Russia to Counter US Space Weapon

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
21 April 2009
Messages
13,154
Reaction score
6,018
From the Defense News website - http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4229263&c=AME&s=AIR

The Soviet Union went bankrupt trying to counter real US/NATO capabilities, now they want to go bankrupt trying to counter imaginary capabilities
 
That article is probably not translated completely accurately, and not organized very well. The S-500 program has been around for a while, and has had an ASAT and ABM role for a while as well. What they're getting at is that this is a dual-role ABM/ASAT. And, although they don't mention it, the S-500 will be a mobile system capable of integrating within the national EW and BM network. See, now the US almost has to accelerate and widely deploy an ABM system, because that's exactly what Russia is gearing up to do on a national basis. And maybe not for the first time, either, but I'm still researching that last bit.
 
SOC said:
That article is probably not translated completely accurately, and not organized very well. The S-500 program has been around for a while, and has had an ASAT and ABM role for a while as well. What they're getting at is that this is a dual-role ABM/ASAT. And, although they don't mention it, the S-500 will be a mobile system capable of integrating within the national EW and BM network. See, now the US almost has to accelerate and widely deploy an ABM system, because that's exactly what Russia is gearing up to do on a national basis. And maybe not for the first time, either, but I'm still researching that last bit.

The Oblahma administration cancelled ours. KEI is dead.
 
sferrin - I will try and find the source but I thought I read somewhere that KEI funds were in the Senate reconciliation bill?
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin - I will try and find the source but I thought I read somewhere that KEI funds were in the Senate reconciliation bill?

Hadn't heard that. Last I heard (back during the missile defense purge a few months back) GBI in Poland was dead, GBI in Alaska was stopped as-is, ABL was reduced to a research program, and KEI was killed. Oh, and there's suppose to be some miracle system that's suppose to make up for all that that (unsurprisingly) we have heard nothing about since. I'd be happy to be wrong.
 
sferrin - here is an article some funding restored in committee don't know if it will make it through the final vote, however.

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/072809_c111_fy10_hac_hr3326/
 
Ruslan Pukhov of the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST)'s take on the issue:
http://www.russiatoday.ru/s/swf/player.swf?file=http://www.russiatoday.ru/v/2009-08-12/499771_air-strike.flv&image=http:
 
Interesting video. Not sure what the Saturn V has to do with supposed weapons in space but it is the MSM after all. :D I am curious though, has anybody actually managed to put a name to these mythical weapons? The US can't even build a nuke these days, or fund the developement of an ICBM. It's certainly not sticking nukes in space anytime soon.
 
sferrin - this video reminds me of articles during the Cold War when Soviet generals would decry any US military development as proof we wanted global domination.

The Cold War was filled with both sides largely misunderstanding the mind set and intentions of the other side. The Soviets/Russians believed that like them the US wanted global military domination, through coercion not mutual and voluntary alliances and would therefore develop and deploy all these marvelous technological wonders that appeared just to be around the corner. They deeply feared and still fear US technological capabilities.

Notice all the pictures of Reagan. They are still obsessed with him because he was SDI and also was instrumental in ending the Cold War. The Soviets believed that Reagan, as President, could build and deploy anything he wanted as if he was our Brezhnev. When it didn't happen overtly they just assumed it was happening covertly because why would a nation not use everything in it's power to be militarily superior.

The US on the other hand - I won't say who or what side of the aisle as to not "get political" - thought the Soviets really just wanted peace and understanding and would rather produce appliances instead of ICBMs if "we" were not so threatening.

Obviously these are general statements and not meant to encompass the entire spectrum of strategic thought during the Cold War.
 
Hypersonic bombers, nuclear powered flying wings with directed energy weapons, swarm of ultra stealth unmanned electronic warehouses armed with microwaves to tactically fry the crap out of the enemy's electronic infrastructure, etc. The future looks great, ain't it? Just like back then, we thought we will have 700 ATF and equal amount of NATF for complete domination of the sky both land and sea while thousands of ultra stealthy ATA bomb the crap out of any target on enemy's territory. Now, the only thing out of that vision is the 183 f-22 deployed, while the rest will be handled by the compromised low-end mule of the f-35 (don't misunderstand, I'm a strong supporter of the f-35 by the way). Yes, the end of the cold war is a big factor, but no one would deny that the ATA was a disaster of a program with unrealistic goals, while the ATF was a better disaster because it at least had a prototype competition.
 
donnage99 said:
Hypersonic bombers, nuclear powered flying wings with directed energy weapons, swarm of ultra stealth unmanned electronic warehouses armed with microwaves to tactically fry the crap out of the enemy's electronic infrastructure, etc.

None of which operates in space.


donnage99 said:
The future looks great, ain't it? Just like back then, we thought we will have 700 ATF and equal amount of NATF for complete domination of the sky both land and sea while thousands of ultra stealthy ATA bomb the crap out of any target on enemy's territory. Now, the only thing out of that vision is the 183 f-22 deployed, while the rest will be handled by the compromised low-end mule of the f-35 (don't misunderstand, I'm a strong supporter of the f-35 by the way). Yes, the end of the cold war is a big factor, but no one would deny that the ATA was a disaster of a program with unrealistic goals, while the ATF was a better disaster because it at least had a prototype competition.


By what definition did the ATF turn out to be a "disaster"? ::) If the politicians hadn't screwed with the program even the cost would be reasonable. Considering what you get for your money even the high price is reasonable.
 
sferrin said:
None of which operates in space.
Hypersonic bombers skim on the atmostphere, which I think is what Zelin is referring to. I'm unsure if the term "space based missile system" are his words or the words of the article's interpretation of his words.

By what definition did the ATF turn out to be a "disaster"? ::) If the politicians hadn't screwed with the program even the cost would be reasonable. Considering what you get for your money even the high price is reasonable.
By the definition of its cost overrun accountable for all the unexpected problems in its almost 2 decades long program. Look, I'm not critizing particularly a program. The f-22 stand in its own class, and by simple comparison, its kill ratio and being a force multiplier overpower its price tag. There probably won't be anything out there to reach its left heel for the next 2 decades in term of raw capabilities, and to think that this thing was designed back almost 2 decades ago, it's really the stuff of geniuses. However, my point is that you don't know what happen. A program might sound fine and awsome until it hit all the technical turbulence (largely due to, again, unrealistic goals), which increases cost and delay, etc. which leads to politicians questioning all kind of stuff, which leads to cut or out right cancellation of a program.
 
Maybe the Russian general read from the Los Angeles AFB brochure - The Space Superiority Systems Wing develops, fields, and sustains space control capabilities to guarantee space superiority for the nation. Space control systems provide commanders and operational forces with effective space situational awareness, defense, and protection for U.S. and allied space capabilities, as well
as offensive counterspace systems to gain and maintain space superiority.
 
bobbymike

Maybe the Russian general read from the Los Angeles AFB brochure - The Space Superiority Systems Wing develops, fields, and sustains space control capabilities to guarantee space superiority for the nation. Space control systems provide commanders and operational forces with effective space situational awareness, defense, and protection for U.S. and allied space capabilities, as well
as offensive counterspace systems to gain and maintain space superiority.

There is a reason why it's a bad idea to weaponize space y'know...
 
On a different note,

One of the chief counters to BMD may be a revival of the Fractional Orbital Bombardment system.

So even if we don't see US nukes in space we may see Russian nukes there.

Either way bye bye outer space treaty.
 
avatar said:
So even if we don't see US nukes in space we may see Russian nukes there.

Either way bye bye outer space treaty.
What you been smokin'? Why the hell would Russia (or any country) want to waste billions of dollars on such weapon?

Edit: I'm disappointed at the amount of thought people put into what they about to write.
 
avatar said:
One of the chief counters to BMD may be a revival of the Fractional Orbital Bombardment system.

Ahh no!

FOBS just makes mid course phase and terminal phase BMD harder. It doesn't make it impossible. It also makes boost phase BMD easier as presumably you need to launch your warhead system into space on a bigger rocket (with more IR signature and slower acceleration) to achieve the velocities needed for orbit.
 
Hi everyone!


FOBS is indeed being talked about again.

The technology has of course not remained static, with improvements in both weight and stealth.

So a SS-18 equivalent is no longer required to do the job.


Moreover BPI is really not moot since FOBS will be launched before a conflict and not during it.
 
HOBS will always require more energy to achieve than a conventional ballistic path warhead of equal mass (ie technology and number of warheads). The nature of launching your warhead into orbit as opposed to straight up and straight down guarantees it. So you either need a bigger rocket or a smaller payload. Further to achieve efficiencies HOBS concepts are usually based around a large bus deploying multiple warheads as it makes many orbital passes.

As to somehow avoiding boost phase intercept as it is launched ‘before’ a conflict this argument would make all first strike boost phase intercept irrelevant. Any deployed boost phase BMD system would be on a hair trigger designed to intercept any missile launch outside civilian or declared testing parameters. Trying to disguise a HOBS launch as a civilian launch is not really feasible in this day and age and also not likely to convince anyone in the high tension environment that would see a BPI system deployed.
 
HOBS will always require more energy to achieve than a conventional ballistic path warhead of equal mass (ie technology and number of warheads). The nature of launching your warhead into orbit as opposed to straight up and straight down guarantees it. So you either need a bigger rocket or a smaller payload. Further to achieve efficiencies HOBS concepts are usually based around a large bus deploying multiple warheads as it makes many orbital passes.

Of course. which is why FOBS will follow a trajectory over the south pole bypassing BMD.

FOBS concepts are always based around launching multiple warheads by a single bus these days. and that warhead technology is not static.
As to somehow avoiding boost phase intercept as it is launched ‘before’ a conflict this argument would make all first strike boost phase intercept irrelevant. Any deployed boost phase BMD system would be on a hair trigger designed to intercept any missile launch outside civilian or declared testing parameters. Trying to disguise a HOBS launch as a civilian launch is not really feasible in this day and age and also not likely to convince anyone in the high tension environment that would see a BPI system deployed.

Hardly. FOBS is different from your average BM launch. it will be launched much before a potential conflict. so no question of hair trigger.

it will be lauched in the same kind of environment that allows one to launch an SSBN.

it is something that the world will learn to live with.
 
DFC said:
Of course. which is why FOBS will follow a trajectory over the south pole bypassing BMD.

Ahh a trajectory that bypasses boost phase intercept? That would mean a trajectory that is not upwards... North, south, east, west ‘twas all the same...

DFC said:
Hardly. FOBS is different from your average BM launch. it will be launched much before a potential conflict. so no question of hair trigger.

Fractional orbital bombardment system (FOBS) is not positioning a warhead in a high or stable orbit. It is a low earth orbit deployment where the warhead takes advantage of its orbital trajectory to approach the target area from another, unexpected direction. If it is an ORBITAL bombardment system (OBS) and spends some time orbiting before terminal deployment then that just gives the midcourse phase intercept system an opportunity for more shoots.

None of this however somehow defeats boost phase intercept. Launching a FOBS or OBS warhead is as much an act of war as launching a ballistic missile. Even if you added a data link to the system to enable retargeting or inerting (pseudo recall) people don’t tend to like having a nuclear warhead orbiting overhead and then coming down into an ocean; even if it doesn’t explode.

DFC said:
it will be lauched in the same kind of environment that allows one to launch an SSBN.

What? From a submarine... Then you get a torpedo in your arse before you get the missile hatches open... Even if you get the shot off there are BPI concepts that provide global coverage.

DFC said:
it is something that the world will learn to live with.

Ahh OK... You’re one of those... NO PERSONAL ATTACKS please!
 
Fractional orbital bombardment system (FOBS) is not positioning a warhead in a high or stable orbit. It is a low earth orbit deployment where the warhead takes advantage of its orbital trajectory to approach the target area from another, unexpected direction. If it is an ORBITAL bombardment system (OBS) and spends some time orbiting before terminal deployment then that just gives the midcourse phase intercept system an opportunity for more shoots.

None of this however somehow defeats boost phase intercept. Launching a FOBS or OBS warhead is as much an act of war as launching a ballistic missile. Even if you added a data link to the system to enable retargeting or inerting (pseudo recall) people don’t tend to like having a nuclear warhead orbiting overhead and then coming down into an ocean; even if it doesn’t explode.


Obviously it is not an "extended deployment" system. :D "fractional" takes care of that.You have jumped on the "much" part. and that's fine.
but it gives great range, and that allows it to avoid multi-layered BMD like nothing else.
having said that if we move from FOBS to OBS a lot of formation flying concepts are being looked at with nano satellites that your mid -course interceptors will neither be able to track nor destroy.




it will be lauched in the same kind of environment that allows one to launch an SSBN.

What? From a submarine... Then you get a torpedo in your arse before you get the missile hatches open... Even if you get the shot off there are BPI concepts that provide global coverage.

Quote from: DFC on Today at 08:53:53 am
it is something that the world will learn to live with.

Ahh OK... You’re one of those...


Hardly. You completely misunderstood the submarine statement.


Nobody is launching FOBS from a sub.

What I meant is that BMD itself is destabilizing. so when people do things that were earlier intolerable they will have to go easy on the hair trigger business themselves. The "SSBN" is being used as a metaphor here.
So quasi-recall should not be considered as bad as it sounds.

And BPI concepts that give coverage "anywhere anytime" are far more notional than the FOBS itself as of today. :D

As far as your last comment is concerned, I am reporting it.
 
For all those having nagging doubts about space weaponization: ;)


http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/11/04/china-declares-space-war-inevitable/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2380404/posts
 
Of course, "breaking defense" was cleared to post all of that by persons unknown.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom