China & US shot down sattellites.

[Meat-Hook]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8299495/WikiLeaks-US-and-China-in-military-standoff-over-space-missiles.html

'The two nuclear superpowers both shot down their own satellites using sophisticated missiles in separate show of strength, the files suggest.
The American Government was so incensed by Chinese actions in space that it privately warned Beijing it would face military action if it did not desist.

[Altarboy]

Wow, that's kinda big stuff. Personally, I don't think we would ever get tough with China and I don't think they would ever back down. Hope I'm wrong on both accounts.

[old Grump]

So each of us are shooting down our own satellites. Wow that will teach us...er them...uh this don't make no sense. They are shooting down targets that they know where and when they are, what the altitude is, what the speed is, what direction they are going, big freaking deal. Shoot down an incoming ABM and I will be impressed. This was shooting fish in a barrel and then pounding our chests saying, "Look at what I can do."

Morons!

[swampdragon]

Is this why my cell phone bill went up?
Bastards!

[L1A1Rocker]

It is not necessary to shoot down a satelite. It has already been shown that a relativly simple laser can take out a satelite very easily.

[63DH8]

They're shooting down old, outdated satellites. There's junk out there from the 60s that aren't up to today's standards.

[swampdragon]

They're shooting down old, outdated satellites. There's junk out there from the 60s that aren't up to today's standards.

We should make a new TV show called Space Junkyard Wars.

[Full Otto]

http://i52.tinypic.com/4kjifq.jpg

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

It's to demonstrate to the Chinese that they do not have vast superiority in space. It shows that they have no monopoly on the weaponization of space.

However, depending on who you ask, we already have weapons platforms up there capable of things that are supposed to be decades ahead of what we can accomplish publicly. (On the deep down low of course, as to build such a thing would violate quite a few international treaties.) Rumor has it that space based particle accelerators were tested on an Lybian airfield in the 80's. This is of course rumor, and should carry no more weight than one of Printertards rantings. I just find that kind of shite facinating. :)

[Bluedog]

It's to demonstrate to the Chinese that they do not have vast superiority in space. It shows that they have no monopoly on the weaponization of space.

However, depending on who you ask, we already have weapons platforms up there capable of things that are supposed to be decades ahead of what we can accomplish publicly. (On the deep down low of course, as to build such a thing would violate quite a few international treaties.) Rumor has it that space based particle accelerators were tested on an Lybian airfield in the 80's. This is of course rumor, and should carry no more weight than one of Printertards rantings. I just find that kind of shite facinating. :)

Stealth fighters used to be a rumor.

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

Stealth fighters used to be a rumor.
Kind of how I feel about it. I'm also a sci-fi nerd and hopeless dreamer though, so I try not to get myself too worked up over stuff like that until it's %100 verified fact. (I'm also a bad writer today apparently. My first post was almost painful to read... ugh)

[HDR]

So each of us are shooting down our own satellites. Wow that will teach us...er them...uh this don't make no sense.

Morons!

They were testing to see if the math works in pre-production prototypes. It was a test and no different than when they shoot down drones with the latest greatest AA missiles or SAM prototypes.



It is not necessary to shoot down a satelite. It has already been shown that a relativly simple laser can take out a satelite very easily.

So can other tools and it is wise to have all the tools.

Perhaps a laser is easy to defend against than a good old fashioned dose of HE?

[aliceinchains]

We should make a new TV show called Space Junkyard Wars.


That i would certainly watch.

[old Grump]

They were testing to see if the math works in pre-production prototypes. It was a test and no different than when they shoot down drones with the latest greatest AA missiles or SAM prototypes.
Modern warheads, guidance systems, improved propellants and Texas Instrument technology makes shooting a satellite in a stable orbit equivalent to shooting a virtually stationary object for all practical purposes. It's about equivalent to me shooting a 50 yard bulls eye target at 50' with my target 22 pistol. I'd have to fall down to fail.

I was involved in the initial anti-missile tests at White Sands and they still haven't solved that one. When they can do that regularly I'll break my tee-totaling for a night and hoist the biggest finest brew I can lay my hands on to the engineers and technicians who accomplished it. This satellite shooting is underwhelming.

[HDR]

As it is so simple I guess we'll have to wonder why it took them decades to do it..

[AKTexas]

I figured they would have used a Ruger 10/22.If they can take out a helicopter then why not a satellite?

[old Grump]

As it is so simple I guess we'll have to wonder why it took them decades to do it..Did I mention the technology is better now. I was in on the ground floor and you wouldn't believe some of the jury rig circuits we cobbled together or how much duct tape we used to hold it in place for a test flight. Spent a lot of time running wires and poking holes in sheet metal blanks for installing sockets for relays. Literally bread boarding. 10 years later that same circuit was in an IC chip. I barely knew what an IC chop was then, they were around and I had them in the last radar I worked on but we were working low budget with raw material and a concept. We literally combed through the base salvage yard for some of our materials. I never had so much fun in my life, sure beat the hell out of all night bombardments off the coast of Nam.

[Full Otto]

I was looking for a story about the Mona Lisa being male and came accross this off to the side.

http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/19-01-2011/116571-blackswift-0/
The United States decided to breathe new life into the previously frozen project of Blackswift hypersonic aircraft

Article-maybe maybe not- but I found the comments interesting

[Warthogg]

A little difference between the Chinese shoot down and the US shoot down.

1) China shoot down their satellite and THEN made the announcement.

2) The US announced we were going to shoot down the 'tumbling' satellite, said the sat needed to be hit in the fuel tank, and, just to add a little difficulty, made the shot from a warship underway at sea !! Successful shoot down, hit right in the fuel tank and we did on national TV in real time. :big-fu:


Wart

[jeremiah johnson]

A little difference between the Chinese shoot down and the US shoot down.

1) China shoot down their satellite and THEN made the announcement.

2) The US announced we were going to shoot down the 'tumbling' satellite, said the sat needed to be hit in the fuel tank, and, just to add a little difficulty, made the shot from a warship underway at sea !! Successful shoot down, hit right in the fuel tank and we did on national TV in real time. :big-fu:


Wart

I wonder why the NAVY was chosen over the USAF to do the job, other than Location, Location, Location. I always was under the impression that the USAF were the rocket scientists
of the armed forces. Go NAVY!

[swampdragon]

I figured they would have used a Ruger 10/22.If they can take out a helicopter then why not a satellite?

You need a .22 magnum for that, silly.

[old Grump]

I wonder why the NAVY was chosen over the USAF to do the job, other than Location, Location, Location. I always was under the impression that the USAF were the rocket scientists
of the armed forces. Go NAVY!All the people I worked with were Army and Navy, the Airforce only flew the target drones, even then us Navy techs had to wire the drone up.


You need a .22 magnum for that, silly.That's for helicopters, missiles and satellites are to fast and to high for 22 bullets. Well I suppose you could do it with the 22-250 but we have to many wimps on the site who wouldn't be able to withstand the awesomeness of a high powered real life genuine 22 with balls.

[Warthogg]

I wonder why the NAVY was chosen over the USAF to do the job, other than Location, Location, Location. I always was under the impression that the USAF were the rocket scientists
of the armed forces. Go NAVY!

I think your mention of "Location, Location, Location" is on point. Seem to recall positioning the ship was of importance and had the shot been delayed the ship had to reposition for the next try. Think range - slant range - was a prob for the Air Force.


Wart

From a fallible memory.

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

Seem to recall positioning the ship was of importance and had the shot been delayed the ship had to reposition for the next try.
I imagine long range portability may have factored into the decision to put it on a boat. How hard would it be to relocate your whole operation on dry land every time you need to set up a new shot? But on a ship, in a vast ocean? Just pick a destination and head there.

[Moebrown20]

I wonder why the NAVY was chosen over the USAF to do the job, other than Location, Location, Location. I always was under the impression that the USAF were the rocket scientists
of the armed forces. Go NAVY!

That's what Seamen do.

[AKTexas]

You need a .22 magnum for that, silly.

I'm not the expert so I would not know for certain.And they make the 10/22 in 22 mag or they did once.

[Bluedog]

I wonder why the NAVY was chosen over the USAF to do the job, other than Location, Location, Location. I always was under the impression that the USAF were the rocket scientists
of the armed forces. Go NAVY!

They all work together, even at combat levels. My cousin was an 18Delta, and he trained SEALs. When he got blow'd up in Iraq, he was worked on by Navy doctors.

I'd bet there were people from all branches on that ship.

[Altarboy]

Oh we shot down our own sattelites. Ok, I thought we had shot down each others. I need to read more thoroughly. That's why I hold a steering wheel for a living.

[old Grump]

SM-3 Missile used, its the standard missile defense missile aboard our ships. solid booster, mid flight guidance pulse engine for the final stage. The missile has it's own radar and a passive tracking system. That means if an enemy target like a missile tries to jam the radar the missile homes in on the jamming instead. Exactly what I was working on in the 70's except we were a long way from where they are now. The radar they use now also makes ours look like a bathtub brewery operation instead of a sophisticated chemical distillery plant. Any shop in our fleet could have done that and the techs would have been all Navy with engineers from the civilian contractors aboard for observers and computer programming. It helped that they knew the exact orbit and that it was a fairly large target. A lot easier than trying to track an incoming missile in a low altitude trajectory that won't show up on radar till the last minute.

[Ronwicp]

I wonder why the NAVY was chosen over the USAF to do the job, other than Location, Location, Location. I always was under the impression that the USAF were the rocket scientists
of the armed forces. Go NAVY!
We spend all our cash on soft serve ice cream and coffee machines.

[HDR]

Did I mention the technology is better now. I was in on the ground floor and you wouldn't believe some of the jury rig circuits we cobbled together or how much duct tape we used to hold it in place for a test flight. Spent a lot of time running wires and poking holes in sheet metal blanks for installing sockets for relays. Literally bread boarding. 10 years later that same circuit was in an IC chip. I barely knew what an IC chop was then, they were around and I had them in the last radar I worked on but we were working low budget with raw material and a concept. We literally combed through the base salvage yard for some of our materials. I never had so much fun in my life, sure beat the hell out of all night bombardments off the coast of Nam.

The program was named 199A and was conducted under the USAF's SAC and no you didn't; you said it was as easy as shooting a 50 yard bulls eye with a target 22. It is so easy most people can't accurately center a cardioid antenna ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardioid ) pattern on a geostationary TV statellite.

There are geostationary satellites up for use by ham radio operators. Do a search, the math involved will be highly interesting and this is for a satellite which is line of sight, not over the horizon.

When you shoot your target 22 you use one projective; ASATs use frag so they have a killing zone.


Anti-satellite weapons (ASAT) are designed to incapacitate or destroy satellites for strategic military purposes. Currently, only the United States, the former USSR (now Russia) and the People's Republic of China are known to have developed these weapons. On September 13, 1985, the United States destroyed US satellite P78-1 using an ASM-135 ASAT anti-satellite missile. On January 11, 2007, China destroyed an old Chinese orbiting weather satellite. A year and a month later, USA destroyed a malfunctioning US spy satellite USA-193 using a RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 on February 21, 2008.

US programs
U.S. ASM-135 ASAT missile
U.S. Vought ASM-135 ASAT missile launch on Sep. 13, 1985

In the late 1950s the US Air Force started a series of advanced strategic missile projects under the designation Weapon System WS-199A. One of the projects studied under the 199A umbrella was Martin's Bold Orion air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) for the B-47 Stratojet, based on the rocket motor from the Sergeant missile. Twelve test launches were carried out between 26 May 1958 and 13 October 1959, but these were generally unsuccessful and further work as an ALBM ended. The system was then modified with the addition of an Altair upper stage to create an anti-satellite weapon with a 1100-mile (1700-km) range. Only one test flight of the anti-satellite mission was carried out, making a mock attack on the Explorer 6 at an altitude of 156 miles (251 km). To record its flight path, the Bold Orion transmitted telemetry to the ground, ejected flares to aid visual tracking, and was continuously tracked by radar. The missile successfully passed within 4 miles (6.4 km) of the satellite, which would be suitable for use with a nuclear weapon, but useless for conventional warheadsIt is more difficult than shooting a stationary target. In the mid 1980s computational power and guidance systems could hit one using a fragmentation kill zone. You don't need fragmentation to hit the target. A nuke's KZ is bigger yet. :D

BTW, did anyone realize this happened in 1985? :lool:

[Warthogg]

I'd bet there were people from all branches on that ship.

Maybe......I saw only Navy and a couple or three civilians.


Wart

[Warthogg]

........techs would have been all Navy with engineers from the civilian contractors aboard for observers................

Yup.....that's exactly what I saw in the CIC.


Wart

[old Grump]

The program was named 199A and was conducted under the USAF's SAC and no you didn't; you said it was as easy as shooting a 50 yard bulls eye with a target 22. It is so easy most people can't accurately center a cardioid antenna ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardioid ) pattern on a geostationary TV statellite.

There are geostationary satellites up for use by ham radio operators. Do a search, the math involved will be highly interesting and this is for a satellite which is line of sight, not over the horizon.

When you shoot your target 22 you use one projective; ASATs use frag so they have a killing zone.

It is more difficult than shooting a stationary target. In the mid 1980s computational power and guidance systems could hit one using a fragmentation kill zone. You don't need fragmentation to hit the target. A nuke's KZ is bigger yet. :D

BTW, did anyone realize this happened in 1985? :lool: I don't have a fire control radar and NTDS computer system plotting my shot. Did I mention that this missile was 5 generations away from what I worked on, more range and more sophisticated. That math was pretty much done in university mainframes before they ever took it and loaded it on the shipboard computer. To do that with the equipment they originally had me on would have been equivalent to shooting a sling shot at it. It had the range but the missile had limited mobility and was guided only by the shipboard radar instead of being able to guide itself in the last phase of the shot. Any correction sent by the ships equipment and the slow response time of the primitive guidance system we had it would have been a miracle. Good enough for chasing a Mig but not for shooting down really fast moving objects like incoming missiles. With this shot they already knew at what speed, altitude, direction and at what time it was going to be there. Expensive fish shoot but that satellite was the fish in a barrel.

The blast of that missile is a donut. The MDI circuit, miss distance indicator tells the warhead when the closest approach to the target is going to be and times the detonation so the passing target is caught in the ring of shrapnel. When an enemy fighter knows that a STM is coming up his way to share the skies with him he just has time to pucker up his lips and symbolically kiss his ass good by.

Some of us did know it happened in 85 but I think only us old FT's watching it on the evening news got excited about it. I found out when I got home and a buddy of mine, a retied FTMC called me up and we cried in our beer because we missed the fun. I will absolutely guarantee the booze flowed, the ship paid for it and sailors and engineers ended up under the table after that shot.

It's what disgusts me about NASA. We should have large permanent crews on a space station, there should be a Moon Colony and there should be people putting hands on asteroids. All that training and experience and techs and engineers are just pushing paper for the Feds and politics playing a role in our defense systems and our space program.

It is a marriage of technology where one hand washed the other. The solar sounding program took place at White Sands when I was there. Their launcher for their rockets were right next to the launchers we fired our missiles from. We used the same telemetry room, the engineers working on the program shared the same work benches and we got some of our best ideas and gear from those egg heads from the University of New Mexico. When we talked hardware we spoke the same language. When they started talking math. I'd say "huh?" and one would say oh were just computing for a harmonic polymonial, my eyes would glaze and I'd go slink off to my corner and smoke a cigar. Lord I miss those days.

[HDR]

OG
What you said was:

It is easy and it isn't.

Hams have communications satellites and hitting one isn't easy with a radio wave.

Other than shaped (direectional) charges and heat types rounds etc, explosives try to be the center of a ball called the kill zone.

The LEAP Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile which a kinetic weapon was fielded in 1985.... Before that the warhead was continuous rod fragmentation.