U.S. Says Russia Conducted Space-based Anti-Satellite Weapons Test
PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo., July 23, 2020 (U.S. Space Command PR) — U.S. Space Command has evidence that Russia conducted a non-destructive test of a space-based anti-satellite weapon. On July 15, Russia injected a new object into orbit from Cosmos 2543, currently Satellite Catalog Number 45915 in Space-Track.org.
Russia released this object in proximity to another Russian satellite, which is similar to on-orbit activity conducted by Russia in 2017, and inconsistent with the system’s stated mission as an inspector satellite. Tracking information can be found on Space-Track.org.
“The Russian satellite system used to conduct this on-orbit weapons test is the same satellite system that we raised concerns about earlier this year, when Russia maneuvered near a U.S. government satellite,” said Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond, Commander of U.S. Space Command and U.S. Space Force Chief of Space Operations. “This is further evidence of Russia’s continuing efforts to develop and test space-based systems, and consistent with the Kremlin’s published military doctrine to employ weapons that hold U.S. and allied space assets at risk.”
The U.S. State Department raised concerns in 2018, and again this year, that Russian satellite behaviors were inconsistent with their stated mission and that these satellites displayed characteristics of a space-based weapon. According to the Department of State, this behavior is hypocritical and concerning.
“This event highlights Russia’s hypocritical advocacy of outer space arms control, with which Moscow aims to restrict the capabilities of the United States while clearly having no intention of halting its own counterspace program — both ground-based anti-satellite capabilities and what would appear to be actual in-orbit anti-satellite weaponry,” said Dr. Christopher Ford, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State currently performing the duties of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security.
Last week’s test is another example that the threats to U.S. and Allied space systems are real, serious and increasing. Russia’s development and testing of orbital weapons highlights the importance of establishing the U.S. Space Force as a new branch of the armed forces and the U.S. Space Command as the nation’s unified combatant command for space. It is a shared interest and responsibility of all spacefaring nations to create the conditions for a safe, stable, and operationally sustainable space environment.
“The United States, in coordination with our allies, is ready and committed to deterring aggression and defending the Nation, our allies and vital U.S. interests from hostile acts in space,” Raymond concluded.
19 responses to “U.S. Says Russia Conducted Space-based Anti-Satellite Weapons Test”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
We’re dealing with Putin here. Of course Russia looks for illegal advantage while piously asking us to adhere to a treaty.
And exactly which treaty would that be?
Of course there is no treaty banning ASAT systems, but the interesting thing is both the US and USSR/ Russia backed away from operational systems during the Cold War. It’s as if there was a treaty. I think the US did a masterful job of balancing demonstrated capabilities while holding back a branch of the arms race. A nice example of strength with restraint that resulted in 50 years of minimal arms development.
Yes they did, because the ability to gather information from space was critical to them being able to “trust” each other. So it was in their self-interest to not endanger the others intelligence gathering satellites.
But the US had far more to lose than the Soviet Bloc. The Western Bloc was run wild with GRU (Esp Europe) and was open to the East for all kinds of surveillance. The Eastern Bloc was much more closed to the West, and the West was nowhere near as able to penetrate and observe the Eastern Bloc from within. Today’s malfunctions in arms control have their roots in our adversaries having far more to gain at our expense in violating the treaties. Like now, the Eastern Block then had far more to gain in turning off space as a viable place to do reconnaissance than to gain by keeping it open. It was superior American diplomacy in the Cold War than it can bring to the table today that shows the difference of the two eras.
But you are overlooking the major reason which is that space is a very different environment than Earth. Blow a satellite up and you get a debris field that makes space more risky for your satellites. The only practical ASAT system would just shut the opponents satellite down without destroying it physically. An EMP or hack to its software would work fine in that regard and no one would known if it was even an attack.
A factor that may have influenced our behavior in the past is that offense is easy but defence is hard. Acquiring the ability to disable the satellites of our adversaries does not make our own satellites less vulnerable. Conversely, building anti-satellite capability might motivate our adversaries to do the same, leaving us in a more precarious position.
Unfortunately, Putin seems to want us to spend money on new weapon systems.
Interestingly during the Cold War both sides had operational systems of one sort or another, at one time or another. Yet without a treaty eventually walked away from their programs without a treaty. The US started a policy of demonstrating a real world capability, but making the deliberate choice not to go operational. Since 1983 we’ve had systems in being. As for Putin’s behavior, I think his behavior is mirrored in the GOP of today in that they just don’t like the idea of arms control. Putin and Donald Trump/GOP are both birds of a feather, one need look no further than personality to explain their actions.
they are small paragraphs in Tom Clancy’s book Red Storm Rising (which is not all that bad actually) that really convey the message of why neither side wanted to use ASAT’s. if one side uses them the other does and then we start exhausting assets which are essential but are difficult to replace.. but the Russians had to or they were toast.
Clancey talks in some modest note about how many F15’s were rushed to completion …ie about 5 and how the Asat program was rushed to operational after a preemptive strike
my theory is that ASAT are inevitable BUT only in a world where the war is like WW2. ie there is no real cut off point short of complete victory by one side. but if the war is more like the Falklands (which I look at a USA/PRC war to be) then both sides would be rather careful. the use of ASATs will make one or the other or both side more desperate and worried as we all descend back into the midway days of being blind
the chinese arenot the russians…they have pretty solid space assets AND can probably replace them faster then us
both sides know this
the GOP does not like arms control for one reason. they love the MIC
What a fun book. Read it summer of 1987. Loved the female ASAT pilot. Team Yankee was fun too, you never took at Frankfurt Main the same way after reading that book. Actually the Russians could replace losses, because they still used film right up to the 21st Cen. They launched to orbit every 3 and a quarter days. Over 100 launches to orbit per year during the 70’s and 80’s. The USSR was the dominant space power both in terms of tonnage, and flight rate of the late Cold War.
I like your thoughts on the South China Sea being akin to the Falklands war. Interesting thought. If we ever meet, I’ll have to strike up your thoughts on the F-35 and LHD’s, or perhaps ships like the new Chesty Puller.
China is becoming England. They’re going to be dependent on on satellites even more than we are. They’ll have more at stake. I’m watching their experiments with quantum communications over cosmic distances. There’s a potential for faster than light communications with that technology. I’ve also heard rumblings that make me think the DSN is looking at it too. But China is actually pioneering the first steps. China can outlaunch us, but just barely. I think Space X could have Falcon 9 operating per the Rumsfeld rules for a responsive space launcher within one year of trying. I think the future still belongs to us, and probably the present if we primed the current production lines. …. Provided the Russians don’t cut off engines, or we have stock on hand. It’s telling that we don’t, and that Delta IV was retired.
If given the time, I think there’s a future for the military industrial complex in a world of arms control. I think the Putin/GOP/Trump crowd does not like arms control because it expands the complexity of operating a military. Which …. is exactly why you do arms control.
If we ever meet, I’ll have to strike up your thoughts on the F-35 and LHD’s, or p
that would be a fun conversation. I am the wrong guy to talk to about the F35 and marine amphib units. We are stuck with the former until we can transition to something “more” as either a replacement or an outright replacement…but the next air vehicle should be heavy on drones because I think most crewed airplanes are well death traps these days. weapons have to be 1) expendable, 2) lots of them and 3) cheap.
Marines being deployed on ships to take islands makes no sense any more. the ships are to slow, the Marines to few and why would we take islands? we only took them in WW2 mainly to find bases to bomb Japan from. we took a few back that were american property (like the PI) but well the thrust of the effort was bases to bomb Japan.
the chinese are auditioning for something that the Soviets could never be…a world power in both the military and economics…and we are sadly a collapsing on. Yes the chinese will become more satellite dependent…and I think that their program recognizes it
hope you are well. Robert
Personality has little to do with it. Putin is the same standard issue Russian sociopath that has always run Russia/Soviet Union/Russia. All we have to do to make the Russkies play nice in future – and the Chinese while we’re at it – is move to a next-gen space defense asset architecture based on proliferation and active defenses.
There have been no naval arms limitation treaties since the 20s and 30s and the ones in place then didn’t work. What has made them unnecessary since WW2 is U.S. naval supremacy at sea. Establish U.S. military supremacy in space and the same will happen – no major-power warfare in that domain.
The U.S. achieved its initial naval dominance because it could afford to do so and its enemies couldn’t afford to match it. Where space is concerned, that is even more true of Russia now compared to the Soviet Union and blue water naval power. With China now entering a several-decade period of what will prove to be very tough sledding, that limitation will apply to Beijing too, not just Moscow.
Defense is harder, but getting easier. Cheap lift and extant mass production capability make defense via proliferation affordable. Deployment of active defenses also benefits from these new technologies.
Both sides had “operational” ASATs in the mid 80s so it hasn’t been 50 years. And of the 35 years it has actually been, the Soviet Union was only in existence for maybe the first five of those. The most recent 30 were Russian, not Soviet, and spent mostly in a state of persistent economic depression.
Picking up the pieces of the Soviet ASAT program and moving forward seems to have been a project of those few years when Russia was briefly fat on oil and gas revenue. Those days are now gone and massively unlikely ever to return. But, with persistent penury limiting the entire Russian MIC, what ASATs were developed during the few good years now probably look to Putin & Co. like a decent way to be at least a bit non-nuclear scary on a tight budget.
Neither he nor the Chinese are going to get the U.S. John Hancock on any ASAT treaty unless Root Vegetable Joe gets vote-frauded into office. Dem presidents are perennial marks for dictators looking to job them with trust-but-don’t-verify treaties.
All Russia – and China too – are likely to get for their ASAT trouble is the U.S. using its massive advantage in cheap lift and satellite mass production to put up constellations of milsats too numerous to take down entirely even with nukes and with on-orbit active defenses part of the mix too.
Much better than a treaty.
I was incorrect. The Outer Space Treaty only bans nuclear weapons in space. Putin is still evil, though.
we have done the same thing
But that’s not part of the narrative.
Hey!
no well put