Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: China Tried To Blind U.S. Sats With Laser

  1. #1
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default China Tried To Blind U.S. Sats With Laser

    China Tried To Blind U.S. Sats With Laser
    China has fired high-power lasers at U.S. spy satellites flying over its territory in what experts see as a test of Chinese ability to blind the spacecraft, according to sources.
    It remains unclear how many times a ground-based laser was tested against U.S. spacecraft or whether it was successful.

    But the combination of China’s efforts and advances in Russian satellite-jamming capabilities that illustrate vulnerabilities to the U.S. space network are driving U.S. Air Force plans to develop new space architectures and highly classified systems, according to sources.

    The hardware on the spacecraft can’t be changed after they are launched, but software changes can help them weather attacks

    Lasers of sufficient power could blind electro-optical satellites like the giant Keyhole spacecraft or even interfere with radar satellites like the Lacrosse, experts said. Blinding, one source said, is different than disabling. It requires enormous power to shoot a laser through the dense lower atmosphere and reach a fast-moving satellite in orbit.

    Russian jamming systems are publicly known. In 2003, the Air Force destroyed such a system deployed to Iraq to keep American Global Positioning System (GPS)-guided bombs from finding their targets. The site was destroyed by GPS-guided bombs.

    Pentagon officials, however, have kept quiet about China’s efforts as part of a Bush administration policy to not anger Beijing, which is a leading U.S. trading partner and seen as key to dealing with North Korea and Iran.

    Even the Pentagon’s recent China report failed to mention Beijing’s tests. Rather, after a contentious debate, the White House directed the Pentagon to limit its concern to one line. In that one line that acknowledges China has the ability to blind U.S. satellites, thanks to a powerful ground-based laser capable of firing a beam of light at an optical reconnaissance satellite to keep it from taking pictures as it passes overhead.

    According to top U.S. officials, however, China not only has the capability, but has exercised it. It is not clear when China first used lasers to attack American satellites. Sources would only say that there have been several tests over the past several years.
    “The Chinese are very strategically minded and are extremely active in this arena,” said one former senior Pentagon official. “They really believe all the stuff written in the 1980s about the high frontier and are looking at symmetrical and asymmetrical means to offset American dominance in space.”

    China’s burgeoning anti-satellite capabilities are further evidence of Beijing’s focused military strategy that aims to engage the United States asymmetrically, not directly, said to Andrew Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington.

    Krepinevich points out that China has outlined a set of capabilities it refers to as “Assassin’s Mace” to keep U.S. forces in the region at risk and away from China’s borders, and tailored to undermine U.S. advantages.

    Jamming Predictable

    U.S. service officials are not expressing alarm at efforts to counter the U.S. space advantage. They say such moves are predictable and understandable. But they are taking it seriously enough to test ground-based lasers against their own spacecraft to determine their efficacy and plan space architectures that resist such attacks.

    The problem, according to sources, is that satellites are large, have predictable orbits that are easy to track and have scant defenses against lasers.

    The United States operates three large optical reconnaissance satellites of the three-decade-old Keyhole-series by Lockheed Martin. The loss of any would hurt U.S. space capabilities, sources said, which is why they will be replaced by a large constellation of spacecraft under the Future Imagery Architecture program being executed by Boeing and Lockheed.

    Top U.S. officials, among them Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne, declined to comment on whether China has attempted to blind U.S. satellites.

    Chinese officials could not be reached for comment by press time.

    Wynne acknowledged that the Air Force’s space plans are shaped against potential foes who seek asymmetric means to harm a U.S. space network.

    The goal, Wynne said, is to minimize the impact that real-life attacks would have on U.S. space capabilities through a networked architecture that can lose nodes but keep functioning.

    Wynne stressed that more is at stake than U.S. military superiority. Signals from Air Force GPS satellites are critical to everything from airline and maritime commerce to car navigation systems.

    And unlike the 1980’s threat from Soviet anti-satellite plans, future space attacks will be limited in scope, Wynne said.

    “At the time, the Soviets were always talking about a bald-faced assault,” he said. Future “asymmetric attacks are going to be local to try to mask out our capabilities in one region. The trick to winning asymmetrical warfare is to make it irrelevant.”

    He said a new generation of GPS 3 satellites “will make further assaults and jamming efforts irrelevant.”

    Doing “space and ISR through very different means … means asking good questions,” he said. “Do 22,200-mile-high orbits make sense? Does an orbital periodicity that is well known to any adversary have any relevance today? What you really want is assured situational awareness, position location and communications capabilities.”

    Skeptics: Budget Limitations

    But analysts, executives and even officials in the Pentagon have criticized the Air Force, arguing that the service is talking a good game but falling short on execution — largely for lack of budget.

    One veteran space industry executive expressed shock at how limited the debate has been about the need to better secure U.S. spacecraft.

    The reason, executives and analysts said, is that such safeguards are complicated and expensive, and become targets when programs go over budget or fall behind schedule.
    One source said the Pentagon is so thirsty for more bandwidth to handle burgeoning communications demands that it has been short-changing security, which consumes bandwidth.

    “It’s a tradeoff,” said one industry source. “And so far, the pressure has been for capacity over security.”

    Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, said the Air Force is making poor investment choices not only in space, but also in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance programs.

    “The U.S. Air Force’s ambitious plan for fielding orbital and airborne reconnaissance systems has begun to come unhinged in the budget process from Space Radar, to missile warning to future radar planes, the whole mission area seems to be melting down,” Thompson said.

    Wynne contends that space programs are being restructured to rein in cost increases and schedule slips. Wynne also argues that the F-22 fighter’s powerful radar and electronic capabilities allow it to perform the roles of larger existing aircraft like the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, the Airborne Warning and Control System and the Rivet Joint, allowing the service to forgo investment in aircraft that are vulnerable to a new generation of powerful surface-to-air missiles.

    “I’m probably the biggest supporter of the F-22 outside the Air Force, and while it’s the best fighter ever and can do these jobs, but not as well as dedicated assets that have the ability to stay on station far longer,” Thompson said.

    “Osama bin Laden is still at large and there are known vulnerabilities to our space systems. In this environment, it’s odd that the Air Force is cutting its orbital, manned and unmanned reconnaissance assets while presenting the F-22 as a reconnaissance platform. The point is, where are we deficient, firepower or finding the enemy?”

    As for China specifically, Thompson said the country has a right to defend itself.

    “If you keep looking over the fence at you neighbor’s back yard, you’re going to get poked in the eye, so it’s not surprising that China might be worried about U.S. forces stationed on their doorstep,” Thompson said.

    “They don’t like it and are figuring out how to poke us in the eye. Now I’m no great admirer of the Chinese leadership, but how would we feel if the Chinese had their aircraft carriers off Long Island. That’s why we have to do a better job of protecting ourselves and I’m afraid that’s not what we’re doing.”

    The former Pentagon official put it more bluntly.

    “The Air Force is trying to put a happy face on this,” he said. “It’s not that they don’t know what do. It’s that they don’t have the money in their space budget. It’s that simple.”
    Another factor is requirements growth. For example, the Air Force originally envisioned the National Polar Orbiting Environmental Observation Satellite as a powerful new climate spacecraft. But departments across the government added their unique payloads, causing integration challenges and cost growth.

    The same happens on classified spacecraft as intelligence agencies pile on payloads. Then there is the challenge of ensuring that the technology on the spacecraft is the best possible given it will be in orbit for a decade or more.

    “Unlike an airplane, once you launch something into space you can’t upgrade it again, so when it comes to technology, you are often reworking your system to get the best available in there because you know that it’s going to be around for a long time once it’s in orbit,” the former official said.

    “So when people talk about cost, that’s a piece of it. It’s even harder when you’re trying to protect yourself against threats over the next 50 years.”

  2. #2
    Literary Wanderer
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,590
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts

    Default Re: China Tried To Blind U.S. Sats With Laser

    It remains unclear how many times a ground-based laser was tested against U.S. spacecraft or whether it was successful.
    Why do we not know if they were successful in their attempts to neutralize our satellites? Isn't this just a matter of checking our recorded data?

  3. #3
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: China Tried To Blind U.S. Sats With Laser

    That information wouldn't be public. It would likely be classified, I'm sure.

    We wouldn't know whether they succeeded, that way THEY won't know.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  4. #4
    Super Moderator Malsua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,020
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts

    Default Re: China Tried To Blind U.S. Sats With Laser

    Makes me wonder what type of laser they'd do this with.

    I mean, what exactly were they trying to blind? Fire a bright green laser and you'll wash out the visible optics but the infrared/UV whatever else won't be affected. I suppose they were just trying to target and see how long they could maintain a lock. Once that is known, you could determine how many mega-watts you could deliver over time and determine if it was enough to knock it out.

    The flip side of this of course, is that we now know where these lasers are. Powerful lasers simply are not portable. Sure, they can be moved, but the bigger the wattage, the run out for that goes into weeks or months.

    -Mal

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,961
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: China Tried To Blind U.S. Sats With Laser

    Quote Originally Posted by MinutemanCO View Post
    Why do we not know if they were successful in their attempts to neutralize our satellites? Isn't this just a matter of checking our recorded data?
    Sources, methods and battle damage assessment of this implied level of classification would never be revealed to the public. I doubt any leak of this data would arrive even on Bill Gertz desk.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,961
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: China Tried To Blind U.S. Sats With Laser

    Quote Originally Posted by Malsua View Post
    The flip side of this of course, is that we now know where these lasers are.
    Exactly. Target the nearest large ChiCom hydroelectric plant by any means available and no more laser.

    Defensive measures are effected by simply sending new orbital emphemeris to the spaceborne spy platforms - a new orbit every time around means the Chicoms will have severe problems acquiring their target if at all.

    This is not a problem for us to do, in fact it is quite a routine operation.

  7. #7
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default Re: China Tried To Blind U.S. Sats With Laser

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Osborne View Post
    a new orbit every time around means the Chicoms will have severe problems acquiring their target if at all.
    Maybe not that tough...

    Remember, the ChiComs acquired a space tracking station on Tarawa, and also have space tracking assets at Lourdes, Cuba and also a much more modern location in Bejucal, Cuba as well.

    They likely have other space tracking assets as well.

    ETA: They also have assets in Namibia.

    And, here is a list of China's space related facilities - GlobalSecurity.org: Chinese Space Facilities

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,961
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: China Tried To Blind U.S. Sats With Laser

    What I am saying is that by altering orbital empheris we alter orbital characteristics directly.

    Do the Chicoms know when we make the changes, what exactly we make changes to, and thereby know exactly which one of the thousands of satellites coming over the horizon at any given time is the correct one to target?

    This a proverbial needle in the celestial haystack.

    In fact... catching the ChiComs making such a shot is tantamount to an act of war. Like shooting at a ship, an aircraft or helicopter, any US military hardware asset. They open themselves to far superior retaliatory effects of our own.

  9. #9
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default Re: China Tried To Blind U.S. Sats With Laser

    China Jamming Test Sparks U.S. Satellite Concerns
    China has beamed a ground-based laser at U.S. spy satellites over its territory, a U.S. agency said, in an action that exposed the potential vulnerability of space systems that provide crucial data to American troops and consumers around the world.

    The Defense Department remains tight-lipped about details, including which satellite was involved or when it occurred.

    The Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office Director Donald Kerr last week acknowledged the incident, first reported by Defense News, but said it did not materially damage the U.S. satellite's ability to collect information.

    "It makes us think," Kerr told reporters.

    The issue looms large, given that U.S. military operations have rapidly grown more reliant on satellite data for everything from targeting bombs to relaying communications to spying on enemy nations.

    Critical U.S. space assets include a constellation of 30 Global Positioning Satellites that help target bombs and find enemy locations. This system is also widely used in commercial applications, ranging from car navigation systems to automatic teller machines.

    The Pentagon also depends on communications satellites that relay sensitive messages to battlefield commanders, and satellites that track weather in critical areas so U.S. troops can plan their missions.

    "Space is a much bigger part of our military posture than it used to be, so any effort by the Chinese or anybody else to jam our satellites is potentially a big deal," said Loren Thompson, defense analyst with the Virginia-based Lexington Institute.

    Fresh Concerns

    Clearly, the incident sparked fresh concerns among U.S. officials and watchdog groups about the U.S. ability to determine if satellite problems are caused by malfunctions, weather anomalies like solar flares, or targeted attacks.

    Air Force Space Commander Gen. Kevin Chilton said it was often difficult to know exactly what happened to satellites orbiting from 125 to 22,400 miles above the earth.

    "We're at a point where the technology's out there and the capability for people to do things to our satellites is there. I'm focused on it beyond any single event," Chilton said.

    Satellites are also vulnerable to man-made and natural events affecting their ground stations and the links between the station and the satellite, he told reporters last week.

    Theresa Hitchens of the Center for Defense Information cautioned against jumping to conclusions about the Chinese incident.

    Beijing may have been testing its capability to track satellites, not damage them, Hitchens said. "We don't know their intent, and we don't have the capability to know."

    Hitchens also noted current technology made it difficult to identify anything smaller than a baseball in the orbits where spy satellites fly, a capability that needed to be improved.

    At the same time, she said, the Pentagon would be prudent to use lower-cost and lower-risk systems closer to earth to do some critical tasks like surveillance and communications.

    Anti-Satellite Weapons?

    Hitchens also emphasized that it would be extremely difficult to disable a satellite with a laser -- and even U.S. scientists had not developed a system to do that.

    But there is growing concern among lawmakers about U.S. efforts to develop such anti-satellite weapons.

    House of Representatives lawmakers tried to block a planned test of Starfire, a satellite and star tracking program, for fiscal 2007 after learning it could also be used as an anti-satellite weapon. The funds were reinstated only after the Air Force assured lawmakers it would be used only for tracking.

    The Chinese incident also underscored the need to develop an international code of conduct for space. Currently, there are no specific rules or treaties governing behavior of the 40 countries that operate satellites, and about a dozen countries that have launch capability, Hitchens said.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •