Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Space Force

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by GCoyote View Post
    More space news courtesy of our old friends at Strategy Page.

    https://strategypage.com/htmw/htspac.../20200921.aspx
    Now that's an interesting source and thanks for presenting. As an old subscriber to Strategy and Tactics, along with SPI games, I kick myself for not knowing about this site for all these years. Some familiar names from the past decades of military history and wargaming.

    Strategy Page
    The News as History
    (HOME): https://strategypage.com/strategytalk/default.aspx

    EXCERPT:
    About Us

    StrategyPage provides quick, easy access to what is going on in military affairs. We cover armed forces world wide, as well as up to date reporting on wars and hotspots wherever they may be. All the news you need, written so that it fits into the time you have for it. The information is organized logically, with categories for different weapons systems (armor, artillery, naval aviation, etc.). We also cover the software of war, often ignored items like leadership, peacetime operations, intelligence, information warfare and the like. And we keep the information online, with archives going back to the early 1980s. A search capability gives you quick access to whatever you need. We put it all in context with military history, maps, country background and useful links.

    Wars and rumors of war. Get it straight, get it fast at StrategyPage.com

    Editor in Chief
    Jim Dunnigan
    Contributing Editor Quick & Dirty Guide to War and On Point columnist
    Austin Bay
    Senior Editor and CIC columnist
    Al Nofi
    Publisher and StrategyWorld.com President
    Dan Masterson
    Staff biographies at the bottom of this page.
    ....
    https://strategypage.com/aboutus/default.aspx
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
    “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
    Present Current Events are the Future's History

    Comment


    • #17
      Yes, the new Space Force is definitely in the news these days.

      The American people have been rocked by revelations that Galactus, god of oblivion, devourer of worlds, was detected today approaching our galaxy at a speed that can only be described as ludicrous. . . . .

      “I wanted to always play it down,” a smiling [Pres Donald] Trump told Fox and Friends. “But really, no President before me has better prepared the country to repel this big guy… Some folks call him Galactus, the hunger that does not cease, but I call him the big guy. I don’t want to scare people and create a panic.”

      The President cited the creation of Space Force and recently a UFO task force as further evidence of his preparation, which would cement his place as “the best president the country will have ever had.” Military leaders mumbled agreement while looking faintly embarrassed. . . . .

      In a campaign speech, former Vice President and avatar-in-training Joe Biden pledged to focus on ways of nullifying the existential threat, as well as promising fewer fires, floods, rockslides and tornado[e]s and a $10,000 world-devoured tax credit to families earning less than $175,000 per year.

      He also criticized the President’s inaction regarding Galactus the World Eater, and specifically questioned his recent decision to replace Dr. Reed Richards with Dr. Victor von Doom as UFO task force director.

      Critics complained that most of Biden’s speech was plagiarized from an Isaac Asimov novel. . . . .

      "Trump downplays impending arrival of Galactus, Devourer of Worlds," by Perpetual Captain, Duffel Blog, 23 Sep 2020
      I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

      Comment


      • #18
        One thing the "look out" function of a Space Force might deal with ....

        Not large enough for EOTWAWKI, nor Tunguska level destruction, but could still do some damage had it come closer enough to strike us.

        RV-size asteroid to get closer to Earth than the moon
        ...
        An asteroid will get awfully close to Earth this Thursday (Sept. 24), when it whizzes by our planet closer than the moon orbits.

        The asteroid — known as 2020 SW — isn't expected to collide with Earth, according to the Center for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. But it will get close, passing about 16,700 miles (27,000 kilometers) away from Earth, according to the Virtual Telescope Project.

        To put this in perspective, the moon hangs out at an average of 238,900 miles (384,000 km) from us, or about 30 Earths away. This asteroid will pass at a distance of about 2.1 Earths. This means that asteroid 2020 SW will pass even closer than TV and weather satellites, which orbit at about 22,300 miles (35,888 km) away from Earth, according to EarthSky.
        ....
        https://www.livescience.com/asteroid...than-moon.html
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
        “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
        Present Current Events are the Future's History

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          The all US long-range ballistic missile units should be transferred as well. That would make the remaining USAF all but superfluous and as a service should be returned to control of the Army. I doubt the USN would miss having the SSBN's under their control, and the USAF units wouldn't be afterthoughts when it comes to career and promotion like they are now.
          Another option would be take (some) aviation units away from the army, Navy, and Marine Corps. We might be better off with the prime aviation service controlling more US military aviation. Off the top of the head I can think of army aviation, of all types. Also land-based Naval aircraft (such as Maritime patrol planes) and Marine Corps aircraft of all types.

          This would also make better use of the Air Force Academy.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by lakechampainer View Post

            Another option would be take (some) aviation units away from the army, Navy, and Marine Corps. We might be better off with the prime aviation service controlling more US military aviation. Off the top of the head I can think of army aviation, of all types. Also land-based Naval aircraft (such as Maritime patrol planes) and Marine Corps aircraft of all types.

            This would also make better use of the Air Force Academy.
            I don't think so. Look at the disaster that caused with the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy. The US Army already can't have fixed wing aircraft of virtually any sort and nothing armed. If anything, the USAF is becoming more of an anachronism than a separate service.
            You mention USN maritime patrol planes. Moving these to a separate service would lead to compatibility issues. The reason the USMC has their own air force is it's dedicated mostly to CAS and air superiority over the beachhead. It's the sort of air force the US Army need integral to their operations.

            Of course, that makes the USAF nearly meaningless, which they really were right from the start.

            Comment


            • #21
              From the US Naval War College: A Theory of Naval Airpower

              Interesting article from 2014 which discusses among other things that the US Navy doesn't have an operational view of air power (they have tactical, and strategic views, but not the in-between operational)

              Also a discussion of the different types of naval aviation.

              https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cg...ext=nwc-review

              excerpt below

              An operational-level theory of naval airpower must be derived from practice—how it has been used and why it has been successful. Naval aviation is a subordinate element of American sea power and, as such, has established no separate theoretical basis for either its own justification or employment. While this theory vacuum has kept it from advancing its command-and-control doctrine the way the Air Force has, it has produced a flexibly minded organization that is very good at adapting to novel operational circumstances. In contrast to airpower theory as interpreted by the Air Force, naval aviation has never linked itself to an a priori mechanism for strategic victory or regarded itself as an independent strategic weapon. Nonetheless, as the Navy transitions to the operational-level Joint Force Maritime Component Commander / Maritime Operations Center (JFMCC/MOC) framework for its command and control (C2), a theory is needed both to guide the development of C2 doctrine and to make the case for maintaining operational control of naval aviation within Navy lifelines. Naval aviation, for the purpose of theory and doctrine, can be divided into the following categories: • Carrier air wings: the airframes, both fixed- and rotary-wing, manned and unmanned, that operate from the deck of an aircraft carrier • Land-based naval aviation: maritime patrol planes and electronic-warfare aircraft • Organic surface-combatant aircraft: manned and unmanned helicopters and small, fixed-wing unmanned aircraft • Organic Marine aviation: fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft attached to embarked Marine units. These categories omit much—aircraft for training, logistics, test and evaluation, etc. Such aviation elements can be thought of as infrastructural support and are not directly parts of theory.

              Comment


              • #22
                Link to an article I found interesting, from Heritage.org: The Air Domain and the Challenges of Modern Air Warfare - by Harry Foster

                https://www.heritage.org/sites/defau...%20Warfare.pdf

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by lakechampainer View Post

                  Another option would be take (some) aviation units away from the army, Navy, and Marine Corps. We might be better off with the prime aviation service controlling more US military aviation. Off the top of the head I can think of army aviation, of all types. Also land-based Naval aircraft (such as Maritime patrol planes) and Marine Corps aircraft of all types.

                  This would also make better use of the Air Force Academy.
                  Bad idea. The USAF will only do CAS and drones when dragged there, kicking and screaming. A secretary and a chief of staff both lost their job said over the USAF's institutional inability to fight the current wars. The USAF's ideal CAS aircraft is a B52- it takes off from CONUS and can service a lot of targets. Can you imagine if the Army had to work through the theater-level ATO process to do an air assault?

                  Far better to swap Patriot/THAAD for the A10, and leave the USAF to operate forward of the FSCL, where they prefer to be.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    From fas.org - from the publication date August 2, 2004 - Counterspace Operations - United States Air Force

                    https://fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afdd2_2-1.pdf

                    from page 31 - The Five Ds of Offensive Counterspace Operations

                    Offensive counterspace operations preclude an adversary from exploiting space to their advantage. OCS operations may target an adversary’s space capability (space system, forces, information links, or third party space capability), using a variety of permanent and/or reversible means. The “Five D’s”—deception, disruption, denial, degradation, and destruction— are the possible desired effects when targeting an adversary’s space capability. Deception employs manipulation, distortion, or falsification of information to induce adversaries to react in a manner contrary to their interests. Disruption is the temporary impairment of some or all of a space system’s capability to produce effects, usually without physical damage. Denial is the temporary elimination of some or all of a space system’s capability to produce effects, usually without physical damage. Degradation is the permanent impairment of some or all of a space system’s capability to produce results, usually with physical damage. Destruction is the permanent elimination of all of a space system’s capabilities to produce effects, usually with physical damage.
                    Last edited by lakechampainer; 13 Oct 20, 19:51.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      From media.defense.gov - Aerospace Power in the Twenty-First Century - A Basic Primer. From 2001. By Clayton K. S. Chun.


                      The Last tenth or so of the paper discusses "Space Power". Pretty much the official AF view of that time, written by a retired AF officer who among other things taught at the Air Force Academy.


                      https://media.defense.gov/2017/Mar/3...WER_PRIMER.PDF
                      Last edited by lakechampainer; 17 Oct 20, 18:17.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        From the Air University - a 2009 update of a 1993 paper: AU-18 Space Primer. Has several interesting sections, including sections on orbital mechanics (pages 89 to 112) and on theories of Space Power, and how those compare and contrast with those of air power and naval power(pages 29 to 40).

                        https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Por...ooks/AU-18.PDF

                        excerpt 1 (page 89)

                        Knowledge of orbital motion is essential for a full understanding of space operations. Motion through space can be visualized using the laws described by Johannes Kepler and understood using the laws described by Sir Isaac Newton. Thus, the objectives of this chapter are to provide a conceptual understanding of orbital motion and discuss common terms describing that motion. The chapter is divided into three sections. The first part focuses on the important information regarding satellite orbit types to provide an understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the spaceborne assets supporting the war fighter. The second part covers a brief history of orbital mechanics, providing a detailed description of the Keplerian and Newtonian laws. The third section discusses the application of those laws to determining orbit motion, orbit geometry, and orbital elements. This section has many facts, figures, and equations that may seem overwhelming at times. However, this information is essential to understanding the fundamental concepts of orbital mechanics and provides the necessary foundation to enable war fighters to better appreciate the challenges of operating in the space domain. Orbit Types An orbit for a satellite is chosen based on the mission of that particular satellite. For instance, the lower the altitude of a satellite, the better the resolution an onboard camera can have and the shorter the time it takes to travel around the earth (period). On the other hand, the farther out a satellite is, the more of the earth’s surface it can observe at one time. Also, the farther the orbit is tilted away from the equator, the more of the earth’s surface a satellite will observe over the course of an orbit. These parameters (which will be described in more detail later in the chapter) drive the four basic orbit types: low Earth orbit (LEO), medium Earth orbit (MEO), geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO), and highly elliptical orbit (HEO). Table 6-1 lists the various orbit types and the missions associated with each one.

                        ====================================
                        excerpt 2 - page 100

                        When Newton’s second law is combined with his gravitational law, the solutions are all conic sections, which are shapes that can be made by slicing off sections of a cone at various angles. The conic section an object will follow depends on its kinetic and potential energy as described above. Conic sections consist of four types: circular, elliptical, parabolic, and hyperbolic. If an object lacks the velocity (insufficient kinetic energy, KE < PE) to overcome the earth’s gravitational attraction, then it will follow a closed-path orbit in the form of a circle or ellipse. However, if the object has enough velocity (kinetic energy equal in magnitude to the gravitational potential energy in the absence of friction resistance, KE = PE) to overcome the earth’s gravitational attraction, then the object will follow an open path in the shape of a parabolic orbit. Finally, if the object has excess velocity (more than sufficient kinetic energy, KE > PE) to overcome the earth’s gravitational attraction, then the object will follow an open path in the shape of a hyperbolic orbit.33 Figure 6-13 shows a three-dimensional representation of the various possible conic sections (orbit geometries). Figure 6-14 shows a two-dimensional representation of the conic section geometry. The parameters that describe the size and shape of the conic are its semimajor axis (a) and eccentricity (e). The semimajor axis, a measure of the orbit’s size, is half the distance between perigee and apogee; it is also the average distance from the attracting body’s center. Eccentricity, which describes the orbit’s shape, is the ratio of the linear eccentricity (c) to the semimajor axis. The linear eccentricity is half the distance between the two foci. These parameters apply to all trajectories. A circular orbit is a special case of the elliptical orbit where the foci coincide (c = 0). Figure 6-15 depicts a satellite orbit with additional parameters whose conic section is an ellipse.
                        Last edited by lakechampainer; 17 Oct 20, 14:51.

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X