Are there any anti-satellite weapons in usage in any nation these days? I recall reading about a missile that was supposed to be launched by an F-15, but I believe the program was canceled. With the ever-increasing ability of countries to put reconnaissance satellites into orbit, I am surprised to have not heard about some follow-on weapon. Does this capability exist?

I believe that you are thinking of the ASAT? That one got cancelled in the mid-1980's.

I have to think that the military could have used such as system in the Iraq war to target some of the satellites that where re-broadcasting propaganda from the extremists fighting the coalition.

Of course Al-Jazzeera and Al-Arabia would have screamed murder over it but I am sure the grunt on the ground wouldn't have given two thoughts to it.

There was a program for an anti-satellite missile (ASAT) and it was to be launched from the F-15. This is off the top of my head, but I think the program was during the late 70's to the early 80's. It never made it out of the development stage, I think they hit one satellite in a test with it before the program was cancelled. There really isn't that much of a need to shoot down someone's satellites, their orbits are predictable, so whenever it's time for one to make a pass, you just cover over, or put inside whatever you don't want seen. More economical that way.

IMHO, Until a country puts something in space that delivers ordinance, I don't see any sort of anti-satellite weapons coming online. Reconnaissance satellites are more of a nuisance to deal with than anything.

I am trying to remember, I think it was a SRAM missle body, on an ASROC booster, wasn't it.

It was built from off-the-shelf parts.

L188

The problem is that when a country is invaded, not all of the population are going to be overjoyed.

I am amazed how many people were expecting to be welcomed with garlands.

Iraq broadly consists of three groupings, the Shia in the South who were left in the lurch by Bush Senior among others in 1991, and who are close to Iran.
However they did badly under Saddam and were likely to be generally pro coalition. The Sunni's in the middle, who did relatively well under Saddam and who were likely to be anti coalition, particularly arround Tikrit and Fallujah.
Finally there are the Kurds in the North, who did badly under Saddam, who want a Kurdish state, which is something that Turkey will not accept.

The situation is that right or wrong we are in there now.

The way to deal with dissent is to expose the weaknesses in it. The more we try to silence it, the more we look like invaders rather than liberators.

Episodes like Abu Ghaib do not help.

Sorry about the potted history lesson, but a lot of the problems were foreseeable. I am not saying that they were all avoidable, but there has been an impression, if nothing more, that the Occupation was ill thought out.

In the South, We still need to resolve the role of the Imam's, much of the population are not looking for Democracy on the US model.

In the Centre, there was, and is the need to win over hearts and minds. This will mean men on the ground, lots of them. It also means less shock and awe.

In the North, which has gone strangely quiet, we need to think about some form of Kurdish authority, with some degree of autonomy.

Overall, we need a government which is Federal not unitary.

I know that this has strayed somewhat, and you may wish to delete it, (I hope not). But the point that am making, coming back to the topic is that this war, (like most others) needs a political solution, rather than simply surpressing dissent. If Al Jazzera was as out of touch as you suggest, people would not listen to it.

The problem is that when a country is invaded, not all of the population are going to be overjoyed.

I am amazed how many people were expecting to be welcomed with garlands.

I think you totally missed the point of this thread

DfwRevolution

The point is that L188 thinks that shooting down the satellites would stop the attacks, or have some other beneficial effect. .

"I have to think that the military could have used such as system in the Iraq war to target some of the satellites that where re-broadcasting propaganda from the extremists fighting the coalition.

Of course Al-Jazzeera and Al-Arabia would have screamed murder over it but I am sure the grunt on the ground wouldn't have given two thoughts to it".

This is a view that may agree with with.

My point is that if the situation was working in the way that many seemed to assume it would, then what Al Jazzera did or did not say would be of little importance.

The reason for the potted history lesson was that IMHO many of the problems were foreseeable. We need political solutions not missiles. Destroying the Al Jazzera satellites, would IMO not prevent stories getting out.

Mistakes have been made, we need to deal with them. Hiding our mistakes does not make them go away. "The grunt on the Ground" may not want to know about these issues, but they need to be addressed.

BENNETT123:

Let's get back on topic here, OK?

Anyhow, I have to wonder if the YAL-1 could be used as an ASAT weapon for low-flying satellites.

