Military Review

Достучаться до небес

68
Достучаться до небес

Article Capella Space's All-Seeing Eye: Harbinger of the Satellite Intelligence Revolution we considered the prospects for creating compact and inexpensive reconnaissance satellites, from which orbital constellations, including hundreds and even thousands of satellites, can be formed in orbit.


Orbital constellations of reconnaissance, navigation and communications satellites are the cornerstone for the success of warfare on land, water and air. The effectiveness of the enemy's armed forces, devoid of space reconnaissance, navigation and communication systems, will decrease by several orders of magnitude. The use of some types of weapons can be very difficult or even completely impossible.

For example, cruise missiles (CR) will lose the ability to retarget in flight, the accuracy of their hit will decrease, and the preparation time for striking will increase. Long-range cruise missiles without a terrain navigation system without satellite guidance will generally become useless. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will lose the ability to be used globally - their range will be limited by the range of direct radio visibility from ground control points or repeater aircraft.


Many types of weapons will become inoperative or of limited serviceability in the event of a failure of space intelligence, navigation and communications systems

In general, the conduct of network-centric combat operations "without space" will become much more complicated, and the format of the battlefield will return to the look of the Second World War.

In connection with the foregoing, the leading countries of the world are concerned with the issues of confrontation in outer space, in particular, the issue of the destruction of the enemy's orbital groupings.

Speaking about the task of destroying artificial earth satellites (AES) of the enemy, one cannot but recall a similar problem - missile defense (ABM). On the one hand, these tasks largely overlap, but on the other hand, they have certain specificities.

In the mid-to-late XX - early XXI centuries, a lot of attention was paid to missile defense systems, a significant number of weapons complexes and missile defense concepts were worked out. We examined them in detail in the articles of the "Decline of the nuclear triad" series - Cold War missile defense and "Star Wars", US missile defense: present and near futureand US missile defense post 2030: intercept thousands of warheads.

Many of the technical solutions developed in the framework of missile defense can be used or adapted to solve anti-satellite missions.

Scorched sky


Of course, when it comes to the destruction of large satellite constellations, the issue of nuclear weapons (YAO). Almost all initially developed missile defense systems used nuclear warheads (YBCH) in anti-missiles. However, in the future they were abandoned, since there is an insurmountable problem - after the explosion of the first nuclear warhead, the guidance systems will be "blinded" by a light flash and electromagnetic interference, which means that other warheads of the enemy cannot be detected and destroyed.

With the defeat of spacecraft, everything is different. The orbits of the satellites are known, therefore, a series of nuclear explosions can be organized at certain points in outer space, even without the use of radar and optical-location stations (radar and OLS).

However, the first fundamental obstacle to the destruction of satellites with nuclear weapons is that the use of nuclear weapons is possible only within the framework of a global nuclear war, or else it will cause it to start.

The second obstacle is that nuclear weapons do not disassemble "friends" and "aliens", therefore, all spacecraft of all countries, including the initiator of the nuclear explosion, will be destroyed within the radius of destruction.

Opinions differ on the resistance of spacecraft to the damaging factors of nuclear weapons. On the one hand, satellites, especially in low orbits, can be very vulnerable to the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion.

For example, on July 9, 1962, in the USA, on the Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean, the "Starfish" tests were carried out to detonate a thermonuclear weapon with a capacity of 1,4 megatons in space at an altitude of 400 kilometers.


The sky in the area of ​​the explosion turned blood red for several minutes

At 1300 km from the scene, in Hawaii, on the island of Oahu, street lighting suddenly went out, the local radio station was no longer received, and the telephone connection was also lost. In some places in the Pacific Ocean, high-frequency radio communication systems were disrupted for half a minute. In the following months, the formed artificial radiation belts put out of action seven satellites in low Earth orbits (LEO), which was about a third of the then existing space fleet.

On the one hand, there were few satellites then, it is possible that now not seven, but one hundred satellites would be destroyed. On the other hand, the design of satellites has improved significantly, they have become much more reliable than in 1962. On military models, measures are taken to protect against hard radiation.

Much more important is the fact that the satellites went out of order for several months, that is, they were struck not by a direct explosion, but by its distant consequences. What's the use of the fact that naval reconnaissance and target designation satellites for anti-ship missiles (anti-ship missiles) went out of action a month later, if by that time the enemy had melted the long-range anti-ship missiles of the entire surface fleet?


As part of the Tsar-Fish project in 1962, the US armed forces detonated a nuclear warhead with a capacity of 1 megaton at an altitude of 97 kilometers, disrupting radio communications in the Pacific Ocean for three hours

The use of nuclear weapons for the immediate destruction of satellites is unlikely to be justified even from an economic point of view - too many nuclear warheads are required. The scale of outer space is colossal, the distances between satellites are still thousands of kilometers and will be hundreds of kilometers, even when tens of thousands of satellites are in LEO.

Thus, the third obstacle is the scale of outer space, which does not allow one nuclear explosion to destroy a large number of satellites at once.

Proceeding from this, the leading powers of the world began to consider non-nuclear ways of solving both missile defense tasks and the destruction of satellites.

Anti-missiles against satellites


Currently, there are several approaches, the most proven of which is the destruction of enemy spacecraft with anti-satellite missiles equipped with high-precision kinetic intercept units. These can be both highly specialized anti-satellite solutions and ammunition of the anti-missile defense (ABM) system.


USA can destroy satellites in orbits with an altitude of about 1000-1500 kilometers with SM-3 Block 2A and GBI anti-missiles

Real tests to destroy low-orbit satellites with physical destruction of targets in orbit were carried out by the United States and China. In particular, on February 21, 2008, the inoperative USA-3 experimental reconnaissance satellite of the US military space intelligence was successfully destroyed with the help of the SM-193 anti-missile.


Image and layout of the high-precision kinetic intercept unit of the SM-3 Block 2A interceptor missile


Raytheon missile defense systems

A year earlier, China had successfully tested the FY-1C weather satellite of the Fengyun series, weighing on the order of one ton, in an orbit with an altitude of 865 km, with a direct hit from an anti-satellite missile launched from a mobile ground launcher.

The disadvantage of anti-satellite missiles is their significant cost. For example, the cost of the newest SM-3 Block IIA interceptor missile is about 18 million US dollars, the cost of GBI interceptor missiles is supposedly several times higher. If for the destruction of existing large and expensive military satellites the exchange of "1-2 missiles - 1 satellite" can be considered justified, then the prospect of deploying hundreds and thousands of inexpensive satellites created on the basis of commercial technologies may make the use of anti-satellite missiles a suboptimal solution based on the cost criterion. efficiency.


Kinetic interceptor EKV anti-missile GBI

In Russia, antimissiles of the A-235 "Nudol" system can potentially destroy satellites, but no actual firing of these antimissiles at satellites has yet been made. The estimated height of the destruction of satellites can be on the order of 1000-2000 kilometers. It is unlikely that the A-235 Nudol interceptor missiles are much cheaper than their American counterparts.


Antimissile system A-235 "Nudol" in a container

Drawing an analogy with military / commercial satellites, it can be assumed that, similarly to the reduction in the cost of satellites, the costs of anti-satellite missiles can be reduced, for example, due to their implementation on the basis of commercial ultralight launch vehicles (LV)... This is partly possible due to the use of individual technical solutions, but in general, anti-satellite missiles and launch vehicles for placing the payload (PN) into orbit are too different in their tasks and conditions of use.

The cost of launching a payload into orbit per 1 kilogram of ultralight rockets still remains higher than that of “large” rockets that launch satellites in packets. The advantage of ultralight rockets lies in the speed of launch and flexibility in working with customers.


An ultralight class launch vehicle Electron of the American private aerospace company Rocket Lab. Technical solutions used in commercial launch vehicles can help reduce the cost of anti-satellite missiles by percent, but not by several times.

Air-launched anti-satellite missiles


As an alternative solution, the concept of launching air-launched anti-satellite missiles from high-altitude tactical aircraft was considered. aviation - fighters or interceptors.

In the USA, this concept was implemented in the 80s of the XX century as part of the ASM-135 ASAT project. In the specified anti-satellite complex, the three-stage ASM-135 rocket was launched from a modified F-15A fighter flying upwards at an altitude of over 15 kilometers and a speed of about 1,2M. The target hitting range was up to 650 kilometers, the target hitting height - up to 600 kilometers. The guidance of the third stage, the MHV interceptor, was carried out on the infrared (IR) radiation of the target, the defeat was carried out by a direct hit.


MHV interceptor image

As part of the tests on September 13, 1985, the ASM-135 ASAT complex destroyed the P78-1 satellite, flying at an altitude of 555 kilometers.


Launching, turning on the jet engine and the ASM-135 rocket itself

It was supposed to modify 20 fighters and make 112 ASM-135 missiles for them. However, if the initial estimate assumed expenses for this purpose in the amount of $ 500 million, then later the amount increased to $ 5,3 billion, which led to the cancellation of the program.

Based on this, it cannot be said that an air launch of interceptor missiles will lead to a significant reduction in the cost of destroying enemy satellites.

In the USSR, at about the same time, a similar anti-space defense complex 30P6 "Contact" was developed on the basis of the MiG-31 aircraft in the anti-satellite version of the MiG-31D and anti-satellite missiles 79M6. Guidance of 79M6 missiles was to be carried out by the 45Ж6 "Krona" radio-optical complex for recognizing space objects.


MiG-31D prototype

Two prototypes of the MiG-31D were created and sent to the Sary-Shagan test site for testing. However, the collapse of the USSR put an end to this project, as well as many others.

Presumably, since 2009, work on the creation of the MiG-31D has been resumed, a new anti-satellite missile is being developed at the Fakel Design Bureau for the complex.


In the photo, the alleged reincarnation of the MiG-31D with a promising anti-satellite missile (or its layout)
Source: RussianPlanes.net/Vyacheslav Grushnikov

In addition to the high cost, another serious drawback of all existing anti-satellite missiles is their limited reach in height - it is extremely difficult to destroy satellites in geostationary or geosynchronous orbits in this way, and the complexes designed to solve this problem can no longer be placed on ships or installed in silo launchers - for this purpose, a heavy or superheavy class launch vehicle will be required.

Space system missile defense "Naryad"


Earlier we mentioned the inability of anti-satellite missiles to defeat satellites in medium and high orbits. This situation continues to this day. Consequently, the enemy will most likely be able to retain the global positioning system, as well as partially the intelligence and communications systems. However, work on weapons capable of hitting objects in high orbits was carried out.

Since the late 1970s, the USSR has been developing a project of the space missile defense system "Naryad" / "Naryad-V". The lead developer of the project was the Salyut Design Bureau. Within the framework of the "Outfit" project, it was proposed to install interceptor satellites on modified ballistic missiles of the "Rokot" or UR-100N type.

It was assumed that the Naryad missile defense system would be able to intercept not only ballistic missile warheads, but also any other space objects of natural and artificial origin, such as satellites and meteorites in orbits up to 40000 kilometers. Active countermeasures satellites, deployed on modified ballistic missiles, were supposed to carry space-to-space missiles.

From 1990 to 1994, two suborbital test launches and one test launch at an altitude of 1900 kilometers were carried out, after which the work was curtailed. If in the 90s the work stopped due to lack of funding, then earlier the project was hampered by the "peacemaker" Gorbachev, who did not want to disturb his overseas friends.

For some time, the project was supported by the GKNPTs im. M.V. Khrunicheva. During a visit to this enterprise in 2002 V.V. Putin instructed the Minister of Defense to study the feasibility of resuming the "Outfit" project. In 2009, Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation V.A. Popovkin said that Russia is developing anti-satellite weapons, including taking into account the groundwork obtained during the implementation of the Naryad project.

However, the system "Naryad" can no longer be called an "anti-missile" in its purest form; rather, it is a launch vehicle that launches a specialized interceptor spacecraft into orbit, but we will talk about interceptor satellites and the prospects for their development in the next article.
Author:
68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 16 January 2021 06: 00
    0
    Thank you Andrei for the article ... the ambiguous attitude towards such matters, it is sad that the near space has become the arena of future wars and at the same time the capabilities of space communication systems, navigation, missiles are constantly growing ... it will be possible in the future if we avoid war, this can be used for peaceful development space.
    1. Machito
      Machito 16 January 2021 06: 13
      +1
      The kinetic destruction of satellites in near-earth orbit will lead to the formation of many debris, which in their orbits will close the near space to any satellites. It is much preferable to disable satellites with a laser, but this is also a very difficult technical problem. SDI's time has not come yet.
      1. Sergey_G_M
        Sergey_G_M 16 January 2021 06: 50
        +10
        It depends on which satellites to shoot down.
        Vaughn Musk is about to launch about 15 satellites for the supposedly ubiquitous "peaceful" Internet. For some reason no one howls that this is dofiga and will litter the orbit.
        It is kinetically very difficult and expensive to destroy such a grouping. But due to the low orbits and the small size of the satellites, they just might be vulnerable to ground-based lasers.
        So if the time for SDI has not yet come, but already on the doorstep.
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 16 January 2021 20: 25
          +1
          Vaughn Musk is about to launch about 15 satellites for the supposedly ubiquitous "peaceful" Internet. For some reason no one howls that this is dofiga and will litter the orbit.

          Specifically, these satellites, having worked their way, should gradually go out of orbits and burn up in the atmosphere.
        2. Ka-52
          Ka-52 18 January 2021 06: 57
          0
          they just might be vulnerable to ground lasers.
          So if the time for SDI has not yet come, but already on the doorstep.

          let's first overcome simple physical barriers, and only then start talking about "ground lasers". This is not Hollywood for you
      2. Snail N9
        Snail N9 16 January 2021 07: 00
        0
        In Russia, antimissiles of the A-235 "Nudol" system can potentially destroy satellites, but no actual firing of these antimissiles at satellites has yet been made.

        So I say, instead of hitting real targets of a modern model, exercises with a "successful" defeat of "calculated points" ...
      3. Hwostatij
        Hwostatij 16 January 2021 11: 03
        +4
        Can you imagine the approximate cubic capacity of even low orbits? The probability of a satellite colliding with a debris during its service is not too different from zero, even if the entire space constellation is smashed to smithereens.
      4. Vadim237
        Vadim237 16 January 2021 17: 30
        0
        "SDI's time has not come yet." And some of SOI's projects have already been implemented
        The US military needed a miniature, portable and very powerful particle accelerator that they would use for medical and military purposes. There are still no devices in the world that meet the requirements of the army - their most compact analogue is twice as long, and its power is seven times lower than required.

        In the foreseeable future, the American army may use an ultra-compact and portable linear particle accelerator, which has no analogues yet. The program for its development, called the Advanced Concept Compact Electron Linear-Accerator (ACCEL), was initiated by the US Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

        According to the department, they need a linear particle accelerator for operation in combat conditions. DARPA experts see its application for solving a wide variety of tasks, from sanitation to remote detonation of explosive devices.

        “A powerful, compact booster that could be transported by truck or plane in harsh conditions would provide many advantages in defense and national security. It could be used for treatment in places where there are no advanced hospitals, for remote detonation of improvised explosive devices, and for mobile imaging or inspection of the contents of shipping containers to counter chemical, bio- and radiological threats. A portable particle accelerator could also provide portable sterilization of food and surfaces to prevent contamination and contamination, ”said Colonel Dan Javorsek, ACCEL Program Manager.

        At the time of publication of the material, DARPA had not yet found a contractor ready to fulfill its task of building an ultra-compact particle accelerator. On January 28, 2021, the department will hold a webinar for potential applicants, but it has not yet established a start date for work.

        The candidate who will eventually receive a contract will need to invent a linear electron accelerator, which will have to be placed in a small cylinder 40 cm in diameter and 100 cm long.The maximum weight of the entire structure should not exceed 75 kg, but the power of the beam generated by the device should be at least 35 MeV (megaelectronvolt).

        An additional requirement that the military has made on the system is its reliability. It must at least withstand transportation in any form of transport and be immune to any climatic conditions, including heat and low temperatures.

        “In order to realize ACCEL's goals, we are looking for specialists in various fields such as dielectric lasers, wakefield acceleration and other more exotic ones beyond those associated with traditional RF linear accelerators,” added Dan Javorsek.

        As a result, the American military needed the smallest linear particle accelerator of all, which by January 2021 was in the arsenal of human civilization. The previous record in this regard was set by specialists from the European Committee for Nuclear Research - Conseil Europeen pour la Recherche Nucleaire (CERN).

        In 2015, they manufactured a prototype linear accelerator with a length of two meters and intended for use in industrial and medical equipment. The specialists took the design of the full-size accelerator LINAC4 as a basis for the invention, which in 2020 became part of the CERN accelerator complex.

        The miniature brainchild of CERN is assembled according to the radio frequency quadrupole (RFQ) scheme, which is a fairly common scheme for linear accelerators. The device was reduced in size by doubling its operating frequency and applying new principles of beam dynamics.

        In total, all the actions led to the fact that the created linear accelerator turned out to be modular (it consists of four parts, 50 cm each) and capable of operating at a frequency of 750 MHz. But with all this, its power at the time of testing was only 5 MeV. "
        What is not a beam weapon for space just to disable satellites.
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 18 January 2021 07: 19
          +2
          Well, why bother with articles about DARPA activities? Before dreaming about beam weapons in the hands of your beloved Americans, first study at least a little particle physics. I'm not even talking about the fact that 5 MeV will not even heat up a pizza at a distance of 20 meters (taking into account the spread of the main part of shower particles). High power will require pumping plus cooling of the accelerating structures). And since with an increase in the rate of acceleration, the efficiency (the ratio of power to RF costs) decreases, then the energy power will be needed so much that it is time to launch a NuScale-type microreactor into orbit
          Don't change your shoes and write about what you do best - that we have lost everything laughing
    2. Semenov
      Semenov 16 January 2021 12: 15
      +18
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      Thank you Andrey for the article

      Join.
      it's sad that near space has become the arena of future wars

      And what to do? Once on Earth it became crowded ...
  2. Avior
    Avior 16 January 2021 06: 13
    +3
    ... At 1300 km from the scene, in Hawaii, on the island of Oahu, street lighting suddenly went out, the local radio station was no longer received, and the telephone connection was also lost. In some places in the Pacific Ocean, high-frequency radio communication systems were disrupted for half a minute.

    In my opinion, you need to be critical about stories about street lighting and so on, this is more like a story about how on a destroyer all the electronics were knocked out by a flying plane.
    In reality, in the explosion of nuclear weapons, all kinds of disturbances and changes are possible in the ionosphere, similar to those occurring during solar flares, and this can interfere with long-distance communication devices and some types of over-the-horizon radars operating on the principle of reflection from the ionosphere, but in general this is an effect on electrical engineering on the ground and on VHF communication within the line of sight is clearly greatly exaggerated, especially on electrical engineering.
    Since controlled flights and a significant part of the satellites actually fly in the upper layers of the atmosphere - into the thermosphere, although formally in space, above the Karman line, changes in nuclear explosions can lead to a slight decrease in the durability of the satellites, but this influence is unstable - one can last for years fly through, the other will fail faster.
    In the stories about the failed satellites, there is no specificity - maybe they just at that moment ran out of resource and they went out of order for a completely different reason, and not from the explosion of nuclear weapons ...
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 16 January 2021 17: 23
      +6
      In my opinion, you need to be critical about stories about street lighting and so on, this is more like a story about how on a destroyer all the electronics were knocked out by a flying plane.
      October 22, 1962, Soviet experiment K-3, explosion height 290 km, power - 300 kt.
      The radius of the impact of EMP was about 2000 km, covering most of Kazakhstan, and Baikonur also got it.
      Malfunctions occurred in air defense systems within a radius of about 1000 km.
      An underground power cable between Tselinograd and Alma-Ata at a depth of 1 meter failed.
      Breakdown of insulators and their destruction was observed on ground-based power lines, in some areas even wires fell.
      At Karaganda CHPP-3, a short circuit caused by EMP caused a fire.
      And so on.
      The presence of a short (approx. 15 μs) current pulse from 1500 to 3400 amperes was recorded in a specially laid underground telephone line for measurements. No telephony can withstand such a current.
      The Americans were conducting their own research in parallel.
      As a result, in 1963, they signed an agreement on the limitation of nuclear tests.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 16 January 2021 18: 56
        +3
        Quote: Undecim
        No telephony can withstand such a current.

