Is it time to IPB space as well?

#1
:D

This is just a curiosity so I decided to post the articles here instead of Current Affairs but interesting none the less.

First one is the successful launch of the /tinfoil on shadowy /tinfoil off X37B space shuttle signalling the militarisation of space is beginning in earnest. It can orbit for 270 days instead of 16 and deploy a small arsenal of satellites in times of 'tension'. The word 'laser weapon' is bandied about as well. :D



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7106714.ece

The second one is a new US Arms development for a hypersonic missile which would strike anywhere on earth inside one hour. The kinetic impact of 3,600 mph strike would negate the need for explosive ordnance. The Russians had a few choice words specifically that the Americans signal they are ready to reduce Nuclear Arms as they prepare for alternative weapons instead. An academic named Cheng added: “This is not the path to another Nobel peace prize.” :D

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7107179.ece
 
#2
REMFQuestions said:
:D

This is just a curiosity so I decided to post the articles here instead of Current Affairs but interesting none the less.

First one is the successful launch of the /tinfoil on shadowy /tinfoil off X37B space shuttle signalling the militarisation of space is beginning in earnest. It can orbit for 270 days instead of 16 and deploy a small arsenal of satellites in times of 'tension'. The word 'laser weapon' is bandied about as well. :D



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7106714.ece

The second one is a new US Arms development for a hypersonic missile which would strike anywhere on earth inside one hour. The kinetic impact of 3,600 mph strike would negate the need for explosive ordnance. The Russians had a few choice words specifically that the Americans signal they are ready to reduce Nuclear Arms as they prepare for alternative weapons instead. An academic named Cheng added: “This is not the path to another Nobel peace prize.” :D

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7107179.ece
Isn't it already? We were certainly using taking Space into consideration on the good guys side when I was an embed to the Yanks in Baghdad - more on the availability admittedly but a degree on capability as well.

In the "old days" with satellite pass timings known, bad guy training camps knew when to get under cover. IPB?

As to hypersonic, there has been a ground capable hypersonic missile around for years. I used to have a rather good film of a hypersonic missle system fitted to a HMMWV firing a KE missile at a ground target - can't find it. That was from the tests in 2003, I think. The CKEM programme is the latest iteration of the KE missile programme that the US have been playing with since the early 80's

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/21911026/Compact-Kinetic-Energy-Missile

Hits at mach 6.5.....

All they are talking about here is a bigger version of one of these. 20+ years know how already done. Doesn't seem to me to be too big a problem to go to a bigger aerially deployed size of missile.

For the long range stuff they infer here, the scramjet programme which again is years old is a proven technology. All this is is making the jet/projectile unmanned. Again that technology is well proven now with the UAV programmes.
 
#5
Cluster said:
We'll have nothing to worry about in Space - the RAF lay claim to it - see here for details:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/M...s/FutureAirAndSpaceOperationalConcept2009.htm

The only problem is that the 5-star hotels there lack atmosphere ... :(
What a beautifully written paper. Give that man his OBE..... 8O

Recent studies estimate that up to 90% of UK military capabilities have a direct dependence on spacebased capabilities alone, from communications to surveillance, reconnaissance, position, navigation and, most fundamentally, the timing signals upon which so muchcapability directly depends.
later.....

Our reliance on space will soon be represented in our doctrine, but the degree to which the demand for intelligence and situational awareness will grow has not been fully recognised. A greater proportion of UAS – in all 3 Services – will require a re-appraisal of force structures
Good to see we have had our eye so firmly on the ball. We got to 90% reliance before we decided to write a doctrine piece? Good going......

Some of the ideas are wonderfully put and so idiotic at the same time. Lots of talk about CNO and increasing our ability because we need to. Put simply, the military is not the right place for this. We simply couldn't afford the expertise for attack and defence. Think employment as army screw or silicon valley slick at minimum 5x the wage - where would you go?

DEW is going to mature but we don't know to what level....and its going to change everything. OK - I'll buy (some of) it. After all, some of the microwave tech out there is impressive as are the piezoelectric effects some people have dreamt up. Scary.

Obviously someone has been reading a lovely classified doc that tells him DEW rocks and he has had to tone it down for this publication. However, I still believe there are significant technical challenges for this weapon type and I feel that it takes a little too much emphasis as its utility is not all encompassing to the level this paper suggests. May be I'll be proven wrong but there is the delight of not seeing the classified stuff and still being able to speculate... :D

One thing I strongly agree with the author is the comment

Fewer and more expensive platforms, the present trend, is approaching the point of diminishing returns, lacks resilience and suggests that we should also seek to rediscover the advantages of numbers and mass.
If only we could afford it...... :(

Can I suggest in the meantime that someone has a run down to Surrey Satellites and has a little chat? Quite brilliant people with a lot of novel ideas which may require a little nepotistic targeting of effort.
 
#7
Space is all pervasive these days but in mundane ways such as GNSS and comms. It's increasingly trivial to attempt to deny these applications but fortunately no-one we're currently shooting at can. Should we get involved with someone who can then we're in for a world of hurt as, frankly, we haven't spent the money to mitigate the problem.

The X-37B is pure engineer porn but it's hardly new - the Dyna-Soar would have done much the same had it not been cancelled and that dates from the 1950's. Pushing it into use (as opposed to testing) will just result in a Russian and Chinese copy appearing and the US has far more to lose should satellites start mysteriously vanishing. There's a reason part of the Beidou constellation is in geostationary orbit over the PRC, for instance.

The hypersonic missile stuff is also technically mouthwatering and plays to the US desire to blow stuf up without leaving CONUS. That said, peer competitors (especially the Russians are no slouches in this area and the US should expect incoming if they use it.
 
#8
in_the_cheapseats said:
Recent studies estimate that up to 90% of UK military capabilities have a direct dependence on spacebased capabilities alone, from communications to surveillance, reconnaissance, position, navigation and, most fundamentally, the timing signals upon which so muchcapability directly depends.
not sure how worrying this figure actually is. as an example - just because something has GPS does not necessarily mean it is dependent on GPS.

for instance, a few years back we felt in the div int cell that certain skills had been neglected, and the juniors were over-reliant on email, telephone etc on exercise. so we had an afternoon of "back to basics" for when those things fail (as they invariably do). some very unimpressed faces at being made to write out intreps etc on signal message pads - but how the hell else do they expect to disseminate information when the "ruggedised" computer systems fall over...?

so just because something has e.g. GPS doesn't necessarily mean it can't work without it - just need to keep the old map 'n' compass low-tech skills up to speed, too...
 
#9
CRmeansCeilingReached said:
so we had an afternoon of "back to basics" for when those things fail (as they invariably do). some very unimpressed faces at being made to write out intreps etc on signal message pads - but how the hell else do they expect to disseminate information when the "ruggedised" computer systems fall over...?
I can even remember some long faces in syscon on Ex IRON TEMPER after being told that the Div INTSUM could not be sent because the secure fax was broken. Fortunately the new Field Security Warrant Officer was able to point out the Trend teleprinter hidden under a sheet in the back of their wagon.

Hey Presto! Neatly typed INTSUMS all round.
 
#10
Tchah. Youth nowadays, what on Earth is wrong with handwritten reporting, transmitted on HF manual morse using OTP? All you need is a wire fence and a Radio Telegraphist... no, wait, not an option any more.

--Glad (still coming down from a warporn high after reading an article about Russian containerised cruise missiles)
 
#11
Glad_its_all_over said:
--Glad (still coming down from a warporn high after reading an article about Russian containerised cruise missiles)
What, you resisted the urge to ask whether you could stick an High-Power Microwave package inside an X-37B payload bay? Very much the "so what if you've got S-300, this thing comes in at Mach 20" option for SEAD? Here, have some more DEW porn...

Or, for that matter, a "special" package if you wanted to avoid scaring the Russians with a ballistic delivery...
 
#12
Glad_its_all_over said:
Tchah. Youth nowadays, what on Earth is wrong with handwritten reporting, transmitted on HF manual morse using OTP? All you need is a wire fence and a Radio Telegraphist... no, wait, not an option any more.

--Glad (still coming down from a warporn high after reading an article about Russian containerised cruise missiles)
Or even a nice 75Bd printer circuit? I bet some of these young people don't even know how to wind punched tape into a neat figure 8. Pah!

C_C
 
#13
Gravelbelly said:
Glad_its_all_over said:
--Glad (still coming down from a warporn high after reading an article about Russian containerised cruise missiles)
What, you resisted the urge to ask whether you could stick an High-Power Microwave package inside an X-37B payload bay? Very much the "so what if you've got S-300, this thing comes in at Mach 20" option for SEAD? Here, have some more DEW porn...

Or, for that matter, a "special" package if you wanted to avoid scaring the Russians with a ballistic delivery...
Heh. If you've got a Mach 20 inbound kinetic package, enemy AD is probably the very last thing you need even to think about.
 
#14
Charm_City said:
Glad_its_all_over said:
Tchah. Youth nowadays, what on Earth is wrong with handwritten reporting, transmitted on HF manual morse using OTP? All you need is a wire fence and a Radio Telegraphist... no, wait, not an option any more.

--Glad (still coming down from a warporn high after reading an article about Russian containerised cruise missiles)
Or even a nice 75Bd printer circuit? I bet some of these young people don't even know how to wind punched tape into a neat figure 8. Pah!

C_C
Sure, but none of your pouffy Trend things, only a proper Siemens T100 will do. We used to dream of getting 75 baud over HF.
 
#15
Glad_its_all_over said:
Gravelbelly said:
Glad_its_all_over said:
--Glad (still coming down from a warporn high after reading an article about Russian containerised cruise missiles)
What, you resisted the urge to ask whether you could stick an High-Power Microwave package inside an X-37B payload bay? Very much the "so what if you've got S-300, this thing comes in at Mach 20" option for SEAD? Here, have some more DEW porn...

Or, for that matter, a "special" package if you wanted to avoid scaring the Russians with a ballistic delivery...
Heh. If you've got a Mach 20 inbound kinetic package, enemy AD is probably the very last thing you need even to think about.
Yup. I was thinking of it being the lead element in the strike package. EMP the enemy's AD systems as a zero-notice first act of Offensive EW, particularly if said enemy AD system has a capability against friendly cruise missiles.

The ability to orbit for extended periods means, of course, that said package has a few months of loiter time before arriving at high Mach (it makes the "swarthy type with a mobile phone overlooking Vandenburg or Fairford" a much less capable indicator of intent); and the ability to return to base (unlike GLCM) means that you can always bring it back if you don't use it.
 
#20
I am sensing hostility?

But since you took such a diplomatic stance then yes, it probably is wrong and you should rewrite your paper accordingly. I would argue the case but I don't actually have to since many have done before me and probably will afterwards. IPB and IPE are separate and distinct processes. Although I said IPE was for insurgency the large smiley face was an indicator that I tongue was firmly in cheek - however since you are "writing a paper" then maybe we should nail this down.....

IPB / IPE can be categorised quite simply. One, ending in B, is used for conventional warfare - it encompasses the environment, factors, and conditions that must be understood to successfully apply combat power, protect the force, or complete the mission. Purely military aims.

Source: Department of Defense Abbreviations List

a. JIPOE and IPB products generally differ in terms of their relative purpose, focus,
and level of detail. The purpose of JIPOE is to support the JFC by determining the
adversary’s probable intent and most likely COA for countering the overall friendly joint
mission, whereas IPB is specifically designed to support the individual operations of the
component commands. During operational-level, force-on-force confrontations, JIPOE
utilizes a macro-analytic approach that seeks to identify an adversary’s strategic
vulnerabilities and COGs, whereas IPB generally requires microanalysis and a finer
degree of detail in order to support component command operations. However, in some
situations (especially during military engagement, security cooperation, and deterrence
operations, or crisis response and limited contingency operations), both JIPOE and IPB
will require the highest possible level of detail. JIPOE and IPB analyses are intended to
support each other while avoiding a duplication of analytic effort.
Source: JP 2-01.3, Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment Paragraph headed - Differences Between Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment and Intelligence Preparation of the Battlespace.............. I-4

I hope this helps? Papers can be tricky to write sometimes. And don't call me a cunt again. I can guarantee you wouldn't do it to my face.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts