How crippled would the US military might be if..

[Airgun_Hunter]

Somehow an aggressive nation would attack it's satellite resources?

All modern US war equipment are designed to work with satellite comms or intelligence. From weapons systems to navigation and comms.

How could the US wage war without it's deependant satellite network?

[vinny_121_ND]

Actually, China already has jammed american satellites that sparked some concern back in 2006.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-10-05-satellite-laser_x.htm

[sepheronx]

Somehow an aggressive nation would attack it's satellite resources?

All modern US war equipment are designed to work with satellite comms or intelligence. From weapons systems to navigation and comms.

How could the US wage war without it's deependant satellite network?
Most countries with a large military (Russia, China, US, France, etc) usually rely on satalites for such things, so this is not a US only based question. But then again, there are reasons why UAV's and other such planes exist.

[Gerry301]

The US is continually upgrading and putting into place jam resistant satellites. Not as fast as the generals would like, but the job is getting done. Sites that would be able to disable a satellite would also be primary targets during any war. Some satillites have backups that can be quickly launched as replacements such as GPS satellites. GPS uses 24 satellites in their constellation, I suspect anyone targeting the constellation would be itself a target very quickly.

[deagle]

at least with satellited weapsthey can get an easy death, they'd still be in trouble if we had to fix bayonets.

[Valkyries]

thats why the important stuff sits out at 26k miles (ish of course)

[Insane Tadpole]

Just wondering, does America or any Nato nations have the capabilities to jam foreign Satellites?

[Hispeed1]

Just wondering, does America or any Nato nations have the capabilities to jam foreign Satellites?

Jam? More like shoot them out of the sky/space. USA STR0nG!

[ggk]

i thought both Russia and US have ASAT weapon? why jam?

[Valkyries]

i thought both Russia and US have ASAT weapon? why jam?

debris from "destroyed" sats would have the potential of damaging our systems in place.

[Shadowstorm]

And not only that, it would make space travel and delivery much more dangerous because of the debris. That's why a lot of scientists and space agencies are against anti-satellites weapons because of that issue.

[Omen]

Just wondering, does America or any Nato nations have the capabilities to jam foreign Satellites?

As far as I remember it is sufficient to detonate few nuclear devices to destroy global satellite network with EMP blast. That's why all ICBM's have inertial guidance systems.

[BlackFlag]

thats why the important stuff sits out at 26k miles (ish of course)

you sure about that? I think its more like around 300 miles. 26k miles is like a tenth the disance of the moon I believe.

[Gerry301]

you sure about that? I think its more like around 300 miles. 26k miles is like a tenth the disance of the moon I believe.

The distance from earth is often determined by the type satellite and its mission

Low earth orbit is around 60 miles
Medium earth orbit begins at 300 miles
Geosynchronous earth orbit at 22,300 miles

GPS systems are at 10,988 miles
Milstar Satellite communication systems for wartime military use are at 22,300 miles.

Most of the systems are jam resistant, with newer models being both jam and nuclear resistant (EMP).p-)

[Currahee 1SG]

My 2 cents here and that about what its worth. I still carry a lensatic compass and map. My M4 does not need GPS coordinates to hit its assigned target. Its great to have but just like anything once its gone, its gone.

[Gerry301]

My 2 cents here and that about what its worth. I still carry a lensatic compass and map. My M4 does not need GPS coordinates to hit its assigned target. Its great to have but just like anything once its gone, its gone.

Very true, but the aircraft or vehicle that delivers you to the battlefield will have an easier time if GPS is available. Same with troop movements.

[Currahee 1SG]

Very true, but the aircraft or vehicle that delivers you to the battlefield will have an easier time if GPS is available. Same with troop movements.

It would have an easier time if ALL military spending could be used on better purposes throughout the world...that's not going to happen. Neither is all tech going away. All that was, was done before and could be done again if needed.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Jam? More like shoot them out of the sky/space. USA STR0nG!

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/2997/slbdfronttk8.jpg

Indeed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRACL)

[Airgun_Hunter]

My 2 cents here and that about what its worth. I still carry a lensatic compass and map. My M4 does not need GPS coordinates to hit its assigned target. Its great to have but just like anything once its gone, its gone.

But the aircraft/weapons that pulverize the building where a single sniper has pinned down a whole squad that is requesting air support might.

[Hispeed1]

Indeed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRACL)[/quote]

Plus air and surface launched ASAT missiles.

[Jacknola]

Take out the GPS, satellite communication systems and the US still would have the most combat-experienced force in the field. It would definitely have the force with the following:


1. The best logistics and mobility;
2. The strongest organization, best training; and
3. Likely the strongest leadership from privates to NCOs to officers;
4. The leadership doctrine, with emphasis on individual initiative, would be far stronger than most conceivable adversaries.

The US would have a great advantage in logistics, mobility, and planning. It would still have command of the sea and the air (“Warthogs” don’t need GPS, neither do B-52s). It would have plenty of experienced forward air controllers, plenty of very effective dumb bombs, unmatched unit-to-unit, even soldier-to-soldier radio communication, not to mention UAVs, M1A1s and concentratable firepower. It would still have the world’s best and most mobile artillery component and portable light infantry weapons.

As far as training, I would assume most of today’s US soldiers can read a map, plot their location using a compass (I know the Marines still teach this). And, it wasn’t that long ago we fought wars without GPS or smart weapons. Gulf War I was pretty light on a lot of the things used today, and none of the satellite based systems were available in Vietnam.

With a population base of +300 million, in a total war (non-nuclear) scenario ala WWII, the US could field at least 60 million armed forces. No other country could hope to match those numbers, even before considering technical sophistication (Russia's population is half the US, China and India lack the level of industrialism).

And with the US industrialism, it could equip those forces and project that power anywhere, unlike any other country. Given a mass mobilization, the current US armed forces is large enough to quickly expand, and produce competent officer to lead huge conscript forces.

Assuning political will, a fully mobilized US would be pretty tough to go against. The main difference without GPS tech would be increased US casualties, and a greatly increased number of civilian casualties. For those that think the US cannot handle massive casualties without losing heart, I suggest studying the American War Between the States, or WWII Pacific campaign.

[el borracho]

The main difference would be increased US casualties, and a greatly increased number of civilian casualties. Given political will, a fully mobilized US would be hard to handle.

Some may have forgotten the ability of the US to suffer horrendous casualties without faltering. To glimpse what the Americans are capable of, I suggest doing what Churchill did ... study the War Between the States. Before they succumbed the South had suffered approximately one million casualties (250,000 KIA) from a white population of about 5.5 million, and infrastructure damage on a scale similar to that suffered by the Russians in WWII.

The political will was behind Iraq and that didn't work out so well. If you just crunch the numbers, the US could field a gigantic force, but it would need a significant world crisis event to do so given the lackadaisical social attitude and disillusionment that many Americans have with the government in general.

[Valkyries]

Take out the GPS, satellite communication systems and the US still would have the most combat-experienced force in the field. It would definitely have the force with the following:

1. The best logistics and mobility;
2. The strongest organization, best training; and
3. Likely the strongest leadership from privates to NCOs to officers;
4. The best doctrine for using that leadership, with emphasis on individual initiative, would be far stronger than most conceivable adversaries.

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]The US would have a great advantage in logistics, mobility, and planning. It would still have command of the air (“Warthogs” don’t need GPS, neither do B-52s), plenty of experienced forward air controllers, plenty of very effective dumb bombs, unmatched unit-to-unit, even soldier-to-soldier radio communication, not to mention UAVs, M1A1s and concentratable


Thats why smart bombs do not rely on GPS, they use an INS system and the GPS is only an assistant.

[Jacknola]

RE: "The political will was behind Iraq and that didn't work out so well."

Well, Iim unsure what you thought the goal of that war was, but it appears to me to have worked out so far, though not on the time table nor with all the tactical considerations envisioned. Notwithstanding the hand wringers, the war has been a relative side show, with a pretty low cost in casualties or money. Most of the US population hasn’t been personally affected by Iraq in any material way.

As Bush'43 stated to congress, the strategic objective of the Iraq operation was far grander than simply removing Saddam and Sons from the list of the axis of evil. The Iraq war was conducted in the hope that a transformation of that State would lead to changing the "Arab Nation" into a group of modern States, thus eventually eliminating 12th C style terrorism. Of course this may have relied somewhat on a belief in "the religion of peace" concept.

Unstated was what would be the ultimate recourse if the "Arab Nation" did not reform. Bush'41 forthrightly stated that the US would make no distinction between those that did the deeds and those States that harbored the deed-doers... I suppose that could be interpreted as implying that the US has other, harsher, theoretical options to solve the problem of attacks on its people and territory.

[HollywoodMarine]

My 2 cents here and that about what its worth. I still carry a lensatic compass and map. My M4 does not need GPS coordinates to hit its assigned target. Its great to have but just like anything once its gone, its gone.

...they'd still be in trouble if we had to fix bayonets.
Damn skippy. No GPS attached to my trigger finger. I point, and aim... drop the body.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

No GPS...No more artillery for point targets ;-)

[Gerry301]

"Assuning political will,". I think we can safely assume after Vietnam and the war in Iraq, the politicians will run at the first sign of trouble. It would boil down to the will and tenacity of the leadership.

[mcsuperfly]

No GPS...No more artillery for point targets ;-)
Hmm. In WW2 the Germans were most impressed by our artillery than anything else. Im thinking we'll pull through just fine without the satellites. p-)

[LineDoggie]

But the aircraft/weapons that pulverize the building where a single sniper has pinned down a whole squad that is requesting air support might.

Uh huh :roll: Maybe in the movies you "Pulverize" a whole Bldg for a sniper, but not that I've seen. Most FAC's or FDC would laugh at such a request for Fires Priority. Thats why we have something called Fire and Movement and a Little thing known as Smoke, HC M8

[2495]

U.S. Patent 5,345,238

Zirconic clearence.

Nebula.

MISTY



This invention relates to a satellite signature suppression shield for camouflaging a satellite's location from ground based and airborne tracking and detection systems. The purpose of the invention is to suppress the laser, radar, visible and infrared signatures of satellites to make it difficult or impossible for hostile enemy forces to damage or destroy satellites in orbit.


In short, what you cannot see, hear or reach out and touch, you cannot shoot down.

[2495]

http://www.bisbos.com/rocketscience/spacecraft/misty/misty.html

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/8441/mistyorbit1lyw4.jpg


In Nov. 1991 a group of amateur trackers found an unknown satellite in the orbit of MISTY 1 but at much higher altitude than the first 'possible' track (bearing in mind they may have been fooled by decoys or debris fields). The interesting thing topugh is that after a couple of sightings the mystery satellite removed itself from view or changed its orbit.

MISTY 2 did the same. A big debris field, tracked and then vanished.

In Nov 2005 Bigelow Aerospace were granted a patent for a stealth satellite system which involved wrapping the whole system in a huge inflateable balloon. Other systems involved massive mesh screens unfurled to absorb incoming EMF radiation and create stealth that way; the screens could be a hugely cheaper option, but would leave a system vulnerable to LADAR, and also IR systems unless thermal management was strictly observed.

[Valkyries]

@2495

thanks for that article, very interesting.

[jonosk]

With a population base of +300 million, in a total war (non-nuclear) scenario ala WWII, the US could field at least 60 million armed forces. No other country could hope to match those numbers, even before considering technical sophistication (Russia's population is half the US, China and India lack the level of industrialism).




60 million no way no way and no way. How are u going to feed, shelter, arm, train and transport 60 million armed solders.

[KilRemgor]

2495 (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?u=60049)>
And how that relates to GPS satellites (the original satellites under question) whose positions are fixed and required for position calculations?

Moreover, even if satellite itself is not observable, if it is transmitting (and any potential GPS replacement would do it), it can be tracked by its transmissions.

So though this invention is certainly helpful for "spy" satellites etc., I doubt is really applicable to protect GPS system.

The best way to protect GPS system would've been to have means of rapidly replacing it. Since ASAT weapons used against it would be likely limited, it makes sense to have some satellites readily waiting in delivery vehicles to rapidly replace destroyed satellites within the constellation.

The opposite, most practical way of destroying satellites given readily available techs is to take them away from ASAT-only type of thought and develop ABM/AA missiles capable of targeting space targets; not only those missiles can be then used for engaging bombers/AWACS/ballistic missiles/etc., they could be used to take down satellites. Having such dual-use missiles is perhaps the most cost-effective and versatile solution.

Best way to learn location of enemy satellites? Human intelligence. Satellite location is a simple value (esp. for those in geostationary orbit) and you could probably get all that info at once using a single agent.

You can track the stealth satellite just by photographing the satellite dish receiving its signal. Yes, it is going to be guarded, but still it is far, far easier than all the tech solutions.

And EMP-shielding of satellites is horribly overestimated. No matter what shielding you have inside, the satellite's anthenna and receivers WILL burn if there is nuclear blast relatively nearby. They receive the legal signal, and it will be affected by EMP the same way it receives the signal, just orders by magnitude stronger along the electric field peak (that falls relative to 1/r so it spans further away than energy effect) so receiver will be knocked out. If you had a solid-state amplifier then burning is guaranteed (no way a semiconductor will survive attempt to amplify current 10's times stronger than its max allowance is; no filtering will help a well - no matter what you put before the amplifier, it either won't help or will render normal operation impossible). If you have TWT there is some chance of resuming work (as electron beam is not guaranteed to crush the slowing system, nor the cathode will fail albeit guaranteed to lose some of its emitting surface).

Edit: about 60mln. army:
US Labour force is 154.5 million, and that includes people fit for general work; for combat requirements would've been way way more strict. So there are hardly 60mln citizens really up to being effective soldiers, and moreover, no way the remaining labour force can supply those at war.
The only nation really capable of equipping 60-mln. armies is China.

[KilRemgor]

And for China's suggested "small industrial potential":
that is a wrong myth.

First, lets look at digits (available even at wiki or wherever):
USA GDP is $13.81 trillion.
20.6% of it is industry.
That makes $2.84 trillion - total price of all the industrial goods USA produces.
China's GDP is $3.42 trillion
48.9% of it is industry.
That makes $1.58 trillion.

So even on that basic level (favoring USA strongly because of factors discussed below), China's industrial GDP is already 55% of that of US.

Now let's think about what those values mean. No way they mean that China produces just 55% of goods that US produces; realistically it means that, as you probably guess, that goods produced by China are far cheaper than that of USA but are more numerous. With Chinese-made (or assembled at Chinese factories under license) clothes, mobile phones, furniture, whatever that is logical.

What about manpower? Well China has more than 300 million workers occupied in industry, and that's more than twice of total US labour force (which is largely occupied in services). And number of factories within China also favors the Chinese.

And mind it that as WWII has shown, all the "civilian" productions like Chinese have can be easily turned into production of low-tech (or even mid-tech) weaponry.

Ofc there are different scenarios we can compare those numbers at.
If there is a hypothetical contest in which Chinese start all-out making AKs and Americans all-out making M16's, Chinese will win hands down with perhaps 10:1 (or more) ratio.
If Americans will start all-out making F-22s, and Chinese will start making Yet Inexistent Chinese 5th Generation Plane, Americans will win with infinity advantage as there is no production of 'Yet Inexistent Chinese 5th Generation Plane'.

However, as WWII (and following conflicts like Vietnam to lesser extent) have shown, you can and will defeat superior technology in total war scenario if:
1) you have superior numbers
2) you have strong resolve (aka willingness to make sacrifices), that is not less than that of enemy
3) you have your own tech, maybe less advanced than that of enemy but still remotely comparable at least.

And as an example within original topic, Chinese are likely capable of gradually rendering the GPS system inoperational in total war scenario just by out-producing satellites with ASAT weapons which are naturally cheaper.

Can US military function w/o GPS system? Sure it can.
Can US defeat China in total war? Only if nuking China or denying its foreign resources flow.
Can US defeat China in limited war? Yes and likely without any significant casualties.

Just if we're looking onto total war scenario, the entire economy will be diverted to military needs, and the war will turn into war of attrition - the country which depletes enemy resources faster wins. WWII have shown how rapidly military production can grow in that case. And w/o nuclear weaponry, Chinese have far, far larger pool of reserves, and their technology is weaker but definitely remotely comparable. In the end, just by all-out buildings subs/basic airplanes/cruise missiles (Germany-style in a sense, just with far larger workforce and resources) Chinese may even achieve naval victory, that is, sinking carriers/strike ships way faster than they could be replaced.

The Chinese' weaknesses here are terrain "flaws" (that of dams which, upon destruction, cause huge catastrophe) and of lack of own natural resources - mostly only imports from Russia and Middle East. While first is perhaps survivable, denial of second from appropriate sources can be fatal, as there will be no resources in China to systain that long total war.

[Jacknola]

You make some good points, but I don't think you carry your thoughts quite deep enough.

I did not just invent that 60 million number. In the industrialized era, the maximum approximate number of troops any INDUSTRIAL society has been able to field, taken from the start of a war to the last ditch, is approximately 20 percent of the population. Non industrial societies have not been able to achieve that percentage except in a tribal type conflict.

The Confederates in the US WBTS, Germany in WWI, Germans in WWII, France in WWI, Russia in WWII, all ultimately mobilized roughly a 20 percent of its population into the military. Keep in mind that the 20 percent were not all deployed simultaneously, but were used during the course of the War. [Ok... Germany actually approached 25 percent of its population in WWII but I've always suspected that included a considerable number of "Germans" that did not initially reside in Germany, thus skewing the percentage calculation]

By studying those situations, one can also infer some statistics about when an industrialized country is approaching defeat in total, non nuclear, modern total war… which defeat has usually occurred when approximately 5-7 percent of its population is KIA in military fighting, which has usually meant another 10-15 percent was WIA. I’ve done some interesting compilation and research on the reasons behind these figures, though much of it is saved for an article I’ve partly prepared.

Re: China, India, and logistics. Only on its home territory could China mobilize, equip, arm, and feed anything like the numbers the US could transport, and put in the field on the other side of the world. And most of those would be part time guerillas…

But, here is a truism, given the political will of the regular Army, a guerrilla force will always be defeated, unless they have a secure outside supply base and support. Guerrilla warfare and terror tactics are the tools of the weak…and have not worked very often. Guerrilla warfare didn’t work against Ginghis Khan, Timerlame, Attilla, or the Red Army in the Russian Civil War, or against the Germans in WWII. Nor did it work in Greece, Malaya, anywhere in S. America, Iraq, in modern times.

Vietnam is a non-starter example… First, it was not "a guerrilla war" by any measure... it was traditional warfare extended in time as if in slow motion, because of the nature of the ground, and the world politics. Second, the N. Viets had a completely secure supply base, and logistically they were supported by the industrialized forces of the Communist world allowing them to commit a huge portion of their population to the front lines

Furthermore, the North Viets were faced with a force that was limited militarily in every way conceivable in the use of force. Take away the extrodinarily weak presidential leadership (Johnson), and completely inept civilian leadership of the military in the first few years of the war, the US probably would have prevailed despite the artificial limitations on the use of its power.

The truth is the US requires only about 20 percent of its work force to run its industrial system, man its infrastructure and to feed a goodly portion og the world. 80 percent of the US work force is engaged in tertiary economic activity, which can almost all be halted in the event of total war mobilization.

Furthermore, much of the 20 percent of the work force positions required to run the necessary primary and secondary economic activities could be filled by women, teenagers, etc. The automation of the US industrial complex is quite complete and the mechanization of the country are far more advanced than any other. Wars are not won by rifles, but by logistics and artillery, planes, bombs, tanks. China's light industry would help...but without being able to distribute the products, it would be pretty ineffective. China's ability to mass produce AK-47s would thus be relatively meaningless.

China for the next 20-40 years or so will probably be unable to effectively mobilize those numbers, even on its home gound. One reason is that the agricultural system in China is hugely labor intensive. Another is that the total mechanization of the country, its infrastructure, roads, vehicle industries, lack of petroleum reserves, etc, make it far less efficient in the deployment of armed forces than the US.

Recall the difficulty China had even positioning a modest size force opposite N. Vietnam in the late 70s, much less effectively supporting that force in the resulting conflicts. I am fully aware of immense strides China has made...still it is worth contemplating the problems China face then to appreciate the problems such a country would face using its military as something more than a local militia even today.

As you pointed out, China has no significant aircraft industry or ship building industry comparable to the US. Nor are their internal raw resources, iron, metals, and petroleum sufficient to support anything like a maximum effort. US control of the sea would probably insure China could not access the resources they need. The US command of the sea and air on the other hand would insure the US industrial base could run at high efficiency, equip, transport and supply a truly huge force in a very modern way.

And given the US air and sea control, China probably would not even have its slim industrial, transportation, distribution infrastructure intact for long once the hypothetical total war started. Once the Chinese air defense system was used up, even WWII P-38s would be highly effective militarily, and the US could field them in the 10s of thousands.

Do you doubt the US could field, equip, feed, arm, supply and transport … overseas, anywhere,… say 30 or more million well equipped troops, with another 30 million in reserves as replacements? Well, the US has in effect already done it before ... by mobilizing virtually the equivalent of that population percentage in WWII.

I think the only thing to stop the US in a modern hypothetical WWII total war (non nuclear) would be a lack of political will.

Regards,

[Gerry301]

KilRemgor/Jacknola

Two interesting arguments. I tend to lean toward Jacknola (all things being equal) that the technology owned by the US would win the day.

The belief that China would be able to defeat the US navy and rule the waves is too far fetched. The same would hold true for the Chinese airforce.

Ground troops would play a much less significant role, as navel strangulation of ports would cause a catastrophic collapse of the Chinese economy and its ability to supply the huge population.

Air superiority would allow the US to neutralize Chinese ground stations capable of launching satellite attacks very quickly. As there are very few such sites in China capable of launches against US satellites.

China at that point would have to consider nuclear retaliation, of which they would have to understand they would receive a massive counterattack of every nuclear and military base on the mainland, including comand and control. Chinas nuclear capability is still very small when compared to Russia and the US.

In the end, such an absurd scenario would be very unlikely as the political world would dominate. The only scenarios likely for a US China confrontation would be in Korea, and that would be limited by both sides.

[Airgun_Hunter]

Once the Chinese air defense system was used up, even WWII P-38s would be highly effective militarily, and the US could field them in the 10s of thousands.


That the U.S. can put into mass production and bring back the P-38 in numbers? I think the P48 would be a better choice, tougher, more guns :)

Or was just a hypothetical thing?

[2495]

2495 (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?u=60049)>
And how that relates to GPS satellites (the original satellites under question) whose positions are fixed and required for position calculations?


You absolutely 100% sure that theres only 1 set of satellites for GPS? you sure those crazy folks on the Kwajalein atoll aren't busy beavering away making sure there is a triple / quadruple canopy over head of satellites that are 'asleep' until they are needed wrapped in a stealthy shell just waiting for activation?

In all the years I have been digging up articles, research papers, technical papers I have noticed one thing - If they don't talk about a subject, publish papers about a subject or 'mutter from dark hangers' about a subject its because they don't want 'them' (meaning us, the general public) to think about a subject.

Think back to the pre-f117 days. Stealth was all the rage, people talked about it, people pondered on it and alot of general domain time was spent discussing it and even made games and models.

Now, try the same thing with stealth satellites / multiple redundant space systems.

[KilRemgor]

2495 (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?u=60049)>
pointless really, as satellite has 7-10 years of service life and quadrupling number of satellites means thet you've just wasted 4x money on falling stealthy debris that yielded no result. Not to mention that any stealth system will reduce service life compared to that of normal satellite (that is guaranteed).
Those are kind of things that make economies eventually go bankrupt.

It is way more practical to rapidly repopulate constellations (having only one set of cheap, temporary satellites sitting in launch vehicles on alert for neglible cost) than make redundant ones (wasting more satellites and delivery vehicles for serious expenses with zero gain) given service life considerations.