Finding mobile ICBM TELs - then, now, in future

[Archibald]

In the case of the United States, the answer to the USSR's mobile missiles was the B-2, which was designed to penetrate the Soviet IADS and hunt down TELs.

Also AARS / QUARTZ super-duper stealth drone.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/aars-lockheed-quartz-tier-iii-frontier-systems-w570-arrow-shadow.511/

Those missiles were a major PITA to track down - even for spysats. A spysat takes 90 minutes to circle Earth but in the meantime, Earth has rotated under the ground track (hello, Space Shuttle crossrange) so it doesn't overfly the same spot. Well, the Soviets would move the TELs according to that weakness - gaps in KH-11 coverage.

The only solution would have been to put spysats in GEO so that they "persisted" and "hovered" above the same spot. But from 22 000 miles high and through the thick atmosphere, getting a ground resolution better than 30 feet would have taken giant optics: eye watering expensive spysats.

So back to atmospheric vehicles, ideally like the U-2R / TR-1: persistent, subsonic. Except inside Soviet airspace... only a stealth drone could have any hope of survival.
Hence AARS / QUARTZ. It was to fly ahead of B-2s and hunt the TELs for them; then pass the data to Milstars ( = GEO military comsats) and from there: to the coming B-2s.
An absurd, almost untractable problem with QUARTZ was basing. If in Europe, it could attract attention, even on highly secure airbases. But if CONUS based, it took a lot of time and fuel to bring it to Europe. Also air traffic conflict was a major PITA for drones.
QUARTZ ended gold plated and insanely expensive; didn't survived 1991.

...

Two recent spysat developments are fascinating.

On one hand, the chinese are putting spysats in GEO, whatever the reduced ground resolution; it's plenty enough to pin down big USN warships such as 1000 feet long aircraft carriers...

On the other, the NRO with Starshield seems to go the big LEO constellation way for spysats. Put tons of them in LEO and you end with global, instant coverage.
I wonder whether they had a similar idea in the 1980's : some kind of KH-11 / Brilliant Pebbles hybrid. Could have tracked down the TELs from orbit, near real time, and feed that to the B-2s via Milstars. TBH, it would probably have busted state-of-the-art broadband and storage limits.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Also AARS / QUARTZ super-duper stealth drone.
[...]

I was under the impression that QUARTZ was also supposed to be supersonic, "son of Blackbird"?

Two recent spysat developments are fascinating.

On one hand, the chinese are putting spysats in GEO, whatever the reduced ground resolution; it's plenty enough to pin down big USN warships such as 1000 feet long aircraft carriers...

On the other, the NRO with Starshield seems to go the big LEO constellation way for spysats. Put tons of them in LEO and you end with global, instant coverage.
I wonder whether they had a similar idea in the 1980's : some kind of KH-11 / Brilliant Pebbles hybrid. Could have tracked down the TELs from orbit, near real time, and feed that to the B-2s via Milstars. TBH, it would probably have busted state-of-the-art broadband and storage limits.

This.

I don't think there was anywhere near enough bandwidth to handle a bajillion mini recon satellites in orbit in the 1980s/90s.

 

[Byeman]

I don't think there was anywhere near enough bandwidth to handle a bajillion mini recon satellites in orbit in the 1980s/90s.

Still isn't

 

[Kat Tsun]

I was under the impression that QUARTZ was also supposed to be supersonic, "son of Blackbird"?




This.

I don't think there was anywhere near enough bandwidth to handle a bajillion mini recon satellites in orbit in the 1980s/90s.

A Starlink type constellation would be able to handle it, if it were dedicated to DOD use and if it were subordinated primarily to operational elements such as brigades, divisions, and corps, as it does just fine doing this in Ukraine for both sides for maneuver elements with only partial network taxing. There probably isn't enough for every single tank or platoon to have SATCOM. Yet. FCS is still a bit further away.

Nothing else really comes close though.

 

[Byeman]

A Starlink type constellation would be able to handle it, if it were dedicated to DOD use and if it were subordinated primarily to operational elements such as brigades, divisions, and corps, as it does just fine doing this in Ukraine for both sides for maneuver elements with only partial network taxing. There probably isn't enough for every single tank or platoon to have SATCOM. Yet. FCS is still a bit further away.

Nothing else really comes close though.

Starlink is below reconnsats

 

[Scott Kenny]

Starlink is below reconnsats

So? If they have the bandwidth to carry the data they can be used.

 

[Byeman]

So? If they have the bandwidth to carry the data they can be used.

starling doesn't transmit or recieve upward

 

[Kat Tsun]

The NRO seems to be wanting to package Starlink-type connectivity with a reconnaissance payload for an LEO swarm tbf. Starshield seems to incorporate FLIR tracking and transceiver capabilities into a single bus if I understand it right. Somehow it will need to be able to talk to LRDR for dual phenomenology anyway.

