France Is Making Space-Based Anti-Satellite Laser Weapons (popularmechanics.com) 184
France announced plans on Thursday to develop satellites armed with laser weapons that will be used against enemy satellites that threaten the country's space forces. Popular Mechanics reports: In remarks earlier today, French Defense Minister Florence Parly said, "If our satellites are threatened, we intend to blind those of our adversaries. We reserve the right and the means to be able to respond: that could imply the use of powerful lasers deployed from our satellites or from patrolling nano-satellites." "We will develop power lasers, a field in which France has fallen behind," Parly added.
France also plans to develop nano-satellite patrollers -- small satellites that act as bodyguards for larger French space assets by 2023. Per Parly's remarks, nano-sats could be armed with lasers. According to DW, France is also adding cameras to new Syracuse military communications satellites. Additionally France plans to set up its own space force, the "Air and Space Army," as part of the French Air Force. The new organization will be based in Toulouse, but it's not clear if the Air and Space Army will remain part of the French Air Force or become its own service branch.
France also plans to develop nano-satellite patrollers -- small satellites that act as bodyguards for larger French space assets by 2023. Per Parly's remarks, nano-sats could be armed with lasers. According to DW, France is also adding cameras to new Syracuse military communications satellites. Additionally France plans to set up its own space force, the "Air and Space Army," as part of the French Air Force. The new organization will be based in Toulouse, but it's not clear if the Air and Space Army will remain part of the French Air Force or become its own service branch.
One clear question (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't they at least try and get a version of GPS, Galileo [theverge.com] working consistently first, before they jump to putting lasers on their satellites?
Re:One clear question (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't they at least try and get a version of GPS, Galileo [theverge.com] working consistently first, before they jump to putting lasers on their satellites?
No. It is generally better to work on problems in parallel, especially when you are not using the same people to solve every problem. France has 67 million people, so they can do at least two things at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
At least 50m of those people are on strike at any given moment though, so remember that in your maths.
Re: (Score:2)
France has 67 million people, so they can do at least two things at the same time.
Yes. One person can work and the rest can protest about it.
Re: (Score:2)
"working consistently"
All you need (Score:3)
is a big spinning mirror and you could vaporize a human target from space.
Re: (Score:2)
Real Genius?
Yep. At least one person remembers.
Although, it may be worth considering as a secondary use when you're planning your orbital laser platforms.
French megalomania (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No, they just know not to trust the Americans with anything (with good reason).
Re: (Score:2)
I know, the problem with France is that they spend too much on social programs and medical services for the masses.
They should be more like the US and spend 10% of their GDP on defense to protect the interests of less than 1% of the population (which funnily enough probably all of the neocon twats on /. are not part of either).
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, who knew that the US GDP was only $5.6T? Military budget is about $550B, fyi.
And who would have thought that the Federal government tax rates were set at 80%? What with the Federal budget being $4.2T (NOT the military budget, the WHOLE budget).....
And, horror of horrors, who wouldn't be appalled that the Federal government spends money on the military, that being one of the very few Constitutionally mandated parts of the Federal Budget?!?
Note, by
Re: (Score:2)
Oh get the fuck out of here with your facts. This isn't the place for that! There's no room in the echo chamber for dissident sound waves!
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, that may have been in the past, but our fiscal conservatives have all left the building and now we have this:
"The $700 billion plan exceeded the budget cap of $549 billion as established Budget and Control Act (BCA) of 2011. On February 9, 2018 President Trump signed in law the final spending bill after two stopgap measures were passed.
Read more: https://militarybenefits.info/... [militarybenefits.info]"
Which according to the CBO means that defense spending is 17% of the budget and rising. Closer to 60% of the discretionary
Re: (Score:2)
Of course America will do nothing, France doesn't have any oil. But if I was a betting man I suspect France will be around way longer than the USA when it collapses into civil war (or just plain bankrupt).
Re: (Score:3)
A country does not have permanent friends, it only has permanent interests.
Which is something the UK is about to find out with the US, although falling into the arms of China will probably even make the yellow-haired tub of lard stand up (with some help, like a little kid's storybook) and notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dorito-tinted proto-facist still works.
Re: (Score:2)
Errr...does Trump count as a nemesis?
About time, but it probably won't work out. (Score:5, Interesting)
The French had their space assets buzzed by "unknown" spy satellites long ago. We (the US) used to publish the coordinates of their secret military sats. They protested to no avail. Then they started to publish the coordinates of OUR secret sats and we stopped.
So , their military are aware of the stakes. But their politicians are hard to convince. The public declaration means the current political power has listened a bit more than usual but i doubt they will be able to open budgets to make their ambitions concrete.
That said they have had some limited success in convincing their EU partners an access to space is needed. They are the driving force behind ESA and what is now Arianegroup. But even that is faltering because of lack of investment and high costs due to pork politics.
They have been able to tell we were lying to them about Iraq and Ukraine thanks to their spy sats for example. They are very aware of that. And their European partners much less. But we work hard to improve that. I expect the French to try to "sell" their space force project to other European countries with very little success as usual. Their own French public opinion show little support for military spending or even other investment expenditures. They have a unquenchable thirst for welfare.
So their political move seems very logical to me but i still think it will fizzle by lack of means.
Re:About time, but it probably won't work out. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There are not many nations with such capabilities. I am near certain India does not have it and is nowhere close to have it. If the Chinese can, that is recent. At some point, the Russians had lost it or were close to lose it because of lack of funds. Hell, they struggled at times to track their own sats. But they recovered.
Re: (Score:2)
I am near certain India does not have it and is nowhere close to have it.
India does [nytimes.com] have it.
Re: (Score:2)
This another kind of capability: Shooting one your own targets whose position you know well, on a steady LEO orbit. This is certainly a technical feat. But a different one than tracking with enough accuracy thousands of targets. Especially if some of these targets modify their orbits. Most nations who have spy satellites keep them relatively quiet on their orbit to spare their ergols. The US on another hand is much more spendy and will empty a sat reserves in weeks on occasion.
My point is military satellite
Re: (Score:2)
It's a capability wIthin reach of talented amateurs.
https://www.supercluster.com/e... [supercluster.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly. They still haven't deorbited the ones you think are dead.
Problem is, most of those are one shot systems.
Re: (Score:3)
Military Space Radar (Score:2, Interesting)
France is one of the few countries that have their own military space awareness radar called GRAVES: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graves_(system)
The wikipedia page doesn't do it justice as it was heavily redacted over the years. Some basic information also available here https://www.pe0sat.vgnet.nl/satellite/sat-information/space-surveillance/
Many enthusiasts use it for meteor detection via detection of the reflected signal from the transmitter or for detecting satellites, alas with much worse accuracy tha
If you think about it (Score:4, Insightful)
Only useful if you plan to strike first. Otherwise they pretty much make it to the top of your enemy's target list as the first things taken out. What politicians don't seem to understand is how vulnerable a satellite is - they can't hide, so your enemy can get a good look at it during peacetime and estimate its capabilities, and your enemy can always track it to know where it is almost all the time. Maneuverability is limited by available fuel and is of limited use because, as I said before, it can be constantly tracked. So now that you put your expensive weapons platform in space to kill other satellites (which means your opponent is also a space going nation) with a big target on it saying "shoot me from the ground", which any self respecting space-going nation can do, and do as part of its opening move if it begins hostilities. So it's either first strike or lose it.
So who does France plan on attacking?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's the plan. Put up some fake "space laser" satellites so the enemy attacks them first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where are their special forces getting placed and used?
Their spies?
They cant do a GCHQ, NSA so they use a lot of humans to spy.
Spies who phone home a lot and the NSA and GCHQ collect all on
Re "constantly tracked" and France.
The NSA and GCHQ collect so much information on France that the limiting factor is quality real time translation.
Doing a next gen Maginot Line in space is not going to save France.
If France really want
Blind their adversaries (Score:2)
I immediately thought of "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." This kind of escalation, when a full-on Kessler Syndrome [wikipedia.org] is the logical end result, could really ruin space flight for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
The French are not the first to dream this up, and other nations are already working on the capability. If anything, the French are playing catch-up.
Mr. President, after I destroy Washington D.C. I (Score:3)
Mr. President, after I destroy Washington D.C. I will destroy another major city every hour on the hour. That is, unless, of course, you pay me one hundred billion dollars.
uhh.. (Score:2)
Lasers... (Score:2)
Lol, 25 years too late (Score:2)
Talk about slackers.
Le Pew! Le Pew! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds so German though.
No, Germans would develop sharks with power lasers on their heads.
Re: (Score:2)
He was BELGIAN you insensitive clod!
I know, that's tried to help him.
Re: (Score:2)
He was BELGIAN you insensitive clod!
Never saw Goldmember, huh? He was actually British, and Austin's brother. They thought Dr. Evil died in a failed assassination attempt that killed their mother, but he was found by the Belgian couple that turned him evil.
Re: (Score:2)
It would amount to slavery of animals.
Unlike keeping pets?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I want to stick around. My cats tell me that I love them and am happy serving them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.laserfocusworld.co... [laserfocusworld.com]
At some point the French multinational company which is partially owned by the French government pitched in.
Re: (Score:2)
A weaponized laser needs to be of a certain size whether they use classical optics or a way more fancy optical phased array to focus the beam. The latter can be a lot smaller in size than the former. But still both mechanisms need to be a certain size if you want them to be effective over longer distances.
So could they make a phased array from a lot of small satellites and coordinate them like a Star Link constellation is supposed to work
Re:White flag (Score:5, Informative)
Are they planning to deploy a large white flag that can be seen from space?
According to historian Niall Ferguson: "of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have participated in 50 – more than Austria (47) and England (43). Out of 168 battles fought since 387 BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10", making France the most successful military power in European history—in terms of number of fought and won.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Now please stop bothering the rest of us with easily debunked trolls and lies.
Re: (Score:1)
You are only as good as your last fight. Everyone who has ever fought knows that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That makes the US a loser. no clear victories in war lately.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes the US a loser. no clear victories in war lately.
Iraq went quite well, militarily. The initial invasion was slowed only by our ability to accept surrender fast enough, and the lasting house-to-house fighting had a roughly 10:1 casualty ratio in favor of the US. We win just about every fight in Afghanistan, too, not that that really helps anything.
The US Navy, OTOH, has repeatedly embarrassed itself in recent years, and I think we'd be in real trouble if anyone else had a navy worth talking about.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever heard of this concept called humor?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever heard of this concept called humor?
Yes, but jokes have to be funny, and this very very tired and worn out trope about the French being surrender monkeys just isn't funny anywhere outside a Republican Party political convention. Another couple of things: (1) if you aspire to a career in comedy, don't quit your day job and (2), you forgot to check the 'Anonymous Coward' box.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Yes, but jokes have to be funny, and this very very tired and worn out trope about the French being surrender monkeys just isn't funny anywhere"
Very much agreed.
>"outside a Republican Party political convention."
Sorry, but it has nothing to do with political party, despite how popular it is on Slashdot to frame everything that way.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Yes, but jokes have to be funny, and this very very tired and worn out trope about the French being surrender monkeys just isn't funny anywhere"
Very much agreed.
>"outside a Republican Party political convention."
Sorry, but it has nothing to do with political party, despite how popular it is on Slashdot to frame everything that way.
Yes it does, because that joke was invented by American neocons and nobody thinks it's funny except American conservatives. On top of that French military aid and French military victories were instrumental in making American independence possible in the first place. The only thing funny about Americans cracking jokes about the French being surrender monkeys is that **some** Americans are so dumb as to think that they can actually afford to make jokes about the French being bad soldiers even though their o
Re: (Score:2)
What's actually funny is how US-French relations turned sour.
Only 5 years after the revolutionary war, where the French were instrumental in helping us win our independence from GB, we got into the Quasi-War with France. LOL that was quick.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it does, because that joke was invented by American neocons...
I would have to disagree with that. The idea of France surrendering as a military doctrine certainly pre-dates the neo-cons and was used by more than just conservatives. What you said could probably be said for adding "freedom" in front of fries and everything else, but not the general trope of France surrendering. As far as I can tell, it did not date back to WW2. There was certainly dissatisfaction with the French in WW2, so much that the Army put out a booklet of why American troops should not insult the
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how likely it is for a given political party's membership to forget that if it weren't for France, they'd likely still be British subjects.
Your turn.
Re: (Score:2)
And if it wasn't for that former colony's help, the French would still be speaking German.
We'll call it even?
(Yes, this is massively reductionist, and is not meant to diminish the great sacrifice made by literally millions of Russians on the eastern front)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You should probably follow your own advice - making a crack at Republicans while getting all spun up about nationalistic "jokes" makes you look like an idiot.
A little tip: if you are going to get incensed over one "us versus them" argument, you probably shouldn't be making one yourself in your witty retort.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and that why i can tell those redneck "surrendering French" jokes are even worse than "n*ggers shit in nine months" jokes.
Surrender: Not Joke, but propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever heard of this concept called humor?
Yes, but apparently *you* don't.
The "Frenchmen are all surrender monkey" isn't even a genuine joke (well technically, it was at the beginning a joke made by the Simpsons - as usual they predict everything in advance), it's mostly a troll-meme that raised popularity in US as a propaganda meme [theguardian.com] when France (and the rest of Europe) opposed USA's Iraq war along with all the s/French/Freedom/g renaming of {toasts,fries,kisses} bullshit [time.com].
Given that it's more than a decade and half later, and every body saw how much a wonderful idea the US' Iraq war turned out to be in hindsight, I think it's time to cut down on the propaganda and French- (and Euro-) bashing.
Disclaimer: I'm not even French.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... "freedom kissing" was a thing?
and I thought Freedom Fries were fucking dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I'm not even French
Sure thing buddy, but honestly I'd try to hide that too.
(Yes yes it's a joke about the French. I'm British I can't help it. They're like our brothers in that mostly we piss each other off and argue, but if anyone else joins in we instantly join forces)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's time to cut down on the propaganda and French- (and Euro-) bashing.
What about the Swedes?? They've gone from being Vikings to being Vaginas (vaginas are great but I suspect most of us prefer vaginas that are disguised as vaginas; not grown men disguised as vaginas).
Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Frenchmen are all surrender monkey" isn't even a genuine joke (well technically, it was at the beginning a joke made by the Simpsons - as usual they predict everything in advance)
The joke long pre-dates the Simpsons. I suspect it pre-dates Matt Groening (born in 1954). In the late 70s my grandpa told me the joke about getting a good deal on a French battle rifle, "Never fired, only dropped once".
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Don't go confuse nationalities: the British have humour. The French have grandeur and the Germans have gestapo.
... and the Americans have the KKK, that joke wasn't funny any more than yours was.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they planning to deploy a large white flag that can be seen from space?
According to historian Niall Ferguson: "of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have participated in 50 – more than Austria (47) and England (43). Out of 168 battles fought since 387 BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10", making France the most successful military power in European history—in terms of number of fought and won. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Now please stop bothering the rest of us with easily debunked trolls and lies.
What was the last war the french won? Not battle, war.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: White flag (Score:2)
I watched the video for that and was amazed that France had a big military parade and I didn't hear any outrage over it.
Re: (Score:3)
Are they planning to deploy a large white flag that can be seen from space?
According to historian Niall Ferguson: "of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have participated in 50 – more than Austria (47) and England (43). Out of 168 battles fought since 387 BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10", making France the most successful military power in European history—in terms of number of fought and won.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Now please stop bothering the rest of us with easily debunked trolls and lies.
What was the last war the french won? Not battle, war.
World War 2, the same as the US. The Free French Army fought in the Normandy invasion and many other battles, ans was the 4th largest Allied military by the end of the war.
Fun fact: the US has not technically won a war since the War Department was renamed the Department of Defense in 1949.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some French may have fought on,
As I said, by the end of the War the French Army was the 4th largest Allied army: 1.3 million. They also fought around the world, and many French forces switched over to the Allies when given the opportunity. They fought in Europe from Normandy all the way into Germany. So yeah, I would say they won WWII, just as they won WWI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but France as a whole definitely lost in WW2.
No. France as a whole definitely won in WW2, despite early losses. Not only it did win back all its lost territory, but also ended up managing a part of Germany (which was quickly merged with those of the UK and USA to form West Germany), and remained (at least of a while) one of the most important colonial power.
And this is despite declaring war against Germany very early (along with the UK) to defend Poland, which was a really brave move back in 1939.
You declare a winner by looking at the situation at the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another fun fact: the USA has not been at war since 1945. It requires a Declaration of War by the Congress for us to be "at War", and they haven't passed one since 1942.
Admittedly, that's mostly because Congress doesn't want to be on the hook for doing so (if they don't declare war, then they can't be held responsible (at the ballot box) if it turns out to be a bad idea), so they've abdic
Speed of conflicts (Score:2)
Admittedly, that's mostly because Congress doesn't want to be on the hook for doing so (if they don't declare war, then they can't be held responsible (at the ballot box) if it turns out to be a bad idea), so they've abdicated their legal responsibility to the Executive Branch.
Agreed although there is an additional issue in play. Many modern conflicts happen at a pace faster than Congress typically can function so there is a legitimate need for the Executive branch to be legally able to act quickly. A declaration of war is something that should (usually) be carefully pondered. The world moves faster than it did when the Constitution was written and not every conflict could or should require a full declaration of war. That said I think the Executive branch has widely abused it
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty certain that if our pathetic Congress were ever faced with a black and white reason to go to war in the current day (like Pearl Harbor, for example), they'd act just as swiftly to declare war. The problem is that most of the stuff the Executive office has chosen to dabble in recently doesn't really affect the United States a great deal. It isn't a Pearl Harbor equivalent. So yeah, getting a quick declaration of war might be tough. I'm not convinced that would in any way be a bad thing considering
Winning (Score:2)
Fun fact: the US has not technically won a war since the War Department was renamed the Department of Defense in 1949.
Fun fact: The US has not technically lost a war since the last time the US actually declared war was in 1942 [wikipedia.org].
If you want to talk about unofficial/undeclared wars the US has "won" quite a few of them before and since 1949. (Nobody really wins a war but that's a different discussion)
Re: White flag (Score:5, Informative)
They won world war 1.
There were also more French troops at the battle of Yorktown than their were American patriots. Americans: 8,000 continent regulars and 3,100 militia, French: 8000 regulars and 22.000 sailors and marines of the French fleet (a man of war having between 700 and 1200 or so crew and there were 29 of them at Yorktown). The United States literally owes its very existence as a country to major French military victories at Yorktown and in the battle of Chesapeake bay as well as French military aid (and Spanish military aid, which is often forgotten): https://historynewsnetwork.org... [historynewsnetwork.org]
Re: (Score:2)
From a French perspective the American War of Independence was more a war against Britain for some level of influence in the rest of North America, having lost Canada, than anything else. Unfortunately for France the level of support given bankrupted it and was a proximal cause of the French Revolution. France and Britain were fighting on-and-off on several continents during that and the following century.
From the French perspective the American War of Independence was a proxy war against Britain. For those who don't know what that means it's kind of like Vietnam back in the 1960s and 70s but where, Britain was the Soviet Union, the United States was Vietnam and France and Spain were the United States funnelling arms to the insurgents. France was bankrupted every bit as much by the American war as it was bankrupted by weak kings who could not manage to subjugate the Aristocracy and the Church by revoking th
Re: (Score:2)
Why are the roads in France lined with trees? (Score:2)
So the German Army can march in the shade.
Re: (Score:3)
France sure did a great job in Libya. They went from a socialist country where everyone had enough to eat to literal slave markets.
Which compares badly with the glittering success of the US war in Iraq?
Re:White flag (Score:5, Informative)
The US has fought and won two out of two European wars, making the US the most successful military power in European history by the same measure.
The US only exists because of French military aid and at least two major French military victories (Yorktown and Chesapeake Bay), making France a more successful military power than the US.
Your turn you scrawny little bridge Troll.
Re: (Score:2)
USA vs France (Score:2)
The US only exists because of French military aid and at least two major French military victories (Yorktown and Chesapeake Bay),
France only exists because of US military aid during WWII and US military victories (Normandy invasion, etc). I'd call us even on that score.
making France a more successful military power than the US.
The US has never been conquered since it became an independent country. France cannot make that claim.
Re: (Score:2)
French troops were at the point of mutiny before that.
Do you know why they mutinied? It wasn't because they didn't want to fight any more. It was because they were tired. Tired of clueless leadership forcing them to keep making pointless, futile attacks. Tired of seeing millions of their fellow countrymen die needlessly, of seeing their villages destroyed. In fact, during the mutiny most soldiers simply stayed in their trenches. They stayed on the front line and kept fighting, they just refused to attack. Popular general Petain was put in charge and the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He does, and then follows it up with, "And this is supposed to be a bad thing, exactly why?"