The British newspaper The Telegraph has published a series of diplomatic cables regarding the US, China, and ASAT tests obtained from WikiLeaks. The cables cover US responses to China’s 2007 ASAT test and China’s reaction to the US intercept of a wayward satellite that was widely perceived as a US response to the Chinese test. For example, a January 2008 cable to US embassies in various allied countries asks for those countries’ “assistance in demarching China” regarding its ASAT test a year earlier. A February 2008 cable from the US Embassy in Beijing covers the Chinese reaction to the US intercept of USA 193, including a request from an official in China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to be notified “on the result of the satellite-intercept prior to it being reported by CNN.” A June 2008 cable covers a meeting between Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security John Rood and Chinese officials where the topics of ASAT tests and treaties that would ban weapons in outer space were discussed. And a January 2010 cable addresses a Chinese missile intercept test that month, which the US argued also supported Chinese ASAT technologies.
The Telegraph article plays up the potential for conflict between the US and China, claiming that the US “privately warned Beijing it would face military action if it did not desist.” That appears to be a reference to a passage in the January 2008 cable that contained a demarche to China where the US stated, “The United States reserves the right, consistent with the UN Charter and international law, to defend and protect its space systems with a wide range of options, from diplomatic to military.” That language, though, is consistent with the national space policy of 2006, which stated that US would “take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities”, among other steps.
With their ASAT test of 2007 China increased the amount of orbital debris by 20%, at an altitude and inclination that will remain a persistent threat to human spaceflight, particularly the ISS. This was a horrendous and warlike act. Not what one would expect from our ‘space partners’. The US response was impressive. The Navy took down a satellite on short notice from a ship with a missile from the standard inventory. Because it was a low altitude strike generated no long lived orbital debris.
“Wind” has defied Col Flagg on this one..he comes pretty close to the mark.
The Chinese test was in many respects as clumsy as the US test on Solwind…but the response with the AEGIS system was quite well done.
The USN is methodically working its way toward an operational (nearly world wide) capability to intercept LEO satellites and as a consequence to deal with boost phase missile intercept. This progress has continued under The Obama administration…and is sending the correct “tat” for the “tit” of the Chinese test.
However where I disagree with Wind (and seemingly a lot of the cables) is that the Chinese test was in my view from a arms control standpoint very stabilizing. We all may be “chums” now but the notion of MAD still works as things go on more and more countries are going to get the ability to do sometype of “sat spy” system…and while we wish it were not so, the ability to take those satellites out in a mutual conventional way…is a good thing.
One other item…the Lake Erie is hardly a Standard AEGIS cruiser, she is one of the AEGIS test ships…and the missile was modified somewhat from a standard warshot.
Robert G. Oler
so just to show the chinese how stupid it was to create space debris by shooting a satellite, we shoot down a satellite?
Was operation fishbowl a horrenous warlike act?
so just to show the chinese how stupid it was to create space debris by shooting a satellite, we shoot down a satellite?
Flush out your headgear, comrade. The altitude of the target made all of the difference. Chunks of the Chinese satellite target will remain a persistent threat to HSF and polar orbiting satellites for decades. None of the debris of the US strike remains. The US shot a derelict NRO satellite at an altitude a little more than 100 miles. The orbits of fragments decayed in months. Got it? We didn’t show the Chinese.
“Wind†has defied Col Flagg on this one..he comes pretty close to the mark.
(After Hawkeye suggests using nuclear weapons in a search for the missing Major Houlihan)
“Don’t try to make friends with me.”
In order to show the Chinese how stupid it was to create space debris by shooting down a satellite (and for several other reasons), the United States Navy shot down a satellite in a manner that ensured little or no space debris was created.
Antisatellite weapons, and antisatellite weapons tests, are likely to be a fact of life going forward. Antisatellite weapons tests that create large quantities of long-lived orbital debris, I’m not sure I would go as far as “horrendous warlike act”, but certainly “grossly negligent act”.
Was operation fishbowl a horrenous warlike act?
In today’s paradigm, quite possibly.
