Geoffrey Forden (MIT) - "How China Loses the Coming Space War"
A note on the first part of the article. A 20km change in altitude would not have made that much of a difference making it easier to kill, since it would barely change the target's orbital velocity. Furthermore it would have added to the difficulty because the target's last second change of orbit would have added new uncertainties away from the known orbit. Those uncertainties would have more than counterbalanced any "ease" from the increased height of the orbit.
The article also made one fundamental error. The ASAT test never used a Long March rocket but a KT-1 booster, which is solid fueled and is based on the DF-21 missle. Essentially, its launched from a converted IRBM, which means it can also be launched from mobile TELs.
The second part, the KKV component of a space war is just only one of the components, the others include direct energy weapons (laser dazzling), and soft kill measures that include nano-satellites that can jam or hack into an existing satellite network. You don't need to destroy a satellite, all you need to do is spoof it so it pumps out garbage.
The article also made one fundamental error. The ASAT test never used a Long March rocket but a KT-1 booster, which is solid fueled and is based on the DF-21 missle. Essentially, its launched from a converted IRBM, which means it can also be launched from mobile TELs.
The second part, the KKV component of a space war is just only one of the components, the others include direct energy weapons (laser dazzling), and soft kill measures that include nano-satellites that can jam or hack into an existing satellite network. You don't need to destroy a satellite, all you need to do is spoof it so it pumps out garbage.
Roger604
Senior Member
:rofl:
This is a sad article that get it wrong early and then keeps going further and further off the mark.
An ASAT launch is not going to be Long-March rockets on launch pads.
It will be a truck driving around, possibly off-road, launching its solid-fueled missile. And China already has much more than 1000 solid-fueled (albeit short ranged) mobile missile trucks.
The article is not really worth reading after it states the assumption ("worst case scenario" according to the author) that China would employs ALL of its 3 space launch pads for ASAT rockets to launch a whopping 3 rockets at a time.
And then the article proceeds to say without any justification that no improvements in Chinese capability is expected for many "decades."
This is a sad article that get it wrong early and then keeps going further and further off the mark.
An ASAT launch is not going to be Long-March rockets on launch pads.
It will be a truck driving around, possibly off-road, launching its solid-fueled missile. And China already has much more than 1000 solid-fueled (albeit short ranged) mobile missile trucks.The article is not really worth reading after it states the assumption ("worst case scenario" according to the author
) that China would employs ALL of its 3 space launch pads for ASAT rockets to launch a whopping 3 rockets at a time.And then the article proceeds to say without any justification that no improvements in Chinese capability is expected for many "decades."
One note is that a KKV is a rather small and light object. Probably around 40 to 50kg, making it fit into the nanosatellite category and China has launched nanosatellites. Raytheon's own EKV design is around 64kg. Please note that China's ALLV program intends to launch a payload of 50kg each per rocket.
The KT-1 has (partially successful) launches of nanosatellites (30kg and 50kg) prior to this event. This rocket is only 13.6m in length and can be launched from a mobile TEL.
Now the KT-2A booster, based on the DF-31A, will have a higher load and is capable of transporting three independent objects. So potentially, this booster can launch 3 KKVs at the same time.
Now once you started talking about the Changzhengs, you are talking about sending tons into space. How many 50kg KKVs do you think would make up a single ton? A CZ-5 does 14 tons into GEO and 25 tons into LEO.
I am not talking about the possibility of using the Long March for this. It probably isn't considered for it, at least not yet. Maybe vastly overkill for this purpose, even with the older CZs.
The concept of redundancy itself can be seriously threatened if the launch vehicle itself can carry multiple KKVs, like a ballistic missile with MIRVs.
The KT-1 has (partially successful) launches of nanosatellites (30kg and 50kg) prior to this event. This rocket is only 13.6m in length and can be launched from a mobile TEL.
Now the KT-2A booster, based on the DF-31A, will have a higher load and is capable of transporting three independent objects. So potentially, this booster can launch 3 KKVs at the same time.
Now once you started talking about the Changzhengs, you are talking about sending tons into space. How many 50kg KKVs do you think would make up a single ton? A CZ-5 does 14 tons into GEO and 25 tons into LEO.
I am not talking about the possibility of using the Long March for this. It probably isn't considered for it, at least not yet. Maybe vastly overkill for this purpose, even with the older CZs.
The concept of redundancy itself can be seriously threatened if the launch vehicle itself can carry multiple KKVs, like a ballistic missile with MIRVs.
Just as a reminder, if an article, essey, book or internetsite for that matter has mistakes in some spesific technical detail, it doesen't make not really worth reading...If you dismis the whole article, or in better words the bigger statement in the basis minor detailmistake, you end up using equally rotten logic than what I mentioned in the ballistic missilethread. Becouse this logic can essentially give you the "powers" to dishmis all facts and sources which are unsuited to your own preferences, becouse you can find mistakes from just about anything...
The article does make a few serious mistakes, and once you start making strategic and fundamental mistakes, the logic can unravel. This is not to say he has a point about the US redundancy but then everyone knows about that, and I'm pretty sure the PLA planners do, given their intelligence network and extensive ability to observe and track the skies.
I noticed one mistake he made is saying that raising the altitude of the target satellite, he said the orbital speed is slower. That's not true. The higher the orbit the greater the orbital speed. The only thing that seems slower is the object's relation to the ground, and raising the altitude will keep it a little longer within your hemisphere and line of sight. But that only makes it easier for the people on the ground to observe and track the target, but for the missile it will require additional energy to move to a higher altitude and deal with the increased orbital speed, all of whom have to be recalculated from the previous course. It only makes it look slower from the ground view, but not from the missile's view.
The article is worth reading but it has vital caveats, and one that would fool the reader if they are not a bit techno-savy.
I noticed one mistake he made is saying that raising the altitude of the target satellite, he said the orbital speed is slower. That's not true. The higher the orbit the greater the orbital speed. The only thing that seems slower is the object's relation to the ground, and raising the altitude will keep it a little longer within your hemisphere and line of sight. But that only makes it easier for the people on the ground to observe and track the target, but for the missile it will require additional energy to move to a higher altitude and deal with the increased orbital speed, all of whom have to be recalculated from the previous course. It only makes it look slower from the ground view, but not from the missile's view.
The article is worth reading but it has vital caveats, and one that would fool the reader if they are not a bit techno-savy.
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
Good point, Gollevainen. The article is quite long and makes a whole range of comments. Even if some of them are flawed (which is usually the case with any paper) then the rest are still worth considering.
juli.mafia
New Member
Hey guys i've just registered,but i don't know how to send my comments yet.I took a general view to the sinodefence.com site,and i must confess i am terribly amazed with the amount of change that has happened to the PLA.Nevertheless i feel obliged to warn chinese experts that they urgently need more third and fourth generation military hardware,especially in the seas and skies (the land forces are useless in modern warfare if you don't dominate or at least protect the skies and seas)If you are satisfied with current levels(200-300 type 99 MBT-s,14 destroyers,one aircraft carrier,one nuclear powered submarine,the ugly J-series of aircrafts,no air dominance fourth generation aircraft at all etc.,etcc.)you are in deep trouble.Let assume for example that a coalition between Japan,S.Korea,Taiwan,Australia,Canada,U.S.A. and Singapore(maybe the U.K.) is build against China.Your Airforce,Navy,and mechanized divisions(including type 99)would collapse inless than a month or two if a full scale attack occurs from this coalition.The outcome will be a prolonged guerrilla war like that of the WW2 against Japan.Aren't you ashamed of this reality.60 years of indipendence.Think out
First, welcome to the board.
Second, what you said is utter nonsense, and I don't even want to offer clarification, because I resent your ignorance.
Last edited: