To Combat Drone or Not to Combat Drone?

[adam_grif]

If the enemy has started blowing up all of your satellites, you're probably about fifteen minutes away from nuclear war so you shouldn't really stress about things like that.

I didn't know you were all for massive and total disproportionate retaliation. It's nice to see more people who think like me.

It's just that when you lose all communications, early warning systems and so on in a very short period of time, this is likely a prelude to either nuclear war or full scale war. Since you can't possibly know whether or not other people have launched their nuclear arsenal, it makes sense to launch yours at the antagonist preemptively when this happens.

It's by no means guaranteed to happen, but taking out satellite communications is playing with fire.

[MKSheppard]

Yeah, he thinks like you, which is why he thinks Iran can take out an array of satellites based on nothing.

They've proven they can put stuff into orbit.

Iran launches new research rocket into space
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI , 02.03.10, 05:10 AM EST

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran announced Wednesday it has successfully launched a 10-foot-long research rocket carrying a mouse, two turtles and worms into space - a feat President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said showed Iran could defeat the West in the battle of technology.

The launch of the Kavoshgar-3, which means Explorer-3 in Farsi, was announced by Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi as part of Iran's ambitious space program. It comes a year after Iran sent its first domestically made telecommunications satellite into orbit.

That by extension grants them defacto ASAT capability -- since you know, Satellites can't easily manouver and it's just a matter of putting something in the spot that the satellite will be at x time.

Satellites in Geoschrynous Orbit some 22,000 miles above the earth will be less effected due to the delta vee needed to reach that high; but anything basically a lot lower is now fair game.

[Stark]

So... your rebuttal to 'they obviously can't do that' is 'theoretically they can one day'? lol. I know I'm full of paranoid Iran terror!

Depending on the ranges, there are always alternatives to satlinks. But as grif points out, if someone is destroying piles of satellites with theoretical capabilities, that merely reflects how afraid they are of your drones and their effectiveness.

[Stark]

Yeah, he thinks like you, which is why he thinks Iran can take out an array of satellites based on nothing.

They've proven they can put stuff into orbit. That by extension grants them defacto ASAT capability -- since you know, Satellites can't easily manouver and it's just a matter of putting something in the spot that the satellite will be at x time.

Satellites in Geoschrynous Orbit some 22,000 miles above the earth will be less effected due to the delta vee needed to reach that high; but anything basically a lot lower is now fair game.

Repeating yourself is not evidence. Sorry, if you think 'put thing in space' = 'cripple satcomm network in practical timeframes' you're retarded. Hey, they launched a rocket; clearly they will wipe out all US satellites in the opening minutes of conflict before their launch facilities are destroyed or their vehicles intercepted, which invalidates dronefleets because it's impossible to control them without satlinks.

OH WAIT!

[MKSheppard]

So... your rebuttal to 'they obviously can't do that' is 'theoretically they can one day'? lol. I know I'm full of paranoid Iran terror!

Stark, you're almost as stupid as Martin.

What was the United States' first operational ASAT system?

Why yes, a Thor IRBM sitting on a pad at Johnston Island in the Pacific, under the designation of Program 437. Iran has had IRBMs for quite a few years now.

[Stark]

So fucking what? How many launches do you think they'll get off? How many sats will each take out? One? How is this going to make any difference?

If you are seriously saying 'has made a rocket launch' equates to 'all satellites are doomed in time of war' you are dumb as fuck. It's even irrelevant to the discussion! lol

[MKSheppard]

Sorry, if you think 'put thing in space' = 'cripple satcomm network in practical timeframes' you're retarded.

The first things to go will be spy satellites -- we don't have any organic capability of peering into enemy airspace other than really long oblique shots, since we retired the SR-71s in the 1990s. And due to the need for good optical resolution, spy satellites have to orbit much lower, at 185 to 275 miles; and due to the enormous cost of a spy satellite there aren't that many of them.


This is the KH-12 constellation as of August 2009.

You can see how only USA 161 has any near iranian capability on a secondary orbit. So take that one out, and you cripple a significant portion of US imaging over Iran.

Likewise, the majority of Comm Sats are in Geoschrynous Orbit; and their numbers are pretty small -- DSCS was only 14 satellites covering the globe, MILSTAR has about four operational satellites, etc.

You don't need to knock out fifty satellites to sweep clean US space based assets in a theater. Just taking about four or five satellites out should significantly degrade US capabilities in that region for a not-trivial amount of time.

Yes, I do know that other satellites can be manouvered into new orbits to replace the destroyed satellites, but that wastes their precious on board propellant, which when it's gone, effectively ends their operational service life, as they won't be able to respond to any more contigencies.

[MKSheppard]

If you are seriously saying 'has made a rocket launch' equates to 'all satellites are doomed in time of war' you are dumb as fuck.

Ah, again you show your lack of intelligence.

Current US UCAV designs won't be in operational service for another 10-15 years, and then will fly for about 25 years (I'm assuming they have a faster development cycle and faster out of service time than manned aircraft). So that means we have to look ahead 30 years at what likely threats we will face, rather than focusing laserlike on our opponents' current capabilities (I am looking at you Bob Gates).

Iran's spaceflight program is rapidly advancing -- right now they can only put things into low earth orbit; but I'm sure in the next decade or so, they will achieve Geoschrynous orbit capability with a satellite over Iran. That will effectively mean that they can attack and destroy US comm satellites orbiting over the persian gulf region.

Of course, this all assumes that there isn't a breakthrough in the weaponization of solid state lasers in the next decade or two, which enables a ground based laser installation to blind and cripple satellites at will; and that the best method of satellite kill is via kinetic kill vehicles delivered by boosters.

[Blayne]

I did hear I think that the US were developing the ability to 'cheaply and rapidly' launch stuff into space orbits unsure if thats reached practical stage yet.

[Stark]

Nope, not seeing any substantiation of Irans ability to destroy all overhead comm sats, just a bunch of trivia. How many ASAT interception have they made again? How many launch sites? How mobile?

Of course all this cut n paste is irrelevant because drones aren't solely dependent on satlinks, but I'm eager for you to back up 'put thing in space = all sats are doomed'. How many will Iran take out on day one? How about the first week of hosilities?

He'll, since people are talking about putative dronefleets (which you dismiss), even if god declared drones had to use satellites, anyone going drone mad would build more. Uh oh.

[Blayne]

Also:

On 28 October 2009, United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, presented a report to the Third Committee (social, humanitarian and cultural) of the General Assembly warning that the use of unmanned combat air vehicles for targeted killings will be regarded as a breach of international law unless the United States can demonstrate appropriate precautions and accountability mechanisms are in place.[2]

From wikipedia.

Seem there might be additional constraints.

Stark your really sloppy.

[MKSheppard]

I did hear I think that the US were developing the ability to 'cheaply and rapidly' launch stuff into space orbits unsure if thats reached practical stage yet.

The US military's been exploring the use of smaller microsatellites in place of the current billion dollar satellites it uses for various tasks -- these micro satellites could be theoretically launched from road mobile launchers, from Navy Warships, or from US Air Force aircraft. The big problem of course would be much reduced capability -- there wouldn't be enough room to fit a full size focal length lens like on the Keyholes for reconnaisance purposes, and for communications purposes; they wouldn't be able to carry as much data as the older, bigger ones.

Of course, this would sort of be moot, if you had a Space Launch Battalion attached to each U.S. Army Corps, capable of putting into low earth orbit about 30 satellites on short-no-notice.

[Stark]

Oh no, I show my lack of intelligence by disagreeing with Shep! Clearly putative dronefleets are doomed because Iran's spaceflught will develop and nobody will creat robust satcomm systems for their drones ... Because he says so.

It's flawless in its simplicity! Of course, drones don't necesarily need satlinks, but we need to hijack into Iran paranoia.

[MKSheppard]

How many ASAT interception have they made again?

By placing things into a stable orbit, they have demonstrated defacto capability, in much the same sense if you build a SAM system capable of engaging high and very fast targets, you gain defacto ABM capability.

Remember, satellites have zero to limited manouverability, so you just need to be precise enough in your launch capabilities to put a chunk of debris into an orbit that intersects the satellite's orbit at such and such time. Even if the satellite can be directed into a higher orbit to avoid your crude ASAT kill mechanism by Space Command, you've effectively partially mission killed it, by forcing it into a non-optimal orbit for it's purpose, and expended a not insignificant fraction of it's onboard propellant to evade your kill mechanism.

How many launch sites? How mobile?

Right now, with their present level of rocketry, which is largely liquid fuelled, I would say one or two sites. But the Iranians have been working on solids for military purposes. Once they successfully launch an all solid missile, you're looking at basically any road strong enough to take a fully loaded TEL.

Of course all this cut n paste is irrelevant because drones aren't solely dependent on satlinks

Ah, but they are, along with a shitload of other things which need high bandwidth over long distances.

Even now, with just a bunch of dumb and stupid Predators and Reapers flying around Iraq and Afghanistan, we're straining our satellite capabilities to the limit in terms of communications bandwidth; which is also being strained by OTHER things; such as the need for planning, C3I etc purposes for normal military operations

How many will Iran take out on day one?

I've already detailed how Iran doesn't have to take out a huge number.

Taking out a number of satellites that you could measure on one hand would seriously cripple US C3I and Reconnaisance assets in the Persion Gulf Theater for a non-trivial amount of time, until replacements could be launched, or manouvered in from other orbits.

He'll, since people are talking about putative dronefleets (which you dismiss), even if god declared drones had to use satellites, anyone going drone mad would build more. Uh oh.

The Obama administration just killed proposals for a new series of communications satellites that would have used high powered lasers to carry far, far, more bandwidth than the older ones put up in the 1980s and 1990s.

[Stark]

Wow, you didn't actually answer any of those questions. Do you have to practice? I particularly enjoy the phrase 'means they have defacto anti sat capability' and you obviously do too. I assumed you'd conceeded that since you'd switched to 'in 25 years Iran will kill our sats dooming drones'.

Can you prove drones are dependent on satlinks please? Then prove this must remain true for 25 years and that no additional satellites will be launched during that same period. Otherwise I guess your whole argument is irrelevant to the discussion.

[MKSheppard]

Clearly putative dronefleets are doomed because Iran's spaceflught will develop and nobody will creat robust satcomm systems for their drones ... Because he says so..

The United States has the world's most comprehensive space based satellite system, and it's being strained to the limit by the exploding pace of bandwidth demands from relatively simple drones, such as Predators and Reapers.

The only way to get around the need for a satellite constellation to give you the bandwidth needed to control a drone swarm of doom, would be to partner manned aircraft with unmanned; or limit them to radio line of sight -- e.g. about 200-300 miles from the controller.

While those would be acceptable tradeoffs for certain applications, such as US Army Battalion level UCAVs to kill tanks or Toyota Land Cruisers with; or for a USAF Wild Weasel cell of one manned F-22 directing three UCAVs to take out S-300 sites; it certainly is a far cry from the "Manned Aircraft are dead, the future is 5,000 UAVs" futurists.

[Stark]

I'll make it easy for you. Are you saying Iran can currently destroy the overhead sats and current drones need them? Are you saying in 25 years Iran will be able to destroy the overhead sats so there's no point developing drones ever? Are you saying drones are by definition tied to sats that could concievably be destroyed and should not be used? You seem a little confused.

[Stark]

The United States has the world's most comprehensive space based satellite system, and it's being strained to the limit by the exploding pace of bandwidth demands from relatively simple drones, such as Predators and Reapers.

The only way to get around the need for a satellite constellation to give you the bandwidth needed to control a drone swarm of doom, would be to partner manned aircraft with unmanned; or limit them to radio line of sight -- e.g. about 200-300 miles from the controller.

While those would be acceptable tradeoffs for certain applications, such as US Army Battalion level UCAVs to kill tanks or Toyota Land Cruisers with; or for a USAF Wild Weasel cell of one manned F-22 directing three UCAVs to take out S-300 sites; it certainly is a far cry from the "Manned Aircraft are dead, the future is 5,000 UAVs" futurists.

Did you just conceed drones don't need satlinks? Case closed.

You don't have to knee-jerk into a drone thread with paranoia because you think people are talking about the end of manned aviation, you know. Course they could just rely the links off other drones, but doubtless in 25 years Iran will kill them too.

[MKSheppard]

I particularly enjoy the phrase 'means they have defacto anti sat capability' and you obviously do too.

If you can place something into orbit, you can then place something into an orbit that just so happens to intersect with the orbit of something else, resulting in nice pretty fireworks.

I assumed you'd conceeded that since you'd switched to 'in 25 years Iran will kill our sats dooming drones'.

Right now, Iran is dependent on liquid fuelled space launch vehicles to launch ASATs into orbit; and they have to be carefully fuelled -- e.g. they do not have a quick reaction ASAT capabilty right now. But in the next couple of years, we'll see them successfully launch an all-solid missile, which will greatly decrease reaction time, and make their ASAT capability much more dispersed than being concentrated at one or two liquid fuelled launch pads.

Can you prove drones are dependent on satlinks please?

If you want to either:

A.) Operate a lot of them
and/or
B.) Over distances greater than a couple hundred miles from home base with high fidelity video

then yes, you need satellites.

Then prove this must remain true for 25 years

I was unaware that the laws of physics would suddenly change in 25 years.

and that no additional satellites will be launched during that same period.

Considering that the Obama administration just killed plans for a new generation of communications satellites which would use lasers for much higher bandwidth capacity -- yes; I would say that our space communications assets are not going to noticeably increase for the next decade or so.

[Stark]

So (although you're still barely answering questions) you've fallen back to 'we shouldn't put too much emphasis on drones while our comm network is so thin'. That's a long way from 'iran launched a rocket and therefore all satellites are doomed'.

Btw Starglider tells me in 20-30 years he expects human level AGIs on a single chip. There goes satlink dependency, even if we ignore thing like 'relays'.

[MKSheppard]

So (although you're still barely answering questions)

Actually, I am answering questions. You just chose to ignore them.

you've fallen back to 'we shouldn't put too much emphasis on drones while our comm network is so thin'.

So explain to me how you want to control a huge network of drones at long distances? Unobtanium? While it's possible there could be some startling advances in Quantum Communications (using the entanglement principle) in the next 25 years, allowing communications to not be hampered by pesky things as line of sight, world satellite bandwidth will not increase fast enough to keep pace with everything we want to push through it.

That's a long way from 'iran launched a rocket and therefore all satellites are doomed'.

If you want to truly deploy UCAVs, you are going to need satellites or some other equally long range, high bandwidth communications system to relay back what the drone sees; to enable man in the loop guidance.

Some applications, such as Wild Weasel, can be near totally autonomous -- e.g. you just tell the UCAV to loiter over this lat-long coordinate for x hours, because their targets will be exclusively military -- the average family vehicle or semitrailer doesn't have the characteristic signature of a India-Band fire control radar enamanating from it -- and large civilian air traffic control radars can be placed in an exclusion zone.

Other missions, such as air to air combat; are a bit more ambiguous -- due to the fact that there are a lot of dual use civilian/military aircraft in the skies -- e.g. large widebodied aircraft can be civilian airliners or tankers; and that you definitely want a man in the loop checking on what the UCAV sees before you let it launch a AMRAAM at it's target. Same thing for a ground attack mission on a fluidly moving target -- you want someone watching the video feed, ready to abort, if the UCAV AI has made a mistake.

We already have this capability in an European Cruise missile; a minute or so before target impact, it relays video back to the launching aircraft or whatever, enabling a last minute check of the target area. If the target is now compromised for whatever reason, the missile can be commanded to abort it's attack and crash at a predetermined abort point.

Btw Starglider tells me in 20-30 years he expects human level AGIs on a single chip. There goes satlink dependency, even if we ignore thing like 'relays'.

They've been promising workable AI for longer than that, so pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical.

[Stark]

You're right, my appeal to authority is worthless compared to your unsouced cut n paste.

what's sad about you is that you think I'm insulting you for dropping from hyperbole to a sensible statement. You should remember that overstating your case just makes you look shrill, it doesn't convince anyone.

In short, it probably IS a bad idea to put too much emphasis on drones while the comm network is so thin. But if we cut all military development that wasn't real useful right now, where would we be?

[MKSheppard]

You're right, my appeal to authority is worthless compared to your unsouced cut n paste.

Actually, it's all from memory. I'm not as stupid as you. And since when is basic orbital mechanics unsourced?

[Stark]

Sorry, was that a meaningless +1 post? It's okay to make reasonably statements instead of hysterical ones, you know.

If I don't need a source for 'basic orbital mechanics' I guess I can just MSPaint something that proves you wrong? Lol

And Shep I think you missed 80% of my post when you snipped out a single line to attack me as a person.

[K. A. Pital]

So Iran can possibly degrade your UAV networks (thereby provoking a fullscale war if not nuclear war quite probably)? Big deal; solidify your networks, launch a few more satellites - you have Delta rockets that can lift even 20 ton monstrosities into LEO.