But one has to look at Operation Fishbowl through the lens of the Cold War, which was at a glance better than testing those missiles over Moscow.
I think the Chinese were just testing to see just “what would happen” and were quite surprised at the amount of debris the test caused.
We took out a sat that was going to re-enter the atmosphere anyways, but was going to leave large chunks that could’ve caused damage to civilian populations.
So the Chinese showed us theirs, and we showed them ours. Our penile units are still longer.
> so just to show the chinese how stupid it was to create space debris by shooting a satellite, we shoot down a satellite?
While I tend to think that the intercept of USA-193 was ill-advised, it occurred at such a low altitude (248 km) that the debris reentered quickly. The Chinese target was considerably higher and the debris will be around for many years.
From looking at the leaked cables a bit, they just show us that the writers knew as little about the two events as most of the rest of us. Possibly they were reacting to reading the poorly informed speculation in the newspapers?
First, of course Windy is way off. The Navy operation required a LOT of preparation, software changes, careful tracking, and rehearsal. This is not something that could be quickly done on any satellite that can “maneuver” or change it’s orbit, as almost all low altitude intel satellites can. Had the (dead) US satellite been making even small orbital changes – we could have positioned a fleet of ships out in the Pacific and not been able to hit it. Had it not been very low – we might not have hit it even with the special preparations we went thru. Imagine shooting a rifle thru a long steel pipe and trying to hit a moving target, if that target moves a bit you will have no chance of hitting it.
OK – certainly this is not the place to quantifiably compare the two events. For the best comparison – James Oberg has a well researched effort. Just do a search for his site and read the best analysis you will find anywhere. too bad he does not stop by this site
And what was Vladislaw talking about – can’t he use Wikipedia and so find out that Operation Fishbowl was an early series of nuclear tests?
And why does my neighbor, Mr Oler, reach back into the past and mention Solwind? As little as I like anti-satellite weapons, at least the US anti-satellite test that destroyed SOLWIND was a neat demonstration of technology. That system would have been far more responsive and mobile than the Chinese test, that depends on a fixed (and very thin skinned) launch site.
Imagine shooting a rifle thru a long steel pipe and trying to hit a moving target, if that target moves a bit you will have no chance of hitting it.
A silly comparison that Ted Kennedy used to make 30 years ago. A bullet is not actively guided all the way to impact. That fact was lost on the ‘Old Sot’, and it appears to be lost on you. It is likely a maneuvering satellite can be hit just as easily. It depends on how fast they can accelerate. Satellites don’t maneuver quickly, and they can’t do it for long.
A stealth satellite with minimal thermal signature is another matter. Rumor is they are being tested by the NRO.
“And what was Vladislaw talking about – can’t he use Wikipedia and so find out that Operation Fishbowl was an early series of nuclear tests”
The topic was the creation of space debris, starfish prime, under operation fishbowl damaged 3 satellites, causing more space debris.
The point I was trying to make was, if America is going to create a capability and conduct tests that create space debris, it is silly to then try and take the high ground when another country tries to copy the capabilities we created for ourselves.
If we do not want others to create a capability, the one sure way to make sure they do is to go ahead and create that capablity for ourselves.
I do not suffer the delusion that only America can have capabilites and then try to police the planet so other countries do not copy us. Of course I want America to have the best weapons technology, but there is a price we have to pay for it, other countries will do everything in their power to obtain that capability and we lose any moral highground we may have when we tell other countries they are not allowed to develop what we already have.
“Don’t try to make friends with me.â€
No one is trying to make friends with you. Just being honest enough to point out when you say something with a factual basis followed by a logical conclusion. There is a brain there when you’re not practicing Orwellian double-speak.
“… the Chinese test, that depends on a fixed (and very thin skinned) launch site.”
China used an “SC-19″, a version of its _mobile_ Dong Feng-21 ICBM that employs a KT-series upper stage, to destroy its Fengyun-1C weather satellite. It was not a launch from a fixed installation, and it’s unclear who knew what and had given what clearances in the Chinese hierarchy when the test occurred.
FWIW…
> That system would have been far more responsive and mobile than the Chinese test, that depends on a fixed (and very thin skinned) launch site.
If, as the current lore has it, the SC-19 ABM/ASAT is based on the DF-21, then it’s probably mobile. How long it would take to set up once it arrived at a firing position I don’t know, but suspect it wouldn’t be more than a few hours, possibly significantly less.
To address a good point that Major Tom and the venerable Allen Thompson brought up: yes it sounds like the Chinese used a version of a rocket that has other versions that are mobile. So potentially their ASAT could be made mobile, if operational. We do not know (anyone, anyone??) if the version used was the mobile (potentially lighter??) version. Did it have a heavy terminal intercept stage??
My point is that the most important control to the launch is a very accurate idea of the probable intercept point. If the launcher was to roll out and prepare to set up, it would have to know very precisely the plane of the target, etc etc. I did a lot of calculations (while an orbital analyst) for the US interceptor (it could take off from many points) and it had to be very careful to launch from the intercept plane. Though since it was fired from an aircraft, that had some ability to fly to the right release point. Also that is orbital plane and not air plane, for some of our readers.
If the target maneuvered, even a short time before intercept, the interceptor would be outside of it’s capabilities. Complicating the intercept is that the target could go higher or (somewhat) lower, or change argument of perigee.
“My point is that the most important control to the launch is a very accurate idea of the probable intercept point. If the launcher was to roll out and prepare to set up, it would have to know very precisely the plane of the target…”
In the case of Fengyun-1C’s destruction, China certainly did know the orbit precisely. That satellite was launched into a sun-synchronous 870km, 98.8-deg. orbit.
“If the target maneuvered, even a short time before intercept, the interceptor would be outside of it’s capabilities. Complicating the intercept is that the target could go higher or (somewhat) lower, or change argument of perigee.”
There are several known versions of the KT upper stage designed to engage targets up to 1000km in altitude, including polar orbits. If Fengyun-1C had taken “evasive action”, the interceptor’s propulsion system would have had some spare dV to handle it. This would have been even more true of satellites with orbits in lower altitudes and/or inclinations. (Fengyun-1C appears to have been an ideal test target near the limits of known KT abilities.)
Although the KT propulsion could have handled some additional maneuvers, whether the KT’s GN&C system would have required such a delta to be programmed in before launch or whether the system could handle such a delta after launch, I don’t know.
FWIW…
it had to be very careful to launch from the intercept plane.
That’s an interesting point. While the Lake Erie did position itself in the plane of USA-193, the Xichang launch center was somewhat to the east of the Fenyung-1C plane. I suppose that’s consistent with the idea that the SC-19 is an ABM as well as an ASAT: ABMs don’t get to be as choosy as they might like.
http://celestrak.com/events/USA-193/engagement.gif
http://www.agi.com/downloads/events/2007-agi-user-exchange/Chinese_ASAT_Analysis_CSSI.pdf
a stale breeze wrote:
“The altitude of the target made all of the difference. Chunks of the Chinese satellite target will remain a persistent threat to HSF and polar orbiting satellites for decades. None of the debris of the US strike remains.”
Yes it does and our first successful test was a lot higher then our last test.
“successful interception was on September 13, 1985. The F-15 took off from Edwards Air Force Base, climbed to 80000 feet (24,384 m) and vertically launched the missile at the Solwind P78-1, a US gamma ray spectroscopy satellite orbiting at 555 km (345 mi), which was launched in 1979.”
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Anti-satellite_weapon
My point remains, it is pointless to get bent out of shape when another country tries to gain the same capabilities we already have.
CharlesHouston wrote @ February 3rd, 2011 at 12:08 pm
And why does my neighbor, Mr Oler, reach back into the past and mention Solwind? As little as I like anti-satellite weapons, at least the US anti-satellite test that destroyed SOLWIND was a neat demonstration of technology.
my reply
A few points.
First the USAF test was not in my view very impressive. The USAF has tried things like this for a long time. The earliest test was using a RASCAL missile launched from a B-47 to try and itnercept Explorer (I think) 7…my next door neighbor flew the Boeing.
