Question about satellites

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

I didn't say otherwise. Hoiwever, from what I have read, this should remain limited. Nevertheless what I assume comes from the fact that France retain the ability to replace destroyed satellites. EMP shouldn't bother France that much. With its infrastructures fairly in shape, it must be able to replace the damaged electronic as soon as the exchange dries up.

Both US and USSR will want to (and initially will have the capability to) take down French satellites. Also an airburst to induce EMP in France remains a high priority. French launches will not be easy either - getting the satellite to central Africa won't be easy (assuming that the facilities remain intact - a small nuke will soon stop that even if local conditions don't).

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by James Langham

Both US and USSR will want to (and initially will have the capability to) take down French satellites. Also an airburst to induce EMP in France remains a high priority. French launches will not be easy either - getting the satellite to central Africa won't be easy (assuming that the facilities remain intact - a small nuke will soon stop that even if local conditions don't).

Also both sides would be taking out each other's sats and other nations sats to make sure that they can't be 'hijacked' and used by the other side. Someome brought up that civilian sats getting used for military purposes, the same thing kind of goes along with it.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Also both sides would be taking out each other's sats and other nations sats to make sure that they can't be 'hijacked' and used by the other side. Someome brought up that civilian sats getting used for military purposes, the same thing kind of goes along with it.

The DoD purchased "Iridium" Satellite phone network.

[Graebarde]

Originally Posted by James Langham

French launches will not be easy either - getting the satellite to central Africa won't be easy (assuming that the facilities remain intact - a small nuke will soon stop that even if local conditions don't).

The French launch facilities are in South America I think, NOT Africa, not that it makes a difference to the ease of getting them to the launch.

[natehale1971]

i've been doing some reading on Sats... namely to help with my extensive timeline for my t2k campaign, so i can put when manned and unmanned space missions occured.

I've been reading about the Graveyard Orbit... that when a sat is reaching the end of it's operational life, it fires up it's manevering rockets to put itself into the graveyard orbit to keep down the amount of space junk in operational orbits. it's made me wonder about the possiblity that the graveyard orbit could have been used for covert survellience and communications sats to be put up and avoid being spotted by enemy anti-sat weapons.

From what i've read the Graveyard Oribt is higher than thsoe orbits that woul have allowed for the sat to burn up on re-entry. and would more than likely be out of the range of anti-sat weapons.

Or am I getting this info wrong? what are the upper limits of anti-sat weapons that can be launched from our fighters or ICBMs?

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Graebarde

The French launch facilities are in South America I think, NOT Africa, not that it makes a difference to the ease of getting them to the launch.

French Guyana. North East side of the South American Continent. An equatorial country.

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

French Guyana. North East side of the South American Continent. An equatorial country.

Oops....

So much for my memory...

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by James Langham

Oops....

So much for my memory...

Actually my step father is currently working in Yaounde (Cameroon) and has come back from Kourou (French Guyana) a few years ago. Basically, if not for the people he would not see the difference: same plants, same humidity, same temperatures, same ground types. Therefore, your mistake is understandable.

[dragoon500ly]

needless to say, the actual range of the US ASAT is still classified, but enough comments have been leaked over the years to indicate that it was only capable of reaching low-earth orbit. Its primary targets were the various reconnaissance platforms. The communications and GPS platforms are at a higher orbit, these would have more likely fallen victim to the various EMP pulses, especially in the 1995-1998 time frame.

[Legbreaker]

Something else to think about is that you don't necessarily need to attack the satellite itself to render it useless. If it could be "persuaded" (by hacking) to fire it's thrusters and destabilise it's orbit it may just destroy itself (could use up all it's fuel before it's true owners regain control).
Also attacking and destroying ground stations could have the same result - updates and orbit corrections would be near impossible to upload to the satellite and end up with the same result as direct hacking (re-entry).
Physical destruction of ground stations isn't all that necessary either - as previously mentioned EMP will wreak havoc on computer systems and in the time it takes to conduct repairs...

All in all satellites are pretty damn vulnerable in a world wide war involving nukes. In a conventional war then yes, you'd probably need to go after the satellites themselves as the level of destruction on the ground just isn't going to be a major problem - control can be handed off to another ground station whereas EMP is likely to render ALL ground stations out of action at least temporarily. Conventional warfare just isn't going to cut it to eliminate more than a small percentage of satellites.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The communications and GPS platforms are at a higher orbit, these would have more likely fallen victim to the various EMP pulses, especially in the 1995-1998 time frame.

I have my doubts at to EMP knocking out all of the satellites. All satellites are shielded against natural electromagnetic radiation to some length, military much more than commercial. But even commercial ones have stood the test of time up against large amounts of incoming electromagnetic radiation and have continued working. It's a hostile environment in which they are positioned.

I also am hesitant to think one side would sacrifice all of its own (and allied) satellites in the area just to take out some of the enemy's. EMP doesn't discriminate whose satellites get damaged and who's doesn't and I can't see either side wanted to go blind just to blind their opponent.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

All satellites are shielded against natural electromagnetic radiation to some length...

This is a good point, however as stated, you don't necessarily have to attack and take out the satellites directly to render them useless/destroy them.
Take out the control interface with them and they might as well not exist.

GPS systems and portable uplink units may work for a while, but without updates and corrections from the ground, they will soon fall out of position and either burn up on re-entry or be otherwise rendered completely useless.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by James Langham

Both US and USSR will want to (and initially will have the capability to) take down French satellites. Also an airburst to induce EMP in France remains a high priority. French launches will not be easy either - getting the satellite to central Africa won't be easy (assuming that the facilities remain intact - a small nuke will soon stop that even if local conditions don't).

Lets assume this assumption is true.
What ASAT capabilities of both US and USSR would be by 1995?
What further ASAT capabilities would be added between 1995 and 1997?

I have given my own take on that but I would love to see your ideas on it. I can agree with whatever you all say but not until I know what you think these capabilities are.

By 1988, US ASAT program has been cancelled (15 missile inculding 5 used for trial) and USSR has cancelled its old ASAT program and replaced it by a ASAT missile program similar to the one cancelled by US. However, it only produced 6 missiles (at most and we are not even sure they worked). Was this still the case in T2K? If no, what further developments have been made? If yes, when did the programs were started over again and accelerated, changed and what did they produce?

At the time you had about 2000 working satellites in orbit. Won't they launch a few more with the perspective of war? If you assume US has not cancelled its ASAT program and fielded 112 missiles by 1995 and if you assume that an EMP burst destroy satellite in a radious of 80km (that is the figure I came up with from my reading but I can be wrong), how many satellite can they put down? Won't they focus on a certain type of satellite?

Please, I want more than one thinking on all these questions.

[ArmySGT.]

If you know your enemies radios, then you know the probable frequencies they will be using. If freq hopping harder sure. Still possible. Your not trying to decode it just follow it back.

Harder to get a receiver between the satellite and its ground receiving station. to get the best fix on the transmitter.

Just back trace the signal to the active satellite. Home on signal, kinetic kill weapon.

Now we can do it from an AEGIS destroyer, don't need an F-15 or B-52 to get the missile aloft.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Now we can do it from an AEGIS destroyer, don't need an F-15 or B-52 to get the missile aloft.

I agree but in T2K that capability doesn't exist and never will.