Could Fighter Aircraft Shoot Down Satellites At Over 300,000ft? | DCS

[@swayzefan3600]

the US navy recently tested an SM-6 mounted to the superhornet. see if you can shoot down ballistic missiles using aircraft - aim-260 i guess?

[@grimreapers]

Some one said air-launched SM-6? kzbin.info/www/bejne/rHKyop-drbF_ac0

[@BCSchmerker]

@swayzefan3600 *An AIM-163 variant o' the tube-launched RIM-163 Standard VI?* Far more appropriate for a USN-USMC / Northrop Grumman AF-14 Echo, which can handle the weight.

[@Anarchy_420]

​​@@grimreapers Please do this again, however with-- MIG-31 with R-37M, ST-21 with AIM-152, SU-35 with R-77M, J-20 with PL-15, J-15 with PL-17, F-22 with AIM-260, F/A-XX with AIM-260, and the following with either AIM-260 or SM-6, F-15EX, YF-12A, and SR-72! To make it even more spicy at the end you could use The AIM-4 Falcon and Genie Rocket!🙏👍

[@UK2KTim]

@@grimreapersSM-3 are made for interception outside the atmosphere.

[@BCSchmerker]

@@Anarchy_420 *The Hughes AIM-47, the ultimate development o' the Falcon AAM, is far superior to the AIM-4 Series w/r/t range.* Superior to the AIM-26, in fact. U. S. Air Force FX already won by the McDonnellDouglas F-15, Tactical Air Command USAF could've probably used the Grumman F-14 Series for deep strike missions: Provided that the General Dynamics F-111 failed to meet spec, that is.

[@TwoMikesProductions]

Bunny Nakamura from Red Storm Rising gets her Ace by shooting Satellites. Really cool sequences.

[@xenaguy01]

_"Bunny Nakamura"_ is who I immediately thought of too!

[@scottr9900]

Buns

[@xenaguy01]

@@scottr9900 Bunny, "Buns" is how I remember her.

[@TwoMikesProductions]

@@xenaguy01 yeah Her dad calls her bunny and her mates get wind of that and call her ‘buns’. Great parts of the book when they engage and smack the bears as taxi pilots

[@benrichey2593]

The first space ace…

[@tkopp10976]

Hello valued Super Cap, we hope YOU are doing fantastically well!

[@AnimeFan-gp6jb]

I remember that during "Operation Burnt Frost", a Standard SM-3 SAM was used to shoot down a satellite. The KZbin comment section doesn't like it when I post links, but you can find it with a search engine.

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@BCSchmerker]

@AnimeFan-gp6jb *The RIM-162, I presume?* This and the RIM-163 Standard VI are candidates for antisatellite missions. A far superior missile might be an RSM-275 (Standard X) version; Lockheed Martin is developing the XAIM-260 for their F-22 and F-35 Series.

[@Dark_Heart5580]

​@BCSchmerker It was a modified Rim-161 also known as an SM3

[@BCSchmerker]

@@Dark_Heart5580 Viz., a YAIM-161 variant.

[@captain_kirkyt2481]

Cool, glad to see you back cap

[@Greybeard1357]

Interesting exercise. I was at Norfolk when the USAF was testing the ASAT at Langley in the 80s. More recently in '08 the USN shot down a satellite with an SM3. It's probably more likely that in the future the more versatile SM would be used in the future should it become necessary.

[@BCSchmerker]

@Greybeard1357 *The RIM-161, I presume?* The Aerojet-Raytheon RIM-163 could have a MIM-163 variant for land use. Better support across land and naval versions. The Lockheed Martin AIM-260 is a missile with rocket booster and solid-fuel ramjet sustainer motors.

