U.S. Space Force Discussion Thread

[wumpus]

19 hours ago, magnemoe said:

That sort of helmet was designed for jousting only, as I understand you tilt your head back before impact leaving the other lance no place to catch on your helmet. 
The top decoration is not fastened well. 

It appears to be designed for a "joust of peace" (blunt weapons, but don't be surprised if you still have multiple deaths).  I don't know if anybody designed lances with a "tined fork" (using the outer tines to guide the middle to the center), but it looks like such would work on the neck.  And break just as easily anywhere else.

[SOXBLOX]

So, apparently our dear friends in China and Russia have been continually using "reversible attacks" against US space assets. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43328/u-s-satellites-are-being-attacked-everyday-according-to-space-force-general

It's a mix of jamming, lasers, and brinkmanship. That Russian "inspector" satellite back in 2019 came so close to the American sat that, according to the SF general in the article, "the U.S. government didn’t know whether it was attacking or not."

The article also has a number of quotes from AF and SF folks who say a lot of American capabilities are much more classified than they need to be. The Space Force's only acknowledged offensive weapon so far is a set of large radar dishes, but the article suggests that might change. Very interesting...

[SunlitZelkova]

Is the standard SM-3 capable of targeting satellites?

[DDE]

10 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Is the standard SM-3 capable of targeting satellites?

Operation BURNT FROST was an off-the-shelf SM-3.

6 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

So, apparently our dear friends in China and Russia have been continually using "reversible attacks" against US space assets. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43328/u-s-satellites-are-being-attacked-everyday-according-to-space-force-general

It's a mix of jamming, lasers, and brinkmanship. That Russian "inspector" satellite back in 2019 came so close to the American sat that, according to the SF general in the article, "the U.S. government didn’t know whether it was attacking or not."

The article also has a number of quotes from AF and SF folks who say a lot of American capabilities are much more classified than they need to be. The Space Force's only acknowledged offensive weapon so far is a set of large radar dishes, but the article suggests that might change. Very interesting...

Granted, this article is so alarmist it presents Beidou as a novel capability.

[kerbiloid]

Huawei is unbanned, isn't it enough.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

10 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

So, apparently our dear friends in China and Russia have been continually using "reversible attacks" against US space assets. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43328/u-s-satellites-are-being-attacked-everyday-according-to-space-force-general

It's a mix of jamming, lasers, and brinkmanship. That Russian "inspector" satellite back in 2019 came so close to the American sat that, according to the SF general in the article, "the U.S. government didn’t know whether it was attacking or not."

The article also has a number of quotes from AF and SF folks who say a lot of American capabilities are much more classified than they need to be. The Space Force's only acknowledged offensive weapon so far is a set of large radar dishes, but the article suggests that might change. Very interesting...

If SF is seeking relevancy in the eyes of a skeptical public, stories like this are required.

There is a point to the 'overly secret' aspect mentioned above.  If even acknowledging the existence of a satellite is classified (despite those that view themselves* as the enemy of the United States already knowing about and attacking the satellite) then the only people in the dark are those that the satellite serves.

While the 'Cold War' may be considered by some to be over... This is all very much Cold War stuff.

 

 

*China and Russia - some might handwave and say 'we're not enemies, merely competitors' - but you generally don't attack / try to harm other's stuff unless you want to be seen as hostile.  OTOH, there is also a very good possibility that the US is doing the same to their stuff: and one point of the article should be, 'if the US isn't... it should".

[DDE]

22 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

*

I believe the politically correct term is "adversaries".

Spoiler

As in, "Young man, the Soviets are our adversary. The Navy is the enemy"

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

9 minutes ago, DDE said:

I believe the politically correct term is "adversaries".

  Reveal hidden contents

As in, "Young man, the Soviets are our adversary. The Navy is the enemy"

 

I get it.

First cup'a Joe.  -- Thing is, I'd really, really like to see the US move on from being 'adversaries' or 'enemies' of either State (and them, us).  I get (and support) national competitiveness, but as someone who's seen some of the ugly stuff we can do to one another first hand... there really is no reason for any of us to push into brinksmanship

Thumbs up on the memes!

[Beccab]

23 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

First cup'a Joe.  -- Thing is, I'd really, really like to see the US move on from being 'adversaries' or 'enemies' of either State (and them, us).

For the near future (say, the '20s, or at the very least the first half), that seems very unlikely to happen

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

8 minutes ago, Beccab said:

For the near future (say, the '20s, or at the very least the first half), that seems very unlikely to happen

I get it - having the US as an 'adversary' shores up support for the respective governments and saber rattling makes the patriots feel all chest thumpy. 

