Golden Dome for America

[UpForce]

I wonder if we'll ever get to see a test of one of these "Golden Shower" interceptor missiles?

Something from this program might trickle down into actual hardware, but I wouldn't hold it forever waiting

Obviously the very first order of business, then, is to design and construct an over the parody horizon radar.

 

[Forest Green]

Perhaps. But pew-pew also feels very SDI-ish, like going around in circles. Boost phase interception was supposed to have become feasible because SpaceX, or something (why some experts disagree on space launch capacity and cost being commensurate with solving constellation scaling I've posted on enough times already). Perhaps what is good for the goose (SBI) is good for the gander (DEW).

With DEW you completely eliminate the cost of the interceptors and you may not need as many host satellites because they're not as sensitive to position due to speed. They also do actually mention that they have 'other ways' of achieving the same thing in the article I read.

The general in charge of America’s Golden Dome missile defense shield said today that a high-profile and technologically ambitious element of the project, space-based interceptors (SBIs), may not make it into the final architecture as originally envisioned if the tech is shown to be prohibitively costly.

“Because we are looking at the threats from a multi-domain perspective to make sure I have redundant capabilities and I don’t have single points of failure,” he added. “So, if boost-phase intercept from space is not affordable and scalable, we will not produce it, because we have other options to get after it.”

DEW technology is also well ahead of where it was in the Reagan era.

Guess it's good that Guetlein emphasizes affordability, even if it's in (inevitably) vague terms but recently defense economics, scalability and production volume have shaped if not dictated many developments that have been more empirical than pre-planned. The U.S. went through costly interceptors at an incredible (unjustified) rate against Iran's missiles and UAVs recently; perhaps being able to nip high-end threats in the bud, so to say, from orbit could result in a more sustainable overall defense, relieving high-end pressure from other layers. Perhaps not. In any case based on Ukraine's experience and China's emerging variety of offensive options it should've been clear already that it's not an easy environment for a massive multi-decadal system to remain relevant from strategy to requirement to deployment.

I think the problem is if the interceptors would end up costing the same as an SM-3 IIA. Multiply up by the number of interceptors and the cost is high regardless of launch costs. If they're forced to act defensively to protect the host satellite, that's also expensive, not so with DEW.

This 1MW nlight CBC laser is exactly the right level and technology for boost-phase purposes, the remaining question is size but payload to LEO capabilities are also way better than in the 1980s. There's the proven Falcon Heavy LV (63.8t), even without Starship or New Glenn LVs for instance.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/solid-state-laser-news.9380/post-889959

Old-school chemical laser shot numbers were also very limited due to chemical fuel storage and servicing was difficult and expensive back then, that's changed too.

 

[Foo Fighter]

They already have a 'golden dome', do they not?

 

[Scott Kenny]

With DEW you completely eliminate the cost of the interceptors and you may not need as many host satellites because they're not as sensitive to position due to speed. They also do actually mention that they have 'other ways' of achieving the same thing in the article I read.

You still need a pretty large number of lasersats, else they are vulnerable to ASAT attack.

I think the problem is if the interceptors would end up costing the same as an SM-3 IIA. Multiply up by the number of interceptors and the cost is high regardless of launch costs. If they're forced to act defensively to protect the host satellite, that's also expensive, not so with DEW.

Try more like AIM-9X, or at most cost of SM3 KV plus TSRM.

 

[exclaimedleech8]

You still need a pretty large number of lasersats, else they are vulnerable to ASAT attack.

But if we can make each satellite cheaper than an ASAT...

 

[Scott Kenny]

But if we can make each satellite cheaper than an ASAT...

Unlikely, but still doesn't fix the fundamental problem if we could make and place a lasersat for less than ~10mil.

If we field a hundred or more lasersats, then we have a decent chance that there's enough to still provide protection.

 

[Forest Green]

You still need a pretty large number of lasersats, else they are vulnerable to ASAT attack.

And why would a laser satellite designed for shooting down missiles be particularly vulnerable to ASAT missile attack? It's way less vulnerable that one with interceptor missiles.

Try more like AIM-9X, or at most cost of SM3 KV plus TSRM.

From what I heard they were toying with the idea of XB-34 34.5 inch boosters for the job.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And why would a laser satellite designed for shooting down missiles be particularly vulnerable to ASAT missile attack? It's way less vulnerable that one with interceptor missiles.

Depends on how the ASAT approaches. If it's not an obvious attack vector you might get the ASAT close enough to threaten the lasersat.

From what I heard they were toying with the idea of XB-34 34.5 inch boosters for the job.

I'm talking about an orbital weapons platform, not a surface launched one.

 

[Forest Green]

Depends on how the ASAT approaches. If it's not an obvious attack vector you might get the ASAT close enough to threaten the lasersat.

Tracking layers monitor all that.

I'm talking about an orbital weapons platform, not a surface launched one.

Laser is equally effective against them and there is also focus on orbital manoeuvrability

 

[Dilandu]

Old-school chemical laser shot numbers were also very limited due to chemical fuel storage and servicing was difficult and expensive back then, that's changed too.

It also have a serious vibration problem, IRRC, due to spent laser fuel venting outside FAST.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Tracking layers monitor all that.

And what if ASAT approach looks like it's an enemy tracking satellite. Since a lasersat will have a bigass optical stack at the business end.

Laser is equally effective against them and there is also focus on orbital manoeuvrability

Yes, there's a good chance lasers will be effective.

However, lasers will not be all that effective shooting down onto targets on the surface. Because I am certain that someone will try to hack, laser-blind, or outright laser-strike the orbital garages/lasersats, which will require a couple of examples be made before the message goes through. So we drop a nice plain APFSDS-DU dart onto the offending target.

 

[Dilandu]

My IMHO - the laser-based space missile defense should be conposed of two components:

* Big "beamcarrier" satellites on high orbit, equipped with hundred kilowatts/megawatt-grade lasers, powered either by solar arrays OR fuel-driven turbines. Since those satellites are big, hard to maneuver, and vulnerable, they must be placed far from Earth, and protected by soft-kill and hard-kill systems (jammers, decoys, kinetic mines);

* Small "interceptor" satellites on low orbit. Those satellites did not carry laser themselves - only recieving mirrors - to receive beam from beamcarriers - and re-targeting assembly to re-focus the beam on enemy missiles. Such satellites should be small, relatively maneuverable, rugged enough to be capable of sudden acceleration, and numerous;

 

[Forest Green]

And what if ASAT approach looks like it's an enemy tracking satellite. Since a lasersat will have a bigass optical stack at the business end.

Not sure how that would change anything, it still has the options of manoeuvring out of the way, or firing if it suspects a collision is coming, with the intermediate step of targeting the ASAT on approach, just in case.

Yes, there's a good chance lasers will be effective.

However, lasers will not be all that effective shooting down onto targets on the surface. Because I am certain that someone will try to hack, laser-blind, or outright laser-strike the orbital garages/lasersats, which will require a couple of examples be made before the message goes through. So we drop a nice plain APFSDS-DU dart onto the offending target.

Lasers can indeed be effective down to the surface if the right wavelength is used, even to the point where TEL-based missiles could be pre-emptively struck, or even radars and comms for that matter, or even any munitions or fuel not living in a bunker. Laser-strike is a threat to a laser satellite or an SBI missile satellite, as is laser-blinding and hacking but you will still have some redundancy and the ability to fire back quickly, which you don't with SBI missiles. It would be shrewd to always target those facilities with several satellites when passing over, ready to fire back if provoked.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not sure how that would change anything, it still has the options of manoeuvring out of the way, or firing if it suspects a collision is coming, with the intermediate step of targeting the ASAT on approach, just in case.

Ever heard of EFPs? You don't have to be close to a satellite to damage it.

Lasers can indeed be effective down to the surface if the right wavelength is used, even to the point where TEL-based missiles could be pre-emptively struck, or even radars and comms for that matter, or even any munitions or fuel not living in a bunker. Laser-strike is a threat to a laser satellite or an SBI missile satellite, as is laser-blinding and hacking but you will still have some redundancy and the ability to fire back quickly, which you don't with SBI missiles. It would be shrewd to always target those facilities with several satellites when passing over, ready to fire back if provoked.

This forces a laser up in the megawatts, not hundred-KW.

While dropping an RFG does have a certain minimum size (and delayed effect due to travel time), it's more certain about the effects.

 

[Dilandu]

This forces a laser up in the megawatts, not hundred-KW.

Probably dozens of megawatt, considering that beam path to the target would likely not be straight down. The beam would likely need to burn through atmosphere at angle, which would greatly increase both the ammount of air to get through, and turbulence problems. Heavy overcast, rain, fog, would quickly deplete the beam power.

Frankly, if space-to-surface laser strikes would be reasonable at all, they would likely be a surface-to-space-to-surface laser strikes: a VERY powerful ground laser bouncing the beam between orbital mirrors toward the target.

 

[Forest Green]

Ever heard of EFPs? You don't have to be close to a satellite to damage it.

Explosively formed penetrator would be tricky to employ accurately and doesn't really change the maths or the counters. HPM might be a way of disabling such close approaches without leaving an evidence trail.

This forces a laser up in the megawatts, not hundred-KW.

A 1MW CBC laser has already been achieved by nLight and it has approximately 8x the spot power density as LM's 500MW example.

While dropping an RFG does have a certain minimum size (and delayed effect due to travel time), it's more certain about the effects.

RFG?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Probably dozens of megawatt, considering that beam path to the target would likely not be straight down. The beam would likely need to burn through atmosphere at angle, which would greatly increase both the ammount of air to get through, and turbulence problems. Heavy overcast, rain, fog, would quickly deplete the beam power.

Yep. Plus most atmosphere-frequency beams end up with a pretty short "effective range" where the spot size+telescope pointing accuracy will not miss the target.

Frankly, if space-to-surface laser strikes would be reasonable at all, they would likely be a surface-to-space-to-surface laser strikes: a VERY powerful ground laser bouncing the beam between orbital mirrors toward the target.

I dunno, now you're shooting through twice the atmosphere.

Explosively formed penetrator would be tricky to employ accurately and doesn't really change the maths or the counters.

Off-route mines have been worked out for a long time.

HPM might be a way of disabling such close approaches without leaving an evidence trail.

Granted.

RFG?

Rod From God. Orbital Kinetic strike. Name comes from Pournelle, who came up with the idea.

 

[Dilandu]

I dunno, now you're shooting through twice the atmosphere.

True, but a stationary surface laser isn't limited in power, cooling capabilities, ect. We could allow for power loss just by bruteforcing the beam. As long as our orbital mirror could sustain the thermal load, of course.

 

[Scott Kenny]

True, but a stationary surface laser isn't limited in power, cooling capabilities, ect. We could allow for power loss just by bruteforcing the beam. As long as our orbital mirror could sustain the thermal load, of course.

This would suggest a ~100m diameter mirror.

 

[Forest Green]

Off-route mines have been worked out for a long time.

You could plant an off-route mine for a launch TEL too as far as that goes. You still have the option to manoeuvre out of the way of suspicious objects or subtly disable them with HPM, possibly even nudge them out of the way with another satellite and call it an accident due to unsafe and irresponsible third party satellite manoeuvres. You could also declare a 'safe space' inside which any encroaching satellites are assumed to be up to no good and destroyed.

Rod From God. Orbital Kinetic strike. Name comes from Pournelle, who came up with the idea.

A ground-based laser would have to have an exposed aperture to fire, so another laser satellite could easily fire back.

 

[Dilandu]

This would suggest a ~100m diameter mirror.

Depend mainly on what power we want to bounce from the mirror, and how high the mirror is placed.

 

[Dilandu]

A ground-based laser would have to have an exposed aperture to fire, so another laser satellite could easily fire back.

Lets just say that trying to fight a beam duel with a PLANET is not a good idea for spacecraft...

 

[Forest Green]

Lets just say that trying to fight a beam duel with a PLANET is not a good idea for spacecraft...

Firstly, I'm talking about enemy GBLs firing on friendly SBLs. And yes, one on one, it's bad, but many on one, it's possible. While the GBL will have more power, it still has an exposed aperture and targeting sensors which can readily be damaged. It will be a matter of who fires first in most cases, but as soon as one enemy GBL fires, all SBLs and reflector mirrors for friendly GBLs, will be tasked with firing back at all such installations of that enemy, and they may receive some Dark Eagles if their aperture is not exposed during said exchange.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Depend mainly on what power we want to bounce from the mirror, and how high the mirror is placed.

The bigger the mirror, the less heat builds up.

 

[Dilandu]

The bigger the mirror, the less heat builds up.

Yes, but too big mirror would be impractically hard to aim.

 

[Dilandu]

While the GBL will have more power, it still has an exposed aperture and targeting sensors which can readily be damaged. It will be a matter of who fires first in most cases, but as soon as one enemy GBL fires, all SBLs and reflector mirrors for friendly GBLs,

Not that simple. First of all, the situation is not equival. The space laser satellite is vulnerable completely, while for ground-based laser the only vulnerable part is mirror. Its basically the old "ships vs forts" problem; to damage the coastal fort, the ship must hit its guns (which are small and well-protected), while to damage ship, the fort must merely hit the ship (which is much bigger target). It would likely took far less time for ground laser to destroy the satellite, than for satellite to disable ground laser.

Secondly, the ground laser mirror could be armored good enough against laser fire. A simplest solution - a pulsed beam with rotary shutter, which opening is synchronized with laser pulses. Unless your space laser is synchronized exactly the same way, it would waste most of the energy trying to burn through a shutter, with only small portion getting through.

Or, you could just use two turrets feed from common laser generator. As soon as one turret would became lased from space, it would immediately close the protective shutters, and the second turret would fire instead. The space laser would be forced to constantly swing between turrets, while being constantly lased from one.