Ukraine who don't have experience with anti-ship missiles easily sunk a Russian flagship. does this call into question the effectiveness of defense systems on a ship?
Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
- Status
Understandably, you must have not used a satellite communication terminal or debugged a TV satellite dish. Satellite star tuning is a very torturous job, your antenna angle slightly off, the signal will be weakened to unacceptable. RF pointing is certainly not as strong as laser, but 100W radio waves transmitted to the satellite 340 km away from the Earth, the equivalent of the maximum power of cell phones less than 0.03W, so the power must be very focused. Even if your roaming ammunition can really detect the signal, it will only be easier to fool it.
No, this is just your own illusion.
For targeting purposes the signal strength at the satellite is not what is important, it is signal strength at ground that's important. Anti radiation munitions do not see the satellite received power, they see the ground transmitter power.
From the inverse square law the signal strength at 10 km is ~900x stronger than the signal strength at 300 km. Even for typical radio sidelobe strength of -10 dB that's still much more signal to work with than the satellite. And if there's drone overflight whose to say that the main lobe won't be detected?
Tuning a satellite TV antenna is totally different. Most TV satellites are one way broadcast transmitters, and there's very few of them so keeping them within line of sight is hard for average users who can't see exactly where the satellite.
Is that the lesson you learned from Ukraine war? The lesson from Ukraine is don't go to war unless you are willing to smash enemy into ashes/rubbles. None of this 'brotherly war' bullshit we see from Putin, go all out, or stay at home. You cannot expect the enemy to sue for peace and quickly negotiate/collapse esp. if they are US-backed with weapons/intelligence.
Postwar reconciliation is important. So there still should be mercy and the utmost care for civilians. However, civilian is a tricky term. It has to be defined carefully.
Is an ISIS radio operator giving military coordinates, a civilian? No. Ok, then an inexperienced Taiwanese artillery observer out of uniform, transmitting coordinates via phone or Starlink, is also not a civilian.
Is a Taliban propaganda video editor filming ambushes and executions, a civilian? No. Then a Taiwanese propaganda mouthpiece is also not a civilian.
US designated Serbian TV stations as legitimate targets in Kosovo. A TV station is a 1 way broadcast transmitter in a single transmission format (analog or digital TV). It has no power to affect military operations or receive commands. The TV station was not regarded as civilian despite having nothing to do with the Serbian military.
Starlink is a 2 way transceiver. It can be used to both issue and receive commands. It can transmit data including but not limited to TV signals. It is more versatile than a Serbian TV stations. Is this truly "civilian"?
As you see, many things only appear to be civilian on the surface but are actually military in nature.
You've got mountains in Taiwan, some of which are almost 4000m high.
That will cast a radar shadow that will block the surface and low altitudes
How has this tread turn into a StarLink discussion thread? The goal of suppressing communication is not to eliminate it, which is impossible, but to deny Taiwan the ability to manipulate information as Ukraine successfully did. StarLink or not makes no difference.
Last edited:
Some people think that Starlink nameplate specs are holy grail that means whoever uses it has invincible full internet access. Just gotta debunk.
Alternatively. They could just knock out all the power stations. Vast majority of people don’t have backup power.
Don’t necessarily have to stop information getting in and out of Taiwan. They could just slow the speed of communication among the people.
- Status