[@StupidStuff135]

The hardest part of hitting a satellite isn't the altitude, it's the speed! Same challenges as sams trying to intercept hypersonics. Love the channel, hope you're well cap 💛

[@JulianDanzerHAL9001]

well, much greater speed but much more predictable trajectory so if you get data from the ground and can stick to a preplanned timing this doesn't really stop you from sending something oan collision course that only locks on and does course corrections shortly before impact

[@AKAtheA]

also the detail that the satellite is well outside of usable atmosphere, so any missile without reactive terminal maneuvering will miss

[@BlazinDumpster]

Great video. Love the high altitude videos for some reason. I also liked the teamwork with the boys to launch the missiles at the right time. I've been a subscriber for around 5 years and I love what you all contribute to people that enjoy your content.

[@JAEUFM]

To make the attempt legendary, the Avro Arrow needs to be brought into DCS to make an attempt.

[@5Andysalive]

DCS altitude and speed limits need to be raised by a LOT.

[@derekwaycott3785]

The arrow was a game changer

[@jimdraven2432]

Damn right it was a game changer. The Arrow should've been mass produced, but it's demise just showed the near sightedness of military & political garbage that still exists today.

[@JesusFriedChrist]

@@jimdraven2432Facts.

[@jimdraven2432]

@@JesusFriedChrist it does make me wonder why the Avro Arrow isn't included in DCS. I'd LOVE to have an opportunity to fly it!! (I'm Canadian so it holds a special place in my heart).

[@robertvantine2810]

Me in the comments: "Why not use an A-10 and just throw a wall of depleted uranium vertical? Cap: "Wait a sec...hold my tea!"

[@NoahsBox]

IRL the ASAT mission had something like sub 60 second window in which the F-15 was in range. Its pretty realistic that its difficult to find and lock up the target and get a good launch angle all in the span of a very short period of time.

[@Anarchy_420]

Please do this again, however with-- MIG-31 with R-37M, ST-21 with AIM-152, SU-35 with R-77M, J-20 with PL-15, J-15 with PL-17, F-22 with AIM-260, F/A-XX with AIM-260, and the following with either AIM-260 or SM-6, F-15EX, YF-12A, and SR-72!🙏👍

[@BCSchmerker]

@Anarchy_420 *The designation for Project ST21: USN-USMC / Northrop Grumman ASF-14 Hotel all-weather strike fighter.* Crew of two (Pilot fore, WSO aft); dual General Electric F120-GE-406 controlled-bypass turbofans with extended afterburner barrels, fed by strengthened four-shock inlets; AESA radar and RHAW receiver built in house by Northrop Grumman Avionics; buddy-hose and ATARPS compatible. (The ASAT mission requires two Rails on Stations 3 and 6 for an AIM-163 or ASM-280 INS AAM.)

[@Anarchy_420]

@@BCSchmerker in the past GR have used The ST-21 Super Tomcat with AIM-152 GDW's

[@Anarchy_420]

@@BCSchmerker kzbin.info/www/bejne/jpfbh6Gbmrusga8si=a7S8akRP7yijkFFV👍

[@Anarchy_420]

@@BCSchmerker Grim Reapers vid with ST-21 with AIM-152 kzbin.info/www/bejne/kKGbap9jbrqSq7csi=V1Jl4SQTP7w3FYsA

[@nevisstkitts8264]

Answer: yes, the F35 in cooperative engagement mode can intercept satellite over 700,000 ft altitude by taskinga Standard Missile 3. First sat intercept by SM 3 was on 21 Feb 2008. First cooperative engagement taskinf from F35 to aegis was on 12 Sep 2016.

[@Robert-pl1gd]

Here is a thought, if the missile will find it by itself, then don't fire directly at the target you have to lead the target. if you fire directly at it, by the time the missile gets there the satellite is long gone. As seen with most of the shots. good flying though Cap

[@jpteknoman]

To hit a satellite you need a missile with a long burn time and a way to change direction outside the atmosphere.

[@MeatVision]

Glad to see you back, Cap! You need a missile with multi axis boosters, you won't get any air to react with the fins at that height

[@Tomdog83]

Wouldn't being guided by awacs and firing when the missle still had air resistance to maneuver be the way to do that? 300k feey is only about 55 miles. Getting closer in the jet just means you are the targeting system as the missle can barely adjust.....seemed clear shooting early in atmo was the best bet.

[@lakeline6317]

Cap, agree with you, Patriot Pac3 on an F-15 could be a good option for ASAT.

[@Adwaenyth]

Well you will need computerized guidance because IRL it wouldn't only be 400 km high but also moving at at least 8 km/s when in orbit. Intercepting a target moving at Mach 24 isn't easy.

[@emmata98]

Orbit is a bit less than 8 km/s (circualar), which only decreases as you go up^^

[@Adwaenyth]

@@emmata98 closest satellite orbits will have 7.7 km/s. Highly elliptical orbits like a lot of surveillance sattelites have (Molniya orbits for example) have up to10 km/s at periapsis.

[@emmata98]

@@Adwaenyth therefore I limited it to cirqular orbits...

[@nicks.8971]

Nerds have entered the chat……and I’m here for it, go onnn!

[@sammysmirh3889]

Great video Cap, lots of fun

[@AuraKnightTheLucario]

you could potentially use the option that gives you on screen markers for targets to simulate the guidance package

[@ecbst6]

Yup, basic training was July 1985, so I well remember the ASAT 🙂

[@jrizos06]

Great test, cap et al. Proves that the natural laws of physics still works (somewhat) in DCS

[@freedomfalcon]

Watching this on my birthday.'Merica!!! Also cannot confirm or deny that I first learned about this story from doing security for a defense contractor that was involved in this.

[@cesarespinozaspain]

"Buns" Bunny Nakamura approves!

[@itsjustme8947]

An ASAT missile actually has thrusters for minor course correction on leaving atmosphere. Also, you are required to follow a VERY specific flight path for a VERY specific amount of time. You're leading a target moving at roughly 17,000 mph (depending upon satellite altitude). The intercept is all in the math. The thrust to weight ratio of the F15 is one of the reasons why this is the plane of choice.

[@mopardude824]

Hey Cap, video idea for you. At Bandar Lengeh airfield on the Persian Gulf map there is a hole in the wall on the Northwest corner of the airfield. It would be cool to see a video where a armored group enters the airfield from there and does a thing, thanks.

[@grimreapers]

OK cool

[@lordsqueak]

@8:55 Sven banging away at the problem, We missed you Sven♥

[@grimreapers]

I wish Sven would stop banging!

[@justinhall3243]

Interesting. The SM-3 also uses an infrared seeker and also employs a kinetic kill.

[@davidhines7592]

this was part of red storm rising book.

[@trevob123]

Fun fact the pilot of the F15 that actually did this is a client of mine now he's an astronaut

[@draysoncrook4898]

Why not an F-104 with a radar guided missile because the F-104 can already get pretty fast and high

[@lennyfair6177]

This was fun and made you think. What if that interceptor missile hadn't been made. What could be used to knock out a pesky eye in the sky. Glad you're up and about Cap 🙂

[@jaxompol224]

Cap just did not think that the canopy being in place was causing the problems 🤔

[@grimreapers]

Ah yes, that was it.

[@layneanderson9582]

at that altitude the fins don't have air to course correct which means it has to be perfectly aligned since there is no directional thrusters on the missles.

[@pabloottawa]

With conventional FOX3 air to air weapons this is physically impossible. Once the missile enters space, the control surfaces no longer have any air to push against ergo, no control. The only way to fix this is to add a powered gimbal to the rocket engine in order to control the missile in space.

[@codyj7532]

Now I want a video of you putting jets into orbit

[@Plastikdoom]

Right!? Give me zoom climb of the best F-15 variant that exists, carrying only external fuel and enough to hit max speed, at the highest altitude and vertical as it flames out due to lack of oxygen as it’s running in fumes, for max thrust to weight ratio as it burns through stupid amounts of fuel in full burner, at this point, 90 degree climb.

[@JulianDanzerHAL9001]

well you'd need some fictional hypersonic plane for that its not really about altitude but speed if you can reach mach 23 you are in orbit regardless of altitude if you caN't then you aren't regardless of altitude its jsut much easier to reach amch 23 at really high altitudes

[@tedtomoyasu8438]

Now that you have done the F-15 Anti Sat Missile scenario. How about the US Standard Missile Anti Satellite scenario off an Aegis cruiser?

[@slopoke3633]

This had me fired up the whole time! Good fun.

[@charlietheunicorn5383]

The Boeing YAL-1 airborne laser testbed was a modified Boeing 747-400F with a megawatt-class chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL) mounted inside. It was designed to take out tactical ballistic missiles, but perhaps it could be anti-satellite capable had it been allowed to become an operational component of the USAF arsenal. Perhaps GR should fly a B747 around for funs.

[@jamison884]

All of my favorite Cap videos contain the quote "look at its jigglers."

[@grimreapers]

lol

[@Arturijo]

Hey Cap, could you try a MiG-31 with a R-37 and a YF-12 with an Aim-47 against the satellites?

[@pahtar7189]

The SR-71 with Phoenix should do this. Isn't there a two stage missile? The second stage may be able to correct enough for a hit.

[@Slikx666]

Well you followed the scientific process and got a result and learnt more about DCS than you did before. I can't complain about that. 😀 Speaking of theory and doing, Cap how's the curtain pole doing?

[@grimreapers]

Still there :)

[@Slikx666]

@@grimreapers Yippee! 😆

[@macekeeks3085]

Wonder if something like the mica ng could have worked with its dual pulse motor not sure how well the tvc would have worked

[@resonance01]

I know it's all for fun, but hearing Cap say I don't see why a Sidewinder couldn't do it shows he didn't take into account that the satellite would be travelling over the engagement zone at orbital velocities. But given the balloon couldn't hold altitude I don't think DCS could have handled simulating it travelling at those velocities either. Still a fun bit of content.

[@grimreapers]

Yes that's a good comment.

[@markredacted8547]

Can I make a recommendation that would make a war game simulation either very efficient or laughably inefficient, can GR get Grinding Sidewinder and Longshot into a war game as either pilots (efficient) or as a buddy team on helicopters, or as pilot and RIO/WSO (laughably inefficient). I watch all these channels and would love to see the chaos this could invoke. Especially if GS and Longshot are helo, where they have the combat effectiveness of stormtroopers and make questionable decisions "lets dogfight a MI24 in our Huey". Just a thought Get well soon Cap, love from Australia.

[@grimreapers]

I'm always up for it, but I know time zones are a problem, and now I have a baby I can not be flexible on times. Just life.

[@IcdBlade]

I think like Dark said you have to have a lock before you fire the missile so it can maneuver to intercept while in air and under power. Maybe try with your AESA radars and AIM-120Ds?

[@pancudowny]

Perhaps you should try using a Majik missile... because they're known for being useful in attacks on darkness!😄

[@MisterLindsay]

I know you had issues with the mods in making this attempt, but presuming there were no compatibility issues, it would be interesting to see you try this with your AIM-260 and AWACS support.

[@grimreapers]

Our AIM-260 is hard limited to around 110k ft in DCS. Just a thing.

[@zanimoniak4885]

ED is working on a world map, and I hope that they will code it such that travel into space will be possible. DCS can simulate aircraft, why not expand to spacecraft

[@creeperslayers6]

I wonder how a scenario would play out if an OPFOR force tried to send their own aircraft at these high-altitudes to intercept an ASAT F-15 and whatever air units are trying to protect that F-15

[@hunterwyeth]

This was a fun one!

[@Kevin-hb7yq]

... but can you do this in an F-86 Sabre ? 🤔 This sort of thing needs an Ground control intercept in conjunction with an airborne radar. The Maths require you to lob the missile into the path of an approaching satellite traveling 17500 mph, you'd need to fire before it was over your horizon. Tom Clancy talked about the logistics of this in one of his books, and there is a youtuber called Scott Manley who has done a video about the orbital mechanics of this. I recommend both.

[@Redman147]

This is cool. Quite interesting.

[@blakeparry1983]

aim260 with its small rocket motor pulses to adjust direction (e.g. what spacecraft use) would probably keep it on target also no MIG31 and axe-heads?

[@Plastikdoom]

Well I mean we (US) did it decades ago in the Cold War with an F-15, for the first time, lol. And I’m sure we have an updated version.

[@surters]

Even if there is no new one, how hard can it be to rebuild a old missile, granted all the components are a bit dated ...

[@Plastikdoom]

@@surters true, I’m former military, USMC, I obviously have very limited knowledge the same as everyone else except who built this stuff, but even the poor ass USMC with really, really old shit had some pretty fancy and brand new, amazing stuff at the time I was in. My unit had the very first of now modern, to older flir systems, used in combat, we had the only few in existence, including the prototype that was sent to us. I joined in 05. Not really classified info, as they are all the standard or oldest type used now…with few exceptions. But we were the first to test and use in war, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they were mind blowing at the time we got the only 3 in existence…and we mounted them to 60 plus yr old helos, granted they were heavily upgraded…and the most capable attack helos. And utility helicopters ever made. Still the best, in the form of the AH-1Z and UH-1Y the most modern, capable, proven and deadly airframe for CAS. Been doing it longer, as they are first ones, first turbine powered helo, the UH-1 line and the worlds first and oldest attack helicopter, and still serving, the AH-1 line, 1/4 of the airframes of the AH-1 and UH-1 are original airframes that first flew and fought in Vietnam, fully upgraded now approaching 80 years old from adoption. We could easily build new versions, that are insanely better, for a lower cost, maybe after inflation, and the required graft and greed fund is applied, about same cost to slightly higher, but would be far, far more capable. And they say the mig whatever, had the best climb record and time, yeah, only according to the Soviets, the rest of the world recognizes the F-15 as the record holder, an F-15 hit 92,000 and some change altitude in ballistic climb, granted nothing on it, max fuel, but no one else Carrie’s anything for attempted climb records. And has the highest altitude and highest speed that is verifiable, by an air breather, not just claimed with zero evidence. If you have an F-15 Lox tanks, an automated systems to use lox as needed, along with an aerial refueling, you could fly an F-15 into orbit, granted, you couldn’t reenter, as no heat shielding, and not enough fuel/lox left to slow enough to reenter atmosphere, but you could fly into space, with the right set up, which I find hilarious, obviously would need rcs thrusters for maneuvering and like they said, we are looking at strapping the SM line to fighters like the F-15….which is insane, and I love it.

[@ilejovcevski79]

Couldn't Jester lock it up in STT once you pull nose high? And then fire a C Phoenix? It might get enough guidance inside the atmosphere to manage a lucky hit after the lock is broken and the fins run out of air?

[@grimreapers]

Jester is hard coded not to look above 60k ft or whatever his ceiling it.

[@ilejovcevski79]

@@grimreapers ah, that doesn't help then. He can't even lock targets present on the scope?

[@randalljones4370]

Giant.Rubber.Bands. You need a bigger elastic. ... or drag out the HARP gun (110 miles range)

[@squireson]

is 300,000 ft the maximum altitude modeled in DCS ? When did it start to exceed 120,000ft ?

[@Plastikdoom]

Laughs in KSP/KSP2 is sad when I realize I don’t fighters or or missiles or weapons, true guidance/seekers. And all the fun stuff.

[@grimreapers]

We can;t seem to get anything much above 300,000ft. It changed a couple of years back? For the AIM-54.

[@Plastikdoom]

@@grimreapers no worries. My response, was the best of what it if? Haha, great videos otherwise. Everyone is limited by hard or software.

[@oliabid-price4517]

This is where you need a EE Lightning - Mach 2 vertical climb to launch...

