Comments on: Army to Launch Sats After 50 Year Lull

By: Bill

Bill — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:44:03 +0000

Is the program being managed out of Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M (Operationally Responsive Space) or out of Huntsville (SMDC)?

By: RTO

RTO — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:00:22 +0000

Skinner,
Careful or you’re going to reveal your ignorance to everyone instead of just the 25C/2841/2E1X3 MOS’s. I’ll save you the time. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:55:41 +0000

Why not, the Army has a Navy too. They must be know it alls.
DC2

By: Pan

Pan — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:31:55 +0000

Cheap, replenishable microsats are the way to go. The Air Force and NRO model of expensive, one of a kind satellite are a drain on resources, and offer nothing for surge replenishment capabilities if they are lost.

By: Rix

Rix — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:09:02 +0000

eight sats, five million dollars. Five million. That’s probably an order of magnitude less than it would cost to shoot all of them down. Sounds like a winning program to me.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:18:31 +0000

Good Evening Guys,
Good for the Army, cheate satellites that provide data and communications at the sub-battalion levels.
Like close air support the AF wants to dictate to the troops on the ground. As long as the pentagon gets there daily ration of war pictures thats all that important.
The squad and platoon leaders who can’t talk to each other in built up areas because Harris Communications who build their AN/PRC 117C and 119’s won’t build sets that work beyond 6Km. and are NLOS.
ALLONS,
Btron Skinner

By: Chiki

Chiki — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:09:54 +0000

This is actually a very good step from the army considering the criticism of too much reliance on satelites for day to day military activities. The best thing about these satelites is that they are CHEAP and SIMPLE meaning that if one or more were to fail its not a major break down in your capability to wage war, either rely on the back up satelites already up there or launch some new ones.
A great response to a specific countries announcement that they can shoot down satelites now, because this says that, as far as the army is concerned, the satelites are not the weak link in the chain any more, if one or more were to be lost its will no longer have the dramitic effect on army offensive capabilites as before.

By: stephen russell

stephen russell — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:32:36 +0000

We need backup & the Army should since it does know Battlefield missiles anyway.
Why not have another Launch source vs the AF.
Army can launch support vehicles while the AF shoots up the Big ones etc.

By: CTR1(SW)

CTR1(SW) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:01:28 +0000

I was active Navy for over eleven years. Then, later, I was in the Army NG for a year. The members of these two services have radically different thought processes founded in their radically different missions. This is the dominant reason I left the ANG.
My point: While an Air Force general may “know” that an Army unit needs communications in some out-of-the-way location. It would take some convincing for me to believe that he would fully appreciate all of the nuances of that need.
Besides, where is it written that only the Air Force controls space? Where is it written that the Army is the only service to be denied access to space? In 1947, when the modern tasks for the services was defined, no one was in space and space is not mentioned in those definitions.
Perhaps it is time for the Army to bring their unique view and purpose to the “final frontier.“
Certainly a small cluster of eight communication satellites is hardly a major revolution against the current paradyme.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:30:01 +0000

Is I just me or would they be doing this because the AirForce has created a bunch of Know-it-all Generals who do not respond to the needs of the other services?
So much for “Playing well with others.….”