“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…

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.

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.

Source: http://designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/ws-199.html

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

“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.

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

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…

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.

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.