I thinking the ultimate solution they're aiming for is an AMTI satellite constellation with permanent coverage from above. RCS looking down at cockpits and planform is likely far higher than RCS from the front.
At the height these satellites orbit, and must orbit to function, a civilian (if high end) laser emitter combined with a computerised mount (such as those avaliable in even home telescopes) could conceivably blind if not significantly damage them (structurally). To say nothing of a dedicated military response by a nation that makes significant quantities of both.
Just curious. What part of a notional radar satellite do you plan to blind with a laser?
Blind was something of a mistake on my part (though not entirely, iirc the notional BAE/Hanwha multi sensor system constellation incoporates satelites that operate on the visual spectrum), but that doesnt change the fact a laser can severely degrade or destroy a radar from range.
Now build hundreds of those, if not thousands. All of which will need a generator in the high hundreds of KW, plus a very fancy collimation mirror.
You're not going to successfully hide an E-7 at a civilian airport. On the ground, the net will light up with the local spotters saying 'did you see', and in the air as soon as it emits, it'll draw a big red arrow pointing at where it is for anyone with ESM.
They can be killed by a flake of paint if it hits the right spot at enough relative velocity.
What's the cost per gram to lift stuff into orbit?
No, but an AWACS isn't exactly invulnerable against 6th gen fighters packing LRAAMs and it costs way more to shoot down satellites.
2029 - In testing now - Top link:
With RLVs (Falcon 9) it's ~$500/kg, with ELVs it was $30,000/kg even 20 years ago. There's also continuous mention of offensive space assets presumably with some ability to defend the system.
Satellites follow a mathematically predictable orbit.
And how do you get it there?
The laws of physics generally disagree with that hypothesis. While change of orbital altitude and therefore eccentricity is quite cheap from an efficiency perspective, actually changing the orbital inclination is very expensive in terms of delta-v.
No, but large constellations have made it difficult to make the entire constellation ineffective.
Just changing eccentricity will throw someone's attack calculations out the window.
Here's an article about the space force wanting this capability
www.airandspaceforces.com
www.airandspaceforces.com
You can't just teleport it into space. A lot of things have to happen to get it there that, at this point, amounts to a lot of hand-wavium.
The article actually agrees with my position.Here's an article about the space force wanting this capability
SPACECOM Boss Wants Satellites That Can Maneuver to and from New Orbits
U.S. Space Command (SPACECOM) boss Gen. Stephen N. Whiting is interested in satellites that can fly to orbits outside traditional regimes.
Then there were reports of chinese satellites doing "dogfighting" - whatever that means.
China Practicing ‘Dogfighting in Space,’ US Space Force Says
China has been using experimental satellites to practice “dogfighting” in space, the Space Force officials said on March 18.
Vice Chief of Space Operations Gen. Michael A. Guetlein said the operations involved “five different objects in space maneuvering in and out and around each other in synchronicity, and in control.”
At the very minimum, it would seem said "laws of physics" you state to be in disagreement may currently be questioned. Or it might not and its all just jargon gibberish hype. I wouldn't know the difference though.
Exactly. It then comes down to non-space assets and the remaining active space assets. Casualties are expected and unavoidable.
Agreed - your best bet is arguably to manoeuvre enough in the prelude to war that maintaining the stalking capacity becomes prohibitively expensive.
