces used against countries like Iraq are going to be as effective or or are going to take the same losses like when deployed against an opponent like Russia.

For sure it is a harder nut to crack.

But that's war. It may take more resources and may cost the lives of more soldiers but no current armed forces on this planet are going to be able to do more than just degrading the warfare capabilities of the US not to talk of the whole of NATO.

So what do you want to hear?
That a war against russia is not going to be a walk in the park? No sane member here is going to argue against that...

That Russia is going to be able to stand against the full might of NATO in a conventional conflict?
No sane member here is going to argue for that...

[PREDATOR]

Waylander - yes, exactly. result would be unknown, but the warfare capabilities will be degraded.

[Waylander]

So that's your point?
As I said I doubt that anybody here is going to say that the modern NATO command structure isn't going to be affected by enemy (russian) actions.

The question is how much.
For sure, and again I doubt anybody would disagree, the russians have some capabilities which might pose problems and may very well have some additional things up their sleeves which may add further problems.

Nevertheless the question remains of how much any country on this earth is able to affect the NATO command structure so much that it actually hurts enough to fight NATO to a standstill. (Short of using Nukes that is...)

[PhysicsMan]

So that's your point?
As I said I doubt that anybody here is going to say that the modern NATO command structure isn't going to be affected by enemy (russian) actions.

The question is how much.
For sure, and again I doubt anybody would disagree, the russians have some capabilities which might pose problems and may very well have some additional things up their sleeves which may add further problems.

Nevertheless the question remains of how much any country on this earth is able to affect the NATO command structure so much that it actually hurts enough to fight NATO to a standstill. (Short of using Nukes that is...)

I think you're oversimplifying the scenario by implying that US assets (I have GPS in mind for instance) could only suffer "cosmetic" alterations in operation. Assets to counter satellite operations have been developing for a long time in Russia: hunter satellites, high power lasers, rockets (especially rockets - I would think Russian Space Forces wouldn't have much trouble with targeting and launching missiles fairly quickly - not an overly complicated task for a sophisticated space program).

[Todjaeger]

I think you're oversimplifying the scenario by implying that US assets (I have GPS in mind for instance) could only suffer "cosmetic" alterations in operation. Assets to counter satellite operations have been developing for a long time in Russia: hunter satellites, high power lasers, rockets (especially rockets - I would think Russian Space Forces wouldn't have much trouble with targeting and launching missiles fairly quickly - not an overly complicated task for a sophisticated space program).

Using the GPS satellite constellation as an example, there are 27 satellites in the constellation, of which I believe 24 are 'online' with the other three being spares available to take over should one or more of the online satellites fail. The GPS satellites also orbit the Earth at a distance of 12,000 miles fast enough to complete a rotation in 12 hours. The orbital tracks are also positioned so that at any given point in time a GPS receiver on Earth can get telemetry from 4 different positioning satellites.

In order to have any impact on the GPS system, at least 4 different satellites need to be effected. Unless the hypothetical conflict was truly worldwide, the GPS satellite constellation might be able to be re-arranged to just provide coverage of conflict areas until replacement satellites could be launched. This would then mean that a greater number of GPS satellites would need to be effected to begin degrading their performance over the conflict area.

Given the numbers and the velocities and distances involved, I do not believe any nation is capable of effecting sufficient GPS satellites to impact the system. Part of that belief is that it is harder to get an asset into space and then bring it close enough to an already maneuvering satellite so that it can have an effect upon the satellite. The other reason for that belief is that GPS started as a military/defence effort to improve navigation.

One concern during development and improvement (work is currently underway for GPS-IIF satellites and GPS-III) is that attacks could be launched on the satellites in an effort to bring down the system. With that in mind, I would expect that efforts would have been made to 'harden' the GPS satellites to make them further resistant to EM effects, beyond what is required normally in space. Another way to counter efforts to cripple the system would be to just increase the number of GPS satellites in order. While not necessarily an inexpensive solution, if is believed that an opponent can successfully persecute an attack upon GPS satellites why not just increase the numbers needed to be targeted before system failure occurs?

By my admittedly very rough guestimates, if the desired impact was a loss of GPS coverage to 25% of the world, then 10 GPS satellites would need to be effected. If there were 48 GPS satellites orbiting instead of 27, then something like 30 satellites would need to be effected...

This whole scenario also ignores the fact that alternate methods of guidance and navigation are available as adjuncts to, or in place of GPS navigation. This means that even with the loss of GPS, it only leads to a degradation in accuracy of navigation, not a loss in ability to navigate.

As Waylander put, a US/NATO non-nuclear conflict with an advanced nation would likely mean that US & NATO forces would encounter equipment and tactics which would degrade their operational effectiveness more so than if the conflict was not with a peer or near-peer nation. This would in turn means that the US/NATO forces would likely suffer higher losses, and/or need to expend more equipment/munitions/time in order to achieve victory.

So what?

By using nations X and Y I was attempting to keep this from being a direct comparison between various nations and therefore not just another Russia vs. US/NATO. If that is what people want, consider the following.

For approximately forty years, the US and NATO had made plans and developed equipment to keep Soviet & Warsaw Pact forces from crossing the Fulda Gap. At the time this was going on, the Soviet Union was a peer nation to the US in terms of influence, tech development, defence forces, etc. In the last two decades, the Soviet Union has broken up into a number of separate states, not all of which are friendly with each other. The Warsaw Pact, a defence agreement meant to oppose NATO has also ended, and a number of former member-nations are now friendly with, or even members of NATO. Following the breakup and the subsequent economic upheaval in the former Soviet states, there was a marked decrease in terms of development and production of defence equipment. There were also cuts in the level of forces maintained, with some capabilities being severely curtailed or even given up entirely.

In short, the Russia of today lacks much of the capability that the Soviet Union of 25 years had. When compared with peer nations which have been able to maintain various capabilities and improve upon them and develop new capabilities, the difference is even more noticeable.

-Cheers

[Waylander]

As Tod already said.
I fully aware that such a conflict is going to result in much more losses than for example the Iraq adventure.
I also think that current russian systems and capabilities are going to degrade the NATO command and control capabilities and even more so when they have something unknown up their sleeves.
But is it going to be enough to render NATO ineffectively? To fight them to a standstill?
And how much of russia's command & control capabilities is going to suffer during such a conflict?

That's the question.
And to say it with Tod's words.
More problems, more casualties? So what?
That's all out war. One shouldn't epect anything less.

But to think that the Russia of today (or any other nation) is going to be able to compete with NATO in conventional military terms is wrong.
No one knows what the future brings but right now that's reality.

But that's not a problem for Russia at all. It still has it's big firecrackers so is save from any foreign agression and it's armed forces are still good enough to teach it's non NATO neighbours a lesson or two (ok, apart from China).

[PhysicsMan]

As Tod already said.
I fully aware that such a conflict is going to result in much more losses than for example the Iraq adventure.
I also think that current russian systems and capabilities are going to degrade the NATO command and control capabilities and even more so when they have something unknown up their sleeves.
But is it going to be enough to render NATO ineffectively? To fight them to a standstill?
And how much of russia's command & control capabilities is going to suffer during such a conflict?

That's the question.
And to say it with Tod's words.
More problems, more casualties? So what?
That's all out war. One shouldn't epect anything less.

But to think that the Russia of today (or any other nation) is going to be able to compete with NATO in conventional military terms is wrong.
No one knows what the future brings but right now that's reality.

But that's not a problem for Russia at all. It still has it's big firecrackers so is save from any foreign agression and it's armed forces are still good enough to teach it's non NATO neighbours a lesson or two (ok, apart from China).

You guys seem to have drifted off the topic a bit in your trying to prove that NATO would win a conflict with Russia - that's not the topic here and nobody is disputing that (or rather, nobody should be disputing that). The topic was about how efficiently the command&control, comm and GPS systems would be able to operate during such a conflict. The outcome of such a conflict would probably be similar even if the whole GPS system was taken down, so the question is only about what the possible damage could be to systems like that, nothing more.

Now, on the topic of maintaining more GPS units up there for a case of a major conflict... Currently most of the operational units have a lifetime of 10 years (some less). If they increased the number from 27 to something like 40 that would drive up costs tremendously over time. There were reports that they had trouble keeping the 27 up (probably due to budget constraints), and it seems unlikely they will go for such huge cost increases in the future.

About the number of units to take out to disrupt operation - it's probably more than 4 actually, even without any repositioning of the rest - which by itself is likely impossible to do (at the most, they can probably adjust their orbit slightly to compensate, possibly not even that). Why more than four? Because I know that GLONASS currently has 18-20 operational units and they provide over 90% global coverage at all times. Taking out 4 units will have little effect as the new ones will assume the positions over the region very quickly. So probably it has to be much more.

And about the tech to take them out... The satellites aren't "maneuvering", their orbits are circular and well known, as I said before, sending a kill vehicle to intercept is not an overly difficult task, there are maneuvers performed in space that are more complex than that. I think it's more of a question what such a kill vehicle might be. I know that during the "Seven hour nuclear war" exercise (for those who don't know - a huge Soviet war drill in early 80s, meant to simulate an all-out nuclear war with US that lasted 7 hours and involved all sorts of things - the largest and costliest war exercises ever conducted) one of the space launches was of a satellite killer, but I do not know what kind of a killer-satellite it was (anyone?). I do know that there were several different plans for such a vehicle - a laser gun, an explosive device for a direct kill, a space "shrapnel" to be sent into the appropriate orbit and destroy the target by multiple impacts, they even had a a gun mounted on a satellite (only on Earth I assume). Are all those only paper capabilities? Maybe, maybe not all.

[Bonza]

Assuming such a conflict as is being discussed was not a surprise attack on the United States, do you think it's fair to say the US have measures in place to disrupt/destroy an enemy nation's ability to conduct anti-satellite operations as a prelude to all-out war?

I imagine the launch facilities for such equipment as is necessary to erode a satellite net would be immobile, and easily identified.

[PhysicsMan]

Assuming such a conflict as is being discussed was not a surprise attack on the United States, do you think it's fair to say the US have measures in place to disrupt/destroy an enemy nation's ability to conduct anti-satellite operations as a prelude to all-out war?

I imagine the launch facilities for such equipment as is necessary to erode a satellite net would be immobile, and easily identified.

Apparently, during the seven hour nuclear war they conducted space launches not from Baikonur or Plesetsk, in preparation for a scenario where those are destroyed.

[Todjaeger]

You guys seem to have drifted off the topic a bit in your trying to prove that NATO would win a conflict with Russia - that's not the topic here and nobody is disputing that (or rather, nobody should be disputing that). The topic was about how efficiently the command&control, comm and GPS systems would be able to operate during such a conflict. The outcome of such a conflict would probably be similar even if the whole GPS system was taken down, so the question is only about what the possible damage could be to systems like that, nothing more.

It is not that we drifted OT, the topic started on being the US/NATO vs. Russia. If you doubt that, re-read the first post in the thread. Except for Iran, the areas of operation listed for the C3/C4 systems were all areas that the US and/or NATO conducted combat ops in. In addition, the two platforms listed as being 'extremely dangerous' after the failure of global communications/command systems are Russian platforms. Incidentally, by speaking of global communications/command systems, that pretty much means the US/NATO as no other nation or alliance has a system of truly global reach.

The other issue is that if one is to discuss how well a C4ISR system will function while an opponent is attempting to suppress or disable it, there needs to be discussion of what efforts are being made to suppress it. So far, that really has not been happening. Until it does, the discussion amounts to little more than statements that the C4ISR systems have been impacted with the question of how left unanswered so no determination can accurately be made of whether a given method would succeed, or what countermeasures and alternate or redundant systems the C4ISR systems could utilize.

Such a situation does not make for a good debate or discussion.

[PREDATOR]

someone mentioned here about russian laser/missile and EC weapons on satellites, and that is true, and of cuz that wont be difficult for them to seriously degrade US/NATO com/sat systems. As i said before, they dont need to launch bunch of missiles in the sky from earth to do this. thats what the point is.

[Bonza]

someone mentioned here about russian laser/missile and EC weapons on satellites, and that is true, and of cuz that wont be difficult for them to seriously degrade US/NATO com/sat systems. As i said before, they dont need to launch bunch of missiles in the sky from earth to do this. thats what the point is.

Do you have a source confirming Russia has armed satellites in orbit?

[PREDATOR]

Do you have a source confirming Russia has armed satellites in orbit?

i know personals who worked at such projects during soviet time. That is why i assume, that they still probably have it, they did not have any reason to remove them or stop working on such things.

so...if it makes u feel more safe to believe that it is wrong, then its up to u, im not going to convince anyone ;)

[Bonza]

i know personals who worked at such projects during soviet time. That is why i assume, that they still probably have it, they did not have any reason to remove them or stop working on such things.

so...if it makes u feel more safe to believe that it is wrong, then its up to u, im not going to convince anyone ;)

Let's break this down one step at a time.

1. You know people who worked on these projects - can this be verified by anyone?

2. You assume these projects are still active - well, assumption isn't good enough if you're going to state something as fact.

3. You imply that I'm in denial because I want to "feel more safe" - all I was doing was applying common sense to your arguments, and asking for some tangible proof beyond your word. Something you're either unwilling or unable to provide.

[PREDATOR]

well, sorry i dont know how to verify this information for u. again...i just said what i assume and know for sure. you are free to believe or not to believe.

[Todjaeger]

Regarding the ability to launch attacks upon satellites, a few things which need to be mentioned

Speaking broadly, satellites are in one of four orbits, they are either LEO, MEO, GEO or HE, . These different orbits are all at different, with LEO being closest with a max altitude of ~1,000 miles and the rest increasing from there in order of altitude, with HEO starting at altitudes of ~20,000+ miles.

Several different countries have developed, and some have even tested ASAT capabilities vs. LEO satellites. No country has tested or demonstrated an ASAT capability vs. GEO or higher , though the US has apparently developed an ASAT system which is supposed to be GEO capabile. It has not been tested due to treaty restrictions. No credible information has come up that Russia or the Soviet Union has ever had a GEO ASAT capability.

Given the greatly increased altitudes, and just the sheer volume of space it is significantly more difficult to create a system which is ability to reach the higher altitude to attack satellites. This is part of the reason why the US and NATO nations make a point of having their satellite constellations in GEO orbits whenever possible.

As for the utility of lasers vs. satellites... The Soviets had apparently used some ground-based lasers to temporarily blind IR cameras in spy satellites in LEO. AFAIK using a laser to attack a satellite in GEO orbit is not possible unless the satellite is already in space and comparatively nearby. A laser is essentially a focused beam of EM radiation, generally in the light spectrum but can also be of microwave frequencies or even x-ray frequency. One property of a laser though, is that while the beam is highly focused at a certain point relative to the focal length of the emitter lense, as the beam moves away from the focal point, the beam will diverge.

When dealing with the ranges encountered in space where a target satellite might be thousands of miles away, the beam divergence will essentially be sufficient so that a laser would require a very (impractically) large lense to achieve the needed range with the amount of available power.

As for assuming that because the Soviet Union had been working on ASAT projects, the projects have continued and new developments have occurred... That IMO would be a very risky assumption. Look at Russian defence spending and development over the last 20 years. For many years following the breakup of the Soviet Union, the military and defence industries were starved of funding, in many cases just enough orders for things were placed to keep some facilities open. Many capabilities that the Soviet Union had maintained were allowed (or forced) to be reduced, or in some cases given up altogether due to cutbacks. Assuming that Russia has been able to maintain development of ASAT capabilities to match the explosion in the use of satellites by other countries for both civilian and military purposes does not seem logical when compared to other areas of Russian military and tech development.

For those interested in more discussion of space-based conflict, take a look at this other thread (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/space-defense-technology/space-warfare-capabilities-2913-2/) on DT. It contains some mentions of various ASAT capabilities which is relevant as a significant portion of C4 & C5ISR involves satellites.

-Cheers

[Duffy]

well, sorry i dont know how to verify this information for u. again...i just said what i assume and know for sure. you are free to believe or not to believe.


Russia's main and only dedicated ASAT system was the Co-Orbital ASAT system.The system's initial testing phase (1963-1972) consisted of approximately 20 launches (including launches of both target satellites and interceptors), seven interceptions, and five detonations.The initial tests confirmed the system could work from orbital altitudes of 230 to 1,000 kilometers and the system was declared operational.
The Soviets resumed testing of the Co-Orbital system in 1976 The Soviets reportedly showed some success at extending the range of the Co-Orbital system to as low as 160 km and as high as 1,600 km, The final two launches before it's cancellation was in June 1982.Cosmos 1375 (Target) was launched from Plesetsk on June 6th . Then Cosmos 1379 (Killer) was launched from the Baikonur launch complex on June 18th Commencing the end of the 7 hour nuclear war exercises.The program was scrapped the following year.
There was a second program in 1987 the Skif DM "Battle Station" in space. The prototype was lost on May 15 1987. Due to a software problem with the Energia launch rocket. That program scrapped shortly after.
The Soviet laser ASAT project located at the Terra-3 complex could temporarily blind the optics of spy satellite's when directly over head. This was also canceled in the mid 80s. The US inspected the system in the mid 90s and decided it was not capable of damaging satellite's. .Then in 2009 the Russian Air Force resumed a program from the 80s not unlike the The US ASM-135 ASAT system. out of all of these systems the highest kill altitude was 1,600 km . The orbit was directly over the launch site.
There were a couple other short lived projects, the Almaz stations a manned orbiter in 1978,/ Modified ICBM with a nuclear war head in the 80s all were canceled. To date there are no satellite killers. Maybe on paper but nothing more.

Also satellites can be moved . Once in orbit a GPS satellite can be moved to any position within it's orbital plane. GPS satellites are move around regularly. The US Coast Guard posts reports when this is done. Each Carry's 1,000 pounds of hydrazine fuel for this purpose.

[PREDATOR]

Look at Russian defence spending and development over the last 20 years. For many years following the breakup of the Soviet Union, the military and defence industries were starved of funding, in many cases just enough orders for things were placed to keep some facilities open.

one thing to mention about funding,...what Russian engineer does for X amount of money, US engineer does for 5X amount of money. And that would be wrong to think of all that in terms of spending money. US stuff was always very expensive (and not always as good, and even in some cases not even close to soviet/russian).

About these projects...soviets had a lot of perspective projects, some of them were suspended. But later they began to spend money, and for them (not even for a country like India or China)....taking in account their technological base...it was not so hard to make those systems operational again, or even more advanced.

but i see you all are trying to think in another way and ignore reality. you look at the mass media information where they show old crappy russian military technics without any service and in bad condition...and u make same assumption about their strategic/space defense systems. well....ur opinion...

[Duffy]

but i see you all are trying to think in another way and ignore reality. you look at the mass media information where they show old crappy russian military technics without any service and in bad condition...and u make same assumption about their strategic/space defense systems. well....ur opinion...

Reality is there is no proof that satellite killers exist. There is no proof that the Russian government has spent money on this type of project since the late 80s. There is no proof that any nation has the ability to jam communication satellite's to the point were it will make them useless.
That is reality. If you base X vs Y on speculation there is no point in the conversation because it will always get out of hand. The link will be locked and its all a waist of time.:(

[PREDATOR]

as i said u may think of it as u wish... but the thing is in russia they dont put all the penny they spent on such a programs for mass media. and remember u wont be able always to judge by the information u can obtain from such a sources.

[PhysicsMan]

Also satellites can be moved . Once in orbit a GPS satellite can be moved to any position within it's orbital plane. GPS satellites are move around regularly. The US Coast Guard posts reports when this is done. Each Carry's 1,000 pounds of hydrazine fuel for this purpose.

These sound like minor orbital adjustments - if it is moved within its orbital plain it basically means that if it loses a bit of altitude they boost it back up to its proper orbit (they need to maintain the distance from Earth). That's probably where its operational lifetime number comes from - fuel runs out, the unit is done...

[PhysicsMan]

Several different countries have developed, and some have even tested ASAT capabilities vs. LEO satellites. No country has tested or demonstrated an ASAT capability vs. GEO or higher , though the US has apparently developed an ASAT system which is supposed to be GEO capabile. It has not been tested due to treaty restrictions. No credible information has come up that Russia or the Soviet Union has ever had a GEO ASAT capability.

Given the greatly increased altitudes, and just the sheer volume of space it is significantly more difficult to create a system which is ability to reach the higher altitude to attack satellites. This is part of the reason why the US and NATO nations make a point of having their satellite constellations in GEO orbits whenever possible.

GPS orbits are not GEO, they're MEO. I agree with you that destroying targets at distances beyond LEO is a difficult task for a missile (the projects Duffy mentioned were missile interceptions it seems). There are other methods being considered, however, that do not depend on the height of the orbit significantly. These would involve sending a hunter-satellite into the same orbit as the target - not much more difficult than setting up a GPS (or GLONASS) satellite itself. Soviets did work on such a project, as I mentioned before. The kill method that sounds the most efficient to me is throwing lots of junk into the orbit from the killer satellite which would destroy the target upon impact. It would be interesting to know the details of how that project went.

Assuming that Russia has been able to maintain development of ASAT capabilities to match the explosion in the use of satellites by other countries for both civilian and military purposes does not seem logical when compared to other areas of Russian military and tech development.

Last year Russia launched more satellites in space than the rest of the world combined.

[Todjaeger]

one thing to mention about funding,...what Russian engineer does for X amount of money, US engineer does for 5X amount of money. And that would be wrong to think of all that in terms of spending money. US stuff was always very expensive (and not always as good, and even in some cases not even close to soviet/russian).

About these projects...soviets had a lot of perspective projects, some of them were suspended. But later they began to spend money, and for them (not even for a country like India or China)....taking in account their technological base...it was not so hard to make those systems operational again, or even more advanced.

but i see you all are trying to think in another way and ignore reality. you look at the mass media information where they show old crappy russian military technics without any service and in bad condition...and u make same assumption about their strategic/space defense systems. well....ur opinion...

AND

as i said u may think of it as u wish... but the thing is in russia they dont put all the penny they spent on such a programs for mass media. and remember u wont be able always to judge by the information u can obtain from such a sources.

So in short, we have been trying to discuss systems which you believe Russia to have. Systems where the information indicates that the Soviets cancelled the projects and that the Russians did not restart them due to a lack of funding and/or viability. We are also to believe that they exist, despite the offical as well as anecdotal evidence that Russian military systems have been cutback significantly and have suffered losses in ability to operate as a result of cutbacks. We are to believe that events like the discovery that ~90% of the MiG-29's in frontline service with the Russian Air Force are not airworthy due to corrosion are not indicative of a loss of capacity on the part of Russian forces. We are to believe that a cruise in 2008 of a Russisan naval task force to the Mediterreanan amidst concerns that the vessels might suffer breakdown in machinery, as well as the fact that the cruise was one of the first deployments of a naval task force outside of Russian waters since the end of the Cold War, does not demonstrate that for a considerable length of time, little to no resources were devoted to maintenance or operations of existing frontline equipment. We are also to believe that despite any possible believed or apparent cuts to existing equipment, capabilities and infrastructure, that R&D for future systems had not been impacted as well...

One can of course believe what one wishes to. However, to believe the above which it seems is being asked, strains credibility too greatly. Attempting to debate systems which the OP believes exist but evidence supporting their possible existence is absent and which would be unlikely to exist when consideration is given to the environment and conditions in which the systems would have been developed in, makes this IMO a waste of time.

[Duffy]

These sound like minor orbital adjustments - if it is moved within its orbital plain it basically means that if it loses a bit of altitude they boost it back up to its proper orbit (they need to maintain the distance from Earth). That's probably where its operational lifetime number comes from - fuel runs out, the unit is done...

Since there is only six orbital planes for the given number of satellite (30 in August 09) and a spare satellite in that plane can take the place of anyone of the other four,that sounds like quite a bit of movement. I have not clue how many times this can be done with the given amount of fuel.

[Duffy]

GPS orbits are not GEO, they're MEO. I agree with you that destroying targets at distances beyond LEO is a difficult task for a missile (the projects Duffy mentioned were missile interceptions it seems). There are other methods being considered, however, that do not depend on the height of the orbit significantly. These would involve sending a hunter-satellite into the same orbit as the target - not much more difficult than setting up a GPS (or GLONASS) satellite itself. Soviets did work on such a project, as I mentioned before. .

The ASAT project I listed are killer satellite's hence the name Co-Orbital ASAT system. They can orbit for days or kill with first rotation.


http://www.russianspaceweb.com/is.html

[PhysicsMan]

The ASAT project I listed are killer satellite's hence the name Co-Orbital ASAT system. They can orbit for days or kill with first rotation.


IS anti-satellite system (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/is.html)

Thanks for the link, an interesting read.

[powerslavenegi]

Satellites are highly susceptible to EMP bursts and even ground based laser Dazzlers , China has in the past been reported to have blinded US sats temporarily over its air space .

And one need not even directly target a satellite a huge dirty fragmentation warhead which would scatter debris in the orbital path of a satellite is enough to knock out a sat travelling a thousands of miles per hour

[hackoon]

It is the confrontation of believes. Nature Vs. Technology. Modern society and of course military thinking as part of it pray to the god of science. But technology can't indefinitely multiply man's power. At some point more technology means less power. Complex infrastructure is the weak point. Modern Military Systems are far too complex to sustain a long lasting high level military conflict. Germany's Blitzkrieg is a example how advantages in technology become disadvantages when the conflict last too long and logistics become the main problem.
Whatever the reason of a GPS-system failure a replacement in wartime would be a very difficult task. The enormous dependency on this system is certainly a too big risk. The argument that this system is indestructible reminds on the "undecipherable" Enigma system. Of course none of you would have had a clue of project Ultra!

[Todjaeger]

It is the confrontation of believes. Nature Vs. Technology. Modern society and of course military thinking as part of it pray to the god of science. But technology can't indefinitely multiply man's power. At some point more technology means less power. Complex infrastructure is the weak point. Modern Military Systems are far too complex to sustain a long lasting high level military conflict. Germany's Blitzkrieg is a example how advantages in technology become disadvantages when the conflict last too long and logistics become the main problem.
Whatever the reason of a GPS-system failure a replacement in wartime would be a very difficult task. The enormous dependency on this system is certainly a too big risk. The argument that this system is indestructible reminds on the "undecipherable" Enigma system. Of course none of you would have had a clue of project Ultra!

Umm... No.

The GPS satellite constellation is not 'indestructible' it is just that at this point, no one aside from the US has any demonstrated capability of the sort required to disable it. In point of fact, no reliable evidence exists to support any nation being able to launch the sort of large scale attack upon space assets required to effectively disable an entire satellite constellation at GEO or HEO altitudes. The reason the US has the ability to disrupt the GPS satellites is because they are US satellites

Once Europe gets the completed Galileo constellation into orbit and operational, then disrupting space-based navaids will have gotten even more complicated as there will be potentially two different constellations which need to be engaged.

As for replacing the GPS system in wartime being difficult, I have to disagree here. GPS is a navigational aid, but it is not the only one available. Older navigational systems are still included on weapons and equipment. Things like inertial navigation, terrain recognition, RDF, maps, etc. There are included in various weapon systems and equipment because 1) something indeed could happen to the GPS satellites, 2) something could happen to the GPS receiver being used, and 3) why include a single point of failure in a piece of military equipment when one does not have to?

If somehow GPS is rendered unavailable, alternatives do exist and they would be rapidly if not immediately available for use. The only real question in my mind would be how long it takes various equipment to rely primarily on secondary navigational systems.

-Cheers

[PREDATOR]

no one aside from the US has any demonstrated capability of the sort required to disable it.

demonstrated? you mean it should be done or what? i wonder how you guys come up with such a strict verdict...

[Todjaeger]

demonstrated? you mean it should be done or what? i wonder how you guys come up with such a strict verdict...

A test kill of a target vehicle would constitute a demonstration. No one has done such a test for a target in either GEO or HEO tracks. That would demonstrate a latent capability to do so. Tests have shown the ability to engage LEO targets, but that capabilty is not useful against many of the more important satellite systems due what altitudes they orbit at.

In order to actually take out or significantly degrade the GPS, there is the added issue being capable of doing so against a number of different satellites that make up the constellation(s). This needs to be done in the face of any possible countermeasures vs. ASAT.

And again, this ignores the fact that there are alternate navaids and different navigational systems that can and would be used.

I do recommend looking through the Space warfare thread I had linked to earlier, as a number of the issues which have been raised here were discussed there previously.

-Cheers

[Duffy]

Germany's Blitzkrieg is a example how advantages in technology become disadvantages when the conflict last too long and logistics become the main problem.


Historian's my have something to say about that. The strategic bombing campaign had nothing to do with it? The fact that technological advances for for the allies had nothing to do with it?
Hitler being a horrible tacticianer had nothing to do with it?Germany was just to technologically advanced to win.:rolleyes:


The argument that this system is indestructible reminds on the "undecipherable" Enigma system. Of course none of you would have had a clue of project Ultra!


Nothing is perfect the weaknesses of the Enigma were procedural flaws and not technological flaw . Captured key tablets and code books have nothing to do with flaws in technology.

[PhysicsMan]

A test kill of a target vehicle would constitute a demonstration. No one has done such a test for a target in either GEO or HEO tracks. That would demonstrate a latent capability to do so. Tests have shown the ability to engage LEO targets, but that capabilty is not useful against many of the more important satellite systems due what altitudes they orbit at.

Just to be clear, GPS uses MEO (medium orbit), not HEO (high orbit), which is significant to this discussion. So even if they haven't tested interceptions at those altitudes yet, it will not be as challenging as HEO and the even higher GEOs.

[PhysicsMan]

Historian's my have something to say about that. The strategic bombing campaign had nothing to do with it? The fact that technological advances for for the allies had nothing to do with it?
Hitler being a horrible tacticianer had nothing to do with it?Germany was just to technologically advanced to win.:rolleyes:


Well, if talking about Blitzkrieg in particular, then, no, none of those things had anything to do with its failure (except Hitler's tactical blunders). It was all due to the campaign in the Soviet Union getting bogged down in the winter of '41 (no relevant strategic bombings, no tech advances, those mattered later on). And, yes, logistics was a major problem then.

[Duffy]

Well, if talking about Blitzkrieg in particular, then, no, none of those things had anything to do with its failure (except Hitler's tactical blunders). It was all due to the campaign in the Soviet Union getting bogged down in the winter of '41 (no relevant strategic bombings, no tech advances, those mattered later on). And, yes, logistics was a major problem then.