If SBIRS can track MRLs and howitzer batteries there's no reason to think Starshield, or a derivative or new tranche of Starshield, can't track anti-ship missiles and slow walkers for a Navy battlegroup either.

 

[Byeman]

Under development, and they have laser intersatellite links that can be adopted for the purpose if the civilian network were conscripted for war.

not quite true

 

[Byeman]

So? If they have the bandwidth to carry the data they can be used

Not can't. there is no line of sight to communicate. Not antenna on top of starling

 

[Ozair]

Not can't. there is no line of sight to communicate. Not antenna on top of starling

The simple solution would be to orientate a couple of satellites the other way... Starlink V3 has a 1 tbps download speed so bandwidth isn't an issue now, network saturation might be but that can be overcome with more sats.

 

[Byeman]

The simple solution would be to orientate a couple of satellites the other way... Starlink V3 has a 1 tbsp download speed so bandwidth isn't an issue now, network saturation might be but that can be overcome with more sats.

No, you just don't flip satellites. They are designed with one orientation. There would be no antennas pointing at the ground. It would take a different spacecraft in different orbits. Starlink is not useable for this.

 

[Ozair]

No, you just don't flip satellites. They are designed with one orientation. There would be no antennas pointing at the ground. It would take a different spacecraft in different orbits. Starlink is not useable for this.

Sure but the ability to add a few Starlinks of a different model with the right frequencies for this seems reasonably easy. Starlink already communicates within itself via laser comms so this would be a straight forward exercise that just requires some more funding and a little bit of technical expertise, nothing more. Starlink is already in use by the US Govt so these types of additional uses isn't out of place.

 

[Byeman]

Sure but the ability to add a few Starlinks of a different model with the right frequencies for this seems reasonably easy. .

but it isn't. The spacecraft of the different constellations don't maintain relative positions like those of Starlink.

 

[quellish]

No, you just don't flip satellites. They are designed with one orientation. There would be no antennas pointing at the ground. It would take a different spacecraft in different orbits. Starlink is not useable for this.

Starlink was used successfully for Polaris Dawn, which was even higher than reconnaissance satellites.

 

[_Del_]

Starlink was used successfully for Polaris Dawn, which was even higher than reconnaissance satellites.

Yes. That is what the optical (laser) link is for in the newer Starlink/Starshield, and they are using the same terminals for all the early NDSA sats, as far as I am aware.

 

[Josh_TN]

The SDA will soon have its own network of LEO communications satellites. Incr1 is supposed to be 126 IIRC, all going up this year or shortly after due to supply chain delays. I would have thought that SDA and NRO would agree on a common optical cross link standard. By the end of the decade it seems likely both organizations have LEO proliferated networks the low hundreds, on top of any civilian assets under contract or other higher altitude or bespoke military spacecraft.

I think it is the wrong time to get into the ICBM TEL game, if you are not already.

 

[Kat Tsun]

No, you just don't flip satellites. They are designed with one orientation. There would be no antennas pointing at the ground. It would take a different spacecraft in different orbits. Starlink is not useable for this.

It would take a few months to develop and launch, at most. Satellites are cheap now, and fairly easily prototyped these days, as proven by Starlink/Starshield's now myriad tranches. It would be a trivial task.

The SDA will soon have its own network of LEO communications satellites. Incr1 is supposed to be 126 IIRC, all going up this year or shortly after due to supply chain delays. I would have thought that SDA and NRO would agree on a common optical cross link standard. By the end of the decade it seems likely both organizations have LEO proliferated networks the low hundreds, on top of any civilian assets under contract or other higher altitude or bespoke military spacecraft.

I think it is the wrong time to get into the ICBM TEL game, if you are not already.

I think by the end of the decade we might see deployment of a rudimentary GPALS infrastructure tbh. Just in time for Air Force 2025, too.

 

[Byeman]

It would take a few months to develop and launch, at most. Satellites are cheap now, and fairly easily prototyped these days, as proven by Starlink/Starshield's now myriad tranches. It would be a trivial task.

None of that is true at all. It lacks any basis in reality

 

[Scott Kenny]

None of that is true at all. It lacks any basis in reality

Without some evidence, all you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalalalala I can't hear you"

 

[_Del_]

It'd take months just to get through the regulatory maze after all design work and testing.
Nothing is cheap and fast when it comes to space. Current Starlink production is impressive, but that's the exception not the norm.

Moreover there's no point in building an "upside down" Starlink sat. The whole point of the three steerable OISL is to maintain connection within the network, including satellites out of plane, above/below, etc. They are actively pushing the hardware and software for other users so those users can leverage the already existing network(s, technically). "Plug and plaser".

 

[Josh_TN]

It seems more likely such a satellite would take a few years, given the pace of the SDA and NRO purchases. But one would also have to ask the question: would Elon even want to explicitly militarize his satellite internet? Also keep in mind it is a commercial internet service with its own custom receivers. Useful yes, but not a closed military system and not one that delivers in established military waveforms and formats.

That said, there will be a fairly robust constellation of government owned satellites soon.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think another thing to consider is that both the PRC and U.S. are already discussing on orbit data processing. That is, the ISR satellites uses AI target recognition to process their footage on board or else part of the “processing layer” of the SDA array handles this after the raw information is passed. Thisvv cv probably would not be applicable to all targets universally, at least initially, but high priory, large, distinctive targets like ships and BM TELs would likely be the first types trained on. One document I’ve seen indicated this was planned for Incr3, roughly in the 2030 deployment timeframe. At that point the analysis and target set delivery are more or less realtime and delivery is global. Any platform could just poll the constellation for all targets in its area of responsibility.

 

[_Del_]

would Elon even want to explicitly militarize his satellite internet?

Yes. That money funds Starlink which is currently still negative (but now making money). The better question is: does the military wish to militarize Starlink, and the answer is also yes, because their own network is not complete.
Part of Starshield is the PWSA transport layer. They are launching tracking and transport layer sats on the same racks as Starlink. Using OISL hardware which means they can leverage Starlink connectivity if needed.

Ideally, the military never needs Starlink itself and can rely on Starshield. Things are rarely ideal.

Link 16 antennae we're first delivered in 2022 for demonstration on the transport layer. JREAP-C allows those terminals to communicate to other JREAP-C terminals over Internet protocol networks (including Starlink).

 

[Byeman]

Moreover there's no point in building an "upside down" Starlink sat. The whole point of the three steerable OISL is to maintain connection within the network, including satellites out of plane, above/below, etc.

Wrong. The OISL is only for within the Starlink constellation (inter Starlink). It doesn't use them to communicate to another spacecraft at much different altitudes.

 

[_Del_]

Wrong. The OISL is only for within the Starlink constellation (inter Starlink). It doesn't use them to communicate to another spacecraft at much different altitudes.

Wrong.

 

[Josh_TN]

Yes. That money funds Starlink which is currently still negative (but now making money). The better question is: does the military wish to militarize Starlink, and the answer is also yes, because their own network is not complete.
Part of Starshield is the PWSA transport layer. They are launching tracking and transport layer sats on the same racks as Starlink. Using OISL hardware which means they can leverage Starlink connectivity if needed.

Ideally, the military never needs Starlink itself and can rely on Starshield. Things are rarely ideal.

Link 16 antennae we're first delivered in 2022 for demonstration on the transport layer. JREAP-C allows those terminals to communicate to other JREAP-C terminals over Internet protocol networks (including Starlink).

Starshield the military contractor wing of SpaceX is producing satellites, or at least satellite buses, for NRO. It has almost no involvement in the SDA PWSA. I think it produced just four Incr0 satellites. Rest of the constellation is split across a half dozen different satellite companies, with some contributing as little as a dozen and others closer to a hundred over the first two increments.

F9 is of course the delivery vehicle for all of these.

 

[_Del_]

Starshield the military contractor wing of SpaceX is producing satellites, or at least satellite buses, for NRO. It has almost no involvement in the SDA PWSA. I think it produced just four Incr0 satellites. Rest of the constellation is split across a half dozen different satellite companies, with some contributing as little as a dozen and others closer to a hundred over the first two increments.

There is a communication standard (OCT) for optical links. To date SpaceX and York are the only ones who demonstrated interoperability (while using Tesat hardware). Mynaric and CACI hope to do so soon.
There is currently a fight over that standard. Tournear just found himself in a jam, so we'll see what develops shortly. CSAR contracts are supposed to be finalized soon, as well. We'll have a good idea on whether Starlink changes their software or hardware for compliance or whether the standard moves shortly. Several commercial networks exceed the capabilities of the standard.
SDA has also hinted that if they don't get everyone on the same page they will want gateways that can communicate with the OCT standard and existing commercial networks (including, but not limited to Starlink).

 

[Byeman]

Wrong.

prove it. Is OISL on a LEO constellation going to be use to talk to GEO, MEO and high LEO satellites?

 

[_Del_]

prove it. Is OISL on a LEO constellation going to be use to talk to GEO, MEO and high LEO satellites?

High-LEO, yes. MEO and GEO over their OISL, no.