        To prevent the failure of communication equipment due to EMP, since the time of Tsar Gorokh, coal or gas dischargers have been used, so one should not confuse the failure of power transmission lines and cable communication networks. Moreover, cable communication lines, in contrast to air ones, are much better protected by armor and lead from all kinds of interference and stray currents. So, not everything will be so sad for our cable communication lines, even of the analog type, and it is not for nothing that they are still not being decommissioned in some structures.
      2. Avior
        Avior 16 January 2021 20: 13
        +5
        An underground power cable between Tselinograd and Alma-Ata at a depth of 1 meter failed.
        Breakdown of insulators and their destruction was observed on ground-based power lines, in some areas even wires fell.

        I don’t know where this data comes from, but as an electrician I am very skeptical.
        In the specified radius, the settlements were for sure. If the EMP were of such force, then unprotected household equipment, on which there is no protection, as on the power transmission line, it would fail more than completely under such an impact, and with it most of the industrial. And there we are talking about one cable and overhead power lines.
        Apparently, there are some special conditions that are not voiced.
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 16 January 2021 20: 44
          0
          I don’t know where this data comes from, but as an electrician I am very skeptical.
          I'm not ashamed of being an ardent skeptic
          and the soul is not light, but darkness;
          doubt is the best antiseptic
          from the decay of the mind.
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 17 January 2021 21: 08
            +1
            The electrician is right however. hi

            With the above-mentioned radius of destruction, the EMP was supposed to completely cut out all electrical in several regions of the USSR. However, in fact, only a number of circuits were knocked out, possibly having flaws in protection or grounding.
  3. Konnick
    Konnick 16 January 2021 06: 24
    +1
    I would like to add one more reason for the rejection of a nuclear warhead in anti-missiles. The main damaging factor is a shock wave, which does not arise in space due to a vacuum, therefore, the use of a conventional warhead with its electromagnetic radiation practically does not make sense, but a neutron charge works perfectly in a space vacuum.
  4. Thrifty
    Thrifty 16 January 2021 07: 11
    +1
    That is why a powerful laser is needed for such a purpose as a satellite, capable of knocking out the satellite "stuffing" with a pulse at a distance of several tens of kilometers without destroying the satellite itself, but only turning it into a dead piece of orbital debris.
    1. Usher
      Usher 17 January 2021 02: 56
      +2
      Only the laser will be highly dependent on weather conditions.
  5. Cowbra
    Cowbra 16 January 2021 08: 32
    0
    It is clear that such things as a Boeing space fighter - you have to knock it down, an attack platform - and it will be knocked down by anti-missiles. And a trifle like satellites "for the Internet", which in the Pentagon last spring lit up like spy satellites at the presentation ... And what about electronic warfare? Those who live in Moscow know that in some places the geolocation system, such as GPS, starts to get very buggy. And after a couple of steps you will find yourself not at Manezhka, but at Sheremetyevo. And without any missiles
  6. dgonni
    dgonni 16 January 2021 11: 51
    +1
    That is why the confrontation will be won by the one who can quickly launch new satellites to restore the group.
    Therefore, taking into account the realities with Roscosmos, a priori Russia is already in a losing position!
  7. ccsr
    ccsr 16 January 2021 12: 01
    -3
    Author:
    Andrey Mitrofanov
    Orbital constellations of reconnaissance, navigation and communications satellites are the cornerstone for the success of warfare on land, water and air.

    This is a very dubious statement, if only because our strategic nuclear forces since Soviet times could accurately hit any targets even without a satellite constellation. All our special forces units also worked without satellite communications and navigation, and moreover, they could use tactical nuclear charges on enemy territory in peacetime.

    The effectiveness of the enemy's armed forces, devoid of space reconnaissance, navigation and communications systems, will decrease by several orders of magnitude. The use of some types of weapons can be very difficult or even completely impossible.

    This is how the author imagines it, and this applies mainly to underdeveloped countries. All nuclear powers know how to use it without an orbital grouping - otherwise it would be the most vulnerable link in the control systems of strategic nuclear forces.

    For example, cruise missiles (CR) will lose the ability to retarget in flight, the accuracy of their hit will decrease, and the preparation time for striking will increase. Long-range cruise missiles without a terrain navigation system without satellite guidance will generally become useless.

    Where did the author get that cruise missiles cannot be programmed for flight without satellite navigation, I do not know. But let me remind you that it was the "Open Skies" program that allowed the Americans to collect a huge amount of information for the covert flight of the CD over our territory, without exchanging information via satellite channels.

    Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will lose the ability to be used globally - their range will be limited by the range of direct radio visibility from ground control points or repeater aircraft.

    The author apparently did not hear about repeaters on probes, they can rise up to 40-50 km, and the control range increases sharply.
    And the author forgets an important detail - all cruise missiles can be equipped with a HF radio channel with a super-high-speed mode, and then no satellites for ranges of up to several thousand kilometers will be required.
    1. Shopping Mall
      16 January 2021 12: 44
      0
      Quote: ccsr
      Author:
      Andrey Mitrofanov
      Orbital constellations of reconnaissance, navigation and communications satellites are the cornerstone for the success of warfare on land, water and air.

      This is a very dubious statement, if only because our strategic nuclear forces since Soviet times could accurately hit any targets even without a satellite constellation. All our special forces units also worked without satellite communications and navigation, and moreover, they could use tactical nuclear charges on enemy territory in peacetime.


      Quote: ccsr
      The effectiveness of the enemy's armed forces, devoid of space reconnaissance, navigation and communications systems, will decrease by several orders of magnitude. The use of some types of weapons can be very difficult or even completely impossible.

      This is how the author imagines it, and this applies mainly to underdeveloped countries. All nuclear powers know how to use it without an orbital grouping - otherwise it would be the most vulnerable link in the control systems of strategic nuclear forces.


      What does this have to do with it? Do you only think in terms of nuclear war?

      And here's another thing. Satellites are not needed to strike the strategic nuclear forces, but they are very important for the missile defense system to operate. And for the timely delivery of a retaliatory oncoming strike.

      And the enemy can also use them to strike at strategic nuclear forces - to track mobile systems, to retarget the missile launcher in flight.

      Quote: ccsr
      For example, cruise missiles (CR) will lose the ability to retarget in flight, the accuracy of their hit will decrease, and the preparation time for striking will increase. Long-range cruise missiles without a terrain navigation system without satellite guidance will generally become useless.

      Where did the author get that cruise missiles cannot be programmed for flight without satellite navigation, I do not know. But let me remind you that it was the "Open Skies" program that allowed the Americans to collect a huge amount of information for the covert flight of the CD over our territory, without exchanging information via satellite channels.


      You can aim using maps, this guidance system is called TERCOM, and it was even before the Open Sky, but its accuracy is lower than that of GPS, it is not on all missiles, especially not on Excalibur-type artillery shells. And the preparation time for striking increases from an hour to a day.

      Quote: ccsr
      Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will lose the ability to be used globally - their range will be limited by the range of direct radio visibility from ground control points or repeater aircraft.

      The author apparently did not hear about repeaters on probes, they can rise up to 40-50 km, and the control range increases sharply.
      And the author forgets an important detail - all cruise missiles can be equipped with a HF radio channel with a super-high-speed mode, and then no satellites for ranges of up to several thousand kilometers will be required.


      Apparently I didn’t. Can you tell me what kind of probes? Are there links to real products?

      And about the HF channel in more detail? Why is it not used on our UAVs? The patrol time is stated to be up to 24-36 hours, and the range is only a few hundred kilometers - this is just a consequence of the lack of high-speed global communication, which allows you to receive intelligence data from the UAV in real time and control it with minimal delay.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 16 January 2021 14: 11
        -1
        Quote: AVM
        What does this have to do with it? Do you only think in terms of nuclear war?

        Yes, this is what we were taught back in the USSR, that's why I don't believe in any whim. As well as the Americans do not believe in such nonsense when the question concerns Russia.
        Quote: AVM
        Satellites are not needed to strike the strategic nuclear forces, but they are very important for the missile defense system to operate.

        This is not true - over-the-horizon radar systems will open a massive launch anyway, and missile defense systems have their own active radars and they do not need satellites at all to destroy enemy warheads.
        Quote: AVM
        And the enemy can also use them to strike at strategic nuclear forces - to track mobile systems, to retarget the missile launcher in flight.

        It will not have time to retarget and will not do this because our missiles will all leave the mines, or from the starting positions, with the exception of those that for technical reasons will not work or will not receive a launch command in time.
        Quote: AVM
        You can aim using maps, this guidance system is called TERCOM, and it was there even before the Open Sky, but the accuracy is lower,

        That is why they demanded from us to participate in the 90s in the "Open Sky", and our drunken drunk agreed with this. The contract was extremely disadvantageous to us.
        But this is not the point, but the fact that the GPS system easily chokes on our territory, and there will be no benefit from it for the CD.
        Quote: AVM
        Apparently I didn’t. Can you tell me what kind of probes?

        Meteorological. Produced in large quantities since the fifties.
        Quote: AVM
        Are there links to real products?

        Yes, the Americans used them in Vietnam to provide communications for their reconnaissance groups, and you don't even know about that. And we had such products in the signal troops.
        Quote: AVM
        And about the HF channel in more detail?

        Can I explain the transmission of radio waves to you, or how is it used to communicate with the same nuclear submarines in the ocean?
        I thought that since you are raising such a topic, you are at least aware of all the existing control systems and their shortcomings, in order to assert that without space, we have a khan. Probably you need to master the basic training to start, so that I do not engage in educational program within the framework of one article.

        Quote: AVM
        Why is it not used on our UAVs?

        In the near zone it is not relevant, and besides, there are "dead zones" in HF communications, and precisely at short distances. Therefore, they use what is simpler, i.e. cheap VHF and microwave radio links for control.
        Quote: AVM
        this is precisely a consequence of the lack of high-speed global communication, which allows one to receive intelligence from the UAV in real time and control it with minimal delay.

        You probably won't understand that this system is efficient in PEACEFUL time for territories with a weak enemy. In other situations, as was the case, for example, with the massive launch of American missile defense systems in Syria, they simply will not reach their targets for various reasons, including electronic warfare. And all your orbital control of the KR will be covered with a copper basin even without hitting enemy control objects. This is how it will all happen if our military works as expected.
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 16 January 2021 14: 33
          +2
          Quote: ccsr
          as was the case, for example, with the massive launch of American missile defense systems in Syria, they simply will not reach their targets for various reasons, including because of electronic warfare. And all your orbital control of the KR will be covered with a copper basin even without hitting the enemy's control objects. This is how it will all happen if our military works as expected.


          Khibiny and Cook are immediately remembered.
        2. Shopping Mall
          16 January 2021 15: 58
          +1
          Quote: ccsr
          Quote: AVM
          What does this have to do with it? Do you only think in terms of nuclear war?

          Yes, this is what we were taught back in the USSR, that's why I don't believe in any whim. As well as the Americans do not believe in such nonsense when the question concerns Russia.


          “The Americans don't believe in such nonsense” - that's how they told you what they believe in and what they don't. The United States is just considering various scenarios of an armed confrontation.

          Quote: ccsr
          Quote: AVM
          Satellites are not needed to strike the strategic nuclear forces, but they are very important for the missile defense system to operate.

          This is not true - over-the-horizon radar systems will open a massive launch anyway, and missile defense systems have their own active radars and they do not need satellites at all to destroy enemy warheads.


          ZGRLS will open it much later than satellites. Less time - less chance of retaliatory strike.

          Missile defense systems have their own radars, but orbital systems significantly expand their capabilities, it is not for nothing that the United States, together with Japan, are going to deploy dozens of missile defense satellites.

          Quote: ccsr
          Quote: AVM
          And the enemy can also use them to strike at strategic nuclear forces - to track mobile systems, to retarget the missile launcher in flight.

          It will not have time to retarget and will not do this because our missiles will all leave the mines, or from the starting positions, with the exception of those that for technical reasons will not work or will not receive a launch command in time.


          If they notice the blow or have time to react to it.

          Quote: ccsr
          Quote: AVM
          You can aim using maps, this guidance system is called TERCOM, and it was there even before the Open Sky, but the accuracy is lower,

          That is why they demanded from us to participate in the 90s in the "Open Sky", and our drunken drunk agreed with this. The contract was extremely disadvantageous to us.


          They map the terrain from radar reconnaissance satellites with a resolution of 20-30 centimeters, or even less. The Open Skies Treaty may have helped them, but it would hardly have drastically changed something.

          Quote: ccsr
          But this is not the point, but the fact that the GPS system easily chokes on our territory, and there will be no benefit from it for the CD.


          Only in a very limited area. It is unrealistic to suppress GPS on the entire territory of the Russian Federation, i.e. most of the flight path of the KR will adjust its route.

          Well, will you close the GPS within a radius of 1-5 kilometers from the target? It will be too late, since the hypersonic unit will cover this distance in seconds and no longer deviate, and the subsonic missile launchers are equipped (not all) with a system for optical comparison of the target image. For the remaining 5 km, the INS will not allow the rocket to deviate greatly from the target.

          Quote: ccsr
          Quote: AVM
          Apparently I didn’t. Can you tell me what kind of probes?

          Meteorological. Produced in large quantities since the fifties.


          And what's the use of them for controlling the UAV?

          Quote: ccsr
          Quote: AVM
          Are there links to real products?

          Yes, the Americans used them in Vietnam to provide communications for their reconnaissance groups, and you don't even know about that. And we had such products in the signal troops.


          They were and sailed, no one does the relay of communication with probes. And one thing is the organization of radio communication with the unit in a limited period of time, the other is the stable operation of tens and hundreds of UAVs.

          It is possible to use high-altitude airships for this purpose, and I wrote about them, but we do not have them yet. And they can also be shot down, and much easier than satellites.

          Quote: ccsr
          Quote: AVM
          And about the HF channel in more detail?

          Can I explain the transmission of radio waves to you, or how is it used to communicate with the same nuclear submarines in the ocean?
          I thought that since you are raising such a topic, you are at least aware of all the existing control systems and their shortcomings, in order to assert that without space, we have a khan. Probably you need to master the basic training to start, so that I do not engage in educational program within the framework of one article.


          It is clear, a good old trick - an attempt to make an opponent look like a dilettante and a schoolboy, when there is essentially nothing to say yourself.

          Submarines do not carry out continuous transmission of video and information from synthetic aperture radars, whose images are close to optical in quality (and volume).

          See which channel the RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV is using and try to make such a channel on HF.

          Quote: ccsr
          Quote: AVM
          Why is it not used on our UAVs?

          In the near zone it is not relevant, and besides, there are "dead zones" in HF communications, and precisely at short distances. Therefore, they use what is simpler, i.e. cheap VHF and microwave radio links for control.


          They use what they have, because what they want is not.

          https://www.dissercat.com/content/issledovanie-i-razrabotka-iterativnykh-metodov-obrabotki-signalov-dlya-vysokoskorostnykh-mod

          HF radio communication is the cheapest type of long-distance communication, which has a very low operating cost and does not require a rent for an air frequency. The main disadvantages of HF communication are the low speed of information transfer and the susceptibility to frequent and rather long (sometimes up to a day) communication losses due to ionospheric disturbances and, in general, a strong dependence on ionospheric conditions.

          Quote: ccsr
          Quote: AVM
          this is precisely a consequence of the lack of high-speed global communication, which allows one to receive intelligence from the UAV in real time and control it with minimal delay.


          You probably won't understand that this system is efficient in PEACEFUL time for territories with a weak enemy. In other situations, as was the case, for example, with the massive launch of American missile defense systems in Syria, they simply will not reach their targets for various reasons, including electronic warfare. And all your orbital control of the KR will be covered with a copper basin even without hitting enemy control objects. This is how it will all happen if our military works as expected.


          Blessed is he who believes ...
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 16 January 2021 18: 43
            0
            Quote: AVM
            “The Americans don't believe in such nonsense” - that's how they told you what they believe in and what they don't.

            Unlike you, I had to deal with them, and moreover, I really know what they were most afraid of.
            Quote: AVM
            ZGRLS will open it much later than satellites.

            Who told you such nonsense? These systems have the same order of time for registering the missile torch. Only the stations are located on our territory and are less susceptible to electronic warfare attacks, but satellite channels can be susceptible to interference and the system will begin to give false failures. We already had such a case in Soviet times, when one satellite gave information about a rocket launch from the United States.
            Quote: AVM
            Missile defense systems have their own radars, but orbital systems significantly expand their capabilities,

            They don't expand anything for our missile defense systems - you just don't know how it all works without satellites.
            Quote: AVM
            If they notice the blow or have time to react to it.

            I don’t know what you mean, but just in case I’ll let you know that the Americans have long known the approximate time required for us to produce a retaliatory strike. And they know that their missiles will not reach our mines at this time. And this is at the worst for us development of the beginning of the war. And all your other fantasies are based on your lack of fundamental knowledge of how all this is organized in the military.
            Quote: AVM
            They map the terrain from radar reconnaissance satellites with a resolution of 20-30 centimeters, or even less.

            It is too expensive, but from planes it will be much cheaper and more accurate. Moreover, in conjunction with the binding of all operating radars, even civil airfields and passive corner reflectors on our territory.
            Quote: AVM
            The Open Skies Treaty may have helped them, but it would hardly have drastically changed something.

            Allowed them to cut billions of dollars in exploration spending. You just do not know how much one picture costs, and even with a resolution, as you write 30 cm.

            Quote: AVM
            It is unrealistic to suppress GPS on the entire territory of the Russian Federation, i.e. most of the flight path of the KR will adjust its route.
            Well, will you close the GPS within a radius of 1-5 kilometers from the target?

            I don’t know why you are telling these nonsense, but keep in mind that even a 5-watt electronic warfare transmitter, raised by a probe to a height of 10 km, will suppress all GPS devices within a radius of 500 km for many hours, until the battery is completely consumed.
            Quote: AVM
            It will be too late, since the hypersonic unit will cover this distance in seconds and no longer deviate,

            So we are smoothly taking the topic of CD and the use of satellites, and move on to what was not discussed at all. Why are you jumping from one type of weapon to another?
            Quote: AVM
            They were and sailed, no one does the relay of communication with probes.

            I will kill you on the spot - even in the government communications troops of the KGB of the USSR such operating modes were provided. You are clearly not in the subject, although you are trying to prove something to me from what you obviously have no knowledge about.
            Quote: AVM
            It is possible to use high-altitude airships for this purpose, and I wrote about them, but we do not have them yet.

            This is just questionable and ruinous - probes are much cheaper to solve such issues.
            Quote: AVM
            It is clear, a good old trick - an attempt to make an opponent look like a dilettante and a schoolboy, when there is essentially nothing to say yourself.

            Do you want to prove to me that you are a specialist in the field of military communication and control systems? Do not be shy, I am interested to know where you were taught everything that you are presenting here.
            Quote: AVM
            Submarines do not carry out continuous transmission of video and information from synthetic aperture radars, whose images are close to optical in quality (and volume).

            Do they really have such a task, in particular, strategic nuclear submarines?
            Quote: AVM
            The main disadvantages of HF communication are the low speed of information transfer and the susceptibility to frequent and rather long (sometimes up to a day) communication losses due to ionospheric disturbances and, in general, a strong dependence on ionospheric conditions.

            You are not in the subject here either, because combat control signals can have a duration of several milliseconds, and this is quite enough for the submarine commander to make a decision to launch. As for atmospheric interference, then you are not aware here either, because transmitters with a power of tens to hundreds of kilowatts can be used to transmit signals. And the diversity of transmitters in our vast territory allows you to duplicate the combat signal not only from different places, but also at different frequencies at the same time. And the scanning receiver will select the one with the best transmission. In general, go and study to begin with, so that experts do not laugh at your "knowledge".
            1. Shopping Mall
              16 January 2021 23: 19
              +1
              Quote: ccsr
              Quote: AVM
              “The Americans don't believe in such nonsense” - that's how they told you what they believe in and what they don't.

              Unlike you, I had to deal with them, and moreover, I really know what they were most afraid of.


              Do we know each other? Do you know who I have come across? Or let me guess, you are from the Battle of Psychics?

              Your answer itself says a lot. Who was afraid? What? Uncle John from the trailer? Are you talking about the fear of the townsfolk? Or do you have access to the command level of the US Armed Forces? Do you run in between meetings at VO?

              Quote: ccsr
              Quote: AVM
              ZGRLS will open it much later than satellites.

              Who told you such nonsense? These systems have the same order of time for registering the missile torch. Only the stations are located on our territory and are less susceptible to electronic warfare attacks, but satellite channels can be susceptible to interference and the system will begin to give false failures. We already had such a case in Soviet times, when one satellite gave information about a rocket launch from the United States.
              Quote: AVM
              Missile defense systems have their own radars, but orbital systems significantly expand their capabilities,

              They don't expand anything for our missile defense systems - you just don't know how it all works without satellites.


              The absence of a satellite component of the early warning system is considered a serious drawback, since the OGRLS see the attack from a maximum of 6000 km, and the satellites detect the moment of launch, which is 1,5-2 times more. And this is + 5-10 minutes, which are needed to disperse troops from the bases, make a decision to retaliate, and other actions in this situation.

              Quote: ccsr
              Quote: AVM
              If they notice the blow or have time to react to it.

              I don’t know what you mean, but just in case I’ll let you know that the Americans have long known the approximate time required for us to produce a retaliatory strike. And they know that their missiles will not reach our mines at this time. And this is at the worst for us development of the beginning of the war. And all your other fantasies are based on your lack of fundamental knowledge of how all this is organized in the military.


              Indicative is a keyword. In reality, there are many factors that change this time period in one direction or another. And even if the Americans know this "approximate" time, they are actively working to keep within it.

              Quote: ccsr
              Quote: AVM
              They map the terrain from radar reconnaissance satellites with a resolution of 20-30 centimeters, or even less.

              It is too expensive, but from planes it will be much cheaper and more accurate. Moreover, in conjunction with the binding of all operating radars, even civil airfields and passive corner reflectors on our territory.


              No longer.
              Capella Space's All-Seeing Eye: Harbinger of the Satellite Intelligence Revolution
              https://topwar.ru/178436-vsevidjaschee-oko-kompanii-capella-space-predvestnik-revoljucii-v-sputnikovoj-razvedke.html

              Quote: ccsr
              Quote: AVM
              The Open Skies Treaty may have helped them, but it would hardly have drastically changed something.

              Allowed them to cut billions of dollars in exploration spending. You just do not know how much one picture costs, and even with a resolution, as you write 30 cm.


              Maybe they did, but rather they gave a little head start in time, for 5-10 years. Now it is no longer important for them, which is why they withdrew from the agreement.

              Quote: ccsr
              Quote: AVM
              It is unrealistic to suppress GPS on the entire territory of the Russian Federation, i.e. most of the flight path of the KR will adjust its route.
              Well, will you close the GPS within a radius of 1-5 kilometers from the target?

              I don’t know why you are telling these nonsense, but keep in mind that even a 5-watt electronic warfare transmitter, raised by a probe to a height of 10 km, will suppress all GPS devices within a radius of 500 km for many hours, until the battery is completely consumed.


              The probe does not hang in one place. Do you understand this? How do you get him to cover the base? It will fly away in the wind. Are you even real? A 5-watt electronic warfare transmitter will suppress GPS meters by 100-300.

              And how long will the charge be enough to power the electronic warfare equipment?
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 17 January 2021 12: 06
                -1
                Quote: AVM
                The absence of a satellite component of the early warning system is considered a serious drawback, since the OGRLS see the attack from a maximum of 6000 km, and the satellites detect the moment of launch, which is 1,5-2 times more.

                This is a verbiage that is easily refuted by the vulnerability of satellite systems even in peacetime, but you are clearly not in the subject. Moreover, the registration of the rocket torch is carried out by completely different ZGRLS stations that you mention - you simply do not know.
                Quote: AVM
                ... And this is + 5-10 minutes, which are needed to disperse troops from the bases, make a decision on retaliation, and other actions in this situation.

                You will not disperse anything during this time, and at best you will be able to make a decision and issue a command at the level of the country's top leadership for a retaliatory strike.
                Quote: AVM
                The absence of a satellite component of the early warning system is considered a serious drawback, since the OGRLS see the attack from a maximum of 6000 km, and the satellites detect the moment of launch, which is 1,5-2 times more.

                You don't know at all how the Soviet system with ZGRLS, which was created before the collapse of the USSR, was supposed to function:
                The first prototype ZGRLS "Duga" began to function near Nikolaev in the early 70s. The station demonstrated its efficiency by recording the moment of the launch of Soviet ballistic missiles from the Far East and the Pacific Ocean. After evaluating the results of trial operation, it was decided to build two more over-the-horizon radars of this type: in the vicinity of Chernobyl and Komsomolsk-on-Amur. These stations were intended for preliminary detection of an ICBM launch from US territory, before they could be seen by the Dnepr and Daryal radars. Their construction is estimated at more than 300 million rubles in prices of the early 80s.

                Especially for you I explain that "Duga" is not "Daryal", so there is no need to speculate on 6 thousand km if you do not understand the essence of the reflection of HF radio waves from the ionized trail formed during the launch of missiles.
                Quote: AVM
                Indicative is a keyword. In reality, there are many factors that change this time period in one direction or another.

                There is no need for verbiage, because military specialists are always put on the worst option for them. But you do not belong to them, and therefore you can fantasize how many "ideas" will come to your head that experts will simply laugh at.
                Quote: AVM
                No longer.
                Capella Space's All-Seeing Eye: Harbinger of the Satellite Intelligence Revolution

                Your advertising materials do not reflect the real state of affairs in space exploration - I already gave you comments on that article, but as they say, not in horse feed. Burn further, Elon Musk and his companions will be grateful to you.

                Quote: AVM
                Maybe they did, but rather they gave a little head start in time, for 5-10 years. Now it is no longer important for them, which is why they withdrew from the agreement.

                And again you do not understand why this is done. And the reason is that the Americans realized that the CD is no longer a priority for the destruction of our strategic objects due to our air defense and missile defense forces, and therefore threw this program out of their budget.
                Quote: AVM
                The probe does not hang in one place. Do you understand this?

                Do you understand that, firstly, military meteorologists are tracking the movement of air masses over our entire territory, and not only over us, but also over other continents. And secondly, meteorological balloons (or their analogs) are launched from several places and their signal overlap zones, even with displacement, do not allow using GPS navigation in the flight sections of the KR.
                Quote: AVM
                It will fly away in the wind. Are you even real? A 5-watt electronic warfare transmitter will suppress GPS meters by 100-300.

                No, you are a complete amateur in radio engineering, and the concept of signal / noise is unknown to you. For an educational program, just find the calculation of the power at the input of the receiving device from different sources operating at the same frequency - with a 250 W transmitter at a distance of 20 thousand km and 5 W at a distance of 10-20 km. If you master this mental process, then you will understand how experts laugh at you, who understand the theory of signal transmission and know how to calculate the power of various radio lines.
                Quote: AVM
                And how long will the charge be enough to power the electronic warfare equipment?

                It is possible for several hours, or it is possible for a day - it all depends on the cost and tasks. But believe me, a few hours will be enough to erase the United States into dust, and all of its ground-based GPS navigation objects, without which their satellites are just a piece of iron.
                Quote: AVM
                “Subsonic missile launchers are equipped (not all) with a system for optical comparison of the target image. For the remaining 5 km, the INS will not allow the rocket to deviate strongly from the target. "

                If they do not reach, they will either be destroyed by air defense means, or electronic warfare means will force them to change their flight. Believe less in American advertising materials - in Syria, they have already done well.
                Quote: AVM
                Were in the USSR. And now?

                Send a request to the FSB before writing the next article - they will gladly answer you there ...
                Quote: AVM
                How will you make them hang in place?

                Nobody forces them to hang in place - the question is in the numbers of launching such probes.
                Quote: AVM
                But the question is not that, but that you position yourself as a specialist, and you yourself propose to retarget the RC and control the UAV with HF communications, and this says a lot.

                Your illiteracy does not surprise me, but keep in mind that this radio link is used mainly for self-destruction commands, and not for retargeting. How do you make sure that what you have transmitted is correctly recorded in the flight program? This alone casts doubt on the very process of such a flight adjustment.
                Quote: AVM
                About specialists this is clearly not about you.

                Even so, but the fact that you are talking nonsense, even to me, not a specialist in CD is obvious - for this you need to have an idea of ​​at least the propagation of radio waves and the effect on them of interference of both natural origin and purposeful interference.
                1. SovAr238A
                  SovAr238A 17 January 2021 18: 41
                  +1
                  Quote: ccsr
                  And the reason is that the Americans realized that the CD is no longer a priority for the destruction of our strategic objects due to our air defense and missile defense forces, and therefore threw this program out of their budget.


                  Oh how ..
                  Version 5 of the Tomahawk - is it thrown out of the budget?
                  Maintaining at least 6000 KR Tomahawk in service, but in reality 6500-7000 KR - is not the Pentagon's budget program?


                  Quote: ccsr
                  If they do not reach, they will either be destroyed by air defense means, or electronic warfare means will force them to change their flight. Believe less in American advertising materials - in Syria, they have already done well.


                  Air defense means are not enough to destroy even 1/4 of the Tomahawks ...
                  What means of electronic warfare will be able to interfere with the flight of the KR in the TERCOM mode? Changing the radio altimeter? And what will help? :)
                  And how many resources of the almighty electronic warfare are along our borders?
                  Zero point / fig tenths?

                  And in Syria, they still destroyed the airbase. With all the infrastructure.
                  After Konashenkov's victorious report, other information came about the defeat of 44 targets ...
                  If 23 missiles arrived. how then could there be 44 points of defeat?

                  Konashenkov will never answer this question, because he is still a liar ..
                  1. SovAr238A
                    SovAr238A 17 January 2021 22: 23
                    0
                    Quote: SovAr238A

                    Iria, they still destroyed the airbase. With all the infrastructure.
                    After Konashenkov's victorious report, other information came about the defeat of 44 targets ...
                    If 23 missiles arrived. how then could there be 44 points of defeat?


                    By the way, can you have heard at least one news about the use by our or Syrian aircraft of the Al-Shayrat airbase after 2017?

                    Me not.
                    Looking at satellite images from 2018, 2021 - the airbase is dead.
                    Launched.
                    the entire infrastructure remained as it was.
                    some ruins.

                    So what about the real results of the strike on Shayrat?
                    If you do not use the manual, but think for yourself?
                    unless, of course, there is something left in the brain, and the thought process still turns out to be launched, and not only to voice the headlines of propaganda manuals ...
                    1. ccsr
                      ccsr 18 January 2021 12: 47
                      0
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      So what about the real results of the strike on Shayrat?

                      I don’t know, there were no Russian troops there. According to our experts, not all of the American missiles reached the target. Does your training manual refute this? Then give a link at least to independent publications.
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      Looking at satellite images from 2018, 2021 - the airbase is dead.

                      And what does this tell us? Should we use it?
                      What does your training manual write about the importance of this base for our Aerospace Forces, especially taking into account the reduction of our military contingent in Syria.
                  2. ccsr
                    ccsr 18 January 2021 12: 36
                    0
                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    Oh how ..
                    Version 5 of the Tomahawk - is it thrown out of the budget?

                    Who told you that they are planning to use these products against Russia? And it was about financing the "Open Skies" program, and not about purchasing Tomahawks. You should at least delve into the essence of the discussion.

                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    Air defense means are not enough to destroy even 1/4 of the Tomahawks ...

                    I don't know where you got such data, but I think that you are clearly not aware of the capabilities of our videoconferencing. Can you throw off the link where you got this figure from.
                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    What means of electronic warfare will be able to interfere with the flight of the KR in the TERCOM mode?

                    KR constantly scan the terrain over which it flies, if only in order not to crash into any object that has not been previously recorded from space. And radar reconnaissance planes over our territory will reveal the flight of such missiles and point fighters at them. It was still planned in the 80s and 90s.
                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    And how many resources of the almighty electronic warfare are along our borders?

                    In fact, they are placed closer to the centers that will be the objects of attack - this is what we need to proceed from and not wring our hands about the length of our borders.
                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    And in Syria, they still destroyed the airbase. With all the infrastructure.

                    Russian?
                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    Konashenkov will never answer this question, because he is still a liar ..

                    I am not interested in what he says, because I do not exclude a special injection of misinformation, but I can reassure you - by the time the CD will reach our main facilities, the territory of the United States will already turn into nuclear dust. And Americans, unlike you, always remember this.
                2. Shopping Mall
                  17 January 2021 19: 00
                  0
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Quote: AVM
                  The absence of a satellite component of the early warning system is considered a serious drawback, since the OGRLS see the attack from a maximum of 6000 km, and the satellites detect the moment of launch, which is 1,5-2 times more.

                  This is a verbiage that is easily refuted by the vulnerability of satellite systems even in peacetime, but you are clearly not in the subject. Moreover, the registration of the rocket torch is carried out by completely different ZGRLS stations that you mention - you simply do not know.


                  These vulnerabilities exist only in your imagination. But in reality, the defeat of targets in space is a serious and difficult task that is not available to all countries.

                  As soon as the early warning satellites are attacked, peacetime will immediately turn into wartime.

                  Regarding the torch and the ZGRLS, you obviously did not speak to me, I did not remember the ZGRLS at all - on VO they are for many like the Holy Grail.
                  1. The torch is detected by satellites.
                  2. The satellites detect the torch at the moment of the rocket launch.
                  3. Radar stations (not ZGRLS) detect the missile when it appears from behind the radio horizon.
                  4. ZGRLS see low-flying targets beyond the radio horizon, but the detection range is still up to 3000 km.

                  BR fly for about 15-20 minutes, if it is not a strike on a flat trajectory with a minimum range.
                  The satellite will detect the launch immediately.
                  The radar is somewhere in the middle of the trajectory, which gives us an extra 7-10 minutes to react (in the presence of satellites).

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Quote: AVM
                  ... And this is + 5-10 minutes, which are needed to disperse troops from the bases, make a decision on retaliation, and other actions in this situation.

                  You will not disperse anything during this time, and at best you will be able to make a decision and issue a command at the level of the country's top leadership for a retaliatory strike.


                  Somewhere they will have time to drive people into the shelter, somewhere the plane will take off or cancel the landing. And these are all saved lives and resources.

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Quote: AVM
                  The absence of a satellite component of the early warning system is considered a serious drawback, since the OGRLS see the attack from a maximum of 6000 km, and the satellites detect the moment of launch, which is 1,5-2 times more.

                  You don't know at all how the Soviet system with ZGRLS, which was created before the collapse of the USSR, was supposed to function:
                  The first prototype ZGRLS "Duga" began to function near Nikolaev in the early 70s. The station demonstrated its efficiency by recording the moment of the launch of Soviet ballistic missiles from the Far East and the Pacific Ocean. After evaluating the results of trial operation, it was decided to build two more over-the-horizon radars of this type: in the vicinity of Chernobyl and Komsomolsk-on-Amur. These stations were intended for preliminary detection of an ICBM launch from US territory, before they could be seen by the Dnepr and Daryal radars. Their construction is estimated at more than 300 million rubles in prices of the early 80s.

                  Especially for you I explain that "Duga" is not "Daryal", so there is no need to speculate on 6 thousand km if you do not understand the essence of the reflection of HF radio waves from the ionized trail formed during the launch of missiles.


                  So what? ZGRLS can be seen up to 3000 km, incl. the "Duga" you mentioned, and at 6000 km sees "Voronezh" (of course, above the horizon).

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Quote: AVM
                  Not anymore. Capella Space's All-Seeing Eye: Harbinger of the Satellite Intelligence Revolution

                  Your advertising materials do not reflect the real state of affairs in space exploration - I already gave you comments on that article, but as they say, not in horse feed. Burn further, Elon Musk and his companions will be grateful to you.


                  Of course, only you possess the True Knowledge. Elon Musk has everything in order, surprisingly different, the world is rapidly changing right before our eyes, but for some, like you, it’s like blinders in our eyes - this cannot be, because it cannot be. They even manage to ignore open information, officially voiced, agreements with the military, videos of flights and landings - no, the Americans did not fly to the moon, there is no rover on Mars, the Earth is flat.

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Quote: AVM
                  Maybe they did, but rather they gave a little head start in time, for 5-10 years. Now it is no longer important for them, which is why they withdrew from the agreement.

                  And again you do not understand why this is done. And the reason is that the Americans realized that the CD is no longer a priority for the destruction of our strategic objects due to our air defense and missile defense forces, and therefore threw this program out of their budget.


                  That is why they upgrade the Tomahawk to version V, buy JASSM-ER in thousands, adapt all the carriers to it, bring the wearable JASSM-ER to 1 on the B-36B! missiles.
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 18 January 2021 13: 24
                    0
                    Quote: AVM
                    These vulnerabilities exist only in your imagination.

                    About forty years ago, graduate lieutenants knew about this vulnerability in Mozhayka, and only those who from the plow did not hear anything about it.
                    Quote: AVM
                    But in reality, the defeat of targets in space is a serious and difficult task that is not available to all countries.

                    And we are talking about Russia, and not about other countries, so don't jump around - is this a hobby for you?
                    Quote: AVM
                    As soon as the early warning satellites are attacked, peacetime will immediately turn into wartime.

                    You may not even know that they were attacked or simply technically faulty - for example, our satellite fell in Canada, and we still do not know the reasons for its deorbiting. Or there was an accident on another satellite, a neutral state, which led to the defeat of our satellite. And how are you going to dance in this case?
                    Quote: AVM
                    The satellite will detect the launch immediately.
                    The radar is somewhere in the middle of the trajectory, which gives us an extra 7-10 minutes to react

                    I already realized that you nifiga do not understand that ZGRLS stations are used in two modes of operation, depending on their purpose - to detect the launch itself, and for guidance. I cannot help you in any way, you are even more illiterate in this matter than I expected.
                    Quote: AVM
                    Somewhere they will have time to drive people into the shelter, somewhere the plane will take off or cancel the landing. And these are all saved lives and resources.

                    Dream, I already realized that you did not serve in the army, and for how much a motorized rifle or air regiment will rise, you obviously do not know.

                    Quote: AVM
                    So what? ZGRLS can be seen up to 3000 km, incl. the "Duga" you mentioned, and at 6000 km sees "Voronezh" (of course, above the horizon).

                    I am amazed at your aplomb and illiteracy, but I recommend at least to study the principle of operation of the reciprocating-oblique sounding stations, which were in the signal troops already sixty years ago, and maybe even earlier. Now it is unclassified, and any specialist in radio engineering will understand what is the principle of operation of our ZGRLS in the missile launch detection mode. I am simply powerless against such ignorance, so enlighten yourself.
                    Quote: AVM
                    Of course, only you possess the True Knowledge.

                    I have basic training, and you probably only have journalistic knowledge, not engineering.
                    Quote: AVM
                    That is why they upgrade the Tomahawk to version V, buy JASSM-ER in thousands, adapt all the carriers to it, bring the wearable JASSM-ER to 1 on the B-36B! missiles.

                    They have interests all over the world, in many countries. But this is not the point, but the fact that the Americans, even after the first war in the Gulf, rebuilt their military doctrine for the conduct of war in a non-contact manner, i.e. without the contact of troops. This was used in Yugoslavia, Iraq and elsewhere, against regular armies. It's a pity that you don't even know this, but you are broadcasting how dangerous the new US CDs are to us.
                    Quote: AVM
                    Meteorological balloons are launched, but no one controls the UAV probes and is not going to because of the enchanting absurdity of the idea.

                    They can be used as repeaters, as RTR stations, and as jammers in electronic warfare. And they can also be used as one-time transmitters for agent networks. However, you are clearly not in the subject, so we will not dwell on this, you just know little about their use. By the way, the Americans in the fifties even placed photographic equipment on probes and received pictures of our objects in the pre-satellite era.

                    Quote: AVM
                    You have ignored the question about real projects.

                    Whose intelligence do you work for? These are proprietary materials - why do you need to know this?
                    Quote: AVM
                    We seem to be legal there, they are not, but in fact, everyone does what they want, the oil refineries are holding the United States, Israel is hammering Syria as it pleases,

                    Do you want us to get involved in the third world war because of Syria? Maybe it's enough to speculate with children's wishlist?
                    Quote: AVM
                    Probably, if you run 20000-3000 with a probe,

                    Firstly, these are generally unrealistic figures, and secondly, they forgot about the balloons - they have not yet been removed from service.
                    Quote: AVM
                    Feedback from the Kyrgyz Republic on receiving the package.

                    The power of such a transmitter will be too low, the antenna is not directional, and it is not a fact that the return signal will pass without distortion in this radio line. In general, study at least the theory, then you may start to understand this.
                3. Shopping Mall
                  17 January 2021 19: 01
                  0
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Quote: AVM
                  The probe does not hang in one place. Do you understand this?

                  Do you understand that, firstly, military meteorologists are tracking the movement of air masses over our entire territory, and not only over us, but also over other continents. And secondly, meteorological balloons (or their analogs) are launched from several places and their signal overlap zones, even with displacement, do not allow using GPS navigation in the flight sections of the KR.


                  Weather balloons are launched, but no one controls the UAV probes and is not going to because of the enchanting absurdity of the idea. You have ignored the question about real projects.

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Quote: AVM
                  It will fly away in the wind. Are you even real? A 5-watt electronic warfare transmitter will suppress GPS meters by 100-300.

                  No, you are a complete amateur in radio engineering, and the concept of signal / noise is unknown to you. For an educational program, just find the calculation of the power at the input of the receiving device from different sources operating at the same frequency - with a 250 W transmitter at a distance of 20 thousand km and 5 W at a distance of 10-20 km. If you master this mental process, then you will understand how experts laugh at you, who understand the theory of signal transmission and know how to calculate the power of various radio lines.


                  You like to speak for others. Either the Americans are afraid of something, then the experts are laughing ... Did you consider the Option that this warm company is only in your imagination?

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Quote: AVM
                  And how long will the charge be enough to power the electronic warfare equipment?

                  It is possible for several hours, or it is possible for a day - it all depends on the cost and tasks. But believe me, a few hours will be enough to erase the United States into dust, and all of its ground-based GPS navigation objects, without which their satellites are just a piece of iron.


                  Alexander Timokhin wrote well about "dust off", but. You better write right away - to split the globe into pieces.

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Quote: AVM
                  “Subsonic missile launchers are equipped (not all) with a system for optical comparison of the target image. For the remaining 5 km, the INS will not allow the rocket to deviate strongly from the target. "

                  If they do not reach, they will either be destroyed by air defense means, or electronic warfare means will force them to change their flight. Believe less in American advertising materials - in Syria, they have already done well.


                  It can be seen how they did it. We seem to be there legally, they are not, but in fact, everyone does what they want, the oil refineries are holding the United States, Israel is hammering Syria as it pleases, the Turks too - shot down our plane and we banned them from selling tomatoes for a couple of months. But believe me the main thing, the Americans have done it - Hurray comrades, Hurray!

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Quote: AVM
                  Were in the USSR. And now?

                  Send a request to the FSB before writing the next article - they will gladly answer you there ...
                  Quote: AVM
                  How will you make them hang in place?

                  Nobody forces them to hang in place - the question is in the numbers of launching such probes.


                  Probably, if you launch 20000-3000 with a probe, then you can organize a more or less stable control network, all that remains is to convince not to shoot them all the countries into whose airspace they will fly. And calculate the economic feasibility of this in comparison with LEO satellites.

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Quote: AVM
                  But the question is not that, but that you position yourself as a specialist, and you yourself propose to retarget the RC and control the UAV with HF communications, and this says a lot.

                  Your illiteracy does not surprise me, but keep in mind that this radio link is used mainly for self-destruction commands, and not for retargeting. How do you make sure that what you have transmitted is correctly recorded in the flight program? This alone casts doubt on the very process of such a flight adjustment.


                  Feedback from the Kyrgyz Republic on receiving the package.
            2. Shopping Mall
              16 January 2021 23: 20
              0
              Quote: ccsr
              Quote: AVM
              It will be too late, since the hypersonic unit will cover this distance in seconds and no longer deviate,

              So we are smoothly taking the topic of CD and the use of satellites, and move on to what was not discussed at all. Why are you jumping from one type of weapon to another?


              So after all there and about the CD it was written:
              “Subsonic missile launchers are equipped (not all) with a system for optical comparison of the target image. For the remaining 5 km, the INS will not allow the rocket to deviate strongly from the target. "

              Quote: ccsr
              Quote: AVM
              They were and sailed, no one does the relay of communication with probes.

              I will kill you on the spot - even in the government communications troops of the KGB of the USSR such operating modes were provided. You are clearly not in the subject, although you are trying to prove something to me from what you obviously have no knowledge about.


              Were in the USSR. And now?

              Quote: ccsr
              Quote: AVM
              It is possible to use high-altitude airships for this purpose, and I wrote about them, but we do not have them yet.

              This is just questionable and ruinous - probes are much cheaper to solve such issues.


              How do you make them hang in place? The probe is a temporary measure for certain situations, its behavior is completely dependent on atmospheric fronts.

              Quote: ccsr
              Quote: AVM
              It is clear, a good old trick - an attempt to make an opponent look like a dilettante and a schoolboy, when there is essentially nothing to say yourself.

              Do you want to prove to me that you are a specialist in the field of military communication and control systems? Do not be shy, I am interested to know where you were taught everything that you are presenting here.


              No, I will not say, although I had to deal with communication. But the question is not that, but that you position yourself as a specialist, and you yourself propose to retarget the RC and control the UAV with HF communication, and this says a lot.

              Quote: ccsr
              Quote: AVM
              Submarines do not carry out continuous transmission of video and information from synthetic aperture radars, whose images are close to optical in quality (and volume).

              Do they really have such a task, in particular, strategic nuclear submarines?


              They do not, but we are not talking about them.

              Quote: ccsr
              Quote: AVM
              The main disadvantages of HF communication are the low speed of information transfer and the susceptibility to frequent and rather long (sometimes up to a day) communication losses due to ionospheric disturbances and, in general, a strong dependence on ionospheric conditions.

              You are not in the subject here either, because combat control signals can have a duration of several milliseconds, and this is quite enough for the submarine commander to make a decision to launch. As for atmospheric interference, then you are not aware here either, because transmitters with a power of tens to hundreds of kilowatts can be used to transmit signals. And the diversity of transmitters in our vast territory allows you to duplicate the combat signal not only from different places, but also at different frequencies at the same time. And the scanning receiver will select the one with the best transmission. In general, go and study to begin with, so that experts do not laugh at your "knowledge".


              About specialists this is clearly not about you. So you can laugh as much as you like. I tell you about Thomas, and you tell me about Erema. We talked about high-speed communication for feedback from the RC and the UAV, and suddenly left for the SSBN.
        3. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse 17 January 2021 21: 21
          0
          Quote: ccsr
          Will not have time to retarget and will not do this because our missiles have already all left the mines, or from the starting positions,

          However, the latest tests of Tomahawks of the latest version of Block 5 would be entirely devoted to precisely retargeting during the execution of the task. Obviously, a continuous information field allows both to concentrate strikes on complex targets and to redirect reserve missiles to other targets after confirmation of the destruction of the main ones. This is especially true in the case of using nuclear warheads.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 18 January 2021 13: 37
            0
            Quote: Saxahorse
            However, the latest tests of Tomahawks of the latest version of Block 5 would be entirely devoted to precisely retargeting during task execution.

            They will have many such goals in a war with other countries - that's why they are improving their subsonic system. As for us, they know all our mines, and if we accept the version that they will be hit by a CD with retargeting, then this is absurd. Do not forget that a two-way exchange of information with a missile (and without it it is impossible), in itself is an unmasking sign in the event of a sudden massive strike, even if it occurs via satellites.
            Quote: Saxahorse
            This is especially true in the case of using nuclear warheads.

            I am afraid that this is precisely the unmasking sign, which is why the Americans will bet on other methods of delivering a surprise strike. Now everything is decided by the speed of delivery of the warhead, and not the long flight of many CDs.
  8. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 16 January 2021 12: 02
    -1
    It is quite obvious that a "reusable" interceptor is needed.

    A device of substantial size, capable of either blowing its strong body or some other mechanism to destroy satellites without collapsing on its own.

    Then it is enough to assemble 20-30 such devices in orbit (preferably on a collision course) And only give the command in time.
    1. Semenov
      Semenov 16 January 2021 12: 12
      +16
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      It is quite obvious that a "reusable" interceptor is needed

      Such ones have already been created - they include an automatic cannon.
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 17 January 2021 03: 26
        0
        A cannon is shells, the cannon itself, fuel to compensate for recoil, etc. Not the fact that it is effective in terms of the thrown mass.
  9. OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 16 January 2021 12: 15
    +4
    There are 2 more promising UAVs for the destruction of satellites.
    Aevum Ravn X which is planned to be used as the first stage for launching small satellites into low-earth orbit.

    Boeing X-37 orbital unmanned aircraft.
    1. Shopping Mall
      17 January 2021 00: 04
      +1
      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
      There are 2 more promising UAVs for the destruction of satellites.
      Aevum Ravn X which is planned to be used as the first stage for launching small satellites into low-earth orbit.

      Boeing X-37 orbital unmanned aircraft.


      hi

      Aevum Ravn X is a very interesting device, its potential can be extremely interesting from a military point of view. Perhaps there will be a separate article about him.

      About Boeing X-37, incl. will be in the next article on the topic.
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 17 January 2021 00: 11
        0
        Excellent, we will read it with pleasure.
        Very interesting flying machines.
        Dream Chaser with Shooting Star to the same steppe.
        1. Shopping Mall
          17 January 2021 00: 12
          0
          Quote: OgnennyiKotik
          Excellent, we will read it with pleasure.
          Very interesting flying machines.
          Dream Chaser with Shooting Star to the same steppe.