I stand corrected I was thinking of the invasion and the subsequent Soviet major counteroffensives in 1943. Hitler failed with Operation Barbarossa for a lot of resigns two that are important, Weather & Hitler underestimated the Soviets will to defend. Thats the only resign logistics became so important. This is a tactical error and not a technological one . Vary seldom can technology compensate for the lack of, or poor planing on a scale like that.

[Todjaeger]

Just to be clear, GPS uses MEO (medium orbit), not HEO (high orbit), which is significant to this discussion. So even if they haven't tested interceptions at those altitudes yet, it will not be as challenging as HEO and the even higher GEOs.

The numbers I have come across describing MEO is altitudes of ~10,000 km, the orbits of most navigational satellites seem to be around twice that, between 19,000 km - 23,000 km. Having said that, I will agree it is likely 'close enough'.

Going back through the ASAT systems though, all of them seem to have been LEO systems, even the Soviet IS system. This essentially means that the MEO range remains out of reach for any developed and demonstrated system.

It also brings up the questions, how long would take for Russia to make the decision to engage a GPS satellite, launch a kill vehicle, and have the kill vehicle reach the targetted satellite? As a corollary to that line of questioning, how long would it take the US and/or allies to detect the kill vehicle launch, correctly identify it as a kill vehicle, determine what the target(s) is, determine that Russia had chosen to initiate a strike upon space-based assets, and then have the US and/or allies initiate a response?

Given time and resources I am sure that Russia could develop kill vehicles which can reach out to where the GPS satellites currently orbit. Given that only recently have they resumed ASAT development after a 15 - 20 year hiatus, IMO there remains sufficient work to be done to allow other countries to development countermeasures, and/or change satellite ops. This could in turn force Russia to develop yet another generation of ASAT system... All the makings of yet another arms race.

-Cheers

[hackoon]

I stand corrected I was thinking of the invasion and the subsequent Soviet major counteroffensives in 1943. Hitler failed with Operation Barbarossa for a lot of resigns two that are important, Weather & Hitler underestimated the Soviets will to defend. Thats the only resign logistics became so important. This is a tactical error and not a technological one . Vary seldom can technology compensate for the lack of, or poor planing on a scale like that.

Logistics and technology are not independent. Higher technology needs a more logistics. Modern Armies are anything than autonomous. If it would not be for this disadvantage nobody would wage asymmetrical warfare against them.

[hackoon]

Nothing is perfect the weaknesses of the Enigma were procedural flaws and not technological flaw . Captured key tablets and code books have nothing to do with flaws in technology.

The failure was to rely to much on a technological encryption. If you rely too much one point an intelligent enemy will use every resource to destroy it - this is the primary danger of arrogance to believe in indestructible systems.

[Todjaeger]

Logistics and technology are not independent. Higher technology needs a more logistics. Modern Armies are anything than autonomous. If it would not be for this disadvantage nobody would wage asymmetrical warfare against them.

It is not technology that makes a military force dependent on logistical support though. "An army moves on its stomach," is a military adage attributed to Napoleon, but was just as true when the Romans were conquering much of Europe and the Mediterreanan basin. The troops still need to eat, and their equipment still needs to be maintained. Whether that requires drovers with animals, wagons of foodstuffs, and smiths and fletchers, or if that means refigeration trucks, pre-packed MRES and mechanics and technicians, it is still requiring logistical support.

Where modern technology has really been making a differences is in both the offensive and defensive potential of troops, as well as the ability to coordinate the actions of troops with others.

As for asymmetric attacks, troops are often not the targets of such attacks, their supplies or the local populace often are. The whole point behind an asymmetric attack to find and attack a weak point in ones enemy, something that is difficult to defend, or if attacked something that the defender would not be able completely focus their forces on. In asymmetrical warfare a key area is to maintain control of when, where and how engagements are conducted. This is also nothing new, having been the case in the Peninsular War as well as more recent, modern era conflicts.

-Cheers

[hackoon]

It is not technology that makes a military force dependent on logistical support though. "An army moves on its stomach,"

Well, compare the logistic efforts of the taliban vs. coalition-forces. americans would all eat caviar then. Modern armies, (sorry I won't count napoleons armies as very modern) need a lot more than food. logistic does not only mean transport it also means production of goods. But even if you only count food - you have to feed a lot of specialists who are not directly engaged in combat. And food is also the most universal resource you can buy (or confiscate) it everywhere. I think it is clear that like everything technology has its disadvantages.
The danger is that a sophisticated enemy -could- neutralize the satellite based systems that modern warfare get more and more dependent on. One may have been trained to use a sextant but that doesn't mean its easy to switch back from GPS without much trouble.

Think in switching the light off - you will need time to adapt your eyes on the darkness. An enemy who, let say always been in the darkness, will have a very big advantage.

[Duffy]

The failure was to rely to much on a technological encryption. If you rely too much one point an intelligent enemy will use every resource to destroy it - this is the primary danger of arrogance to believe in indestructible systems.


The Germans used several different types of Enigma machines. The Navy used the Enigma M4.Its not that much different from all others but the procedures for changing the drum's regularly was adhered to and the Allies had a very very hard time braking the codes and would have to start over each month. The Lorenz SZ 42 & Siemens and Halske T-52 were broken because of mistake made by a German operators. Yes probably because of arrogance. (procedural failure) not technological. Everything has its weakness from the slingshot to the B-2. Understanding it and not letting your advisory take advantage of it is war.
Most military and weapons designers are very careful about arrogance. A lot of money is spent to find the weak link in weapon's and communication systems Procedures and tactic's are used to keep your adversary from taking advantage of them, or to have alternates in the event they do

[Duffy]

Well, compare the logistic efforts of the taliban vs. coalition-forces. americans would all eat caviar then. Modern armies, (sorry I won't count napoleons armies as very modern) need a lot more than food. logistic does not only mean transport it also means production of goods. But even if you only count food - you have to feed a lot of specialists who are not directly engaged in combat. And food is also the most universal resource you can buy (or confiscate) it everywhere. I think it is clear that like everything technology has its disadvantages.
The danger is that a sophisticated enemy -could- neutralize the satellite based systems that modern warfare get more and more dependent on. One may have been trained to use a sextant but that doesn't mean its easy to switch back from GPS without much trouble.


Modern Armies field weapon's that are far more accurate because of technology. Being more accurate you move less ammunition. Plus the ammunition and weapon system them selves can be much smaller. Add to that the ability to pinpoint and destroy targets with out destroying the infrastructure. This allows you to advance with out major support from construction battalions and additional supply's. If anything Technology helps with the problems of logistics. If technology allows a country to advance so rapidly that it stretches its troops and supply lines to the brink of failure. This would be a tactical blunder and not a technological failure.
The logistic efforts for the Taliban are much harder because of technology. Lets look at this in a different way. The Taliban are fighting in there own back yard, Have no high tech weapon's and can basically eat dirt to survive. Very few times have they been able to mass in numbers day or night. Have no real weapon stores other than burring them here and there so access is not always timely. Other than a few ambushes have no way to coordinate any type of offensive action. Have little to no movement other than hiding with in the population. The Taliban not having technology has heart them far more than helped.
No one hear is saying GPS will never be countered. I would bet there is work being done for something new as we debate this. To disable GPS one would have to jam at least six satellite's or maybe more. If you simply blow them up you run the risk of destroying your own satellite's or that of neutral countries. Space junk is a big problem. I don't know of any project for disabling satellite's with out destroying them. The reason countries and there weapon system are so dependent on GPS is because the system is so hard to counter and ways to counter them are easy to find and deal with. This will change but, so will navigation and targeting systems.

[hackoon]

If anything Technology helps with the problems of logistics. If technology allows a country to advance so rapidly that it stretches its troops and supply lines to the brink of failure. This would be a tactical blunder and not a technological failure.

Technology helps with by reducing volume but logistics consists of far more dimensions then just volume or weight. But please also consider complexity - a highly specialized device needs a very complex infrastructure to produce and maintain it. An AK-47 needs certainly more ammunition but you can buy ammunition and rifle everywhere! This avoids stretched supply lines for example.

It is not about if or not the technology can fail because in the end it is human decisions which often overvalues the gains of technological progress. The Idea that more sophisticated fire-power outweighs stupid military commanders didn't work neither in Afghanistan nor anywhere else, but it often helped that stupid people stayed for too long in important positions.

You can neutralize technology with a wide range of countermeasures which often result being a lot cheaper. For example by luring an enemy into a terrain which is not designed to fight with electronics - see the Iraq. The only thing that makes modern military so arrogantly believe in technological superiority is that they didn't fight a serious enemy since a long time. The day this changes they will get a big surprise!

[Duffy]

Technology helps with by reducing volume but logistics consists of far more dimensions then just volume or weight. But please also consider complexity - a highly specialized device needs a very complex infrastructure to produce and maintain it. An AK-47 needs certainly more ammunition but you can buy ammunition and rifle everywhere! This avoids stretched supply lines for example.

It is not about if or not the technology can fail because in the end it is human decisions which often overvalues the gains of technological progress. The Idea that more sophisticated fire-power outweighs stupid military commanders didn't work neither in Afghanistan nor anywhere else, but it often helped that stupid people stayed for too long in important position

Ya maybe your wright, :rolleyes: But I don't see the DoD handing out Visa cards to US solders so they can shop for equipment at Walmart. It would be to hard to budget. :) Have a good day hackoon

[hackoon]

It would be a good night, its dark here.
bye

[Palnatoke]

If your jamming across a broad spectrum then your targeting and tracking radar would be affected would it not.


Not necessarely. The trick is ( or can be) that you know at which frequvencies you jam at a given point in time. You can then use math/electronics to filter your own jamming.

This is the opposite of what can be done with f.ex. an APAR radar. An APAR radar broadcasts it's signals in frequvencies that, in time, are pseudo-random (f.ex. a random list of frequvencies, which are then not random, but pseudo-random). The observer/target of the radar will only recieve "white noise". There will be no clear signal (at a given frequvency) which can distinquish it from the background noise - because the frequvencies are in random order. But when the radar recieves the return signal (which is white noise) it knows "the list". It knows exactly at which frequvencies it has to "listen" to recover the signal from the background noise (see f.ex a "lock-in amplifier" here "the list" will be a signal of refference).