>In addition, it could allow satellites to provide reliable power anywhere on the planet or even to spacecraft or other satellites in orbit.
Aka laser ASAT platform. Seems like one of those read between the lines Space Force press releases. References to laser beam UAV kills, original research by Revolutionary Munitions Directorate etc. All the remote power through atmosphere interference sounds pretty fanciful TBH, whereas crippling adversary satellites using beam energy instead of kinetic impactors (=space debris) seems like the most parsimonious application.
It would be in line with the tradition of using "ballistic missile defence" as a pretext for developing ASAT capability.
I would question if there really is such a strong push for even more US ASAT tools in the USSF, though given the current administration I guess the "kill 'em all" mentality has a good wind in their sails.
My understanding is there's a much greater emphasis on counter-space capabilities now that US military is shifting towards peer to peer confrontations (China). ASAT... especially a concurrent global network is going to be pretty key to nullifying the Chinese missile gap in SCS by disrupting the killchain - Chinese satellites - in a manner that doesn't endanger US space assets. Also this was a month ago:
Beyond just needing the capability, media releases like this seems to be oblique posturing as well.
Edit: apparently posting to fast? Reply to below:
>ASAT warfare is hugely advantageous to them
Most threat models anticipate disrupting space assets in peer to peer conflicts to mitigate technological edge. All the old ASAT tests have been missiles that create debris (or potential debris in deliberate near misses), Recipe for kessler syndrome if executed at scale. So moving to beam ASAT that can disrupt / destroy sensors precisely without adversely risking the space commons might not be a terrible development in terms of space arms race.
Also if memory serves some of the new Chinese satellite used to track SCS shipping (US aircraft carriers) are in a high orbit that can't be hit by current ASAT at all. So this might be developing new capabilities. It certainly makes sense to hit other objects in space vacuum at speed of light than to power drones through clouds.
> So moving to beam ASAT that can disrupt / destroy sensors precisely without adversely risking the space commons might not be a terrible development in terms of space arms race.
Um, lowering barriers for using weapons is obviously a bad thing: it means they are more likely to be used, and cause a response by the adversary. So unless you mean that this beam-tech should be freely shared all you're doing is increasing the risk to the commons.
But my larger point is this: the incredibly costs of space weapons only make sense if you think your adversary doesn't have any counter-move, this is what I meant by my supposition that USSP thinks space warfare is advantageous.
To illustrate: remote detection can be counteracted by masking and decoys, both of with are much more mundane than ASAT capabilities but will work pretty good for a fraction of the cost and without any risk at all to the commons.
Oh great, I sort of knew the military was all in on orbital warfare, but somehow your comment really drives home the idea that USSF truly thinks ASAT warfare is hugely advantageous to them :(
(To be clear, the USA already posses ASAT capability, demonstrated most recently in 2008)
Aka laser ASAT platform. Seems like one of those read between the lines Space Force press releases. References to laser beam UAV kills, original research by Revolutionary Munitions Directorate etc. All the remote power through atmosphere interference sounds pretty fanciful TBH, whereas crippling adversary satellites using beam energy instead of kinetic impactors (=space debris) seems like the most parsimonious application.