From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: DoD launcher use
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 09:20:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.221347.3359@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.144135.14439@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>I agree that not all conflicts will be as easy as the Gulf War and that
>>satellite recon is very valuable, especially for strategic recon. But the
>>origninal message that I questioned said that the Space Command commander
>>during *Desert Storm* said he needed tactical satellite recon *for that
>>conflict*. 
>
>That is correct. He said that his satellite coverage wasn't as good as
>he would have liked. With a DC like spacecraft, he could have had much
>better coverage.

Only if he flew DCs as recon or expended hundreds of very expensive
LEO satellites. Now the first may be practical if DC actually works
and is as cheap as people say. It would only cost about 100 times 
the cost of a SR71 mission, or 1000 times the cost of a F117 mission,
or 10,000 times the cost of a RF4 mission. But over Desert Storm,
as opposed to ex-Soviet airspace, the risk to any of the listed 
aircraft is low and the cost is much less. The military, like everyone
else has to pay attention to costs, even if their threshold is higher
than most other users. Wars can be lost by simply running out of money
as surely as losing on the battlefield.

>>And yes, A10s and Tornados doing low level attacks were lost
>>to ground fire in Desert Storm as well as a few other operational type
>>aircraft like an AC130, but as far as I know, no recon aircraft were lost.
>
>I don't think much if any recon was flown. The Air Force had better things
>to do with its aircraft.

I expect this is totally absurd. Recon is a vital part of any campaign.

>BTW, flying recon is one of the most dangerous types of flying in wartime.

Actually no. Tactical recon has traditionally been relegated to second line 
aircraft. Flown at high altitude in single plane sorties, it attracts
little in the way of hostile aircraft or hostile ground fire. In WWII
the P-38 was widely used as a photo-recon aircraft over Europe. The
losses were low compared to the losses of first line fighters like
the P51 and P47, or of bombers. The Enola Gay received free passage
over it's target because the Japanese thought it was only flying a
recon mission and didn't expend much effort to intercept it. Close
air support strike aircraft flying is the most dangerous flying in
wartime. The SR71 is very much the exception in recon aircraft. It's
mission was to do strategic recon in a *cold* war situation. This is
very different from tactical recon in a combat zone.

>>But this was exactly my point. LEO satellites pass over the same ground
>>track twice a day. 
>
>With a DC like vehicle you could put in a constelation of satellites to
>provide fresh updates every half hour or so. It would take about a week
>to put it in place compared with months today. This is an order of mganitude
>faster than aircraft can provide the same information. The data is also
>an order of magnitude fresher.

You didn't address my points about the cost of such satellites. For
tactical recon, battle damage assessment for example, satellite images
have to be better than is commonly available from orbital heights. It
requires KH-11/KH-12 grade optics. That's both rare and expensive.

>>Then unless
>>you have realtime downlink in the footprint of the satellite, very close
>>to your target, you wait for the satellite to pass over your downlink station
>>and download the image. 
>
>DoD owns lots of communication satellites. With DC, they can launch more
>and larger ones. This will allow the tactical satellite to dump its data
>in seconds.

Yes this is a solution to the data dump problem. TDRSS type satellites
in GEO could service the recon birds. The data could be returned to the
NRO and processed and interpreted then linked back to the field commanders
via other comsats. In fact this is exactly the way it was done for Desert
Storm. This presupposes your space assets are safe. That was true in Desert 
Storm of course, but then ordinary aircraft recon was fairly safe too. With 
a serious opponent, your space assets would be priority targets. 

>>You can
>>launch ramp ready recon aircraft in 10 minutes if necessary, though 
>
>You don't ramp launch recon aircraft. You only ramp launch aircraft
>for the defense of the airfield or similar emergencies.

That's the usual case, but there's no technical reason you can't deal
with time critical tactical recon needs the same way.

>>normally you'd schedule recon as part of an operational timetable.
>
>Which BTW, takes 12 to 24 hours to plan (my last defense job was
>working to automate NAVY strike planning). Not good in a rapidly
>changing situation.

That's one way to do it. However, the Brits showed how to use dispatchable
"cab rank" tactics in WWII. With JStars, we can do the same much more
effectively, and we *did* in Desert Storm.

>>You can get back immediate Mark I eyeball reports during the mission
>
>Generally you maintain radio silence during a mission. No point in 
>telling the bad guys where you are.

Unless your data is time critical, like spotting an enemy carrier task
force. We used radio reports in WWII for this reason.

>>and photos as soon as the aircraft returns.
>
>Hours after you got your satellite update.

Hours before you get your satellite update, if you don't have a capable
satellite in position. That's the thing, recon satellites with the 
resolution of recon aircraft aren't cheap or expendible. Even with
free launches, you can't just throw hundreds of satellites in orbit
on whim. Aircraft, even with some losses, are much more cost effective.
Battles are won by tactics, but wars are won by logistics. You can't
ignore the costs of an operation.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space