<Deleted >

Again - hoping wiser minds prevail. 

[SunlitZelkova]

10 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

*China and Russia - some might handwave and say 'we're not enemies, merely competitors' - but you generally don't attack / try to harm other's stuff unless you want to be seen as hostile.  OTOH, there is also a very good possibility that the US is doing the same to their stuff: and one point of the article should be, 'if the US isn't... it should".

This is just the way relationships between great powers work.

On Earth, the US regularly sails into the Baltic and Black Seas, as well as into the South China Sea. China and Russia have recently reciprocated with their big joint cruise through and around Japan, and simultaneously a small Chinese surface group sailed right up to the edge of US territorial waters near the Aleutian islands.

Russia conducts long range training flights of Tu-95s relatively often into NORAD airspace (or at least ADIZ), and the tactical aircraft of China and Russia often fly into the ADIZs of their neighboring nations. Likewise, the US flies B-52s and other aircraft into China's ADIZ from time to time. Russia doesn't have an ADIZ but I have seen claims B-52s have flown near Russian airspace, although it should be noted their accuracy is dubious.

During the Cold War, Tu-16s or Tu-95s flying into NATO ADIZs or airspace was common. During the Nixon years, B-52s would fly straight towards the Soviet Union, not turning around until the last moment- as diplomatic maneuvers to establish detente were going on!

Space warfare has become vital to modern military operations since the Gulf War. So it is natural we will begin to see combat in that arena, just as armies possessing small numbers of early planes to use for reconnaissance evolved into the massive air arms of WWI. The things mentioned in the report are just the space equivalents of the above mentioned operations.

In regards to blinding/jamming satellites however, this is not abnormal either. During the Cold War when Tu-16 reconnaissance planes would try to fly over (directly over) US carrier groups to photograph them, American naval interceptors would often fly dangerously close under the Tu-16 to try and block their cameras. This is just the space version of that, and I don't think it is particularly shocking or destabilizing.

----------------

Personal opinion comments with a little rant sprinkled in- complaints about space warfare from the Space Force come off like if signals officers during WWI had complained about their reconnaissance planes being shot down. If you put *a* military asset, combat or support, somewhere, you can expect a counter of some kind.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

36 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Personal opinion

Part of my 'deleted' from the above admitted that I'm pragmatic about what to expect.  Student of history and all that.

 

Will point out that South China Sea is international waters, as is the Baltic. and Black Seas.  

Edited December 2, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[SunlitZelkova]

27 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Will point out that South China Sea is international waters, as is the Baltic. and Black Seas.

Well, yes. But to put it into perspective, for them, it is the equivalent of if China decided to regularly sail its own warships between the mainland and Hawaii, or if Russia decided to sail guided missile destroyers into the Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico. Legal, but spooky.

This metaphor ignores the disputed nature of the South China Sea, which makes the situation a little different.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

8 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

the disputed nature of the South China Sea,

Interestingly, I see several nation's coastlines define the sea.  Vietnam, Philippines, Brunei, Taiwan and, of course, China.  Shouldn't we call it the South Asian Sea?

[DDE]

6 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

On Earth, the US regularly sails into the Baltic and Black Seas, as well as into the South China Sea. China and Russia have recently reciprocated with their big joint cruise through and around Japan, and simultaneously a small Chinese surface group sailed right up to the edge of US territorial waters near the Aleutian islands.

 

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Well, yes. But to put it into perspective, for them, it is the equivalent of if China decided to regularly sail its own warships between the mainland and Hawaii, or if Russia decided to sail guided missile destroyers into the Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico. Legal, but spooky.

Speaking of Hawaii,

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41229/russian-warships-came-within-34-miles-of-hawaiian-shores-u-s-military-confirms

6 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Will point out that South China Sea is international waters, as is the Baltic. and Black Seas.  

Yes, but there's still enough ambiguity for hairy situations, e.g. the HMS Defender incident, or the difference in interpretations of maritime law, e.g. with regards to the definition of large (>24 nm wide) gulfs. A prominent example here would be the Peter the Great Gulf, which all the way back to the Soviets was declared a 'historical gulf' that therefore qualifies as international waters regardless of size. The military role of Vladivostok was a rather strong stimulus for such a declaration. Hence one more location for US Freedom of Navigation exercises and corresponding Russian demarches, including in 2018 and 2020.

