U.S. Air Force Plans for Future War in Space

[budanski]

*A warning for board member "More-****":
Nothing to see here. Just more "copy-pasting" of articles from Budanski. Unlike some elistists, I am not qualified or capable of writing such articles.


U.S. Air Force Plans for Future War in Space

Space.com (http://space.com/businesstechnology/technology/higher_ground_040222.html)

The U.S. Air Force has filed a futuristic flight plan, one that spells out need for an armada of space weaponry and technology for the near-term and in years to come.

Called the Transformation Flight Plan, the 176-page document offers a sweeping look at how best to expand America’s military space tool kit.

The use of space is highlighted throughout the report, with the document stating that space superiority combines the following three capabilities: protect space assets, deny adversaries’ access to space, and quickly launch vehicles and operate payloads into space to quickly replace space assets that fail or are damaged/destroyed.

From space global laser engagement, air launched anti-satellite missiles, to space-based radio frequency energy weapons and hypervelocity rod bundles heaved down to Earth from space – the U.S. Air Force flight plan portrays how valued space operations has become for the warfighter and in protecting the nation from chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high explosive attack.

Now to far-term needs
A number of space-related transformational capabilities are described in the document. While some of these are seen as needed in the near-term (until 2010), others are described as mid-term efforts in 2010-2015, while some efforts are viewed as far-term, beyond 2015.

Among a roster of projected Air Force space projects:

• Air-Launched Anti-Satellite Missile: Small air-launched missile capable of intercepting satellites in low Earth orbit and seen as a past 2015 development.
• Counter Satellite Communications System: Provides the capability by 2010 to deny and disrupt an adversary's space-based communications and early warning.
• Counter Surveillance and Reconnaissance System: A near-term program to deny, disrupt and degrade adversary space-based surveillance and reconnaissance systems.
• Evolutionary Air and Space Global Laser Engagement (EAGLE) Airship Relay Mirrors: Significantly extends the range of both the Airborne Laser and Ground-Based Laser by using airborne, terrestrial or space-based lasers in conjunction with space-based relay mirrors to project different laser powers and frequencies to achieve a broad range of effects from illumination to destruction.*
• Ground-Based Laser: Propagates laser beams through the atmosphere to Low-Earth Orbit satellites to provide robust, post-2015 defensive and offensive space control capability.
• Hypervelocity Rod Bundles: Provides the capability to strike ground targets anywhere in the world from space.
• Orbital Deep Space Imager: A mid-term predictive, near-real time common operating picture of space to enable space control operations.
• Orbital Transfer Vehicle: Significantly adds flexibility and protection of U.S. space hardware in post-2015 while enabling on-orbit servicing of those assets.
• Rapid Attack Identification Detection and Reporting System: A family of systems that will provide near-term capability to automatically identify when a space system is under attack.
• Space-Based Radio Frequency Energy Weapon: A far-term constellation of satellites containing high-power radio-frequency transmitters that possess the capability to disrupt/destroy/disable a wide variety of electronics and national-level command and control systems. It would typically be used as a non-kinetic anti-satellite weapon.
• Space-Based Space Surveillance System: A near-term constellation of optical sensing satellites to track and identify space forces in deep space to enable offensive and defensive counterspace operations.


Rapid launch needs
The newly issued Air Force document makes the following point: "The U.S. space capability rests on the foundation of assured access." There is need to deploy, replenish, sustain, and redeploy space-based forces in minimum time to allow them to accomplish the missions assigned to them - through all phases of conflict.

In this regard, the Air Force is exploring various future system concepts to launch, operate, and maintain space assets responsively. These include the Air Launch System, a dedicated, weather avoiding, on-demand (within 48 hours) system that can rocket into the sky at a wide variety of trajectories and can loft a Space Maneuver Vehicle, Common Aero Vehicle, or a conventional payload.

As explained in the Air Force document, a Space Operations Vehicle (SOV) enables an on-demand spacelift capability with rapid turnaround. This SOV can be one of the vehicles that could deploy the Space Maneuver vehicle – a rapidly reusable orbital vehicle capable of executing a range of space control missions. In addition, the SOV can be utilized to deploy the Common Aero Vehicle, or CAV.

The CAV is an unpowered, maneuverable, hypersonic glide vehicle deployed in the 2010-2015 time period. The CAV could be delivered by a range of delivery vehicles such as an expendable or reusable small launch vehicle to a fully reusable Space Operations Vehicle. It can guide and dispense conventional weapons, sensors or other payloads world wide from and through space within one hour of tasking. It would be able to strike a spectrum of targets, including mobile targets, mobile time sensitive targets, strategic relocatable targets, or fixed hard and deeply buried targets. The CAV’s speed and maneuverability would combine to make defenses against it extremely difficult.

Directed energy beams
Given the growing number of nations that utilize space, Air Force strategists see that trend as worrisome.

"The ability to deny an adversary’s access to space services is essential so that future adversaries will be unable to exploit space in the same way the United States and its allies can. It will require full spectrum, sea, air, land, and space-based offensive counterspace systems capable of preventing unauthorized use of friendly space services and negating adversarial space capabilities from low Earth up to geosynchronous orbits.

The focus, when practical, will be on denying adversary access to space on a temporary and reversible basis," the document states.

Air Force scientists and technologists are busy in the labs exploring the possibility of putting a warning energy "spot" on any target worldwide that could be rapidly followed with varying levels of effects.

A possible breakthrough, the document adds, deals with a solid-state directed energy beam systems, operating at 100-kilowatt levels. "If the generation of large quantities of heat could be managed, the Air Force could develop highly effective, cheap, high power energy weapons."

For example, Air Force researchers are looking at ways to collect or generate large quantities of energy on orbit in order to rely on space-based platforms for more missions and provide a greater degree of true global presence. "This would change many equations about traditional ideas of rapid response," the document explains.

Sensor-to-shooter
The report emphasizes that space capabilities are integral to modern war fighting forces, providing critical surveillance and reconnaissance information, especially over areas of high risk or denied access for airborne craft.

Space capabilities also provide weather and other Earth observation data, global communications, precision position, navigation, and timing to troops on the ground, ships at sea, aircraft in flight, and weapons en route to targets.

Space assets are critical to achieving information superiority as they enable predictive and dominant battlespace awareness. As a result there can be a reduction in the "sensor-to-shooter" cycle to minutes or even seconds, the document explains.

Real-time picture of the battlespace would involve an initial space-based Ground Moving Target Indicator capability.

This capacity provides U.S. global strike forces with the ability to identify and track moving targets anywhere on the surface of the Earth. Also desirable is the ability to detect, locate, identify, and track a wide range of strategic and tactical targets that the United States currently has minimal capability to detect. These include weapons of mass destruction, hidden targets, and air moving targets.

A real-time picture of the battlespace enables a commander to know where all friendly forces are, not only to better coordinate operations and avoid fratricide*-- accidentally injuring or killing your own troops.

Roadmap to the future
In a February 17 press statement issued from the office of the Secretary of the Air Force, the public document on Air Force transformation is described as "a roadmap to the future".

The Air Force flight plan is a reporting document that enables the Secretary of Defense to evaluate and interpret the Air Force's progress toward transformation.

"Transformation is using new things and old things in new ways, and achieving truly transformational effects for the joint warfighter," said Lt. Gen. Duncan McNabb, Air Force director of plans and programs.

The newly issued, publicly releasable report is the one unclassified document that presents an overarching picture of Air Force transformation, added Lt. Col. James McCaw, from the plans and programs directorate's transformation branch.

"It will help the reader understand where the Air Force is going, and why we chose this path," McCaw concluded.



http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/h_usaf_sov_00.jpg

The U.S. Air Force's Air Vehicles Directorate is developing a Space Operations Vehicle to serve as the reusable launch vehicle component of the proposed Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) Military Space Plane. The SOV integrated concept is not a specific design concept, but rather a set of capabilities. Desired attributes for the SOV include responsive on-demand launch, high sortie rates, short turnaround times, and aircraft-like systems operability.

http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/long-range-strike_00.jpg

The U.S. Air Force's proposed Long Range Strike Aircraft (LRSA) will use technologies enabling a rapid global delivery of force from bases located in the continental United States.


http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/v_cav_00.jpg

A Military Space Plane could carry several Common Aero Vehicles, each containing multiple submunitions. Dropped from space, smart bombs and other high-velocity penetrators would strike enemy targets on Earth. CREDIT: U.S. Air Force

http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/h_rascal_conops_00.jpg

RASCAL's concept of operations. It is designed to place small payloads in orbit on a moment’s notice by launching them from a high-speed, high-altitude aircraft that eliminates a large and expensive first stage booster. CREDIT: DARPA

[ChuckThunder]

Cool, we'll now have a capital S at the end of SEALs.

SEALS - SEa Air Land Space.

The Marines will have to have Eagle, Globe, Anchor, and Galaxy. :D

[James]

I hope President Bush is able to make space safe for all Americans.

[budanski]

Won't be long till the Air Force changes its name to Space Force.

[Ratamacue]

Or "Aerospace Force."

[California Joe]

There's already a Spacecom so it'll be easy.

[Maverick77]

I doubt we will see any of that **** used in our lifetime.

[Vance]

Or "Aerospace Force."
How British of you.

[Ratamacue]

Or "Aerospace Force."
How British of you.

I like to think that I'm a rather multi-cultural person. ;)

[budanski]

Are you then the international Carrot Top? ;)

[AFACadet]

I doubt we will see any of that **** used in our lifetime.


This is the tip of the iceburg. Even more so, much of this technology is actually available now.



This stuff will start coming into use not to long from now.





The Air Force is called the "Air and Space Force" by many Generals including the CSAF.



Space is the new high ground and we want to make sure we keep our current advantage as well as make new uses of space based weapons.

[MapleLeafInfantry]

Hrmmm I like major arms control agreements, they prevent me from fearing for my life, what about you?

cough cough
outer space treaty of 1967 prohibiting all military acticivty in outerspace, including the moon and other elestial bodies...
127 states signed on including
United States 01/27/67 10/10/67 , UK, RUSSIA, and about every other major power

hrmmm

cough cough
partial nuclear test ban treaty of 1963 prohibiting nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, in outer-space, and under water.
154 states including the usa, russia, and a bunch of other nuke-powers signed on
It was opened for signature on August 5, 1963, and entered into force on October 10, 1963.


I guess its ok, becasue only the terrorists will be fighting wars in space right?

[AFACadet]

There are NO treaties about CONVENTIONAL weapons in space. The only thing that is out there are countries saying "we will/will not have weapons in space."



Conventional weapons in space are 100% legit both legaly and from a military standpoint.


And if people don't think any of that will apply with the war on terror--you're not thinking.

Imagine we somehow get a fix on Bin Laden or one of any number of uber bad guys. The problem is that there are no ground forces near by to pick them up. Instead of simply letting them get away, why not send down a CAV. 15-30 minutes after they are found, a weapon bround by a CAV impacts the ground and they are no more...


That ability would have allowed Saddam and bin Laden to have been taken out a number of different times over the years.

[Maverick77]

Waste of money if you ask me.

Sending some billion dollar thing hooked up from some trillion dollar thing from space to kill a guy with an AK.

When you could of killed him with hard work and 10 cents.

think about it.

[AFACadet]

Refer to my post above




Plus, besides the weapons portion, the technology will allow stuff to get into space much more cost effectivly.



That has benefits for everyone.

[MapleLeafInfantry]

outer-space treaty 1967

Article III
States Parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international co-operation and understanding.


Article IV
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.

Ok, i guess you don't like my humor afacadet, but the last line was a joke.

This is A treaty, CONVENTIONALLY binding about WEAPONS in SPACE.

mli

[Maverick77]

I saw your post above

thats why I said its a waste of money.

[Maverick77]

Who captured Saddam

United States army infantry. Off of human intel.

All the technology in the world couldnt get that ****er.


It will always be the same.

[Ratamacue]

You are so totally/completely/absolutely/positively missing the point, Airborne, that it's a waste of time to try to explain.

[AFACadet]

The US would have in a heart beat paid hundreds of millions of dollars to kill Saddam and bin Laden if the oppurtunity presented itself (like it did many times in the past).


In the end, it would have SAVED a butt load money and lives...

[Maverick77]

You are so totally/completely/absolutely/positively missing the point, Airborne, that it's a waste of time to try to explain.

im not worried about whatever point this is trying to make here.

These trillion dollar weapons are a waste of money.

The men on the ground won every war in history.

The men on the ground captured Saddam and when Bin Laden goes down it will be the same story.

Yes, Men die. That is war, if someone can't understand of take that then they shouldn't be invloved.

[Ratamacue]

Men on the ground have won every war in history because every war in history has been waged on the ground. Some day that's going to change, why shouldn't the US try to get the head start?

Simply logic here, my friend. Think first.

[Maverick77]

Do you understand that im not talking about battles someday being fought in space.

Im simply talking about munitions fired from space at ground targets.

[AFACadet]

I propose then that the AF leaves. They fly no CAP missions, no CAS mission, do not attack any strategic targets, take away all support aircraft like E-3s and JSTARs, turn off all GPS and spy satillites and all the other crucial ones that no one hears about (like the DSP satillites).


The Navy should get rid of all their ships. Since the Army is just about men, and wars are about fighting other men, the Navy and its transport are not needed.


In fact, why don't you give up those rifles of yours, helmets, boots, rucksacks, ect. We also don't need to spend 10 million on a Tank or millions on artillery.


How bout we make everyone look and fight like the great Conan of old (except with a club because that cheaper)?


After all, its ONLY the man on the ground that wins wars and technology has NOTHING to do with it...


:roll:


Airborne249,


The same thing was said about aircraft in 1909.


"Bah!!! Why do we need those things? We fight on the ground after all."

[Lone Predator]

I wonder if this is in part responce to China's plans to put a man on the moon.

[AFACadet]

No, this has been in the works for a long time and the technology has quitely been maturing over the past few decades (late 1940s to be exact). Its all starting to come together now and some of its becoming public.

[usa320]

outer space treaty of 1967 prohibiting all military acticivty in outerspace, including the moon and other elestial bodies...
127 states signed on including
United States 01/27/67 10/10/67 , UK, RUSSIA, and about every other major power


"outer-space" is far different than low earth orbit.

Also, i think this is a waste of money to be honest...

Really, what threats are there in outter space? Bin Laden's secret moon base?

Other than surveilance and anti-missile satellites i dont see a need for any military **** in space.

[Maverick77]

If your going to waste an uncountable amount of money on space stuff then atleast build a Death Star.

[Ratamacue]

I think the UN would object. ;)

[MVSpartan117]

I found a leaked picture of the new top secret space fighter thing

http://members.aol.com/nofear989/x-wing.jpg

It looks oddly familiar......

[Maverick77]

http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/tiefighter/img/movie_bg.jpg

found this on a russian government website

[AFACadet]

heh rofl

[Operation Ivy]

Some of you need to play Halo or watch Starship Troopers, we need protection from those evil bugs and the flood!!! woot

[AFACadet]

It's not what's in space that the threat, its what others can do to our (the US) space assets VERY easily, and how we can use things in space to beneft the events on the ground.


remember how people used to fight over a hill back in the day because that was the strategic position for an endless number of reasons, and when you held that hill, you could do a lot of things to the enemy they could not do to you. For the same reason, castles were also put on the high ground as well as watch towers, ect ect ect. If you were an archer, you would rather fire down a hill then up to a hill.

After 1903, the high ground became the air. Whenever airpower is CORRECTLY used, it is the dominant force on the battlefield.


Along came 1945 and the V-2--along with it, a new 'high-ground.'





We can either sit around and let others take the high ground, or do what we did with the last high-gound (air), understand the posibilities, run with it, and completely dominate every other military force on the planet in regards to space.

But back in 1910, people were not thinking in those terms. We lost our lead to the Europeans and had to use their combat aircraft in WWI.

Only a few people in the US saw the possibilites after the war and quietly developed theory during the interwar years. During WWII, the air was thrust into popular (and governmental minds) and we've never looked back.


The AF is doing the right thing now and not waiting to fall behind.



Just like airpower revolutionized the modern battlefield, space power will do the same--and even more.


Its also interesting to see history repeating itself YET again. If you look back to newpaper articles, speaches, and debates in the 1910s to after WWI, you would not believe the amount of people fighting against banning or making treaties so there would be a world wide ban on aircraft. The reasons in most cases are exactly the same reasons people don't want weapons in space now.

Yet who here gives a second thought when they see an F-16, Tornado, or Su-27 fly over?

[el borracho]

Only the next step...

When I went through Air Force basic training they were telling us all these plans for us evolving into an Air/Space force. In fact, since we dont really have a chant like "hooah," or whatnot our command proposed the idea of "Air Power" and the reply would be "Space Power, AEF." How ridiculous is that...sounds like some hack super-hero's catch phrase. I am starting to think about transfering to the Army... :cantbeli:

[A Soldier]

http://www.supraforums.com/forum/images/smilies/ttiwwp.gif

[Sleeping Sun]

I hope President Bush is able to make space safe for all Americans.

make rofl rofl rofl space rofl rofl safe rofl rofl for rofl rofl all rofl rofl AMERICANS rofl rofl

[Sixgun Symphony]

I believe there was a missile made back in the 1980's that could be launched from an F-14 fighter to knock out sattelites in orbit?

This has been going on for awhile.

[Seiyuuki]

http://www.sicqnus.com/imagdc/dcdstarloos.jpg

[AFACadet]

I believe there was a missile made back in the 1980's that could be launched from an F-14 fighter to knock out sattelites in orbit?

This has been going on for awhile.


It was the ASAT, a USAF program that fired from an F-15 going vertical at 60,000 ft.


It made a suscessful interception, but died mainly due to funding.

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/asat-mhv-DFST8307982_JPG.jpg

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/mhv-asat-launch2.jpg

[Skaman]

WASTE OF MONEY. I REPEAT, THIS IS A WASTE OF MONEY.

[cut]

a sound investment:

http://www.adexo.com/xwings.gif

[Ratamacue]

WASTE OF MONEY. I REPEAT, THIS IS A WASTE OF MONEY.

Speak for your own tax dollars.

[Skaman]

WASTE OF MONEY. I REPEAT, THIS IS A WASTE OF MONEY.

Speak for your own tax dollars.


I can speak for whatever I so choose.

[Ratamacue]

Sure you can, but nevertheless your opinion is just slightly above worthless on this matter.

[Skaman]

Sure you can, but nevertheless your opinion is just slightly above worthless on this matter.

and you speak for whom?

[Ratamacue]

I speak for common sense. Last time I checked, you're not paying the US government budget, and as such, you really don't have any right to tell people how their tax dollars are being spent. I can tell you for a fact that my parents would support this, as would I. But then again, we're just ignorant, egotistical, loudmouth, cowboy Americans.

[Salty Dog]

I speak for common sense. Last time I checked, you're not paying the US government budget, and as such, you really don't have any right to tell people how their tax dollars are being spent. I can tell you for a fact that my parents would support this, as would I. But then again, we're just ignorant, egotistical, loudmouth, cowboy Americans.

good call.

[Seiyuuki]

ducimus19...Just one question?

Are you an American's tax-payer?

[Skaman]

I speak for common sense. Last time I checked, you're not paying the US government budget, and as such, you really don't have any right to tell people how their tax dollars are being spent. I can tell you for a fact that my parents would support this, as would I. But then again, we're just ignorant, egotistical, loudmouth, cowboy Americans.


List your reasons for supporting this defense expenditure.

[Seiyuuki]

I speak for common sense. Last time I checked, you're not paying the US government budget, and as such, you really don't have any right to tell people how their tax dollars are being spent. I can tell you for a fact that my parents would support this, as would I. But then again, we're just ignorant, egotistical, loudmouth, cowboy Americans.


List your reasons for supporting this defense expenditure.


ducimus19...Just one question?

Are you an American's tax-payer?

[Skaman]

ducimus19...Just one question?

Are you an American's tax-payer?



Should I have to be to comment on such matters? Do you have to be a Canadian to comment on Canadian politics? No. DO you need to be a Haitian to comment on their current state of political unrest? No.

[Ratamacue]

Warfare is going to enter space sometime or another. Someone needs to take the initiative to get the head start.

In addition, technologies like lasers, suborbital strike aircraft, etc. have overwhelming benefits in making warfare more efficient and quite possibly quicker. And generally, quicker wars = less bloody wars.

The benefits from a program like this are numerous, and not limited to the military. Remember, many civilian technologies and products originated in the military, and space has also lead to the development of quite a few technologies.

But, of course, the real reason is all about global domination and the creation of an American empire.

[Operation Ivy]

We just wanna be ahead of eveyone in the space race II

Go Ratamacue woot

[Seiyuuki]

ducimus19...Just one question?

Are you an American's tax-payer?



Should I have to be to comment on such matters? Do you have to be a Canadian to comment on Canadian politics? No. DO you need to be a Haitian to comment on their current state of political unrest? No.

Do you have to be a Canadian tax-payer to bitch and whine about how Canadian's tax-money is being spent? YES...Two different things.

So...kindly...STOP BITCHING AND WHINING, YOUR JEALOUSY IS GETTING IRRITATING...It's not the Yanks fault that they're so stinking prosperous that 8 billions to them is like 1 million to Canada!!!

Do you always have to hijacked a thread with your usual..."America this...America that...blah...blah...blah...I don't like America..."

[Skaman]

Warfare is going to enter space sometime or another. Someone needs to take the initiative to get the head start.

In addition, technologies like lasers, suborbital strike aircraft, etc. have overwhelming benefits in making warfare more efficient and quite possibly quicker. And generally, quicker wars = less bloody wars.

The benefits from a program like this are numerous, and not limited to the military. Remember, many civilian technologies and products originated in the military, and space has also lead to the development of quite a few technologies.

But, of course, the real reason is all about global domination and the creation of an American empire.


That’s all we need, another 'initiative' to create a new space race. There is nothing in space we need, there is nowhere we need to go, and there is definitely no need for weapons in space. Until we get attacked by Martians via war of the worlds, it’s useless and ultimately a large waste of money better applied elsewhere. Let’s focus on the massive problems on our own planet. I think your mind is clouded with delusions of Star Trek.

[Skaman]

We just wanna be ahead of eveyone in the space race II

Go Ratamacue woot


why does there NEED to be a space race 2?

[Operation Ivy]

That’s all we need, another 'initiative' to create a new space race. There is nothing in space we need, there is nowhere we need to go

how do you know??

and whats wrong with a space race with China, Europe, Russia and US?

[Skaman]

ducimus19...Just one question?

Are you an American's tax-payer?



Should I have to be to comment on such matters? Do you have to be a Canadian to comment on Canadian politics? No. DO you need to be a Haitian to comment on their current state of political unrest? No.

Do you have to be a Canadian tax-payer to bitch and whine about how Canadian's tax-money is being spent? YES...Two different things.

So...kindly...STOP BITCHING AND WHINING, YOUR JEALOUSY IS GETTING IRRITATING...It's not the Yanks fault that they're so stinking prosperous that 8 billions to them is like 1 million to Canada!!!

Do you always have to hijacked a thread with your usual..."America this...America that...blah...blah...blah...I don't like America..."



Well, 8 billion dollars really doesn’t match 1 million for Canada as the current exchange rate is 1 Canadian dollar for .75 American cents. Nice try though. It’s not my problem, but a humanity issue when a nation wasted 8 billion and it’s populous hardly blinks an eye, all the while millions have nothing around the globe. Now we have space contracts, scraped helicopters, and multi million jet fighters! I realize the GDP’s of our nations are in stark contrast, but 8 billion dollars is an immense amount of money to waste, regardless of GDP.

http://www.x-rates.com/

[Skaman]

That’s all we need, another 'initiative' to create a new space race. There is nothing in space we need, there is nowhere we need to go

how do you know??

and whats wrong with a space race with China, Europe, Russia and US?


does someone have cold war fever?

[Seiyuuki]

That’s all we need, another 'initiative' to create a new space race. There is nothing in space we need, there is nowhere we need to go, and there is definitely no need for weapons in space. Until we get attacked by Martians via war of the worlds, it’s useless and ultimately a large waste of money better applied elsewhere. Let’s focus on the massive problems on our own planet. I think your mind is clouded with delusions of Star Trek.

...And you would be an expert to preach? You're either an idiot or paranoid...We don't need weapons in space "Until we get attacked by Martians via war of the worlds..." What a good plan, wait till we are about to be lay waste by Martians to develop weapons in space...see, either an idiot or paranoid. I'm sure the military will enjoy your keen insight...Don't have to invest in our defense, social programs is the way to go, we don't need to invest in our defense until we're about to be invaded!!!

[Skaman]

That’s all we need, another 'initiative' to create a new space race. There is nothing in space we need, there is nowhere we need to go, and there is definitely no need for weapons in space. Until we get attacked by Martians via war of the worlds, it’s useless and ultimately a large waste of money better applied elsewhere. Let’s focus on the massive problems on our own planet. I think your mind is clouded with delusions of Star Trek.

...And you would be an expert to preach? You're either an idiot or paranoid...We don't need weapons in space "Until we get attacked by Martians via war of the worlds..." What a good plan, wait till we are about to be lay waste by Martians to develop weapons in space...see, either an idiot or paranoid. I'm sure the military will enjoy your keen insight...Don't have to invest in our defense, social programs is the way to go, we don't need to invest in our defense until we're about to be invaded!!!

invasion by aliens, it was a 'joke'

[AFACadet]

I love how this thread was a decient, intellectually sound thread about an important topic--until an armchair general who has no concept of any of this stuff decides to show up and post his 'enlightened' view.

:fork: :cantbeli: :slap: :-*$ :bash: :backhand: :P

[Skaman]

I love how this thread was a decient, intellectually sound thread about an importnat topic--until and armchair general who has no concept of any of this stuff decides to show up and post his 'enlightened' view.

:fork: :cantbeli: :slap: :-*$ :bash: :backhand: :P


Oh you mean when people like Airborne and I voice an opinion not in support of this project it is automatically viewed upon as not 'informed'?
I think the 'concept' you are missing is there are far more worldly issues that need attention than 'warfare in space'. Do you not agree the globe is facing MANY problems aside from ‘galactic defense against Darth Vader’?

Natural resources, aquatic sea life, natural habitats, wildlife, melting of the ice caps, pollution, over population, over consumption, starvation, civil war, genocide, political un-rest, disease and pathogens, cancer, aids, humanitarian issues, sexism, racism, corruption, crime, deviance, morality. Are these not aspects of human nature and global issues with which we should be concerned? Or should we divert our funds to a new 'space race' which is far more worthy?

:cantbeli:

[Flagg]

Ummmmmm...getting back on topic...why always go for the big budget blockbuster when a low(er) budget option exists?

Why not just rearm ICBMs with non-nuclear warheads with JDAM-like accuracy?

The kinetic energy alone from an inert warhead would do some serious damage....and likely avoid collateral damage if sufficiently accurate.

Response times wouldn't be as fast as an orbital system, but they'd still be pretty quick...and upgradeable.

In the end...I reckon the winner of this new "space race" is the one with the cheapest orbital cost per pound. Logistics, not weapons will win this "war" IMHO.

[Kilgor]

Natural resources, aquatic sea life, natural habitats, wildlife, melting of the ice caps, pollution, over population, over consumption, starvation, civil war, genocide, political un-rest, disease and pathogens, cancer, aids, humanitarian issues, sexism, racism, corruption, crime, deviance, morality. Are these not aspects of human nature and global issues with which we should be concerned? Or should we divert our funds to a new 'space race' which is far more worthy?
:

Are you a US taxpayer ?

"our funds " ?

[Sixgun Symphony]

Are you a US taxpayer ?

"our funds " ?

There are some people here with the crazy idea that we all come under the jurisdiction of the UN.

I have explained to them that the US is a soveriegn nation, but that fact does not sink in to their heads.

[Sixgun Symphony]

Flagg,

You brought up some interesting points. However, I think that ICBM's are old technology and orbital weapons will make them obsolete.







Ummmmmm...getting back on topic...why always go for the big budget blockbuster when a low(er) budget option exists?

Why not just rearm ICBMs with non-nuclear warheads with JDAM-like accuracy?

The kinetic energy alone from an inert warhead would do some serious damage....and likely avoid collateral damage if sufficiently accurate.

Response times wouldn't be as fast as an orbital system, but they'd still be pretty quick...and upgradeable.

In the end...I reckon the winner of this new "space race" is the one with the cheapest orbital cost per pound. Logistics, not weapons will win this "war" IMHO.

[Seiyuuki]

Well, 8 billion dollars really doesn’t match 1 million for Canada as the current exchange rate is 1 Canadian dollar for .75 American cents. Nice try though. It’s not my problem, but a humanity issue when a nation wasted 8 billion and it’s populous hardly blinks an eye, all the while millions have nothing around the globe. Now we have space contracts, scraped helicopters, and multi million jet fighters! I realize the GDP’s of our nations are in stark contrast, but 8 billion dollars is an immense amount of money to waste, regardless of GDP.

http://www.x-rates.com/

Again, nice try, but don't be an idiot...look up the word "analogy." Ever invest on the stock market? Or is that too "Capitalist" for you?

Don't even try to preach to me about "having nothing," I been there, I live that life and I done more in that area than you could possibly have in your entire lifetime.

[Kilgor]

There are some people here with the crazy idea that we all come under the jurisdiction of the UN.

I have explained to them that the US is a soveriegn nation, but that fact does not sink in to their heads.

Or they expect that the US should put this money into human aid projects because X number of kids die each day in Y country.

[A Soldier]

I love how this thread was a decient, intellectually sound thread about an importnat topic--until and armchair general who has no concept of any of this stuff decides to show up and post his 'enlightened' view.

:fork: :cantbeli: :slap: :-*$ :bash: :backhand: :P


Oh you mean when people like Airborne and I voice an opinion not in support of this project it is automatically viewed upon as not 'informed'?
I think the 'concept' you are missing is there are far more worldly issues that need attention than 'warfare in space'. Do you not agree the globe is facing MANY problems aside from ‘galactic defense against Darth Vader’?

Natural resources, aquatic sea life, natural habitats, wildlife, melting of the ice caps, pollution, over population, over consumption, starvation, civil war, genocide, political un-rest, disease and pathogens, cancer, aids, humanitarian issues, sexism, racism, corruption, crime, deviance, morality. Are these not aspects of human nature and global issues with which we should be concerned? Or should we divert our funds to a new 'space race' which is far more worthy?

:cantbeli:
Until our country has a outrageous problem with more than two of these areas why should we care. Or until my country is under the control of a global state, why should we care what we decide to do with our money or what you think we should do with it. :bash:

[A Soldier]

Don't hate cause we got it ($$)............ open your hands and hope some comes your way.

[Skaman]

I love how this thread was a decient, intellectually sound thread about an importnat topic--until and armchair general who has no concept of any of this stuff decides to show up and post his 'enlightened' view.

:fork: :cantbeli: :slap: :-*$ :bash: :backhand: :P


Oh you mean when people like Airborne and I voice an opinion not in support of this project it is automatically viewed upon as not 'informed'?
I think the 'concept' you are missing is there are far more worldly issues that need attention than 'warfare in space'. Do you not agree the globe is facing MANY problems aside from ‘galactic defense against Darth Vader’?

Natural resources, aquatic sea life, natural habitats, wildlife, melting of the ice caps, pollution, over population, over consumption, starvation, civil war, genocide, political un-rest, disease and pathogens, cancer, aids, humanitarian issues, sexism, racism, corruption, crime, deviance, morality. Are these not aspects of human nature and global issues with which we should be concerned? Or should we divert our funds to a new 'space race' which is far more worthy?

I highlighted issues which exist in the USA.

:cantbeli:
Until our country has a outrageous problem with more than two of these areas why should we care. Or until my country is under the control of a global state, why should we care what we decide to do with our money or what you think we should do with it. :bash:

Really, global warming is not an American problem, over-population is not an American problem, and pollution is not an American problem? If any of these issues affects the globe, its affects the USA. All nations are collectively susceptible to these issues and they are HUGE problems; whether you are cognizant of them or not are beyond me, but it seems you need to slap yourself and wake up!

[Tengu]

I support it. Better to have space weapons in the hands of the us than in the hands of china for example.
However i do hope they make weapons that are out of range for weapons launched from earth. And i don't think we will see x-wings anytime soon :P .

[A Soldier]

:slap: ok I'm awake, still not seeing it............ sh*t

[Pandy]

Truely, if you ever think about it... don't **** made in the military get passed down to the civilian world within 20-50 years?

Submarines for example, use to be only in the military and now many civilian companies now use em to look for deep ships under the oceans.

GPS was used in the 1980s by the military, then in 1992+ (I don't know the real date), began making its way into civilan hands.

The internet was used by the Military at first during the 1980s for coms (NATO use for quick coms with eachother). Now... look where we are now with the internet.

I bet you money, if the Air-force can find a way to military personal into space safetly, then civilian traval to space will be happening within a few years after the air-force.

That's what I look at and I don't think it's a waste of money, only if the money is abused is when it becomes wasted.

[usa320]

I think money could be better spend on weapons down here in earths atmosphere...

And i think that other countries need to stop bitching that the US doesnt do anything for poor countries, when we are the #1 provider of food and monetary aid to poorer countries. We are in debt ourself because of the amount of money we give to others. So until Canada starts dishing out the cash like we do, shut the **** up.

And i think Dicmus, while i partly agree that the cash could be spend on something better, oughtta shut the **** up. The only reason he posts here is to degrade America in every post and thread he possibly can.

ban him.

[Skaman]

I think money could be better spend on weapons down here in earths atmosphere...

And i think that other countries need to stop bitching that the US doesnt do anything for poor countries, when we are the #1 provider of food and monetary aid to poorer countries. We are in debt ourself because of the amount of money we give to others. So until Canada starts dishing out the cash like we do, shut the f*** up.

And i think Dicmus, while i partly agree that the cash could be spend on something better, oughtta shut the f*** up. The only reason he posts here is to degrade America in every post and thread he possibly can.

ban him.

we do dish out cash, more than we can afford.

[Jack Mehoff]

duci, who's we?

[Skaman]

duci, who's we?

Canada

[Sixgun Symphony]

Really, global warming is not an American problem, over-population is not an American problem, and pollution is not an American problem? If any of these issues affects the globe, its affects the USA. All nations are collectively susceptible to these issues and they are HUGE problems; whether you are cognizant of them or not are beyond me, but it seems you need to slap yourself and wake up!

The way to control overpopulation is for the first world nations to restrict immigration. The poor nations will then be forced to deal with their fecundity rather than export their surplus population onto wealthier nations.

Pollution? Mostly an industrial problem. The Industrialized nations are cleaning up there act. Increasing industrialization in the 3rd world will cause pollution there, but the first world nation can pass high tariffs on products from nations that pollute.

Global warming? Junk science.

[Flagg]

The way to control overpopulation is for the first world nations to restrict immigration.

Right......I agree...except for one thing........who's going to do all the work when everyone is retired on Social Security? Check out the democraphics......aging population, just over 2 workers per retired in 20 years.....old folks vote so you can't cut their bennies, or you will not get re-elected.....one easy answer is opening the gates to improve your demograghics.


The poor nations will then be forced to deal with their fecundity rather than export their surplus population onto wealthier nations.

Kinda hard to stop birthin' babies when they offer the only social security system in the 4th world.....not likely to stop until quality of life and social services improve.


Pollution? Mostly an industrial problem. The Industrialized nations are cleaning up there act. Increasing industrialization in the 3rd world will cause pollution there, but the first world nation can pass high tariffs on products from nations that pollute.

When consumers/voters decide on a $50 DVD player produced by a polluting nation compared to a $100 DVD player produced from a Green nation...I reckon most would say "Here's $100 bucks...I'll take two."

Sorry for going offtopic....couldn't control myself

[HoboWithAK]

Anti-low orbit satellite? Anyone remember when the F-15C was in missle testing, it took off, climbed to 80,000 feet and shot a old weather satellite out of orbit with a early block AIM-120? There you go.

[Flagg]

Anti-low orbit satellite? Anyone remember when the F-15C was in missle testing, it took off, climbed to 80,000 feet and shot a old weather satellite out of orbit with a early block AIM-120? There you go.

http://faq.bigip.mine.nu:8008/guide/images/f15/f15asat.jpg

Looks WAY too big to be an AIM120 variant

http://faq.bigip.mine.nu:8008/guide/images/f15/asat.jpg

Here's a closeup view of the ASAT missile....quite large


http://faq.bigip.mine.nu:8008/guide/images/f15/cft.jpg

Now here's a photo of the F15 conformal launcher for Sparrow/AMRAAM

No way that big mother's gonna fit on the conformal launcher

Although it would be pretty cool of it did....it would mean that if the program were alive and missiles were in inventory you could salvo 4....further increasing your kill probability.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Flagg wrote
Why not just rearm ICBMs with non-nuclear warheads with JDAM-like accuracy?

The kinetic energy alone from an inert warhead would do some serious damage....and likely avoid collateral damage if sufficiently accurate.

Response times wouldn't be as fast as an orbital system, but they'd still be pretty quick...and upgradeable.


The idea has merits, but what would the Chinese, Russians etc think every time one of those bad boys was fired off. Pre-emptive begining to WWIII perhaps?.

Ducimus there's been billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives spent specifically on improving the plight of the poor, sick, needy etc in all nations, but particularly third world/developing nations. Throwing money at a problem will rarely, if ever, solve it. Common sense based on experience tells us this.

I asked you in the Uganda thread for some credible, realistic solutions to the social problems plagueing the third world and you would'nt/could'nt answer.
I'll ask again how, practically, can the 'world' solve these problems?.

Without the jingoistic liberal catch phrases and buzz words if you can.

[Seraphim]

Global warming? Junk science.

The Pentagon just released a report about two weeks back about the dangers of global warming and how it is more dangerous than terrorism.

[Falco]

Ducimus there's been billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives spent specifically on improving the plight of the poor, sick, needy etc in all nations, but particularly third world/developing nations. Throwing money at a problem will rarely, if ever, solve it. Common sense based on experience tells us this.

I asked you in the Uganda thread for some credible, realistic solutions to the social problems plagueing the third world and you would'nt/could'nt answer.
I'll ask again how, practically, can the 'world' solve these problems?.

Without the jingoistic liberal catch phrases and buzz words if you can.

Do you have any ideas?

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Not off the top of my head, but making statements like,


Education creates jobs which will create social stability and stabilize political restlessness. Military force is only a preliminary method in bringing peace. The same conflict will return unless the chain is broken. We must establish a market for these people so they can be self sufficient. Unless we contribute some serious financial attention to these nations, we will be consistently dumping military into these regions for the years to come. The chain must be broken, and the solution is education. Before we can educate them, we must earn their respect and appreciation, additionally, a long process.


Is pointless without rational, practical and realistic solutions. I keep hearing the same people whine about how this or that is wrong but they have yet to outline how what could be done other than spouting naive one liners, ie;



The chain must be broken, and the solution is education.
or

Before we can educate them, we must earn their respect and appreciation
or how about

"develop these backwards nations"

To harp on that the trillions of dollars spent on defense would be better used on welfare and social programs is dellusional. If the millions or billions spent around the world each year don't solve the problem, then what good will a few more billion do?.

What ever the solution(s) are, they're not going to please everyone amd THAT is the problem.

What do you think Falco?.

[Falco]

Last time I went to africa was in 1995 and that was in SA. It was about a year after Nelson Mandela was elected and the nationnal Rugby team had just won the rugby world cup. Blacks and whites were celebrating the win there was a sense of hope in the air (at least more than there was a few years back). I recall hearing Nelson Mandela thanking to the captain of the rugby team because through his victory ha ha united the people of the country. People were hoping that South Africa would finally emerge from aa era of racism and poverty. They had finally a good leader at the head of the countrythat was willing to clean things up. I think the first thing we need to do is get more people like Nelson Mandela at the head of african countries. People who the population can look up to. It isn't possible to get Africa out of the gutter in one generation. There too many scars left after the wars, the years of racism. etc. But maybe, after a few generations of black and white, tutsi and hutu kids growing up together peacefully, Africa will finally be able to harness the potential it possess.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

And how much has SA changed in ten years?.

How much better is SA for having had Mandela as its president?.

What's the standard of living for the 'average' black family in SA now compared to before Mandela was president?.

Africa has 'been in the gutter' for more than one generation and there aren't people of mandelas stature standing in the shadows of every country ready to take over. Even if there are it takes more than just one person in the right position to effect a positive change on so vast a scale.

That is the point i'm trying to make, being over simplistic by saying things like
I think the first thing we need to do is get more people like Nelson Mandela at the head of african countries. People who the population can look up to. makes all the right noises but exactly HOW are you/we/us/they going to do it?.

Realistic, Practical, Rational solutions. Not pie in the sky, hold hands around the camp fire singing 'ebony and ivory' liberal bull****.

[Falco]

And how much has SA changed in ten years?.


Haven't been in SA since then. Last I heard was that the SA president agreed with Mugabe on his land management policies. Which on a side note is not a very good sign.


How much better is SA for having had Mandela as its president?.

What's the standard of living for the 'average' black family in SA now compared to before Mandela was president?.


Well, it's legal for them to go in places that used to be reserved for whites.



makes all the right noises but exactly HOW are you/we/us/they going to do it?.

The situation in africa is very complicated. If I had the solution I probably wouldn't be talking about it on a forum dedicated to the military but to the UN.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

How much better is SA for having had Mandela as its president?.

What's the standard of living for the 'average' black family in SA now compared to before Mandela was president?.


Well, it's legal for them to go in places that used to be reserved for whites.



As opposed to decent food on the table, a home preferably not in a shanty town, maybe in an environment where crime isn't rampant, perhaps where the government admits that AID's is an epidemic threatening the very fabric of the society rather than ignoring the problem(s).


The situation in africa is very complicated. If I had the solution I probably wouldn't be talking about it on a forum dedicated to the military but to the UN.

Any solution to the problems in Africa WILL involve military intervention in some way, shape or form. To think otherwise is naive.