Boeing F-15EX/QA and related variants

Scott Kenny said:
There are already thousands of small relatively-low-latency comms satellites in orbit. And the US is launching tens-to-hundred every couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

I think we need to delineate between internet service satellites and military satellites that broadcast in formats and frequencies that actually directly connect military platforms outside the internet altogether. However the SDA plans to orbit 126 military LEO satellites with laser cross links that utilize UHF and L band tactical links in ten scheduled launches next year (originally to start in September but delayed), along with 50+ missile detection satellites. 200+ more satellites are order for 2026-27 for Incr2.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think only test satellites from Incr 0, but by the time CCAs reach IOC there should be well over 200 LEO communications satellites from Incr1 and 2, with Incr3 hot on their heals.
Click to expand...
Yes, but also, in the meantime, ttey have demonstrated that they can use Starlink's existing network with the ABMS. Also, Starshield/Starlink networks are getting use in the Ukraine.
 
_Del_ said:
Yes, but also, in the meantime, ttey have demonstrated that they can use Starlink's existing network with the ABMS. Also, Starshield/Starlink networks are getting use in the Ukraine.
Click to expand...
not in aircraft
 
_Del_ said:
Yes, but also, in the meantime, ttey have demonstrated that they can use Starlink's existing network with the ABMS. Also, Starshield/Starlink networks are getting use in the Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Every U.S. Army formation has Starlink terminals, sure. I’ve read accounts of squad level recon/sniper units using them in Ukraine. It unquestionably has huge military applications, but you cannot retroactively fit a Starlink antenna onto every datalink weapon used to receiving its commands/target updates in a link 16 or some flavor of tactical UHF. More over using a connection that is through the internet opens up a lot of vulnerabilities that a military system would not have.
 
Byeman said:
not really, just tests
Click to expand...

Successful tests, with full production active. The proliferated satellite architecture is far in front of CCA development, and yes, successful test with aircraft with Incr0.

EDIT: I misunderstood that this comment was directed at Starlink usage, not PWSA.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Every U.S. Army formation has Starlink terminals, sure. I’ve read accounts of squad level recon/sniper units using them in Ukraine. It unquestionably has huge military applications, but you cannot retroactively fit a Starlink antenna onto every datalink weapon used to receiving its commands/target updates in a link 16 or some flavor of tactical UHF. More over using a connection that is through the internet opens up a lot of vulnerabilities that a military system would not have.
Click to expand...
Presented without further comment for the time being:
www.amc.af.mil

Mobility Guardian 2021: AMC tankers train data link communication system, extend strategi

OSCODA, Mich. -- Airmen and tankers from across Air Mobility Command participated in Exercise Mobility Guardian 2021 to test cutting-edge tactics and concepts at Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport, May 15-27,
www.amc.af.mil
 
_Del_ said:
Presented without further comment for the time being:
www.amc.af.mil

Mobility Guardian 2021: AMC tankers train data link communication system, extend strategi

OSCODA, Mich. -- Airmen and tankers from across Air Mobility Command participated in Exercise Mobility Guardian 2021 to test cutting-edge tactics and concepts at Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport, May 15-27,
www.amc.af.mil
Click to expand...

I would definitely prefer comments, if that was a response to my post. I skimmed and did not see Starlink mentioned.
 
Josh_TN said:
Successful tests, with full production active. The proliferated satellite architecture is far in front of CCA development, and yes, successful test with aircraft with Incr0.
Click to expand...
no. Not "full production". Still proof of concept. They haven't decided on the tactical receivers yes.
 
Byeman said:
no. Not "full production". Still proof of concept. They haven't decided on the tactical receivers yes.
Click to expand...

The 126 satellites of the Incr1 proliferated constellation is a test still deciding on receiver format? Despite having separate UHF and L band Link16 versions (alpha/beta)? And a second more advanced UHF version (gama)? Can you quote a source for that or is it your appraisal?
 
Josh_TN said:
The 126 satellites of the Incr1 proliferated constellation is a test still deciding on receiver format? Despite having separate UHF and L band Link16 versions (alpha/beta)? And a second more advanced UHF version (gama)? Can you quote a source for that or is it your appraisal?
Click to expand...
Receivers have to be designed to deal with the doppler effect with LEO satellites. Existing receivers didn't have to deal with it.
 
