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

[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

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]

eye navigation vs. gps

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.

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.

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]

Pitch black

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.