Space War - USA claims superiority

The USA continues its massive effort towards dominating the weapons based space plan. Some strange ideas for weapons are also listed, metals rods? Strange indeed......

========================================
www.wired.com...

excerps:
The American military has begun planning for combat in space, an Air Force report reveals. And commercial spacecraft, neutral countries' launching pads -- even weather satellites -- are all on the potential target list.

"Air Force Doctrine Document 2-2.1: Counterspace Operations" is an apparent first cut at detailing how U.S. forces might take out an enemy's space capabilities -- and protect America's eyes and ears in orbit. Signed by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper, the unclassified report sketches out who would be in command during a space fight, what American weapons would be used and which targets might be attacked.

"The Air Force is advancing a pawn in the game," he said. "They have a goal that they've wanted to do for a long time -- they want to do warfare in space. This is a way to put it out there, and see if anybody slaps it down."

Earlier this year, the service released a "Transformation Flight Plan," discussing plans for outlandish, orbiting weapons, including giant metal rods that would be sent crashing earthward from above the skies.

Here's a list of some of the planned and ongoing space weapons
Rods
Lasers
Space Planes
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
see more on these weapons below

========================================

'Rods from God'


In April, within 15 minutes of receiving a report that Saddam Hussein had entered a restaurant in Baghdad, a B-1B bomber dropped four 2,000-pound satellite-guided bombs on the place.

It now appears Saddam slipped out of the building by a secret exit. But if one space-based weapon now being researched had been orbiting above Iraq -- and had worked as envisioned -- Saddam almost certainly wouldn't have got away.

Colloquially called "Rods from God," this weapon would consist of orbiting platforms stocked with tungsten rods perhaps 20 feet long and one foot in diameter that could be satellite-guided to targets anywhere on Earth within minutes. Accurate within about 25 feet, they would strike at speeds upwards of 12,000 feet per second, enough to destroy even hardened bunkers several stories underground.

No explosives would be needed. The speed and weight of the rods would lend them all the force they need.

This principle was applied in Iraq to destroy tanks that Saddam's forces shielded near mosques, schools or hospitals. U.S. aviators used concrete practice bombs.

Jerry Pournelle, a science writer and chairman of the Citizens Advisory Council on National Space Policy, came up with the idea, which he originally named "Thor" after the Norse god of thunder. The Pentagon won't say how far along the project, or variants of the idea, may be in development.


Space planes


Closer to operational readiness is a hypersonic bomber which could attack nearly any target in the world within four hours from bases in the United States.

The FALCON (an acronym for Force Application and Launch from the Continental United States) would be sent into the upper atmosphere by a boost vehicle and cruise at an altitude of 100,000 feet at speeds up to 12 times the speed of sound. The first flight demonstration is scheduled for 2006.

Besides being able to engage a target faster than conventional bombers, the FALCON would be virtually invulnerable. No fighter aircraft or anti-aircraft missile could fly as high, and at Mach 12, the FALCON could outrun antiaircraft missiles. No foreign bases would be needed because the FALCON's range and speed would allow it to be based on U.S. soil.

Air Force Space Command in Colorado Springs is already thinking about a follow-on to FALCON -- a genuine space plane that would fly even higher and faster, stay up longer and carry more weapons.

"Once a target is identified, the space plane can respond from the U.S. and strike worldwide targets in under an hour," SpaceCom researchers said in a white paper last year.

A key advantage of a space plane, the writers said, is its weapons could enter the atmosphere over a target, so there would be no need to seek overflight permission from other countries. "Technology exists today to create this capability and evolve it now," they wrote.


Space lasers


The Air Force soon will begin integrated testing of its first Airborne Laser. If it proves reliable, it could be deployed in three or four years.

Housed in a modified Boeing 747, the airborne laser is designed to cruise at 40,000 feet and engage tactical ballistic missiles like the Scud shortly after liftoff. If a missile is lazed for 3 to 5 seconds, its oxidizer or fuel tank would explode, destroying the missile and spreading debris over the launch site.

Lasers that work in the atmosphere would work even better in space. Air refracts and weakens laser beams, and a great deal of power is required to punch through it.

President Ronald Reagan conceived of space-based lasers as a key element of his "Star Wars" defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles, but they have proved difficult to develop because of the need to push their heavy power sources into orbit.

Besides destroying enemy ICBMs, space-based lasers would also be designed to disrupt or destroy enemy satellites and knock out high- flying enemy aircraft or cruise missiles.

Satellite killers, 'bodyguards'

The Air Force has plans for a variety of weapons to protect U.S. satellites, and to destroy or disable enemy satellites. They are known collectively as anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons. Some would be based in space. Others would be on the ground, on ships, or mounted on airplanes. Some would be directed energy weapons (lasers or high-powered microwaves). Some would have explosive warheads, and some would destroy a target by running into it.

An ASAT weapon that could be used for both defense and offense is described in an Air Force 2025 study. "Satellite bodyguards" would consist of approximately five satellites placed in close proximity to the satellite being protected. Some would be decoys. Others would be "hunter-killers," armed with directed energy weapons to blind or destroy enemy ASAT weapons. The "hunter-killer" satellites would be designed to detect space-based threats themselves and receive warnings from Earth.


Unmanned aerial vehicles


The Air Force is working on a family of "long loiter" Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): one for reconnaissance, another to strike targets and a "mother ship" -- a UAV itself -- which would deploy and recover smaller combat vehicles. The "mother ship" would store solar energy and transfer it to vehicles.

The "Strike" UAV would be able to loiter over a target for 24 hours or more. It would carry missiles and bombs for precision strikes on ground targets but would have only limited air-to-air capability.

The more ambitious "Uninhabited Combat Aerial Vehicle" could be used either for reconnaissance or attack. It would contain "multispectral" sensors -- optical, infrared, laser, radar, etc. -- and a variety of precision-guided weapons to attack ground targets. This vehicle also could jam enemy transmissions and protect U.S. transmissions from electronic countermeasures.

Also under consideration are UAVs that could airdrop supplies to troops from high altitudes.

UAVs operate in the atmosphere, but must be controlled through satellites if they are to operate at ranges beyond line of sight, approximately 130 miles.

i love that 'Rods from God' one. it would be kool to watch in action

I think it would traveling so fast you wouldn't be able to see it. Well maybe you could but they move at 12,000 Feet per second.

Or as the Air Force called them in 2003 "Hypervelocity rod bundles", But it doesn't have a good ring to it like "Rods from God".

Here is a link with some more of the weapons planned for future use in space.
www.defensetech.org...
Hypersonic missles? I would like to see someone try to ride that like
Dr. Stranglove

I like that photo you put up of the rods, very cool. I'd love to see a simulation.

I think the rods from god are pretty unfeasable ay the moment, a piece of tungsten 20ft long and 1ft diameter would weigh a few tons. The launch costs would be astronomical unless they could mine it somewhere near earth in orbit.

Originally posted by ufo3
I think the rods from god are pretty unfeasable ay the moment, a piece of tungsten 20ft long and 1ft diameter would weigh a few tons. The launch costs would be astronomical unless they could mine it somewhere near earth in orbit.

Shuttle is able to lift 33 tons on low orbit (+/-400 km). How much costs a single shuttle mision?

LongBow
Shuttle is able to lift 33 tons on low orbit (+/-400 km). How much costs a single shuttle mision?

Are you sure that they would want to put this in LEO?

A current shuttle mission costs over 550 million.

Edit/add-on: The Shuttle will only be used to finish the ISS, and once thats built they wont go into space ever again. While 550 million is a lot for Nasa its not a lot for the air force having a kickass weapon. So if they wanted to launch this into space they could use a Delta 4 Heavy rocket or the Atlas 5 Heavy rocket.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by Murcielago]

U are correct about the shuttle but it has so many other commitments like the ISS and the like, a launch costs about 500million that equates to the rods costing aprx 50mil each just to get them up there plus the satellite that will launch them from orbit. A tomahawk costs about 1mil and can be launched from a sub but who knows maybe they will just put enough up there to be used as a last resort or specialised bombing.

That does appear to be an expensive alternative. This would seem like a costly alternative to other missles, lasers, etc. I'd love to see a hole in the desert from one of these Rod tests. Just to see what a small scale model would do.

It looks like it could be better to build military bases on Moon.
Did anyone read Moon is a harsh mistress? . It is about the independence war between Earth and Moon colonists and they are using powerfull EM catapults (railguns) to fire huge rocks on Earth cities.
Material is there, and virtually unlimited energy also (solar panels).

I think the moon may have already been claimed. I'm not quite sure what we are doing with the moon, but they found something there thats for sure. Though China was initially threatening to setup a base on the moon, they recently changed their mind.

[edit on 10/3/2004 by infinite8]

I'd forgotten all about that idea to put anti-SAM lasers on civilian aircraft. It'd be a bit of a money waster to be honest though? I've only heard of one attempt to bring down an airliner with a stinger before, and that failed.

Ufo3
A tomahawk costs about 1mil and can be launched from a sub

TomaHawks are s-l-o-w. It can take several days and possibly weeks to set it up to fire. While soon enough we will have tactical TomaHawks and they can be fired in around a half hour and can loiter, But there speed while in flight will remain the same as the Original TomaHawk, which is sub-sonic.

While these Tungsten Rods, from the order given to the impact takes only 15 minutes.

infinite8
I think the moon may have already been claimed. I'm not quite sure what we are doing with the moon, but they found something there thats for sure. Though China was initially threatening to return and setup a base on the moon, they recently changed their mind.

I dont think theres anything on the moon. China Returning? They never went. If they have changed there minds about going to the moon then its not because off Aliens, its because of money.

The US could use non nuclear icbm's guided by gps or perhaps a smaller version of the minute man.

When i was speaking of China returning to the moon I was speaking in terms of the human race returning and should have specified to it. I did not mean to state that China had been there before. I will edit the above post.

Here is the article stating Chinas moon base flip-flop. They have scrapped plans many times.
www.astronautix.com...

Never mentioned that they found aliens, but they certainly found something that they weren't willing to share with the rest of us. There are other threads on this site discussing that and what astronauts of the Apollo missions have stated.

In addition, it does not necessarily take a manned mission to place weapons systems on the moon, though I believe it might be easier to just use some type of orbitting or near orbit weapons system.

Originally posted by Ultron10
I'd forgotten all about that idea to put anti-SAM lasers on civilian aircraft. It'd be a bit of a money waster to be honest though? I've only heard of one attempt to bring down an airliner with a stinger before, and that failed.

Yes, I think some flares are more than enough. US have made some test recently if Stinger or similar small AA misilles are able to bring modern jets down. It looks like it is not posible, because Stingers cause just small damage to big aircrafts and todays planes are also able to land with just 1 motor working.

BTW there has been many civil planes shot down (more than 500), but those were mostly small planes(+/- 20 pasengers) shot down in Africa.