[@ivorharden]

I have seen a lightning mod on youtube

[@anvil5356]

Nice idea, pity about the firestreak

[@SmithandWesson22A]

How much fuel? 1 minute? 5? At full burn. Anyone know?

[@ivorharden]

@@SmithandWesson22A there is an interview with an RAF pilot where i believe he says he could empty the fuel tanks after 10 minutes.

[@BCSchmerker]

+GrimReapersAtomic *The U. S. Air-Launched Antisatellite Missile, Service Test, YASM-135* (and the potential Tube-Launched and Rail-Launched versions) *was the first truly hypersonic AAM.* Ideal aircraft for the mission? The USN-USMC / Northrop Grumman F-14E-190-GR, with dual General Electric F120-GE-400 controlled-bypass turbofans fed by strengthened four-shock inlets.

[@5Andysalive]

of course the real/added challenge and achievement is timing. A satellite in low earth orbit moves with several km per second sideways. If you don't nail it to the (i guess split-) second, this method would fail. In a way your SR-72 intercept attempts were closer to the challenge. Unless, that was also considered, you create a massive area of effect (i.e. a nuclear explosion) to take it out. That is not criticism on the video or DCS btw. Just mentioning it. To really test it you'd need Kerbal Space program and some mods. But for Kerbal players (almost!) hitting things in space is basic bread and butter anyway. But not with super slow (take that DCS!) missiles. Which is also why this is how you'd do it today. But tbf to the "technology of the time", space flight was well out of it's early stages by then. Which (i'm depending on Scott Manley here, for example the his video on the Nike-Hercules) ) allowed them to think about concepts based on precision, not scale. And politically rather juicy ideas like nukes for intercepting in orbit (or in the air!) were scrapped (and banned).

[@zacharyamatore1279]

can you stt lock it? or find it on the AWG9 with the tomcat?

[@MAB-nj8wf]

Use a MiG-31, intercepting the SR-72 Darkstar, while it's going Mach 5.5, at 264,000 feet. That's gonna be the realistic numbers anyway...

[@Wolfe351]

F14 in TWS mode? yeah need a vectored thrust missile............ python5 with aim54 as the booster..............

[@bodan1196]

"Fly on my monitor." Reminds me of a story written down by a pilot of n the Saab J-29 Tunnan (Flying Barrel). He was solo flying adversary in an exercise, were his task was to engage "incomming bombers". He was briefed that he should expect the then new fighter variant J-32B Lansen to be in the area. Flying, he caught a glance of something in the rear view mirror. Assuming that it was a J-32B, he banked and pulled, but no matter what he did, the 32 didn't move in the mirror, staying put on his six. He then realised that it was a fly, sitting on the mirror. After some cursing, he, as all little boys would in his situation, wondered how many G's the fly would be able to take before losing grip. Well beyond what the J-29 was allowed to pull, in peace time, it turned out...

[@johnwycough1955]

Great video. Try the BoneR. Plenty of power and a spread of missles

[@wastool]

Without watching the video, the answer is yes because in 1985 an F15 did.

[@ryanpayne7707]

What about using an AIM-260 seeing as how it uses an RCS system for control rather than fins?

[@Shnazz999]

This looks like a job for the US Space Force!

[@Musix4me-Clarinet]

Twas a bad idea. That much debris is nothing but trouble for everyone.

[@karbitgameing6921]

Are you going to do a f4e tutorial series

[@grimreapers]

Probably. If you want that?

[@GlitchyGamers18]

Maybe redo this with the f15c and the aim260 since it has those lateral thrusters

[@grimreapers]

Our AIM-260 is hard limited to around 110k ft in DCS. Just a thing.

[@modernmountaineer]

Start sooner and hit a sustained climb and then increase climb rate where your starting now so your speed will be much higher and give your missile greater speed and range. And use and use aim 120 d, pl 15, meteor, or r77 m or 1 even.(If you could use the f15 with aim 260 or mig 25/31 with r 37 at the highest balloon with nose on at release)

[@johandewet2588]

A nice way to make space debris that will stuff up other satelites in time as well as the ISS.

[@smugfrog8111]

Hitting a static target at that altitude is one thing. Now get it moving at around 17,500mph and hit it.

[@grimreapers]

Fair comment.

[@Andrew_NJ]

Why did you not try the Raptor? Also is it possible to arm the SR-71?

[@emmata98]

What about having the sattelite moving at speed and not just downwards, or would that be just like the Darkstar intercept

[@MBrown201175]

It's funny you think they aren't producing the weapon. Breaking news: the US can easily shoot down foreign satellites. Also, the f-15 isn't the only platform either...

[@akizeta]

Like Cap says, ASAT are damn expensive. And nobody actually wants Kessler syndrome taking out _everybody's_ satellite infrastructure.

[@Reniconix]

@@akizeta We're so far below the threshold of Kessler syndrome that we could explode every satellite in orbit and not have a problem.

[@MarvinWestmaas]

@@Reniconix According to whom?

[@evilpandakillabzonattkoccu4879]

​@@MarvinWestmaasI'd like to know that too, since it was an issue when Russia shot one down in 2021. The debris was a risk for ISS. ISS is in low Earth orbit but it's still higher than many satellites. In other words: Even a low Earth orbit satellite is a risk for Kessler syndrome. 🤷🏽‍♂️ Especially since the f-15 test mentioned here was in 1985 and was conducted by the USAF.... *_In 1991, Kessler published "Collisional cascading: The limits of population growth in low Earth orbit" with the best data then available. Citing the USAF conclusions about creation of debris, he wrote that although almost all debris objects (such as paint flecks) were lightweight, most of its mass was in debris about 1 kg (2 lb 3 oz) or heavier. This mass could destroy a spacecraft on impact, creating more debris in the critical-mass area._* .....so, Kessler himself seems to disagree...

[@evilpandakillabzonattkoccu4879]

more than likely: the platform they would use in the future, however, would likely be a satellite destroying satellite (technology which has already been tested).

[@hatsjie2]

Why didnt you try an AIM-260? That has side-thrusters, right?

[@grimreapers]

Our AIM-260 is hard limited to around 110k ft in DCS. Just a thing.

[@andycharnell]

Great videos guys keep them coming, go super cap! 😅

[@IAMSEYMOURMUSIC]

It's run out of something! >air It's run out of something! >air

[@kenhelmers2603]

That was fun, but why not the SR-72?

[@nigeldepledge3790]

There's a second reason why you don't want to shoot at satellites in orbit : the amount of orbital debris that you'll create in random orbits when the satellite gets smashed to bits. Chunks of the killed satellite might gradually de-orbit and burn up in the atmosphere; but they are just as likely to move into a higher orbit, or into a co-altitude orbit with different inclination, or into a more eccentric orbit. Those chunks will then become exceedingly hazardous to any other satellites in the vicinity. And they'll all still be travelling at orbital velocity, which is (IIRC) about 11 km/s. The largest chunks will be easy to track with radar. But the smaller chunks will be very hard to track, and the pieces that are smaller than a centimetre will be virtually impossible to track. But they can still do an awful lot of damage - imagine a little .22 rifle round travelling at Mach 30 (or whatever the relevant Mach number is for that kind of speed).

