Defence Space Command

[moXJO]

I guess if we thought like Putin we would be preparing to invade the Solomons right now.

Theres calls to do that now.

 

[rederob]

I was going to query the hypocrisy in these statements but, as I've a few moments...

Try harder!

Thanks, and you're special too.

Just stay on topic... as this is about our government establishing a Space Command.

Beliefs.
I understand I'm a pacifist because I've a real aversion to pain and would rather get along with my fellow earth dwellers however, when words fail and push comes to shove, I know I'll always let you throw the first punch. After that, you either tap out or it's to the death.

A characteristic is not a belief, as admirable as it may be.

The people so far advocating a Space Command as a good idea have suggested things it offers which it in fact does not.
Aside from that we have a Naval Command because we have a navy, an Air Command because we have an air force, etc., and now a Space Command because... we have a lot of space between our ears?

If you watched one of my links you would have seen that commercially owned satellites have products so advanced they are offering their imagery to the US Defense Department . Also, apart from Turkey's Bayraktar TB2 military drone used by Ukraine, commercially available DJI drones are being used - in fact by Russia as well - for reconnaissance and targeting.

Regarding advances in military technology, way back in 1948 we led the world in developing drone technology, but we have fallen somewhat by the wayside since then. In the mid-90's we had an opportunity to partner with MetalStorm and again lead the world with electronic weaponry, but did zip to support the company - although luckily its patents are now owned by Defendtex. In between times we could have leveraged our Woomera activities into ongoing space projects, but they too were shelved.

If I can do it, why in the hell can't other earth dwellers?
Be no need for any DSC if that were the case.

Exactly!
However, as I have argued, Australia has signed up to preventing further militarisation of space yet, for seemingly political reasons, are now acting against that objective.

 

[Craton]

@rederob
Drones and anti-drones
MetalStorm: from memory was founded by ex-Woolies execs and as the tech looked promising from a military POV, went on to have a couple of US Generals (?) as major shareholders. I can't remember why the stock delisted.

On topic.
As we live in a dynamically changing world, you said it, political reasoning and thus policies change too. As we have an official space agency, defence of that agency would be a given.
As you stated, we have an Air Command and thus the DSC comes under the Air Force wing.

 

[rederob]

On topic.
As we live in a dynamically changing world, you said it, political reasoning and thus policies change too. As we have an official space agency, defence of that agency would be a given.
As you stated, we have an Air Command and thus the DSC comes under the Air Force wing.

Let me explain why it's so laughable.

First, if you don't command anything in the military then being titled a "Commander" becomes an oxymoron.
It is more properly a directorate.

Second the DSC's Strategy identifies five lines of effort, to:

1. Enhance Defence’s space capability to assure Joint Force access in a congested and contested space environment
2. Deliver military effects integrated across Whole of Government and with allies and partners in support of Australia’s national security
3. Increase the national understanding of the criticality of space
4. Advance Australia’s sovereign space capability to support the development of a sustainable national space enterprise
5. Evolve the Defence Space Enterprise to ensure a coherent, efficient and effective use of the space domain.

Dealing with them in turn:
First, carefully read point #1. It's called word salad; Nothing to enhance yet, and nobody stops anyone (the "access" bit) adding to the congestion.
Second, absolutely nothing to do with "space". But if I am wrong, maybe we should ask if Elon Musk will help us out with SpaceX.
Third, read a good book or two.
Fourth, that's a civilian function.
Fifth, more word salad.

Below is a real world example of how wars can be fought in this day and age, by anyone who can control an off the shelf drone that can be carried under your arm:

It's not hard to imagine what millions of these could do, compared to absolutely zip from our so called DSC.

 

[SirRumpole]

Let me explain why it's so laughable.

First, if you don't command anything in the military then being titled a "Commander" becomes an oxymoron.
It is more properly a directorate.

Second the DSC's Strategy identifies five lines of effort, to:

1. Enhance Defence’s space capability to assure Joint Force access in a congested and contested space environment
2. Deliver military effects integrated across Whole of Government and with allies and partners in support of Australia’s national security
3. Increase the national understanding of the criticality of space
4. Advance Australia’s sovereign space capability to support the development of a sustainable national space enterprise
5. Evolve the Defence Space Enterprise to ensure a coherent, efficient and effective use of the space domain.

Dealing with them in turn:
First, carefully read point #1. It's called word salad; Nothing to enhance yet, and nobody stops anyone (the "access" bit) adding to the congestion.
Second, absolutely nothing to do with "space". But if I am wrong, maybe we should ask if Elon Musk will help us out with SpaceX.
Third, read a good book or two.
Fourth, that's a civilian function.
Fifth, more word salad.

Below is a real world example of how wars can be fought in this day and age, by anyone who can control an off the shelf drone that can be carried under your arm:

It's not hard to imagine what millions of these could do, compared to absolutely zip from our so called DSC.

I think a lot of this is probably code for development of hypersonic cruise and possibly ICBM's capable of striking targets the other side of the world. These would have to go into space on their way and so mastery of that environment would be necessary.

You only have to look at what North Korea is doing in this area to know that we can't afford to be left behind, although it should all be done without grand announcements, just allocate the funds and do the work.

 

[rederob]

I think a lot of this is probably code for development of hypersonic cruise and possibly ICBM's capable of striking targets the other side of the world. These would have to go into space on their way and so mastery of that environment would be necessary.

You only have to look at what North Korea is doing in this area to know that we can't afford to be left behind, although it should all be done without grand announcements, just allocate the funds and do the work.

Tell me which part is code?
I think the whole lot was word salad to baffle the masses.
Just like we have zero nuclear capability we also have none to get a payload into outer space.

 

[SirRumpole]

Tell me which part is code?
I think the whole lot was word salad to baffle the masses.
Just like we have zero nuclear capability we also have none to get a payload into outer space.

So did other countries before they developed them.

 

[rederob]

So did other countries before they developed them.

We have no vehicle manufacturing capacity.
We can't even build an aeroplane, let alone a jet fighter.
But we have a laughable Space Command.

And you don't even know what it would do if we had something up there!

 

[SirRumpole]

We have no vehicle manufacturing capacity.

Thanks to people like you.

 

[Craton]

Let me explain why it's so laughable.

<snip>

Drones: Our military is increasing the fleet of UAV and UAS. Our govt. is helping Aussie businesses in this area.

Look, I get it that you are against see no reason for the DSC and that's perfectly fine by me. I however, see more pros than cons.

 

[rederob]

Drones: Our military is increasing the fleet of UAV and UAS. Our govt. is helping Aussie businesses in this area.

I know. It's money really well spent. However, we are just an assembler at best, while Orbital UAV is home grown with an internationally recognised engine platform that is neglected by our Defence department.

Look, I get it that you are against see no reason for the DSC and that's perfectly fine by me. I however, see more pros than cons.

Great, what are they?

 

[sptrawler]

1. Enhance Defence’s space capability to assure Joint Force access in a congested and contested space environment
2. Deliver military effects integrated across Whole of Government and with allies and partners in support of Australia’s national security
3. Increase the national understanding of the criticality of space
4. Advance Australia’s sovereign space capability to support the development of a sustainable national space enterprise
5. Evolve the Defence Space Enterprise to ensure a coherent, efficient and effective use of the space domain.

All comes under the heading of:
Integrate Satellite, sub marine and Hf military systems, with the U.S and U.K systems, to give global coverage.

 

[Craton]

I know. It's money really well spent. However, we are just an assembler at best, while Orbital UAV is home grown with an internationally recognised engine platform that is neglected by our Defence department.

Neglected? Really?
According to last Sep Defence Global Competitiveness Grant announcement, I don't think so.

Great, what are they?

Geez and I thought you were the academic and/or learned scholar but here's one pro

Perhaps the authorities have ignored your lobbying against the DSC. As stated, I've dealt with the fact that you're not too keen on the DSC, doesn't worry me one iota as I'm all for it. That being said, go ahead, think this laughable but now seems your just trolling for a response.

 

[rederob]

Neglected? Really?
According to last Sep Defence Global Competitiveness Grant announcement, I don't think so.

I read that last year - I have held OEC stock for many years.
The grant barely covers the annual salary of an engineer.
And Orbital got their leg up in UAVs via America, not Australia. You might have noticed that Defence have no projects in the pipeline with Orbital and Defence treated Metal Storm similarly.

Geez and I thought you were the academic and/or learned scholar but here's one pro.

Please explain the pro as I found a lot of meaningless word salad.

Perhaps the authorities have ignored your lobbying against the DSC. As stated, I've dealt with the fact that you're not too keen on the DSC, doesn't worry me one iota as I'm all for it. That being said, go ahead, think this laughable but now seems your just trolling for a response.

I am not lobbying against a non existent "command" but, instead, querying what it will achieve.
FYI Ukraine has nothing in outer space yet is thwarting the Russian military superpower's advances. Given Russia has a massive satellite presence in space it seems reasonable to question how effective it is in supporting military engagements. This is 2022 and what's up there is incredibly advanced so why hasn't Ukraine been overrun by now?

 

[rederob]

All comes under the heading of:
Integrate Satellite, sub marine and Hf military systems, with the U.S and U.K systems, to give global coverage.

What satellite?

What submarine?

 

[sptrawler]

What satellite?

We have had the optus satellite up there for years, just ask any caravaner. (where's the bird, oh there ?)

What submarine?

I didn't say submarine, I said sub marine, as in sub marine cable. (where's that bird again, oh over there ?)

? ? ? ?

You may ask what's Hf, well that that would be, How flckn silly to get caught on that.

But humour aside, we can launch satellites as well as anyone else.

‘Hopes and dreams’: Australia joins space race with satellite launch

The CUAVA-1 satellite was built and designed by Sydney-based scientists and university students.

www.smh.com.au

Australia took another small step into space on Sunday with the launch of a satellite “the size of a large loaf of non-artisan bread from the supermarket” designed by scientists and students from Sydney’s universities.


We are just being efficient and not sending up big bits of junk, but it does show we are up to the task if push comes to shove. Just ask anyone caught in a lift when someone farts, it doesn't have to be big to be effective.

 

[rederob]

We have had the optus satellite up there for years, just ask any caravaner. (where's the bird, oh there ?)

Ah, I got it now.
The DSC is going to nationalise Optus and command former private sector satellites.
My bad.

I didn't say submarine, I said sub marine, as in sub marine cable. (where's that bird again, oh over there ?)

Oh, and nationalise submarine (one word @sptrawler) cables as well - again my bad - I hear high frequency laughter from the bleaches.

But humour aside, we can launch satellites as well as anyone else.

‘Hopes and dreams’: Australia joins space race with satellite launch

The CUAVA-1 satellite was built and designed by Sydney-based scientists and university students.

www.smh.com.au

Australia took another small step into space on Sunday with the launch of a satellite “the size of a large loaf of non-artisan bread from the supermarket” designed by scientists and students from Sydney’s universities.

Read my earlier post about using SpaceX so... thanks for proving my point. And especially the role of the civilian sector in satellite technology.

We are just being efficient and not sending up big bits of junk, but it does show we are up to the task if push comes to shove. Just ask anyone caught in a lift when someone farts, it doesn't have to be big to be effective.

I am a very strong supporter of developing our technological capabilities, but I don't see a role for Defence as other than a partner who can commission and incorporate military grade elements alongside civilian needs. Again, as I said earlier, you cannot hide a satellite in outer space so dedicating a satellite to military use condemns them to an early fate if push comes to shove.

 

[sptrawler]

I am a very strong supporter of developing our technological capabilities, but I don't see a role for Defence as other than a partner who can commission and incorporate military grade elements alongside civilian needs. Again, as I said earlier, you cannot hide a satellite in outer space so dedicating a satellite to military use condemns them to an early fate if push comes to shove.

What we all have to realise is, that if a policy that this Government suggests, doesn't hold water it will be dropped by the next Government.
This Government is obviously concerned about the threat China presents to us, therefore are committing to purchasing US/U.K off the shelf military equipment, these will come complete with control systems.
I would expect some of the long range equipment will involve satellite communications and guidance, therefore we would require compatible equipment, I would think.
But who knows you may be right, we may be re inventing the wheel, but I doubt it.

 

[rederob]

What we all have to realise is, that if a policy that this Government suggests, doesn't hold water it will be dropped by the next Government.

It's a military structure, not a policy.

This Government is obviously concerned about the threat China presents to us, therefore are committing to purchasing US/U.K off the shelf military equipment, these will come complete with control systems.

Yes, and they could/should/would use the satellites already in place so won't need to reinvent the wheel.

As for targeting, cruise missiles by way of example have multiple redundancies so can use global positioning systems, inertial guidance, optical scenery correlation, and terrain comparing radar to strike where intended.
From memory ICBMs are not "guided" after re-entry so don't need satellites.
There may be some missiles that rely on satellites but most do not.

 

[sptrawler]

It's a military structure, not a policy.

Yes, and they could/should/would use the satellites already in place so won't need to reinvent the wheel.

As for targeting, cruise missiles by way of example have multiple redundancies so can use global positioning systems, inertial guidance, optical scenery correlation, and terrain comparing radar to strike where intended.
From memory ICBMs are not "guided" after re-entry so don't need satellites.
There may be some missiles that rely on satellites but most do not.

And your point is?
If we are buying equipment be it subs, surface to air missiles or any other type of equipment that requires satellite connection, why wouldn't we install equipment to achieve that?
Or do we just buy the military equipment as an ornament? I don't understand your issue.
We are only guessing at the equipment and its function, it may be far more advanced than we realise.