”Not being able to acquire GPS sats is different from a software bug induced crash. No GPS maping system launches with GPS sats being recieved, it takes at least a few seconds, or maybe a minute or two, so I seriously doubt the lack of GPS would kill the thing entirely.”
I understand it is different but wouldn’t the end result be similar without a satellite to give them the information they need, many of their systems would be un-operational.
Would the plane be able to hold up in a dog fight basically could they even find their targets without a satellite? I would assume being a stealth aircraft they wouldn’t want to use on-board radar.
I would suspect in about 10 years (give or take a few years) taking out satellites will not be a difficult task by China and Russia given they both have the capability today.
Thanks again
You would lose GPS, but that wouldn't cause a loss of things like fuel displays and things like happened in this software crash.
Back in the day, F-4s had "inertial nav" systems that weren't dependent on any outside input. I don't know if these things have such goodies, because INS has a problem with drift so they're useless for precision bombing. But INS would get you in the area of the target and then home. As would standard TACAN NAV systems, if they're in the area (probably not). Or LORAN, if these things have them (don't know).
Dogfights with radar or infrared missiles shouldn't be effected.
These are all just guesses based on what I know of the available technology. I have no idea what real F-22s actually have, but I wouldn't be too worried. Our satelites give us many times the capabilities of Vietnam era systems, but if they were taken out, there's no reason we couldn't operate the same way F-4s did back in '75.
The real problem with depending on satellites is that future unmanned systems that depend on them for navigation would be toast. Any any external nav input could be jammed or killed as well. That means aircraft like the F-35, that may have an unmanned variant, would have problems in a total-war scenario with a major power that could take out our sats.
A lack of GPS shouldn't disable the other systems. If they have contact with AWACS or surface controllers, and their own passive radar, they should still be able to find their targets; the -22's missiles use active radar, but by the time you've been painted by one, it's usually too late.
Would the plane be able to hold up in a dog fight basically could they even find their targets without a satellite? I would assume being a stealth aircraft they wouldn’t want to use on-board radar.
By the time they're actively engaged in a dogfight, they're close enough that using active radar wouldn't be much of a handicap. The current doctrine is to hit bogies from stand-off distance; if you're within visual range, something has already gone wrong.
But loss of GPS might make it more difficult for smart bombs to hit ground targets, especially ones that aren't within range of someone with a laser designator. The planes would still have ILS systems and VFR systems (i.e. eyeballs) to help them get back home.
I would suspect in about 10 years (give or take a few years) taking out satellites will not be a difficult task by China and Russia given they both have the capability today.
I seriously doubt it would take that long. The technology is mature and not very complicated, The Chinese and Russians don't have anything as sophisticated as NORAD's Space Command, but they have plenty enough precision to take down a satellite -- they don't have to hit it dead-on.
Satellites have predictable orbits, so all they have to do is park a warhead in its path. I'm not saying it's easy -- I mean, it's not like I could do it in my garage-- but anyone who has enough precision to put a satellite in geosync orbit has enough precision to do the same with a bomb. Think of it as an anti-sat mine. Even a dense inert payload -- no explosive required -- would be enough if its orbit collides with the target at a closing speed of 20-some mph.
The USAF, the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the ESA, and even private ventures like Sealaunch could probably gear up to do it in a matter of months. I would be shocked if all those militaries didn't have plans on the drawing board, using boosters and components they already have on the shelf so they could roll them out in a hurry.
The only reason we haven't seen more anti-satellite tests from more countries is that it would be a form of escalation, and because blowing up a satellite in orbit creates a debris clout with movements less predictable and trackable than those of a single large object.
The Shuttle has gotten pits in its windshield from pieces of debris no bigger and with no more mass than your pinky nail; I think they're paint flecks from old spacecraft. NORAD tracks everything in orbit larger than about a three-inch stove bolt, and has sometimes diverted the Shuttle's course to avoid such objects. A cloud of satellite debris, each piece tiny but moving at 23,000 mph or better, would be a threat not just to enemy satellites, but to one's own.
If it escalates to the point of someone targeting our satellites, the best plan, in my non-expert opinion, would be to have enough satellite redundancy to buy time until we can target and destroy the anti-sat launch sites. Current US doctrine is to rapidly secure air supremacy, and we've had that in every operation after Vietnam; The F-22 will enhance that capability.
If taking out the satellites takes out part of the system, the Raptor will have to fall back on its on-board systems, its speed and maneuverability, and the skill of its pilots, and all are unmatched. By miles.
The glitch that started this thread shows a software weakness: that, again as a non-expert ant with limited information, a failure in one subsystem can cascade into others. I'm confident that will be fixed. That's what shakedown cruises and beta tests are for.