          Yes, I have already mentioned about him in the article:
          Find an aircraft carrier: space reconnaissance
          https://topwar.ru/176991-najti-avianosec-kosmicheskie-sredstva-razvedki.html
      2. Serg Murchikola
        Serg Murchikola 17 January 2021 20: 41
        0
        Equal Xy with a saber wing, subsonic loitering - just who? it doesn't look like a drone in size, a 6th generation shock throughout ... that's just the engine - in the light of the latest news from China and with the help of cooperation, it can be turned into a very harsh 2xF-135 generation 5 ++ interceptor fighter, here work out options for internal placement. Interesting birds, like the Boeing TX, bring new notes to the generally accepted scheme
  10. bk0010
    bk0010 16 January 2021 13: 21
    0
    It is extremely difficult to destroy satellites in geostationary or geosynchronous orbits in this way, and the complexes designed to solve this problem can no longer be placed on ships or installed in silo launchers - for this purpose, heavy or superheavy launch vehicles will be required.
    A heavy rocket may not be required: we don't need to put the interceptor into orbit, we need it to take off by 40000 km, and this is a simpler task (acceleration to 8 km / s is not required, 4-6 km / s is enough). In addition, the interceptor itself can be significantly lighter than huge geostationary satellites.
  11. iouris
    iouris 16 January 2021 13: 53
    0
    ... and then they knocked from below: "Who else lives in the little house?"
  12. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 16 January 2021 14: 59
    +5
    The main factor in the defeat of a nuclear explosion is a blast wave.
    She is not in space.
    And hard radiation works close.
    1. Shopping Mall
      16 January 2021 23: 21
      +4
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The main factor in the defeat of a nuclear explosion is a blast wave.
      She is not in space.
      And hard radiation works close.


      That is exactly why the dreams of many about the removal of all spacecraft nuclear weapons are simply unrealistic.

      There are also fantasies about a "bucket of nails" in orbit.
  13. rocket757
    rocket757 16 January 2021 20: 35
    -2
    Man is so unreasonable ..... creation !!! Any place, field, space, ready to turn into a battle wall ... WHY?
    1. iouris
      iouris 16 January 2021 22: 59
      0
      Quote: rocket757
      WHAT FOR?

      An unreasonable question. You were told long ago: to get super profits. "Our goal is profit (but only for us)."
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 17 January 2021 01: 53
        -1
        So, to ask a question - what for them all the riches, where will they go with them when / if our entire planet flies into tar-tarars ??? - not worth it? Like, is this complete, utter nonsense?
  14. Foxnova
    Foxnova 16 January 2021 22: 36
    0
    Communication satellites in geostationary orbit cannot be removed
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 January 2021 17: 29
      0
      Is it possible to create a space fighter with its own rocket engine to enter other orbits.
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 17 January 2021 17: 32
        0
        So here they are:

        1. Foxnova
          Foxnova 17 January 2021 17: 40
          0
          So there are not so many starting positions for these devices and they will be priority targets when the Arctic fox approaches.
    2. Pushkowed
      Pushkowed 19 January 2021 11: 27
      0
      Communication satellites in geostationary orbit cannot be removed

      There was already material on how this is supposed to be done:
      https://topwar.ru/175912-svesti-s-geostacionara-znamenitoe-npo-mashinostroenija-pohozhe-razrabatyvaet-kosmicheskoe-oruzhie-dlja-vysokih-orbit.html

      In short:
      1. Make a grouping of fighter satellites armed with space-to-space missiles (several on each);
      2. In advance, even in peacetime, it is necessary to bring them to retrograde orbit, just below the geostationary.
      3. At the appointed time, give them the command to attack the selected targets.

      In general, good old weapon tracking, only in space.
  15. gregor6549
    gregor6549 17 January 2021 06: 17
    0
    The problem of destroying enemy satellites was relevant when the number of satellites above the Earth was counted in units or tens. Now, when there is an immeasurable number of them, there is no point in chasing each satellite, and this is too costly. In addition, it is very difficult to identify which of these satellites is your own and which is alien, even if you fly up to it in a manned satellite fighter at a distance of visual contact. After all, satellites are not yet equipped with the systems of state recognition of "their own alien", and they are unlikely to be equipped in the future. Including for purely organizational reasons. It is one thing to change the keys / codes of these systems on manned objects, and quite another when it needs to be done on unmanned objects, moreover, located in space.
    Finally. The dependence of weapons systems (UAVs, cruise and wingless missiles, etc.) is slowly decreasing, because in addition to GPS, these systems are equipped with alternative navigation and control systems (AI, inertial navigation, etc.) that do not require information from or through a satellite. By the way, already the first Axes did not depend much on satellites during their combat use, tk. their navigation was carried out by comparing relief maps of the area received in peacetime from the same satellites with the Axes flight mission. The height of the Axes was measured at the control points of the route using radio altimeters.
    The task of UAV control outside the range of data transmission systems is also quite successfully solved by giving the UAV the possibility of fully autonomous control through the use of AI elements and other "tricks" in the UAV.
    What I mean. And to the fact that "reaching out to heaven" is possible and possible, but is it necessary?
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 17 January 2021 12: 26
      -2
      Quote: gregor6549
      In addition, it is very difficult to identify which of these satellites is your own and which is alien, even if you fly up to it in a manned satellite fighter at a distance of visual contact.

      This is not required, if only because in peacetime all satellites are registered with an international organization such as INTELSAT and others, and each satellite uses strictly allocated frequencies in order not to interfere with the operation of other systems. Military systems can disregard these rules during a threatened period, but most other communication systems are easily choked by modern electronic warfare systems, of course, if the state has them.
      Quote: gregor6549
      Finally. The dependence of weapons systems (UAVs, cruise and wingless missiles, etc.) is slowly decreasing, because in addition to GPS, these systems are equipped with alternative navigation and control systems (AI, inertial navigation, etc.) that do not require information from or through a satellite.

      This requires clarification - all Soviet strategic nuclear forces were generally built only on such principles, and never meant their dependence on the orbital grouping. And this principle has always existed with us, and has not changed now. Therefore, if our UAVs carried operational-tactical nuclear charges, then they certainly did not depend on satellite systems, because in their destructive effect they became at the level of strategic weapons when attacking the capitals of other states.
      1. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 17 January 2021 18: 45
        0
        Quote: ccsr
        most other communication systems are easily choked by modern electronic warfare equipment, of course, if the state has them.

        Another witness of the almighty electronic warfare sect ...

        Well, someone like you, "an expert in radio communications and radar" may look at government contracts for the production and release of electronic warfare products ...
        Quantities, characteristics ...

        Will analyze it all.

        And he will go to the dugout to cry about that. that the almighty electronic warfare turns out to be like a brick ...
        Which in England guns are not cleaned ...
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 17 January 2021 18: 51
          +2
          By the way, I don’t remember here an article about the electronic warfare systems of the United States and Israel, the Uryakalok would have been well bombed.
          In the same Karabakh, the Israeli and Turkish electronic warfare systems showed themselves well.
          1. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 17 January 2021 19: 03
            +1
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            By the way, I don’t remember here an article about the electronic warfare systems of the United States and Israel, the Uryakalok would have been well bombed.
            In the same Karabakh, the Israeli and Turkish electronic warfare systems showed themselves well.


            I do not argue that electronic warfare systems matter.
            But ...
            Only the most modern.
            Only in sufficient quantities.

            How much was in the Krasuhi contract?
            And I will say - 1 piece per year. and only 10 pieces ...
            At a price of almost 1,5 billion rubles per car.
            That's all.

            And what will they cover in our country?
            Borders?
            They won't, they are for district headquarters.

            There is no electronic warfare coverage of either our borders or facilities ...

            Nope

            The poultrymen, it seems, with such fanfare, proclaimed in all the news ...
            Super Duper.
            kills everyone ...
            The old woman did not suffer for long in high-voltage wires ...

            These agitators do not understand. that when there is no quantity, then there is nothing.
            There is safety in numbers.

            And there is no money in the state.
            The economy really collapsed, and tax collection is only due to devaluation and only due to taxes from trade enterprises.

            Salaries have not grown in any way for 8 years, and inflation is 10% annually.
            Real inflation in stores for goods and products.

            and there are no taxes - no weapons.
        2. ccsr
          ccsr 18 January 2021 12: 41
          0
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Well, someone like you, "an expert in radio communications and radar" may look at government contracts for the production and release of electronic warfare products ...

          Are you admitted to them, or do you know the entire range of purchased weapons over the past ten years and for the next decade? I don’t believe you, you are simply speculating on information that you don’t know, and without any confirmation of your words.
          Quote: SovAr238A
          And he will go to the dugout to cry about that. that the almighty electronic warfare turns out to be like a brick ...
          Which in England guns are not cleaned ...

          I already understood your level of argumentation - so, at the level of a brick smashed on the head, it remained.
  16. Serg Murchikola
    Serg Murchikola 17 January 2021 20: 56
    0
    But will AMK's large Moskichi objects be protected? MiG-21 and -23 would cope with highly specialized, arrow and other products from the 60s about Fantomas. But the most amazing thing is that everyone is looking for the Fantomas in space and the sea, and he is on a bike around the city and into the alley
  17. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 17 January 2021 21: 28
    0
    The article is very good, thanks to the author!

    I agree with the authors in terms of big problems with the destruction of satellites from the ground. Any attack from the bottom up is much more expensive than vice versa. This is all Newton invented .. with his apple laughing

    I would venture to suggest that a possible solution to the problems with enemy satellites lies in the early placement of anti-satellite weapons in space, in high orbits.

    Perhaps that is why the Americans are so diligently eliminating all agreements on limiting space arms. While the USSR was in the lead in the space race, America was all for peaceful space, of course! Today, with "trampoline specialists" curtailing production of the last heavy rockets, America is ready to break all the latest restrictions on weapons in space.
  18. petroff
    petroff 20 January 2021 13: 43
    0
    About tanks with bolts forgot to mention laughing