Juicy details of US military power

Note, in 1981 a full squadron of Soviet Recon planes also were unable to locate the NATO armada of 83 ships including the U.S.S. Eisenhower and a British carrier.

To add injury to insult, the USN was able to send F-14 Tomcats to conduct mock surprise attacks on the Soviet Recon planes as they searched vainly for the fleet.

 

That's when they automatically track targets. You do know that a person can manually maneuver a satelites right? We're maneuvering satelites around Mars and can place them where ever we want.
So of course you would have known this.


Well. A person siting on the ground in Russia can manually track a ship quite easily like this. his job could be as simple as holding a cursor over the image that he is tracking to make sure that the satelite is constantly pointing to where his cursor is.

Ground based missiles will just strike whatever the cursor is aiming at.

 

See my reply to giftedone, in the same post as the one you just quoted. Neither of you seem to understand that different weapons have different roles, and that the point of them is to work together.

 

Most satellites can't maneuver. The ones that can have very limited ability due to limited onboard fuel.

You claiming otherwise is a lot like the bragging we used to see about the "new" Russian ICBM the Topol-M ignoring the fact that it was simply a renamed SS-25. Twenty five year old technology.

 

For Iran. They are not to stop Russian missiles.

 

Imagine you had a pair of binoculars with unlimmited zoom and can see a piece of dust a thousand light years away.

Now if you are orbiting the earth around 7 to 10 km/s, aren't going to spot much. That is the limit of satellites.

 

The same country that doesn't even have missile with nowhere near enough range to reach in any place in europe?

Furthermore. A missile shield in Jodan, Pakistan, Kuwait, Qutar, Soudi Arabia, or even Israel would be right next to Iran and work just as fine if not better. I doubt that those countries would have an issue if US pit a missile shield in their borders. They are Sunni and Iran is Shia.

Placing missles on Russian boarders is an obvious act of provocation

 

There are satellites like the ones used for gps. They move as fast as the earth rotates. Thus they appear to hover in the same place in the sky.

The earth spins at 1040 miless perhour. A satellite that's moving 1042 miles per hour in the same direction of the spin will be a pear to move 2 miles an hour across the sky.

That's pretty easy to controll. And pretty steady. Of course you can also go slower to reverse.


Gps satellite do this. They match the speed of the earth.

 

No, they do threaten Russia because Russian missiles to the United States are different trajectories than European Missile Defense. Romanian ABMs sites are in the trajectory of Iranian missiles to most of Europe, and Polish ABM sites are to defeat Missiles headed to the US .(impossible now since SM-3 Block I cannot stop ICBMs)

 

Please learn satellite classification. GPS is a navagation satellite so it flies very high up to 2000 km. A spy sattelite is limited by our optical technology and scan rates and usually flies no higher than around 300 km.

No nation has these magical star trek satellites, stop making (*)(*)(*)(*) up, that is why nations still use spy sattelites and drones.

 

The purpose of this system is to defend Europe. Unless Iran was aiming with the missile that they don't have at Sweeden, Finland, Norway or eastern European countries, this whole trajectory talk is baseless. European countries of importance. They are located to the west. Away from the trajectories of missiles that Iran doesn't have.

Like I said. A shield around Iran in middle east would have done a better job.

As you can see, to hit targets in the US, Iran can fire across Turkey or even Syria.

 

Your map is inaccurate. The Earth is round.

Again you are not taking in consideration Romania. The picture shown is Polish Missile Defense. A SM-3 site in Romania would cover all of Europe against ballistic missiles from Iran.

A Middle East Missile Defense site would need to be fast enough to catch the enemy missile. It's far more practical to fire it in it's trajectory so it slams against it frontally.

 

Another inaccurate map. Just get a globe.

 

We call this "geosynchronous" orbit.

But it's a high orbit.

 

Ok. I am sure that you can't control the speed and trajectory of imagining satelites.


We don't navigate Mars with them and take picture. We don't do this on earth either.


A Google satelite. Not a military satelite. A Google satelite can see your face from space.

 

I expect their to be no slamming into anything. Only a giant fragmentation explosion upon proximity to the target.

 

No. Most ABMs today use hit-to kill. There is no atmosphere in space, so explosions are so small in radius you might just use a lighter warhead which can go faster and maneuver better.

 

Not you cannot. They are orbit sattelites so they travel orbital velocities. They are not spaceships which can be manually controlled. The reason why GPS flies so fast is because it is so high up in orbit.

Huh?

If it can for how long? Also seeing is not a problem, finding is. You have a sattelite moving a 7km/s scanning with a very very narrow scope.

Again we use spy planes still. We don't use satellites to automatically spot military targets. That is why most spy satellites are to take pictures on stationary targets over a period of time where sattelite is in the trajectory. (a nuclear plant, a airfield, a missile site etc), you will never use it to scout moving military targets.

 

Fragmentations fly further and faster in space. No air resistance.

 

Defensive missiles are not an aggressive act, by the warped logic of the fascist Putinistas having a lock on your front door and a loaded gun in your closet is an act of aggression. The missile defense system is a necessary deterrent for NATO members to Russian aggression which has seen the RF illegally invade and continue to occupy the territory of two of its neighbors in less than a decade. Furthermore; the Russian fascist pigs sold the Iranian fascist pigs the S300 and S400 missile systems which you have been raving about for the past month as the best there is in both offensive and defensive capabilities apparently capable of taking out the entirety of the NATO Airforce and command and control within days. So which is it?

 

Cool. Go tell military designers they are idiots.

 

The satellites that we know of can see 10 inches. A Google satellite us about half a meter.

What about top secret spy satellites? Don't you think that they can take clear images from high earth orbit?

What about telescopic lenses?

If we can have a tiny fraction of the zoom of hubble just how clear can we see?

We can see millions of lightyears away but we can't see what goes on the earth.



Is that what you believe?

I'm not saying that MODERN military spy satellites have the capability of hubble, but who knows.

What I'm saying is that the capability is likely good enough to see the letters on the cover of a magazine from high earth obit. Far cry from hubble I know, but good enough.

You can simply do this by putting an extra fat lenses on your satellite to account for the distance. It will see as well as any low earth orbit satellite. Companies are actually being restricted by the government from making their images to good. So the quality you see today, that is not the quality that the spy satellites see it.

What you are thinking of are satellites from the 80s

Also. Hubble is 36 years old.

 

It's an aggressive act if that shield can be instantly made into a weapon to stab you.

 

A study was published of how 1 satellite collision can trigger a cascading effect.

Bits of the satellite will fly around until they hit other satellites which will make more bits and so on. 1 bad collision could wipe out every satellite in orbit, leaving nothing but a scrap heap behind. Then we won't be able to even reach space until we somehow clear our orbit.

 

All spy sattelites have telescophic lenses. That is how they zoom in on targets and get clear images.

You are confusing seeing something and detecting and tracking it.

A hubble telescope can see a planet but finding a spaceship is another question. Since it's zoomed in, you have to scan one area one at a time.