The AEGIS while far from operational could be very quick and when it is it is almost a self contained launch system. The USAF version was very limited in its engagement arc and had to have a lot of ground power meaning ground tracking assets. It doesnt take to much of a genius to figure out that the AEGIS radar can be land based and so can the missiles.
SEcond, the notion that one can just …move… a satellite a bit while true is not very helpful. No US satellite that I am aware of carries its own survellance system for self protection and detection and hence to move needs ground based assets to detect the launch of an ASAT and then issue move order.
I am told and beleive that movements of real time assets have been war gamed based on the DSP data from the Chinese test …ie how long to figure out what the target is, and get movement orders upto the target…and those results were not all that happy.
ASAT weapons are the typical MAD stuff and I dont get all that concerned over the Mutual development of those projects. The exchange of test between us and the PRC was sort of tit for tat that is common.
I’ve been pretty busy but the stuff I have read from wiki leaks seems to me to be a pretty low grade ‘we are angry’ attempt.
stay warm. Robert G. Oler
There were two tests as part of WS-199 (Bold Orion/High Virgo). The missiles were modified Sergeants. The target for the first one (bold Orion launched by B-47) was Explorer 6. The High Virgo test (launched by B-58) was Explorer 4.
Source: http://designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/ws-199.html
The Telegraph seems to have missed a few relevant cables.
Cable 10PARIS#0170 details a talk between French defense minister Morin and US Secdef Gates. In it, Gates touts the Aegis SM-3 system used to shoot down USA 193 as an example of how missile defense systems can have a broader application:
“Responding to SecDef’s discussion of MD, Morin asked why there was a need to shift from theater to population defense. SecDef said the systems the U.S. was deploying have broader applications. For example the THAAD system, which the U.S. had deployed to Hawaii as a measure against North Korean threat, protects both the theater and the population. Gates offered the Aegis ship-borne SM-3, which was used to shoot down a defunct satellite, as a second example of a system that could also have broader applications and deter Iran from holding us hostage by threatening missile launches”
This should be seen in connection to the discussion in another cable, 09STATE#097244.
This cable discusses how the US is hawking the Aegis SM-3 to allied states as the preferred choice for missile defense, this being part of a pronounced shift from earlier Missile Shield proposals (heavily opposed by Russia) to a new initiative in which the Aegis SM-3 features prominently.
So yes: this was a technology demonstration, and a mere 2 years later Gates was indeed using it to tout the extended capabilities of the SM-3.
“it had to be very careful to launch from the intercept plane.”
They had the luxury of placing themselves in the plane of the satellite because SM-3 operates off of a mobile platform. That doesn’t mean that they are incapable of making an intercept from away from the plane of the satellite – I don’t think we can infer that from the available data. Also remember that much more capable versions of SM-3 are in the pipeline so, regardless of what they are capable of today, they are likely to be capable of more in the future.
“ABMs don’t get to be as choosy as they might like.”
It is arguable that any mid-course ABM system is inherently capable of being an ASAT system. The altitudes and velocities are only mildly different between ICBM RVs and LEO satellites. In most other respects, ASATs have an easier job because they can plan the engagement, deal with larger and softer targets, and generally don’t have to deal with decoys and multiple simultaneous targets. An ASAT system can also wait a day and try again if the first attempt fails. By this logic, the Naval SM-3, GBI, and the forthcoming land base SM-3 all are probably capable of acting as ASATs.
ABL is also probably capable of acting as an ASAT. A laser is designed to cause structural failure in missiles at a range of a couple of hundred km should be capable of burning out the sensors and damaging the solar arrays and antennas on a much softer satellite at a much greater range. This would probably be a much cleaner ASAT than a kinetic kill vehicle.
The US has plenty of ways of disabling satellites. What it lacks is the ability to repopulate it’s own constellations quickly.
@ Rhyolite wrote @ February 6th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
“This would probably be a much cleaner ASAT than a kinetic kill vehicle.”
And a lot more stealthy… You can never tell what those solar events will do to a satellite…