US Prepares Jamming Devices Targeting Russia, China Satellites (msn.com) 45
In April the U.S. Space Force began testing "a new ground-based satellite jamming weapon to help keep U.S. military personnel safe from potential 'space-enabled' attacks" (according to a report from Space.com). The weapon was "designed to deny, degrade, or disrupt communications with satellites overhead, typically through overloading specific portions of the electromagnetic spectrum with interference," according to the article, with the miitary describing it as a small form-factor system "designed to be fielded in large numbers at low-cost and operated remotely" and "provide counterspace electronic warfare capability to all of the new Space Force components globally."
And now, Bloomberg reports that the U.S. is about to deploy them: The devices aren't meant to protect U.S. satellites from Chinese or Russian jamming but "to responsibly counter adversary satellite communications capabilities that enable attacks," the Space Force said in a statement to Bloomberg News. The Pentagon strives — on the rare occasions when it discusses such space capabilities — to distinguish its emerging satellite-jamming technology as purely defensive and narrowly focused. That's as opposed to a nuclear weapon the U.S. says Russia is developing that could create high-altitude electromagnetic pulses that would take out satellites and disrupt entire communications networks.
The first 11 of 24 Remote Modular Terminal jammers will be deployed in several months, and all of them could be in place by Dec. 31 at undisclosed locations, according to the Space Force statement... The new terminals augment a much larger jamming weapon called the Counter Communications System that's already deployed and a mid-sized one called Meadowlands "by providing the ability to have a proliferated, remotely controlled and relatively relocatable capability," the Space Force said. The Meadowlands system has encountered technical challenges that have delayed its delivery until at least October, about two years later than planned.
China has "hundreds and hundreds of satellites on orbit designed to find, fix, track, target and yes, potentially engage, US and allied forces across the Indo-Pacific," General Stephen Whiting, head of US Space Command, said Wednesday at the annual Aspen Security Forum. "So we've got to understand that and know what it means for our forces."
Bloomberg also got this comment from the chief director of space security and stability at the Secure World Foundation (which produces reports on counterspace weapons). The new U.S. Space Force jamming weapons are "reversible, temporary, non-escalatory and allow for plausible deniability in terms of who the instigator is."
And now, Bloomberg reports that the U.S. is about to deploy them: The devices aren't meant to protect U.S. satellites from Chinese or Russian jamming but "to responsibly counter adversary satellite communications capabilities that enable attacks," the Space Force said in a statement to Bloomberg News. The Pentagon strives — on the rare occasions when it discusses such space capabilities — to distinguish its emerging satellite-jamming technology as purely defensive and narrowly focused. That's as opposed to a nuclear weapon the U.S. says Russia is developing that could create high-altitude electromagnetic pulses that would take out satellites and disrupt entire communications networks.
The first 11 of 24 Remote Modular Terminal jammers will be deployed in several months, and all of them could be in place by Dec. 31 at undisclosed locations, according to the Space Force statement... The new terminals augment a much larger jamming weapon called the Counter Communications System that's already deployed and a mid-sized one called Meadowlands "by providing the ability to have a proliferated, remotely controlled and relatively relocatable capability," the Space Force said. The Meadowlands system has encountered technical challenges that have delayed its delivery until at least October, about two years later than planned.
China has "hundreds and hundreds of satellites on orbit designed to find, fix, track, target and yes, potentially engage, US and allied forces across the Indo-Pacific," General Stephen Whiting, head of US Space Command, said Wednesday at the annual Aspen Security Forum. "So we've got to understand that and know what it means for our forces."
Bloomberg also got this comment from the chief director of space security and stability at the Secure World Foundation (which produces reports on counterspace weapons). The new U.S. Space Force jamming weapons are "reversible, temporary, non-escalatory and allow for plausible deniability in terms of who the instigator is."
Satellite jammers, $175 on Aliexpress (Score:3, Funny)
I'll bet that the US Space Force pays about 2 million times for a single device.
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed. We should source all our defence products from our enemies, and make sure they're the ones assembled by the children of their most exploited families. Huzzah for AliExpress defensive technologies!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Uh, you are looking at satellite receivers for tv or something. They have 5g jammers. You are not getting a $175 satellite jammer from Ali Express.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
aahhh what happened there?
Re: Satellite jammers, $175 on Aliexpress (Score:2)
Maybe from Temu with free shipping, while supplies last
Re: (Score:1)
Lol, yes it was likely a Temu satellite jammer not AE.
Can you imagine how fucked up everything would be if any random asshole could buy an actual real working satellite jammer for peanuts off some dumb ass web site?
Why US is going to loose on this one (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "woodpecker [wikipedia.org]" wasn't a jammer, it was an over-the-horizon missile warning radar that spewed out 10MW at shortwave frequencies, with random frequency changes to complicate jamming.
Re: (Score:2)
Outer Space Treaty (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought at first that intentional interference with satellites from another state would violate the Outer Space Treaty [unoosa.org], but a careful reading of Article IX indicates that only "peaceful activities" are protected, and even then the treaty requires only "appropriate international consultations".
The Space Force presumably believes the things targeted by this jamming would not be considered "peaceful", even if they are only communication or imaging satellites.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't get to broadcast legally over another country without their permission.
Hence Starlink's issues with providing service in some countries.
Re: (Score:1)
So HF radio signals from Canada to Mexico have to get permission from the US before they can transmit? Or are the HF signals supposed to go around the US?
I'm sure Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Free Asia have technology to keep those pesky radio waves from crossing borders,
Jamming drones is OK, but if the item is above the Karman Line it is magically off limits?
Either you didn't think this through or you left out a lot of detail in your assertion.
Re: (Score:2)
Shortwave is very different to satellite, with very different rules. You need a spectrum license for directed satellite transmissions with a footprint over a country.
Only fire if fired upon, he said... (Score:2)
Well, I'd be quietly disappointed if my adventurous nation hadn't invested in some offensive satellites. I do understand the candor though.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, who would that be?
No, we don't control Trump. (Score:2)
That's strictly the Russians. No, we Jews control you. Now, look deep into my eyes. Deeper . . . deeper . . . deeper . . . you're becoming sleepy . . . very sleepy . . . you can't even keep your eyes open. You're drifting off, but you can still hear me. You can still hear me.
The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me - could I borrow the Space Laser for the weekend?
Kessler syndrome (Score:1)
Efficiency (Score:1)
I imagine a ground-based anti-satalite weapon is easier to deploy and use repeatedly than a space-based anti-satalite weapon. Easier to power, easier to repair, easier to defend.
And the targets fly conveniently overhead on predictable schedules.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine a ground-based anti-satalite weapon is easier to deploy and use repeatedly than a space-based anti-satalite weapon. Easier to power, easier to repair, easier to defend.
And the targets fly conveniently overhead on predictable schedules.
If the space-based anti-satellite weapon you're thinking of is an RF jammer, then the weapon would likely jam itself and the ground station would lose control over it. Even with very directional transmit and receive antennas, I think the spill-over to the receiver would stop it from receiving commands.
RF isn't only communication option (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks!
The question now (Score:2)
The question now is do we use Grape Concord or Strawberry? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Plausible deniability (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything. [youtube.com]
"at undisclosed locations" (Score:1)
open target (Score:1, Flamebait)
and as soon as they start using their new toys, Russia and China will consider anything with a NATO flag as an open target.
Well done starting WW3
Re: (Score:2)
Russia already considers anything with a NATO flag an open target. Keep up much?
Why not destroy the spy satellights (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mine is bigger than yours (Score:2)
But ours should be the Most Powerful .