Space as a battlefield

Satellites against satellites and the bombardment satellites that suddenly fall from the sky and explode on an enemy target - these are just two of the not so well known areas of space warfare: after the GPS was disrupted by the Iraqis at the beginning of the (current) war, the Americans made a strategic decision to integrate space warfare into every possible scenario

The article was published in Galileo.

The history of space exploration can be described as a series of weapon developments and capabilities that aid warfare. We would all like to think that governments really invest in scientific research for the advancement of humanity as a whole, but unfortunately this is not true. Even before the launch of Sputnik (the world's first satellite) in 1957, German scientists in both powers were already working on developing military space capabilities.

Space is full of satellites

Already in the early 36s, committees and research bodies gathered in the USA to determine exactly what the space around the Earth should contain. Indeed, space is full of satellites - individual, or arrays of several satellites or even dozens of satellites. Starting with communication satellites at an altitude of XNUMX thousand kilometers the holidays in geostationary orbit, where they are placed above a fixed point and are used as television relays.

through constellations (arrays) of low-orbit communication satellites; 3 positioning satellite arrays (GPS) consisting of dozens of satellites in each array - Russian, American and European; weather satellites; Photography satellites (including those made in Israel) and even deep space research satellites (space observatories such as Hubble and Chandra). In between there is also at this stage one manned space station.
It all starts with military applications

All of these would not have developed, probably, if not for their military applications. Even the innocent weather satellites can help plan an attack, not to mention photography satellites that provide good intelligence, satellites or even satellite arrays that detect missile launches like those we remember from the first Gulf War in 1991.

Admiral James Ellis (Ellis), commander of the US Strategic Forces, revealed in a speech before a special subcommittee of the National Security Committee of the Senate, according to the request of the Department of Defense for the budget year 2005, held on March 25, 2004 in Washington, that a solution must be found to the problem The vulnerability in space: "Our campaign in Iraq demonstrated that the enemies are challenging and will try to challenge our ability to use space assets. The attempt to mask the Global Positioning System (GPS) and thereby reduce the accuracy of the guided weapon was a blow under the belt."

Three types of vulnerability

According to Major M., head of the space branch of the Air Force who gave a lecture at the beginning of March to the members of the Israel Space Association, the battle strategy in space can be divided according to three different forms of division. Physical damage to the satellite and soft damage is disabling the satellite without physically damaging it.

Another classification is similar to driving on land in the air and at sea: fighting into space, fighting from space, fighting in space. And another division: damage to the space segment - the launch vehicle, the satellite itself, or even just disrupting the "operational" signals that the satellite transmits (which of course depends on the nature of the satellite - if it is a photography satellite it is photographs, if it is a weather satellite then meteorological data), as well as space interfaces - Ground - that is, disrupting the control signals to and from the satellite. Another possibility is damage to the ground segment (the transmission and reception stations).

Fighting ground targets

Fighting ground targets used to communicate with the satellites is perhaps the simplest, and it can be carried out of course, even by enemies who do not necessarily have any space capability. If we return to the attempts to disrupt the GPS systems with which the Iraqis aimed to confuse the operation of the GPS-guided cruise missiles, here it is a soft hit, and it is also not the satellite itself but the ground segment.

The Americans solved the problem easily. They located the sources of the jamming - they hit the buildings from which they were broadcast with dumber missiles, that is, those that do not rely on GPS, and after the jamming sources were destroyed, they could go back and use the smart weapon. Major M. defined the second Iraq war as the first space war, although the beginnings for the use of space systems were already made in the first Gulf War, and in the wars in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

The Americans have improved beyond recognition in regards to the use of satellites for all military purposes. However, these satellites cannot replace the patrol soldiers, and these are harmed by simple weapons - despite the night vision and other high-tech means; But this is of course the subject of a separate article. But there are two other methods of space warfare that we probably haven't encountered on an operational scale, but on the recommendation of the strategic research institutes, governments are preparing for them: space-space warfare and ground-space warfare.

H-in-H fighter (space-in-space)

When the space race began, within a few years the Americans and the Soviets launched satellites for almost every purpose, and most of them also had military implications: from photography, to weather, seismological surveillance, agricultural surveillance and communication satellites. The civil uses of satellites of various kinds were, in the opinion of many, by-products of the military uses, and therefore the field of satellites was greatly developed and, in contrast, other avenues of space were abandoned, such as colonies in space or the continuation of manned flights to the moon, for which it is difficult to find military uses

At the same time, the two superpowers also began to develop anti-satellite systems, since no country likes being "peeped" on from above... In 1960, the Soviets intercepted an American U2 spy plane, and the Americans were looking for a way to spy on what was going on in the Soviet Union and, of course, to prevent the Soviet Union from spying on them. Therefore, photography satellites and the idea of ​​systems that intercepted the enemy's spy satellites were developed at the same time. The Russians for their part did the same.

Ways of physical interception

There are two ways to physically intercept satellites: one is through a missile that will reach the satellite, and blow it up, or at least disable its electronic systems. Another way is through another satellite that will change its course from time to time, approach other satellites and blow them up - whether through the explosion of the satellite itself on the target satellite, or simply a collision with the target satellite, and in less severe cases a laser beam will be sent to it that will blind it or any other means that will disrupt its transmissions, In a "soft" injury.

Launching a missile against one satellite is probably expensive and unprofitable. And as for the satellites - the Russians had spy satellites with a lot of fuel that allowed them to change course from time to time in order to hit other satellites. Such a satellite, which carried conventional explosives in large quantities, was developed in the Soviet Union (around 1960) following Khrushchev's decision to develop anti-satellite weapons.

Russia, history of launches

Tal Inbar, a researcher at the Fisher Institute for Space Research in Herzliya, says that IS0, a satellite that was operational in the seventies, had a very high maneuverability, and carried a relatively large amount of explosives. Thanks to the fact that he also carried a lot of fuel, he could perform orbital maneuvers that allowed him to reach his target satellite and destroy it. So far (since the 23s) the Russians have carried out 1982 launches, of which seven are certain interceptions of target satellites. The last known experiment took place in XNUMX.

The Russians were not content with operating unmanned satellites against target satellites. In their history, two manned space stations are known, which were theoretically capable of harming anyone who would try to harm them and it is also possible that they had an offensive capability. The reference is to the stations Sliot 3 (which was also called Almaz) and Sliot 5. Boris Volinov, the Jewish cosmonaut who was the headquarters of Sliot 5 and who visited Israel a few months ago as a guest of the Fisher Institute, admitted that a cannon was placed on the Sliot 3 station (not the one he commanded).

According to him, his role was to protect the station from manned spaceships that would approach it, but it was not used at all and the later military station - which he commanded - no longer had a cannon installed. Space experts who heard this said that in the conditions of space it is very difficult to fire shells without the shooter himself being hit by them. In 1987, the Russians built a military space station similar to Mir called Polyus; However, an energy model missile on which it was launched, exploded during the launch.

Why even hit a single satellite?

An example of physical damage to satellites that the Americans are so afraid of was given last year in a study by the Rand Institute, which claimed that countries hostile to the United States could damage satellites with nuclear weapons. There is no need for special sophistication, simply launch such a weapon with a missile of the type that countries like Iran and North Korea have in huge quantities , to a height of 200-150 kilometers and detonate the nuclear bomb. The radiation will already eliminate the systems The electronics of any satellite that will pass by (even at a higher altitude), and almost all satellites in the world will reach this black hole during their orbit.

As long as it was the Cold War, when the Soviet enemy also had satellites, there was no fear of such damage, because the Soviets would not have dared to use it, since the sky is also full of their own satellites that were also damaged; But when it comes to countries that do not have satellites and that have nuclear weapons and launch vehicles, this "balance of terror" does not exist.

detection and destruction

In the strategic ballistic missile defense program of the Reagan administration, known as "Star Wars", an attempt was made to develop satellites that would detect the launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles and destroy them. In that maligned plan (many scientists opposed it, both because scientists did not like dealing with weapons and because in their opinion it took away many and unnecessary resources) there were also clauses dealing with damaging satellites, but apparently they were not implemented mainly due to cost considerations.

space-ground warfare

A subcommittee on space policy matters of the US National Security Council summarized the US space development plan in a secret document in June 1958. Back in the 1967s, long before the Outer Space Treaty of XNUMX, which prohibited the placement of nuclear weapons in space, the Eisenhower administration ordered the development Programs against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), satellites for early warning against attacks Missiles, observation satellites, military communication satellites, electronic jamming satellites, navigation satellites, manned spacecraft for defense (that can capture, destroy or neutralize enemy spacecraft), bomb satellites and a manned station on the moon.

Among all these we will describe the bombardment satellites. In simple terms, they can be presented as follows: satellites inside which there is a bomb (nuclear or conventional) orbiting the Earth "in complete obscurity", until at one moment, when they receive an instruction transmitted from the ground, they leave their orbit and fall to the point determined for them on the Earth. Sounds simple, but changing a trajectory downward also requires a lot of fuel, which significantly reduces the weight that remains free for the bomb itself.

The intelligence's nightmare

These satellites were the nightmare of the intelligence services, because when the system detects an intercontinental ballistic missile, at least there is a warning time until the missile reaches the target point. A satellite, on the other hand, may surprise and land almost without warning at a target point and be destroyed. Therefore, the two powers rushed to promote nothing less than a UN resolution. The studies and debates about the bomb satellites continued against the background of international negotiations to limit the placement of nuclear weapons in space.

On October 17, 1963, a discussion on the subject was held at the UN General Assembly, and Resolution No. 1884 was passed, which called on countries to refrain from placing in orbit around the Earth any object carrying a nuclear bomb or any type of weapon of mass destruction, or from installing such a weapon on natural celestial bodies This proposal was completed and translated into an international treaty in the same resolution from 1967.

Development is gone

How far did the development of the bombing satellites go? This is one of the biggest disappearances in the history of the conquest of space. Admiral James Ellis added in his March 24, 2004 speech to the Senate subcommittee that it is necessary to strengthen the military capabilities of the US in space, replace aging satellites with modern satellites and promote the integration of space applications in all combat arenas, not treating space as the arena herself.

"The space capability of the United States must be improved as soon as possible, and in particular, new capabilities are needed to enable the expansion, replacement or repair of satellites that are lost due to component failures or deliberate sabotage by the enemy. The US Strategic Command is turning to the Air Force, NASA and our partners in the defense industry to provide more efficient launch systems - of the next generation."

"The Department of Defense must have the ability to monitor the 'health' of vital systems, improve our awareness of everything happening in space, and respond accordingly to preserve our capabilities in orbit. Under the leadership of the Department of Defense's senior official for space affairs, Peter Teets, Command Strategic Defense is fully involved in evaluating and strengthening all components of our space systems."