Byeman said:
Receivers have to be designed to deal with the doppler effect with LEO satellites. Existing receivers didn't have to deal with it.
Click to expand...
If only there were an existing product that already compensates for this and you could use the same hardware and AESA for your military service off-the-shelf. Think of the money you could save. Shame... Oh wait...
 
_Del_ said:
If only there were an existing product that already compensates for this and you could use the same hardware and AESA for your military service off-the-shelf. Think of the money you could save. Shame... Oh wait...
Click to expand...
There isn't such a product either bespoke or off the shelf for application in military vehicles.
 
Byeman said:
Receivers have to be designed to deal with the doppler effect with LEO satellites. Existing receivers didn't have to deal with it.
Click to expand...

I admit my ignorance in this field. But I googled pretty hard and did not find a source that explicitly states the new satellites will not work with existing platforms. I would like to know more, if you can point in the right direction.

Also presumably any new CCA would actually have a receiver compatible with the new satellite network, so in that context I think the point is moot.
 
Byeman said:
for communications and GPS isn't LEO.
Click to expand...
This thread is getting ridiculous. Are you okay, man?

We've had LEO communication satellites for decades. We made Iridium right down the street in the nineties, and things have come a long way since with AESA antennas. You can adjust for doppler in the receiver if you know the network orbits or even on the satellite if it knows where the receiver is.
Starlink is the world's largest communication constellation, and it's in LEO.
 
_Del_ said:
We've had LEO communication satellites for decades. We made Iridium right down the street in the nineties, and things have come a long way since with AESA antennas. You can adjust for doppler in the receiver if you know the network orbits or even on the satellite if it knows where the receiver is.
Starlink is the world's largest communication constellation, and it's in LEO.
Click to expand...
I am fine. You just don't understand the topic.

There are no COTS antennas or receivers for military vehicles.
www.yahoo.com

Elon Musk’s Starlink is helping supersonic, hypersonic planes take flight

SpaceX's Starlink is helping futuristic airplane companies accelerate development of their planes and monitor in-flight safety.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
How is that going to work on a military aircraft?

Iridium wasn't use on military vehicles.
Starlink won't work for military vehicles. Starlink isn't on military frequencies (Link 16 and such)
 
Can you expand upon how military receivers will or will not work? I have not seen any documentation explicitly stating that the new satellite system will be incompatible with existing receivers, and if that is the situation, I think that is a huge limitation that has not been adequately documented.
 
Arjen said:
How then does Starlink use by the Ukrainian military fit in? Honest question.
en.wikipedia.org

Starlink in the Russo-Ukrainian War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

Even the Russians use Starlink in their drones.

But I would say the bigger question is what are the limitations of Starlink, in terms of receiving and installation, and do those limitations apply to a dedicated military frequency/format broadcast system?
 
Byeman said:
I am fine. You just don't understand the topic.
Click to expand...
Certain irony here. Are you doing okay? You are seriously irrationally combative the last few weeks.


Iridium wasn't use on military vehicles.
Starlink won't work for military vehicles. Starlink isn't on military frequencies (Link 16 and such)
Click to expand...

We have absolutely used Link 16 over Starlink. Repeatedly and successfully. Including from aircraft. There are some problems with shift, but it is not insurmountable, and the size of the constellation helps ensure a link when one or more of the sats in view are moving too rapidly in relation to the Link 16 platform. This is all open.

You have gone from, "They can't do build a network" to "not with the military aircraft", "only tests", " not planes ", etc in a page.

In your article, they literally bolted an COTS AESA to the inside of the canopy and got full network connectivity. Something similar was done with the AC-130 test connecting to the ABMS.

Can any military aircraft currently use Link 16 over Starlink by flipping a switch? No. But you acting like it is an impossible task to enable LEO comm connectivity in military aircraft is frankly as bizarre as it is absurd.
 
AFAIK, this thread is about the"Boeing F-15EX/QA and related variants", but the discussion has run off the track !
So, please back to topic.
And stop those childish one-vs-one imputations ! Next step will be thread reply bans, they should get the deteriorated
tone back into the right channels ... :mad:

​

 
top-gun-maverick-cf3477d-e1643802022599.jpg
Who needs rudders?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom