[MB.]

I'm sure you have a good reason for conjecturing that 'even an indirect' attempt would result in the unequivocal destruction of an armored (and magnetic radiation hardened) orbital platform; ECM stands for Electronic Counter Measures. Try hitting a satellite that is 42,000 kilometers away traveling 11,000 kmh with a missile, or even 20,000 km doing 16,000 kmh.

And it would be so easy to blind or destroy all and any satellites venturing over your country using ground based lasers

Of course! because lasers are not dispersed over distance, obscured by clouds, precipitation, atmosphere, ozone... And of course! Satellites cannot be made mobile.

There is a literally a world of difference between knowing the location of an orbital platform and hitting it.

[Godstud]

The problem is that you are trying to make Igor accept that the US military is competent (actually the most powerful/advanced one in the world) and his Anti-Americanism is so great that he cannot, under any circumstances, accept even the hint of such a thing.

ECM =Jamming radar & detection equipment. It's not "cloaking". It is used very effectively. In fact, the US has used ECM so effectively that most anti-aircraft radar was blinded(Desert Storm/Iraq War) so that other aircraft could strike with impunity. This left only targeting by eye, which was very ineffective.

Lasers are only being used to "blind" satellites, not shoot them down. Even so, detecting and even tracking satellites is tricky business.

[Rilzik]

Well the satellites don't have to be over or near china for most things besides imagery from what i understand. Blinding a sensor depends on how China did it before and what kind of sensor your talking about. With a little help from Google it seems that they can blind imagery but that doesn't mean they can take out a communication satellite. In a flash point engagement satellite imagery is useless because it generally isn't real time and any non real time imagery we need, we already have. The main thing is communications and GPS which uses triangulation meaning you don't actually need to be over china, furthermore I would guess that those lasers become much less effective when shooting through the atmosphere at an angle which should provide protection from laser weapons for most satellites. I think you are overestimating the usefulness of lasers.

Hardened satellites are electronically hardened. From radiation, lasers, EM pulses and such. I don't think he meant hardened as is armor against a missile. But once we are talking about real Space trajectory ballistic missiles we have some defense against that which could be considered space defense, although it isn't a space platform or anything.

Distant orbit, just guessing is considered defense against ballistic missiles? Or at least most of them.

ECM is electronic warfare not clocking.

Actually when I was looking into the Blinding satellite thing the pentagon report never actually said that china blinded a satellite it did say that china had the technology to find and identify most satellites, a technology required for attacking satellite. To be honest after what 40 years of spy satellites I would hope that by now the US has sneaked a few up there under false pretense AND gotten away with it.

Here is a blurb from the pentagon report that sparked the whole laser/satilite thing a while ago.

Evidence exists that China is improving its situational awareness in space, which will give it the ability to track and identify most satellites. Such capability will allow for the deconfliction of Chinese satellites, and would also be required for offensive actions. At least one of the satellite attack systems appears to be a groundbased laser designed to damage or blind imaging satellites.

Lasers also can't permanently destroy sensors, so China would have to shot a satilite each time to flew over.... a Giant laser pointing straight up makes one hell of a target for a B-2.

This is a fun thread, i'm learning so much about missiles. That will be so useful in life... well it's still fun at least.

Edit: Haha I just read something that relates to this thread. Using a missile like this could technically kill more Americans in short order then Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Chinese strategists are likely mindful of the American public’s reaction and America’s subsequent response to both those attacks.

[Igor Antunov]

a Giant laser pointing straight up makes one hell of a target for a B-2.

A B-2 makes one hell of a target for a S-300, especially in the dense anti-air detection network China posesses. It's only 'invisible to radar' on paper, and you only have ~20 of them.

Try hitting a satellite that is 42,000 kilometers away traveling 11,000 kmh with a missile, or even 20,000 km doing 16,000 kmh.

It follows a predictable orbit. The toughest part is locating it, and that ain't as tough as you make it out to be.

America’s subsequent response to both those attacks.

You won't win a war in Asia. A nuclear response to losing a measly carrier is also an asinine proposition, considering you would be consigning millions of your own to death. You would lose one carrier and thats it, all other carriers kept far away from the region, anti-ship weapon has done it's job. Access denied. Your war effort negated. South korea and Japan would never get involved against China, they would get slapped hard, and without your carrier fleets in proximity, they would get slapped even harder.

Nobody has yet demonstrated a realistic answer to this weapon. I have one:

Stay Away.

The problem is that you are trying to make Igor accept that the US military is competent

Competent it is, invincible and omnipotent it is not. You are the deluded one. Keep this fantasy up and lose the next major war, that's how it's done, sheer bravado.

[Cookie Monster]

Nobody has yet demonstrated a realistic answer to this weapon. I have one:

Stay Away.

Revolution in military affairs (RMA) have been crucial in the outcome of battles. There is no absolute solution by a certain technique or a system to defeat an enemy unit. Defence developments are a cat and mouse race between offensive and defensive systems and measures. The carrier has not become absolute because of these weapons nor is it the ultimate weapon. They remain however essential instruments of power projection. And their advantage is diminishing for numerous reasons, including the increase of its vulnerability. Other reasons are diminishing economic sustainability and the potential of new markets to substitute the need for a large carrier.

[Thompson_NCL]

You won't win a war in Asia. A nuclear response to losing a measly carrier is also an asinine proposition, considering you would be consigning millions of your own to death. You would lose one carrier and thats it, all other carriers kept far away from the region, anti-ship weapon has done it's job. Access denied. Your war effort negated. South korea and Japan would never get involved against China, they would get slapped hard, and without your carrier fleets in proximity, they would get slapped even harder.

Nobody has yet demonstrated a realistic answer to this weapon. I have one:

Stay Away.

The obvious solution is to use submarine based missles systems to knock out Chinas missile systems first. Problem solved

[Piano Red]

Igor Autunov

I was looking for Typhoons input, he is fairly technical with these things. Maybe he knows more. I made this thread to talk about this weapon in more detail.

Aww....Typhoon isn't the only one on this board who knows his shit you know. I'm not spending 3 years earning a Doctorate in Defense Strategic Studies for nothing you know.

US also knew mig-25 design worked (but construed it incorrectly thinking it was something else) and the response was the F15.

Quite frankly, you're failing to convince me.

Actually...the MiG-25 was based off the A-5 Vigilante and experimental XF-108 Rapier aircraft.

The F-15 was primarily put into development to counter the problems that the US was (at that time) encountering in Vietnam, while also overcoming the evident failings that had been noted in the F-4 Phantom.

[Typhoon]

Actually...the MiG-25 was based off the A-5 Vigilante and experimental XF-108 Rapier aircraft.

Bit of controversy around that. The design was said on one hand to have resulted from a conversation between Mikoyan and Seletskiy, the former told the project designer to develop an interceptor along the lines of the A-5 using two Tumanskiy R15-300 engines. Other sources apparently say the design was penciled in before any information of the A-5 was avaliable, as priliminary work for the Ye-155 would have started with the Ye-152. Perhaps we will never know?
In any case the design would certainly have been influenced by knowledge of the A-5 during its design process and its specification was defintely guided by the performance of US supersonic bombers like the B-58 and its successors.

[Piano Red]

Bit of controversy around that. The design was said on one hand to have resulted from a conversation between Mikoyan and Seletskiy, the former told the project designer to develop an interceptor along the lines of the A-5 using two Tumanskiy R15-300 engines. Other sources apparently say the design was penciled in before any information of the A-5 was avaliable, as priliminary work for the Ye-155 would have started with the Ye-152. Perhaps we will never know?

I'm willing to hedge my bets that it was the former. Especially with other Soviet aircraft that were based on American designs that the KGB managed to steal.