CHICOM ASAT test?

Chinese Test Anti-Satellite Weapon
By Craig Covault/Aviation Week & Space Technology
01/17/2007 07:45:59 PM

U. S. intelligence agencies believe China performed a successful
anti-satellite (asat) weapons test at more than 500 mi. altitude Jan.
11 destroying an aging Chinese weather satellite target with a kinetic
kill vehicle launched on board a ballistic missile.

The Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the
Defense Intelligence Agency, NASA and other government organizations
have a full court press underway to obtain data on the alleged test,
Aviation Week & Space Technology will report in its Jan. 22 issue.

If the test is verified it will signify a major new Chinese military
capability.

Neither the Office of the U. S. Secretary of Defense nor Air Force
Space Command would comment on the attack, which followed by several
months the alleged illumination of a U. S. military spacecraft by a
Chinese ground based laser.

China's growing military space capability is one major reason the Bush
Administration last year formed the nation's first new National Space
Policy in ten years, Aviation Week will report.

"The policy is designed to ensure that our space capabilities are
protected in a time of increasing challenges and threats," says Robert
G. Joseph, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security
at the U. S. State Dept. " This is imperative because space
capabilities are vital to our national security and to our economic
well being," Joseph said in an address on the new space policy at the
National Press Club in Washington D. C.

Details emerging from space sources indicate that the Chinese Feng Yun
1C (FY-1C) polar orbit weather satellite launched in 1999 was attacked
by an asat system launched from or near the Xichang Space Center.

The attack is believe to have occurred as the weather satellite flew at
530 mi. altitude 4 deg. west of Xichang located in Sichuan province.
Xichang is a major Chinese space launch center.

Although intelligence agencies must complete confirmation of the test,
the attack is believed to have occurred at about 5:28 p.m. EST Jan. 11.
U. S. intelligence agencies had been expecting some sort of test that
day, sources said.

U. S. Air Force Defense Support Program missile warning satellites in
geosynchronous orbit would have detected the Xichang launch of the asat
kill vehicle and U. S. Air Force Space Command monitored the FY-1C
orbit both before and after the exercise.

The test, if it occurred as envisioned by intelligence source, could
also have left considerable space debris in an orbit used by many
different satellites.

USAF radar reports on the Chinese FY-1C spacecraft have been posted
once or twice daily for years, but those reports jumped to about 4
times per day just before the alleged test.

The USAF radar reports then ceased Jan. 11, but then appeared for a day
showing "signs of orbital distress". The reports were then halted
again. The Air Force radars may well be busy cataloging many pieces of
debris, sources said.

Although more of a "policy weapon" at this time, the test shows that
the Chinese military can threaten the imaging reconnaissance satellites
operated by the U. S., Japan, Russia, Israel and Europe.

The Republic of China also operates a small imaging spacecraft that can
photograph objects as small as about 10 ft. in size, a capability good
enough to count cruise missiles pointed at Taiwan from the Chinese
mainland. The Taiwanese in the past have also leased capability on an
Israeli reconnaissance satellite.

Allen Thomson wrote:
Chinese Test Anti-Satellite Weapon
By Craig Covault/Aviation Week & Space Technology
01/17/2007 07:45:59 PM



Here's mo http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1359/chinese-test-asat
According to this, it's apparently a direct ascent weapon.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

Here's mo http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1359/chinese-test-asat
According to this, it's apparently a direct ascent weapon.

If it was a direct ascent ASAT, I'll be very interested to learn what
rocket was used. KT-1 is the obvious suspect, but it could have been
others.

Also, it's interesting that they apparently succeeded in performing a
hit-to-kill intercept on the first try. That bespeaks a technological
competence beyond what I would have expected.

But these are early days and probably the apparent facts will change
over the next days and weeks. Stay tuned.

Allen Thomson wrote:
Also, it's interesting that they apparently succeeded in performing a
hit-to-kill intercept on the first try. That bespeaks a technological
competence beyond what I would have expected.

Nothing posted here has claimed that this was a first attempt. It just means
that nobody admitted to the misses. It's easier to deny when there isn't a
debris field to show what happened. If the kinetic kill vehicle didn't have
orbital velocity, the other attempts would have just appearead as a suborbital
launch. I beieve the DSP / SBIRS satellites would have seen the launch, but
they were kept under wraps.

The irony is amercians indirectly funded this program.

"Allen Thomson" wrote:

Also, it's interesting that they apparently succeeded in performing a
hit-to-kill intercept on the first try. That bespeaks a technological
competence beyond what I would have expected.

I suspect direct ascent hit-to-kill for a satellite is a much easier
problem than is often assumed. Unlike intercepting an incoming
warhead - the orbital bird is going to be in a predictable location,
and you have from days to months to observe and verify its orbit. Nor
do you have the problem of _having_ to hit is *NOW*.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Pat Flannery" wrote
Here's mo http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1359/chinese-test-asat
According to this, it's apparently a direct ascent weapon.


Thanks for the primo link, Pat --

"Medium-range ballistic missile"?

=======================================

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...e-C1-topNews-9

U.S. voices concern over China satellite-killer test
Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:40 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States, Australia and Canada have
voiced concerns to China over a test in space of a satellite-killing
weapon last week, the White House said on Thursday.

"The U.S. believes China's development and testing of such weapons is
inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation that both countries aspire
to in the civil space area," National Security Council spokesman Gordon
Johndroe said. "We and other countries have expressed our concern
regarding this action to the Chinese."

Using a ground-based medium-range ballistic missile, the test knocked
out an aging Chinese weather satellite about 537 miles above the earth
on January 11 through "kinetic impact," or by slamming into it,
Johndroe said.

Canada and Australia had joined in voicing concern, he said.

Britain, South Korea and Japan were expected to follow suit, an
administration official added.

Derek Lyons wrote:

I suspect direct ascent hit-to-kill for a satellite is a much easier
problem than is often assumed. Unlike intercepting an incoming
warhead - the orbital bird is going to be in a predictable location,
and you have from days to months to observe and verify its orbit. Nor
do you have the problem of _having_ to hit is *NOW*.

I agree, but still would have thought that it might take them two or
three tries to get it right. Apparently I was wrong.

(And I could spend a long time telling you how many times I've heard
well-qualified people dismiss direct ascent HTK ASAT as a threat
because of its extreme technical difficulty -- something only the
superest of superpowers could do. I didn't believe it then, and I don't
believe it now.)

On 18 Jan 2007 11:07:41 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Allen
Thomson" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

"Medium-range ballistic missile"?

=======================================

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...e-C1-topNews-9

U.S. voices concern over China satellite-killer test
Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:40 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States, Australia and Canada have
voiced concerns to China over a test in space of a satellite-killing
weapon last week, the White House said on Thursday.

"The U.S. believes China's development and testing of such weapons is
inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation that both countries aspire
to in the civil space area," National Security Council spokesman Gordon
Johndroe said. "We and other countries have expressed our concern
regarding this action to the Chinese."

Using a ground-based medium-range ballistic missile, the test knocked
out an aging Chinese weather satellite about 537 miles above the earth
on January 11 through "kinetic impact," or by slamming into it,
Johndroe said.

Why not? You don't need a lot of velocity--just altitude and timing.
In fact the article is a little misleading. I'll bet that the
interceptor didn't "slam into" the satellite. I'd bet that the
satellite slammed into the interceptor, with a very high (i.e., almost
orbital) relative velocity...

On 18 Jan 2007 11:13:53 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Allen
Thomson" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


Derek Lyons wrote:

I suspect direct ascent hit-to-kill for a satellite is a much easier
problem than is often assumed. Unlike intercepting an incoming
warhead - the orbital bird is going to be in a predictable location,
and you have from days to months to observe and verify its orbit. Nor
do you have the problem of _having_ to hit is *NOW*.

I agree, but still would have thought that it might take them two or
three tries to get it right. Apparently I was wrong.

How do you know it didn't take them two, or three, or a dozen tries to
get it right? Perhaps we only heard about this one because it was a
success. The others could have been plausibly labelled sounding
rocket tests.

(And I could spend a long time telling you how many times I've heard
well-qualified people dismiss direct ascent HTK ASAT as a threat
because of its extreme technical difficulty -- something only the
superest of superpowers could do. I didn't believe it then, and I don't
believe it now.)

Nope. I wonder what this implies about the difficulty of missile
defense...?