[@EfficientRVer]

Space junk is a thing. But good luck moving the perigee of an orbit up with an explosion or collision at one place in a circular orbit. It doesn't work that way at all. Most orbits of useful satellites are pretty circular. Plus, elliptical, especially highly elliptical orbits, decay mainly based on how high the perigee (lowest point of the orbit) is. You can raise the apogee of some particles up, but the perigee does not follow it up.. You need to do burns at a minimum of 2 places around an orbit to truly raise it and create junk higher up. Also, the orbit of each small piece of space junk decays a lot faster than the orbit of the original satellite, because it has much less mass per unit frontal area. Each little fragment doesn't get to bring along a miniature set of thrusters to maintain its orbit. We're talking about shooting at LEO (low Earth orbit) satellites here that decay, not stuff in super high orbits that can stay up there for centuries on their own, like geosynchronous satellites 22,400 miles up. Little bits and pieces 100 miles up don't stay up there for years. Even Skylab came down due to drag. Shooting a satellite in a circular orbit, or in an elliptical orbit while it is reachable near its perigee, speeds up its orbital demise, despite creating many small bits of junk for a while.

[@nigeldepledge3790]

@@EfficientRVer - that depends. Not knowing the full ins and outs of the matter, I was allowing for the possibility that at least a small proportion of the scattered debris could end up with increased orbital energy (and that it was at perigee when you hit it). Yes, smaller fragments experience drag more severely than do larger ones in the same region, and their orbits will decay faster. But, you seem to be assuming that all satellites in low-earth orbit are at altitudes of around 350 - 400 km. Where does "low-earth orbit" end? If we assume that some of the satellites you might want to target are at altitudes of (say) 500 - 750 km, the debris field you'll create will experience far less drag than at (say) 350 km; and the debris must of a necessity pass through the orbits of many other satellites on its way down. All it would take is one significant collision between a chunk of the debris you've created and an active satellite to start a cascade. Kessler Syndrome is a thing: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

[@Erik_123]

It's tracking. It's not tracking. It's tracking. It's trying. :( Hilarious

[@ScienceChap]

60 miles, or 100 km, is k own as the Carmen line, the minimum altitude at which an object is regarded as having gone into space. You're nowhere near orbit, but you got into space. BTW You ought to try the English Electric Lightning.

[@VolkerGoller]

Why not use the only sane platform - F104! You need a rocket for this job! 😮

[@pogo1140]

Where will the -104 carry an 18ft, 2,000lb missile?

[@PyrotechnicMailman]

i lold at the parachute

[@johntresize202]

Maybe try a aim-260?

[@johntresize202]

Doesn't it (260) have actuators instead of fins?

[@grimreapers]

Ours has a 120,000ft hard limit :(

[@thejaimes412]

Can we try this with modern planes? Or a B-1R?

[@grimreapers]

OK

[@justjonazjameson5559]

Isn't there a missile that steers with thrust vectoring instead of control surfaces? it might be one of those ramjet ones... but that would not work either

[@everypitchcounts4875]

MUTANT missile?

[@Davros-vi4qg]

B1 with THADD now that would be a sound and light show 🌶️

[@terencyowens9491]

This... But with AWACS and data link support. Also, try using F22, F23 or even a B1 bomber.

[@grimreapers]

Ok

[@lenn55]

Is there a long range radar missile with thrust vectoring like the AIM-9X has?

[@grimreapers]

Even if there was, the burner only burns for a few seconds, after that it couldn't steer.

[@lenn55]

@@grimreapers I guess you'd need a missile with tiny maneuvering thrusters like the Pac-3 or THAAD has then.

[@oliverduke1173]

6:00 in 1994 the strategy map was the actual game.

[@johnord684]

Red Storm Rising

[@timbaskett6299]

Too bad you couldn't fit an SM-3 on the F-15C or EX. Anyone remember the "NF-104"? The Starfighter with the rocket engine in the base of the tail. It would be cool to see a MiG-21 set up the same way.

[@BCSchmerker]

@timbaskett6299 *The Grumman F-14 could, as an AIM-161 Echo.* Ideal for test: YF-14B-30-GR SerNo 007 (BuNo 157986), fitted with dual General Electric YF120-GE-400 controlled bypass turbofans with extended afterburner barrels - the F120 will supercruise the Tomcat, but max 'burner is required for the test.

[@knight5846]

“104-0 look out below I took out a satellite just for show”

[@mrbfox1775]

Need to try the Russian missile with the terminal boost phase maybe?