If it can hit a missile, I can see no reason why it could not hit a satellite in low orbit.

Clearly the higher geostationary satellites would be more difficult as far as range is concerned. However, being motionless , if they can be reached hitting them should be easier. All depends of the "voltage" available.

They might be more vulnerable to a larger ground based weapon.

The point is that L188 thinks that shooting down the satellites would stop the attacks, or have some other beneficial effect.

Sorry to go off subject again,

Only in the most general sense, it is about information control. Like it or not, shutting down news stations or destroying their ability to transmit controls an unfriendly stations is often a way to control the information.

In that sense satilites in orbit should be considered as valid targets as ground based radio transmitters on the ground.

In that sense satilites in orbit should be considered as valid targets as ground based radio transmitters on the ground.


Can't wait for someone to shoot down NewsCorp satellites, in that case. After all, Al Jazeera has way more credibility than FoxNews around the world...


Back to topic. I think some of the XPrize entrants were speculating about the possibilities for their launchers to be used for
a) placing spy satellites into orbit at extremely short notice (the satellite would be very small, light, and carry its own booster to be launched from the suborbital platform)
or
b) deploying anti-satellite missiles from their platforms.

Personally, I hope they will remain a strictly civilian space-tourism kind of enterprise. It's truly a pity that whenever something is developed, someone has to think about its potential for murdering people (i.e. for the military).

Regards

Ikarus

Wow guys, way to hijack an otherwise worthwhile thread.

ASATs were banned under the ABM treaty if I remember correctly.

Also Gen Horner commented that even if he had ASATs he wouldn't have used them because many of the same satellites the US used so did the enemy, almost everyone rents time from the same series satellites.

Bennett123, geostationary satellites are motionless ?
I assume you meant to say something else...

IMO geostationary are easier in so far as they do not move.

However if the range of the missile is less than about 25,000 M, then being on target becomes academic because it is out of range.

Consequently for geostationary, you need a larger probably ground based launcher.

What do you think?.

Geostationary Satellites are "stationary" relative to the earth, which means that they stay in the same spot overhead.

L188

Thank you clarifying that point, as you imply, they are in fact moving at the same speed as the earth rotates.

I should have said that they are motionless relative to a particular point on the earth. Basicly they remain fixed over the point that you are either watching or communicating with depending on the purpose of the satellite.

David

Gang,

Big difference between hitting a sat in a LEO orbit (150 - 300 miles) and one
in geosynchronous orbit (23000 miles up).

Anything important in a LEO is going to have some maneuver capability to keep the other guy from guessing your orbit or time of overflight. That's why the US ASAT went on a F15. You could get it airborne in scramble mode at short notice and your launch point is not fixed.

The geosynchronous orbit the Al-Jazeera Sat used is another matter. To take a direct shot at it you'll need a large fixed launching point with a good sized multi stage missile. Or you could try to maneuver a "bombsat" along side to take it out with a proximity fuse, but this would need large fixed facilities also. You could try the laser approach, but at 23000 miles you'd need a lot of power meaning another fixed facility. Or if you got a nuke handy you could go the EMP route... Basically anything you do in this area is going to be costly and the other guy is going to see you coming and he'll just shoot a little gas out of the thrusters and get out of your way, with the exception of EMP of course. Simpler to just drop a $2000 mk82 on the downlink station or jam the transponder.

SATL382G

SATL382G:

Greaser:
Don't see what is so hard to understand what SATL382G is saying.

Greaser,

I like the worm!! Very cool...

But to answer your question... Earlier posts in the thread were playing fast and loose with the facts. Long story short: It's relatively easy to hit a sattelite in low orbit. It's relatively much, much more difficult to hit one in a very high geosynchronous orbit. And high geosynchronous is where the comm sats are, like the Al-Jazeera sat.

You can't just trot out an ASAT armed F15 and knock Al-Jazeera off the air.

SATL382G

SATL382G:
nah, just kidding, i do understand, just wanted to add some humor to the tense situation here..esp. after it was hijacked by UH-HUM!

in tom clancy's book "red storm rising" he describes the thing in decent detail. kinda cool system...

Al-Jazeera satellite ? where have you read of an A-J sat ?

