Starshield

[ORAC]

Starlink = Commercial.

Starshield = Governmetal/Military.

Hardened, tighter cryptography, specialist payloads, [email protected] constellations….

https://www.spacex.com/starshield/index.html

[Bob Viking]

Smoke and mirrors

I love how we always fool ourselves that ‘military grade’ = better. What it really means is ‘military grade’ = lower quality but four times as expensive.

I’m being very facetious and I am in no way implying that this is the case here but I always smile when I see things advertised as ‘military grade’ thereby suggesting it is tough and unbreakable.

BV

[_Agrajag_]

Originally Posted by Bob Viking

I love how we always fool ourselves that ‘military grade’ = better. What it really means is ‘military grade’ = lower quality but four times as expensive.

I’m being very facetious and I am in no way implying that this is the case here but I always smile when I see things advertised as ‘military grade’ thereby suggesting it is tough and unbreakable.

BV

My experience suggests that this is now true.

When I joined a lot of kit was mechanically over-engineered to the point of being almost indestructible - think of things like the old Larkspur and then Clansman radios with their massive cast aluminium cases (even they got broken from time to time). The stuff must have cost a fortune and the performance was nothing to write home about.

Nowadays it looks as if there is little difference between normal civilian kit and a fair bit of military kit. Clothing, in particular, often seems poorer in quality than some decent civilian outdoor kit, and, as we've been seeing in Ukraine, modified civilian vehicles, pretty ancient weapons, commercial drones and ordinary mobile phones seem to be very effective, and almost certainly very much cheaper than "military grade" kit.

[charliegolf]

Originally Posted by Bob Viking

What it really means is ‘military grade’ = lower quality but four times as expensive.

BV

Late Bob, don't forget late.

CG

[Professor Plum]

….. and over budget. Mustn’t forget that one too!

[_Agrajag_]

Looking back at the way kit used to be built has got me thinking. Does some military kit really need to be built like a brick outhouse? Be interesting to know how long stuff really needs to last. Perhaps not some of the big stuff, like vehicles and A/C and also basic weapons, but the vast quantities of smaller, but essential, stuff. We've seen Ukraine using Starlink to great effect to provide the backbone for ad hoc mobile phone networks, and mobile phones using those ad hoc networks seem to almost be a mainstay of some comms. It's almost as if it might be cheaper to just accept that a lot of what used to be thought of as expensive and high tech is now really cheap and disposable, provide it in volume and just accept it won't last more than a few days.

As an aside, I find Ukraine's technical competence pretty outstanding. I had no idea before this war just how good their IT capability is.

[NutLoose]

In fact the US have been looking at Starlinks ability to counteract hacking attempts of the commercial satellite system by what one must assume to be Russias “finest”.


https://www.pcmag.com/news/pentagon-...und-in-ukraine

[pax britanica]

Outside of GPS satellites dont carry much data . partially because they cannot handle much nor high speeds , but partly beause theyare easy to intercept or interfer with. Fibre optic cables deal with high speed and securty but although they are not as easy to find as is often suggested cutign them close to major global nodes would be very serious. So toa degree both are needed. But then again the likes of Starlink and other similar systems need cable links between key ground stations for resilience and back up. So relying too heavilty on remorete control of actions isnt quite as good an iidea as it seems since there are always vulnerabilities in networks coverign any distance. So, piloted aircraft, crewed ships and platoons of squaddies cannot be made reduntant or replaced over night . Once they got the go -or run message leave it up to them as they can't be jammed

[_Agrajag_]

Originally Posted by pax britanica

Outside of GPS satellites dont carry much data . partially because they cannot handle much nor high speeds , but partly beause theyare easy to intercept or interfer with. Fibre optic cables deal with high speed and securty but although they are not as easy to find as is often suggested cutign them close to major global nodes would be very serious. So toa degree both are needed. But then again the likes of Starlink and other similar systems need cable links between key ground stations for resilience and back up. So relying too heavilty on remorete control of actions isnt quite as good an iidea as it seems since there are always vulnerabilities in networks coverign any distance. So, piloted aircraft, crewed ships and platoons of squaddies cannot be made reduntant or replaced over night . Once they got the go -or run message leave it up to them as they can't be jammed

Starlink seems to be the exception, it provides between 150MBps and 500MBps to consumers, with a latency of around 20ms. That knocks my fibre optic internet connectivity into a cocked hat. In fact it makes FTTP look distinctly sluggish, and as of now FTTP isn't that widely available in rural areas (and we are in a rural area). We have FTTC and it maxes out at around 15MB/s on a good day, can drop down below 10MB/s at times, because of the length of the copper loop. As soon as Starlink is available here I am very definitely going to sign up, as at the very least it's likely to give us an order of magnitude better performance over the pretty crappy landline/fibre connection we have now.

Ukraine has shown that Starlink is exceptionally difficult to jam, too. Russia has been trying without any success. Probably due to the high speed of the SVs, plus the clever technology in the beam steered arrays in the ground stations.

[Alex Whittingham]

I'm in rural SW England, using Starlink, and have just checked at 162Mbps download, admittedly over wifi. It probably is available to you already

[_Agrajag_]

Originally Posted by Alex Whittingham

I'm in rural SW England, using Starlink, and have just checked at 162Mbps download, admittedly over wifi. It probably is available to you already

Many thanks, I hadn't realised it had rolled out here yet. That's the sort of speed I can only dream of, I've just run a speed check and our VDSL line is giving 13.2Mb/s at the moment.

[kiwi grey]

Originally Posted by _Agrajag_

Ukraine has shown that Starlink is exceptionally difficult to jam, too. Russia has been trying without any success. Probably due to the high speed of the SVs, plus the clever technology in the beam steered arrays in the ground stations.

Not really.
The crucial advantage that Starlink has in current the Ukrainian conflict is that all the gateway ground stations - the easily attackable weak point in the system - are outside Ukraine but in adjacent NATO countries and therefore not available to be taken out. A Hellfire size warhead would probably disable a Starlink gateway ground station, but to attack one would certainly be a NATO Article 5 initiator.
In a more general war, these ground stations - like those for other satellite systems - would be right at the top of the Infrastructure targets list, and would put Starlink out of action very quickly. It is the unique characteristics of the Ukraine 'Special Military Operation' that make Starlink pretty much invulnerable

[ORAC]

That would be true if each satellite needed a ground link. But as mentioned, all Starlink II satellites utilise a [email protected] inter-satellite link so data can be transferred through ground terminals on a continental, if not intercontinental basis.

https://www.connectivity.technology/...-lisls-in.html

[rattman]

Originally Posted by kiwi grey

Not really.
The crucial advantage that Starlink has in current the Ukrainian conflict is that all the gateway ground stations - the easily attackable weak point in the system - are outside Ukraine but in adjacent NATO countries and therefore not available to be taken out.

The ground station is tiny, they are smaller and cheaper than cellphone AP's and yet theres still cellphone towers operating in ukraine