And let's not even begin about the constant conflation between ADIZ and national airspace.

[SunlitZelkova]

6 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Interestingly, I see several nation's coastlines define the sea.  Vietnam, Philippines, Brunei, Taiwan and, of course, China.  Shouldn't we call it the South Asian Sea?

In English and other European languages, that name was the creation of seventeenth and eighteenth century European sailors using it to sail primarily to China for trade. Presumably due to traditionalism in European and American institutions/governments, the name has stuck.

In Japanese *we* call it "South China Sea" (南シナ海). I couldn't find the exact reason with a quick internet search, but I don't think Japan really had a presence there until it opened up in the late 1800s, and as a result of the campaign to modernize (and thus Westernize to a certain extent) they presumably just used the Western name for the sea.

In recent history in China it is called the "South Sea", Vietnam calls it the "East Sea", while presumably also due to historical trade reasons, it is traditionally called the South China Sea in Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia, however, in the Philippines, the parts the are inside the Philippine EEZ are called the West Philippine Sea. However, also in Indonesia in 2017, the government renamed the portions inside the Indonesian EEZ to "North Natuna Sea" (after the Natuna Islands).

Just as the Baltic Sea is called the East Sea in German, and the West Sea in Estonia, countries that actually border the South China Sea will continue to call it what they want to. So what European language speakers wish to call it casually is kind of up to them I suppose.

IIRC, legally however, everyone is required to refer to it (in court proceedings and what not) as the South China Sea a la various international agreements.

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

West Aukusea

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

4 hours ago, DDE said:

US Freedom of Navigation

Everyone enjoys a good game of 'chicken' 

 

[SOXBLOX]

18 hours ago, DDE said:

Speaking of Hawaii,

I think the official statement on that one was something like, "Great to see other nations also supporting the free and fair use of the oceans. The US forces observing behaved in a safe, professional manner. *cough, cough*"

Edited December 3, 2021 by SOXBLOX
Everyone knows I mean those almost-collisions between US and Russian/Chinese ships that happen, right?

[SunlitZelkova]

On 12/2/2021 at 7:26 PM, SOXBLOX said:

I think the official statement on that one was something like, "Great to see other nations also supporting the free and fair use of the oceans. The US forces observing behaved in a safe, professional manner. *cough, cough*"

"Retro" is really "in" these days.

Spoiler

Soviet Project 1135 class frigate Bezzavetny bumping the Ticonderoga class cruiser Yorktown, 1988

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by SunlitZelkova
Messed up the class of the Soviet ship

[DDE]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

"Retro" is really "in" these days.

  Hide contents

Soviet Project 50 class frigate Bezzavetny bumping the Ticonderoga class cruiser Yorktown, 1988

 

Consider this headline: https://www.businessinsider.in/Russian-admiral-says-its-not-weird-at-all-that-sailors-were-sunbathing-shirtless-as-a-Russian-destroyer-ran-up-on-a-US-warship/articleshow/69732611.cms

[DDE]

 

[SunlitZelkova]

8 hours ago, DDE said:

 

What is the nature of the reason the Russian government considers US military space activities destabilizing? The technology itself (like a space equivalent of the anti-nuclear ideology), or the people utilizing it (as a broader part of criticism towards supposedly hostile NATO actions)?

[DDE]

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

What is the nature of the reason the Russian government considers US military space activities destabilizing? The technology itself (like a space equivalent of the anti-nuclear ideology), or the people utilizing it (as a broader part of criticism towards supposedly hostile NATO actions)?

Because of the unique combination of capabilities the US has, it's difficult to determine. I don't think there's much worry about ASAT per se; most of the concerns center around the viability of the Russian nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. US delivery systems possess remarkable accuracy, and in the early 2010s it undertook the "superfuse" program to radically enhance the accuracy of all of their submarine missiles; this kind of accuracy is completely pointless in retaliatory attacks that target cities and bomber rearmament sites, but is vital for destroying missile silos and command facilities. An uncharitable reading is that the US have built, and are continuing to enhance, an arsenal optimized for a disarming nuclear strike. An SDI 3.0 to mop up any surviving missiles (under the guise of negating the threat from a "rogue state") meshes 'nicely' with that.

Note, however, that the article continues to fret over space-to-ground capabilities as well. I suspect this also has to do with attacks on the nuclear arsenal, but this time without the political hazard of crossing one's own nuclear threshold.

[insert_name]

On 12/8/2021 at 10:19 AM, DDE said:

 

Yes, the two types of spacecraft, radar observation and space based weapons.