There is something a lot more simpler than developping sci-fi theories aiming at eradicating satellites.
Think about who operates/controls/commands the satellites (nothing to do with the transmission of contents).
With the only exception of Russian and some of the European sats, equipment and specialists are US.

Blocking/jamming the uplink receivers (and telemetry links) would even be a lot easier and a big lot cheaper (and probably available at the click of some switches in most isolated US bases, especially close to the equator, eg Diego Garcia, Ascencion, in the Pacific)

Our own true speed at the surface of the earth is about 1,750km/hour, 486m/sec.
How much would that be 35,800km higher ? ...though in our eyes the target do not seem to move, but it is not as if Leo's are moving fast, Meo's slowly and Geo's not at all.

Pretty easy to throw anything in a thread, somewhat more delicate for some posters to admit they made a mistake or typed something without knowing.

What about the Al Jazeera satellite gentlemen ?

What about simply jamming/blocking the uplink receivers ?
(more difficult with military satellites, but extremely easy with civilian or the ever so popular dual-purpose ones)

I called it an Al-Jazeera sat for purposes of simplification. Technically I should have called it the Al-Jazeera "transponder" on xyz satellite.

I tossed out the "sci fi" theories to illustrate the difficulties of targeting a comm sat in geo. see reply 20

Don't read too much into this thread... It was all "what if" stuff...

SATL382G

Hi SATL,

There is not even anything like a Al Jazeera transponder on any of the satellites they use for broadcast.
A transponder has typically 36MHz of bandwidth, the sole AJ channel takes only a small part of this.

OK, let's say it was a sci-fi minded thread...

I am sure Al-Jazeera simply rents bandwidth on the satellite.

Which is one of the reasons why even I admit that shooting it down would cause a multiude of problems, particularly with everybody else renting space on it.

Shoot, I would be willing to bet that some millitary traffic was bouncing off the same satellite.

Iakobos,

So whats your point? Al-jazeera uses a satellite to rebroadcast their stuff, you seem to know that, and I knew it. It's common practice in broadcasting...

The precise means was not pertinent to the thread, that they used a satellite was...

SATL382G

The geosynchronous orbit the Al-Jazeera Sat used is another matter

SATL, you wrote this. So, for the sake of precision, AJ is broadcasted on more than half a dozen of GEO satellites, US, European and Asian ones.
Sure it is not pertinent to the thread, but the reference to GEO sats is not pertinent either.

The possible targets of anti-sat systems are LEO and MEO military communications/observations satellites, not GEO platforms aiming at Direct to Home tv/radio broadcasts.

The geosynchronous orbit the Al-Jazeera Sat used is another matter

SATL, you wrote this. So, for the sake of precision, AJ is broadcasted on more than half a dozen of GEO satellites, US, European and Asian ones.
Sure it is not pertinent to the thread, but the reference to GEO sats is not pertinent either.

The whole point was that AJ was broadcasting from a sat in geo and that it would be extremely difficult, but not impossible, to destroy such a sat. As I pointed out before you joined in other means of disrupting such a broadcast are much more readily available.

There are no anti-sat systems (in the unclassified world anyway) for targeting any satellite. If there were it's unlikely those of us on a.net would make the targeting decisions. So your sentence "The possible targets of anti-sat systems are LEO and MEO military communications/observations satellites, not GEO platforms aiming at Direct to Home tv/radio broadcasts." doesn't make much sense.

SATL382G

OK SATL, what you write makes a lot of sense, what I write does not.

In this context, are you positive that there are no anti-sat "systems" ?

Ok, Ok!! Why not just quit beating around the bush and say what you're going to say. I am not positive there are no anti sat systems, just none that I know of and I stated this in my last post.

I think one or both of us needs some new drugs!!  

SATL382G

Drugs are not needed here, satellite communications is my field of business.

If I remember correctly, during the Soviet era the Russians had a pretty substantial ASAT program going. Some of the systems developed were launched using the R-7 rocket that launched the Cosmos satellites, and some used obselete R-36 (SS-9) rockets for the same purpose.

Hi the ASAT was based on the AIM-54 phoenix Missile and was Launched from the central weapons station of an F-15 which needed to perform a ZOOM climb to get in to position to intercept the Sat.

The ASAT was a low Earth Orbit weapons system no good for Killing Sats in Clark Otbit For that you would need something Bigger!