7 ms·

Wouldn't surprise me - it's the eternal cat and mouse game between defense and offence and stealth as a concept isn't new anymore. It's not about been totally

Wouldn't surprise me - it's the eternal cat and mouse game between defense and offence and stealth as a concept isn't new anymore. It's not about been totally hidden (sans a cloaking device that is never going to happen) it's about been less detectable after all. If the distance the stealth platform can see you from is greater than the distance you can reliably detect them from you are already dead - the missile simply hasn't arrived yet.

deathhand 5y ago
So then this logic brings us to space platforms, anti-space platforms, and observservations of space platforms. Everyone is probably already arming space to the teeth. I guess it's better than mutually assured destruction?
- simonh 5y ago
  Space based weapons are extremely limited in practice. The problem is that at any given time 90% or more of your orbital assets are over the pacific ocean, or the arctic, or antarctic, or anywhere other than where you want them to be and you can't change that very easily.
  - the_duke 5y ago
    A LEO sat at 300 km altitude does a full orbit every ~90 minutes. Put a few hundred missiles in orbit, give them enough spare fuel to travel a decent distance on their own, and you have a pretty substantial worldwide strike capability.
    - catillac 5y ago
      This handwaves a lot of stuff. The least of which is that with the way satellites orbit, even though they orbit in 90, they’re not over the same ground track again for like 12 days. It’s not the case that a weapon used satellite would have a firing solution every 90 minutes.
    - nradov 5y ago
      What's the point of that when you can have an even more substantial worldwide strike capability at far lower cost with ground-based missiles.
    - treeman79 5y ago
      Meanwhile opponent straps nuclear hand grenadines to a few thousand drones and flies them to your bases. At a fraction of the cost.
      - hungryforcodes 5y ago
        And they are not doing that now, because...
        iso1210 5y ago
        Smallest nuclear bomb (not dirty bomb) made was 23kg, literally suitcase size. However if you have one and want to use it, you're probably better off sending it in on a shipping container or truck (or commercial or private plane)
        treeman79 5y ago
        Lots of detectors for those. Not sure how extensive, but it’s a known attack vector. Apparently it’s hard to fully shield weapons grade material
    - laverya 5y ago
      Do you know what the difference is between an ICBM and a warhead predeployed in orbit? The ICBM can hit anywhere (instead of just where the orbit track happens to pass), in less time (or at most the same time, since deorbiting takes around half an orbit) with a better mass fraction (since it doesn't have to reach orbit and then deorbit afterwards) while being more accurate (you know exactly where the launch platform is, while satellites are harder to locate) and less vulnerable (you can harden an ICBM silo far more effectively than a satellite). Really, it's hard to think of something that satellite anti-ground weaponry does better.
      - rocqua 5y ago
        Detection? There is a lot of icbm detection. Unplanned rocket launches could lead to global nuclear annihilation. What happens if something seems to deorbit above the US? How much early warning and procedure is there? Especially if you want to deliver conventional munitions to a non-nuclear power, a system like this seems better than an ICBM.
        laverya 5y ago
        Except that detectability is an advantage, in the doesn't-set-off-global-thermonuclear-war sense. If your nuclear (or command) assets can be removed at any time without enough warning to launch, that means you have to launch now before that happens. If you want to hit something with a conventional warhead in a non-peer state without warning, why not use a stealthy cruise missile instead?
        rocqua 5y ago
        Stealthy cruise missles need a much longer time than anything from space. I am not advocating weapons in space btw. Just pointing out what the advantages are.
  - iso1210 5y ago
    Tungston rods. Would you even detect the deorbit burn?
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      A/K/A "rods from God" / orbital kinetic kill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment Possible, though problematic.
      - iso1210 5y ago
        I'd love to know if they've ever been tested in reality. If succesful (especially as a first strike), you could theoretically launch from a high apogee using cold gas to adjust your heading, and have plausible deniability.
        dredmorbius 5y ago
        AFAICT no.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- hawski 5y ago
  I guess it is a question of what type of warhead is there and how many of them are there.
- the_duke 5y ago
  And stealth space platforms. There might already be stealth sats in orbit. A curious case was the Zuma satelite [1]. Classified payload. Ostensibly failed to detach from the payload adapter, as claimed by anonymous sources... Lot's of speculation that this was a media charade to sow confusion about a stealth sat. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuma_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuma_(satellite)
  - nradov 5y ago
    There are no stealth satellites. It's impossible to hide in orbit due to power and cooling requirements. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#nostealth http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect....
    - wyager 5y ago
      This is a funny claim to make given that the US literally has stealth satellites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite) Just because it's physically challenging to avoid having some blackbody emissions or whatever doesn't mean you can't evade modern sensors in practice.
      - nradov 5y ago
        What's your point? Those satellites were detected. They weren't actually stealthy in any meaningful way. Very minor signature reductions at best.
        wyager 5y ago
        "That launch deposited a payload into geosynchronous orbit but, given the stealth/deception hypothesis, there remains the possibility of other, undetected payloads"
        nradov 5y ago
        There remains a "possibility" that dinosaurs aren't extinct and they're hiding somewhere. Just because civilian astronomers haven't found such payloads doesn't mean those payloads actually exist. And hypothetically even if those payloads do exist it doesn't mean other nations haven't tracked them. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for this stuff. Look at the basic physics involved.
imtringued 5y ago
It's actually about capability inflation. You can counter any tech but new tech makes old tech obsolete. An army consisting exclusively of F-35 vs old generation jets could decimate all enemy jets without losing a single F-35. It's the same with modern tank vs old tanks. Those old tanks can't penetrate the armor of modern tanks.
- belter 5y ago
  You sure about that ? Because at least in dogfights the 40 year old F16 seems to win.. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/07/disastrous-f-35-vs-f-16-face-off-was-also-a-battle-of-philosophies/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/07/disas...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - wil421 5y ago
    The F22 would probably be the one engaging F16s. Regardless if you are dogfighting in an F22 or F35 something else has gone wrong. The stealth planes sneak in and shoot enemy planes from far away.
    - belter 5y ago
      I am afraid they tried that also.The F22 lost against German pilots on the Eurofighter Typhoon: https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/f-22-fighter-loses-79-billion-advantage-in-dogfights-report https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/f-22-fighter-...
      - wil421 5y ago
        The article hits on my point about dogfighting. I don’t think most US modern planes except the F16 were designed for it. IIRC they weren’t even going to include guns on the F22. > while the planes own the skies at modern long-range air combat
canadianfella 5y ago
Been?
aparsons 5y ago
Cat and mouse games lead to very surprising innovations. During the Sri Lankan civil war about 10 years ago, the Tiger rebels had acquired Zlin Z 43s, modified them to carry several bombs [1], and were bombing targets left and right, including the country’s capital. The populace was increasingly pondering why the country’s well-trained air force, with modern fighter jets with years of scrambling experience [2] could never seem to shoot these slower planes down. In fact, there were no confirmed kills during the conflict. It was later revealed that the rebels knew the capabilities of the enemy Chengdu J7 and MiG 29 interceptors, and had modified their own aircraft engines with anti-IR capabilities [3]. Complex IR jamming equipment was suspected, but the country’s PM later said that the rebels had simply redirected the exhaust fumes from the back of the aircraft to the front, throwing “unlockable” heat signatures [4]. By the end of the war, the rebels had actually “won” the war in the skies by destroying over 30 aircraft and losing 2, despite ultimately losing. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zl%C3%ADn_Z_43 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zl%C3%ADn_Z_43 [2] The government’s prized jet fighters were stationed in the capital, about 400 km from the main conflict zone. In 2000, the rebels launched a devastating offensive and the government held on by a thread due to their ability to scramble ground attack craft to battles in 7 minutes. It’s said that had they lost that battle, all hopes of winning the war would have been lost. [3] http://www.sundaytimes.lk/081102/Columns/sitreport.html http://www.sundaytimes.lk/081102/Columns/sitreport.html [4] https://www.dailynews.lk/2020/01/18/local/208783/slaf-most-experienced-air-force-combatting-terrorism-pm https://www.dailynews.lk/2020/01/18/local/208783/slaf-most-e...

deathhand 5y ago

So then this logic brings us to space platforms, anti-space platforms, and observservations of space platforms. Everyone is probably already arming space to the teeth. I guess it's better than mutually assured destruction?

simonh 5y ago
Space based weapons are extremely limited in practice. The problem is that at any given time 90% or more of your orbital assets are over the pacific ocean, or the arctic, or antarctic, or anywhere other than where you want them to be and you can't change that very easily.
- the_duke 5y ago
  A LEO sat at 300 km altitude does a full orbit every ~90 minutes. Put a few hundred missiles in orbit, give them enough spare fuel to travel a decent distance on their own, and you have a pretty substantial worldwide strike capability.
  - catillac 5y ago
    This handwaves a lot of stuff. The least of which is that with the way satellites orbit, even though they orbit in 90, they’re not over the same ground track again for like 12 days. It’s not the case that a weapon used satellite would have a firing solution every 90 minutes.
  - nradov 5y ago
    What's the point of that when you can have an even more substantial worldwide strike capability at far lower cost with ground-based missiles.
  - treeman79 5y ago
    Meanwhile opponent straps nuclear hand grenadines to a few thousand drones and flies them to your bases. At a fraction of the cost.
    - hungryforcodes 5y ago
      And they are not doing that now, because...
      - iso1210 5y ago
        Smallest nuclear bomb (not dirty bomb) made was 23kg, literally suitcase size. However if you have one and want to use it, you're probably better off sending it in on a shipping container or truck (or commercial or private plane)
        treeman79 5y ago
        Lots of detectors for those. Not sure how extensive, but it’s a known attack vector. Apparently it’s hard to fully shield weapons grade material
  - laverya 5y ago
    Do you know what the difference is between an ICBM and a warhead predeployed in orbit? The ICBM can hit anywhere (instead of just where the orbit track happens to pass), in less time (or at most the same time, since deorbiting takes around half an orbit) with a better mass fraction (since it doesn't have to reach orbit and then deorbit afterwards) while being more accurate (you know exactly where the launch platform is, while satellites are harder to locate) and less vulnerable (you can harden an ICBM silo far more effectively than a satellite). Really, it's hard to think of something that satellite anti-ground weaponry does better.
    - rocqua 5y ago
      Detection? There is a lot of icbm detection. Unplanned rocket launches could lead to global nuclear annihilation. What happens if something seems to deorbit above the US? How much early warning and procedure is there? Especially if you want to deliver conventional munitions to a non-nuclear power, a system like this seems better than an ICBM.
      - laverya 5y ago
        Except that detectability is an advantage, in the doesn't-set-off-global-thermonuclear-war sense. If your nuclear (or command) assets can be removed at any time without enough warning to launch, that means you have to launch now before that happens. If you want to hit something with a conventional warhead in a non-peer state without warning, why not use a stealthy cruise missile instead?
        rocqua 5y ago
        Stealthy cruise missles need a much longer time than anything from space. I am not advocating weapons in space btw. Just pointing out what the advantages are.
- iso1210 5y ago
  Tungston rods. Would you even detect the deorbit burn?
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    A/K/A "rods from God" / orbital kinetic kill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment Possible, though problematic.
    - iso1210 5y ago
      I'd love to know if they've ever been tested in reality. If succesful (especially as a first strike), you could theoretically launch from a high apogee using cold gas to adjust your heading, and have plausible deniability.
      - dredmorbius 5y ago
        AFAICT no.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
hawski 5y ago
I guess it is a question of what type of warhead is there and how many of them are there.
the_duke 5y ago
And stealth space platforms. There might already be stealth sats in orbit. A curious case was the Zuma satelite [1]. Classified payload. Ostensibly failed to detach from the payload adapter, as claimed by anonymous sources... Lot's of speculation that this was a media charade to sow confusion about a stealth sat. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuma_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuma_(satellite)
- nradov 5y ago
  There are no stealth satellites. It's impossible to hide in orbit due to power and cooling requirements. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#nostealth http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect....
  - wyager 5y ago
    This is a funny claim to make given that the US literally has stealth satellites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite) Just because it's physically challenging to avoid having some blackbody emissions or whatever doesn't mean you can't evade modern sensors in practice.
    - nradov 5y ago
      What's your point? Those satellites were detected. They weren't actually stealthy in any meaningful way. Very minor signature reductions at best.
      - wyager 5y ago
        "That launch deposited a payload into geosynchronous orbit but, given the stealth/deception hypothesis, there remains the possibility of other, undetected payloads"
        nradov 5y ago
        There remains a "possibility" that dinosaurs aren't extinct and they're hiding somewhere. Just because civilian astronomers haven't found such payloads doesn't mean those payloads actually exist. And hypothetically even if those payloads do exist it doesn't mean other nations haven't tracked them. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for this stuff. Look at the basic physics involved.

imtringued 5y ago

It's actually about capability inflation. You can counter any tech but new tech makes old tech obsolete. An army consisting exclusively of F-35 vs old generation jets could decimate all enemy jets without losing a single F-35. It's the same with modern tank vs old tanks. Those old tanks can't penetrate the armor of modern tanks.

belter 5y ago
You sure about that ? Because at least in dogfights the 40 year old F16 seems to win.. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/07/disastrous-f-35-vs-f-16-face-off-was-also-a-battle-of-philosophies/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/07/disas...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- wil421 5y ago
  The F22 would probably be the one engaging F16s. Regardless if you are dogfighting in an F22 or F35 something else has gone wrong. The stealth planes sneak in and shoot enemy planes from far away.
  - belter 5y ago
    I am afraid they tried that also.The F22 lost against German pilots on the Eurofighter Typhoon: https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/f-22-fighter-loses-79-billion-advantage-in-dogfights-report https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/f-22-fighter-...
    - wil421 5y ago
      The article hits on my point about dogfighting. I don’t think most US modern planes except the F16 were designed for it. IIRC they weren’t even going to include guns on the F22. > while the planes own the skies at modern long-range air combat

canadianfella 5y ago

Been?

aparsons 5y ago

Cat and mouse games lead to very surprising innovations. During the Sri Lankan civil war about 10 years ago, the Tiger rebels had acquired Zlin Z 43s, modified them to carry several bombs [1], and were bombing targets left and right, including the country’s capital. The populace was increasingly pondering why the country’s well-trained air force, with modern fighter jets with years of scrambling experience [2] could never seem to shoot these slower planes down. In fact, there were no confirmed kills during the conflict. It was later revealed that the rebels knew the capabilities of the enemy Chengdu J7 and MiG 29 interceptors, and had modified their own aircraft engines with anti-IR capabilities [3]. Complex IR jamming equipment was suspected, but the country’s PM later said that the rebels had simply redirected the exhaust fumes from the back of the aircraft to the front, throwing “unlockable” heat signatures [4]. By the end of the war, the rebels had actually “won” the war in the skies by destroying over 30 aircraft and losing 2, despite ultimately losing. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zl%C3%ADn_Z_43 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zl%C3%ADn_Z_43 [2] The government’s prized jet fighters were stationed in the capital, about 400 km from the main conflict zone. In 2000, the rebels launched a devastating offensive and the government held on by a thread due to their ability to scramble ground attack craft to battles in 7 minutes. It’s said that had they lost that battle, all hopes of winning the war would have been lost. [3] http://www.sundaytimes.lk/081102/Columns/sitreport.html http://www.sundaytimes.lk/081102/Columns/sitreport.html [4] https://www.dailynews.lk/2020/01/18/local/208783/slaf-most-experienced-air-force-combatting-terrorism-pm https://www.dailynews.lk/2020/01/18/local/208783/slaf-most-e...