US Intelligence believes China tested anti-sat Weapon

I find it funny that people claim this did not happen. You cannot hide a test such as this, especially from the US. There can be no mistake with all the sensors and technology available to the military. China is not denying it either, no P/R here, just a Chinese test.

I also agree that this does not really "surprise" me nor do I consider it a technological leap. Considering the circumstances of the test I am shocked they had three failures prior to this kill.

As for that US satellite, that is a communications problem, it's not like the Satellite is no longer there. It is not unprecedented or "lost" per se, they may still get it back online.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I am shocked they had three failures prior to this kill.

?. which three failures

Three Failures of the KT-2?

Its not a major technological feat..
Any of the Space faring nations can do this IMO.
If you can put a payload in an orbital window that is quite precise then you can take one out too.
All satellite-capable nations can do this.Whether someone was going to go all out and actually do it is now not a doubt anymore.

I fear this will force other nations(not the US only) to resume/initiate similar programs or defences against the same.
I see Japan, India and Russia definitely doing something in response to this besides the US. All 3(and the US) use hi-res sat photo recon on China, this is a major statement to all of them.
Was it a direct kinetic kill or a proximty explosion. A direct kinetic kill on a 4x4 ft object at an altitude 530 miles would indeed need to be precise.

Of course it's not any leap in terms of technology, as the US did it decades ago by lauching an ASAT missile from a F-15 jet.

however,it does possess a threat, as the US military heavily rely on the space infrastracture today, just imagine the US military loose fancy stuff such as JDAM

this time they used a medium range ballistic missile in a 'test', which means later they could deploy hundreds mobile launchers, very low costs, very high earnings, yumyum.

Its not a major technological feat..

It is actually a first as far as I know.

The US ASAT system used an F-15 to launch, giving a lot more flexibility regarding flight paths & interception angles. From what I've been reading, this is the first time a ground based interceptor has knocked out a satellite in orbit.

the satellite wasa actually moved into an orbit which would make the intercept very easy. A foe would not be so accomodating.
The US could achive the same feat with their NMD interceptor mounted on a Minuteman, with far fr more accuracy.

Originally posted by rogue1
the satellite wasa actually moved into an orbit which would make the intercept very easy.

Moved into an orbit?, from all reports i read it was stationed in the same orbit

The US could achive the same feat with their NMD interceptor mounted on a Minuteman, with far fr more accuracy.

According to who?

And your claim about far more accuracy, the released data only tells us about a ageing weather satellite being destroyed by a chinese ASAT and not its capability, so where is this YOUR making coming from?

As long as satellites are used for military purposes, then they will be a military target, no matter what country it is. I'm not sure how you can convince anyone to not send missiles or lasers into space if their country is being attacked and satellites are used to help in those attacks.

The thing that bothers me is the way China is so slick and deceptive about their actions and then rolls into a ball and says "China only sees peaceful uses for space". C'mon stop the bull----. Just grow up and be up front about it, you pulled a North Korea and did what you did until it was successful and you'll do it again and play the same game. I really enjoy the Chinese people, but their government keeps playing this game of innocence, while it acts like a thief in the dark.

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by rogue1
the satellite wasa actually moved into an orbit which would make the intercept very easy.

Moved into an orbit?, from all reports i read it was stationed in the same orbit

LOl, you didn't read any reports that said that.

Now, Beijing seems to have cheated just a bit in this test, Oberg observes.

The last orbital data released by NORAD seem to show one end of the [Chinese target] satellite's orbit being raised by about 20 miles (32 kilometers). Such tweaking is characteristic of a satellite lining up its orbital path for a rendezvous with a ground-launched visitor. The international space station does this in preparation for Russian spacecraft visits.

In fact, the reason the U.S. Air Force chose the air-launched anti-satellite system is that it does not have to have its target line up with a ground-based missile pad. Naturally, a real target in the real world would never make such a helpful maneuver.

Without the target’s maneuver to make itself easier to kill, a ground-based shot would likely have to be made from the side — or “out of plane,” in space navigation parlance. With such a geometry, the final approach for physical contact occurs under much higher rates of angular change, making terminal guidance much more difficult. It can be done, but with less reliability.

www.defensetech.org...

The US could achive the same feat with their NMD interceptor mounted on a Minuteman, with far fr more accuracy.

According to who?

And your claim about far more accuracy, the released data only tells us about a ageing weather satellite being destroyed by a chinese ASAT and not its capability, so where is this YOUR making coming from?

LOl the release data tells us that they set up the test and made it far easier than what they could expect attacking an enemies satellites.

Teh US demostrated this capability 20 years ago adn teh intercptor of the NMD is designed to itercept far harder ICBM RV targets. If it was put on an ICBM it would have the range necessary to attack satellites.

Originally posted by Atomic
As long as satellites are used for military purposes, then they will be a military target, no matter what country it is. I'm not sure how you can convince anyone to not send missiles or lasers into space if their country is being attacked and satellites are used to help in those attacks.

The thing that bothers me is the way China is so slick and deceptive about their actions and then rolls into a ball and says "China only sees peaceful uses for space". C'mon stop the bull----. Just grow up and be up front about it, you pulled a North Korea and did what you did until it was successful and you'll do it again and play the same game. I really enjoy the Chinese people, but their government keeps playing this game of innocence, while it acts like a thief in the dark.

That IS a civilization being over 5000 years long, so you will and should learn more and much more!

Originally posted by Atomic
As long as satellites are used for military purposes, then they will be a military target, no matter what country it is. I'm not sure how you can convince anyone to not send missiles or lasers into space if their country is being attacked and satellites are used to help in those attacks.

The thing that bothers me is the way China is so slick and deceptive about their actions and then rolls into a ball and says "China only sees peaceful uses for space". C'mon stop the bull----. Just grow up and be up front about it, you pulled a North Korea and did what you did until it was successful and you'll do it again and play the same game. I really enjoy the Chinese people, but their government keeps playing this game of innocence, while it acts like a thief in the dark.

that is a civilization being over 5000 years long, so you'll and should learn more and much more

Originally posted by chinawhite
?. which three failures

Three Failures of the KT-2?

According to US intelligence the Chinese have previously tried at least three or four times to accomplish this feat but this was the first and only successful intercept.

I'm shocked that they missed because they knew the trajectory, could track it via signals it's sending, modified it's flight path to make intercept easier, and they flew it almost directly above the missile site.

I may be wrong, but wouldn't the 2006 Ground Base Midcourse Defense (the one launched from Vandenberg) system in which an interceptor destroyed an ICBM be a more difficult task?

They did it for peaceful purposes!

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Funny how the "it was all made up by U.S. propaganda" posters disappeared.

Originally posted by aaaaa
They did it for peaceful purposes!

Not criticising your post, aaaaa, but...

Yup...they blew up their own satellite just 'for the heck of it' and it's all for the benefit of mankind.



Not.

What if everybody started 'blowing stuff in orbit' up? It's already getting to be a junkpile up there and a real hazard for any vehicle entering orbit (or beyond).

China Criticized for Anti-Satellite Missile Test


"The U.S. believes China's development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said yesterday. "We and other countries have expressed our concern regarding this action to the Chinese."


-snip-

In addition to introducing a renewed military dimension to space, the destruction of the Chinese satellite created a large "debris cloud" that can seriously damage other satellites in nearby orbit, and possibly even spacecraft on their way to the moon or beyond. Analysts said that based on computer models, as many as 300,000 pieces of debris may have been created. While many would be very small, they said, hundreds would be large enough to create potentially serious problems.

The United States and the Soviet Union tested anti-satellite technology in the 1980s, and the United States shot down one of its orbiting satellites in 1985. Partially as a result of the debris problem, both sides stopped the programs.

Washington Post story

Oh, yeah...it blowed up real good.

Short-sighted. For a country that claims to be interested in putting humans in space, they are certainly doing every thing they can to make it dangerous for exploration of space. All for a chip at a negotiating table. Karl Marx would be proud of his comrades in China.


[edit on 20-1-2007 by XBadger]

Originally posted by XBadger
I may be wrong, but wouldn't the 2006 Ground Base Midcourse Defense (the one launched from Vandenberg) system in which an interceptor destroyed an ICBM be a more difficult task?

Yes it is a more difficult task, no other nation has demonstrated such a capability, we use hit to kill, not proximity via a conventional or nuclear explosion. We have to target enemy warheads which are much more smaller than an SUV size satellite. Not to mention the decoys, non orbital/maneuvering flight path etc... Our GBI missiles and their kinetic kill vehicles can potentially 'kill' satellites and they would not need major modifications to do that.

It seems to me I read somewhere that the US had an Anti-Satellite weapon operational (and later dismanteled) in the 1960's before the one that was launched from an F-15. Based on some island in the Pacific, it possibly was nuclear, but that is all I remember. (the mind is a terrible thing to lose)

Originally posted by XBadger
Short-sighted. For a country that claims to be interested in putting humans in space, they are certainly doing every thing they can to make it dangerous for exploration of space. All for a chip at a negotiating table. Karl Marx would be proud of his comrades in China.


[edit on 20-1-2007 by XBadger]

Karl Marx can also thank his ideological descendents in the Clintons for their contribution to Chinese space tech. Slick Willies "legacy" is yet to be fully understood or realized.

Masqua, Irony, man mod, irony.

Of coarse they did not do it for peaceful purposes, that's just what they claimed in the article linked.

They did it to badger and intimidate other countries, and I agree that it was probably a miscalculation on their part akin to Kim's testing nukes.

But they may think otherwise. They are, after all, inscrutable.