There’s lots of sources here, either about Elon controlling the fate of Ukrainian advances or about Starlink outages affecting regular battlefield operations.
I understand the general benefits of Starlink over traditional satellite internet, and I also get that any satellite communications equipment was probably much needed by the Ukrainian army at the start of the war. What I don’t understand is why entire drone fleets are relying on it, or what it seems to be the only game in town, with whole units completely in the dark without it. Satellite communications, including satellite internet, existed long before Starlink came along. Surely the UA had such comm equipment prior to the war, and surely satellite comms aren’t included in the list of equipment NATO dare not provide to UA. So how did they find themselves in this position where they’re so dependent on a rather untested battlefield technology?
Likely because they designed thier drone fleet to use the technology that was readily available and reliable, which would have been Starlink until Elon stated shutting it down. They would now have to change their interaction to another tech, that will take some time to do.
Geostationary satellite dishes need to be adjusted to point it at the satellite in orbit when the dish changes locations. Also the Geostationary ping speed sucks.
I’ve had two Geostationary disks, they need special adjustments for their location. They have to be pointed at the satellite.
I installed a Starlink, connected the modem and power and just turned it on. It finds the satellite/s on its own. I’m pretty sure you can move it anywhere. Sort of plug and play, important for an army on the move.
I have no military experience so take what I say with a grain of salt.
Communication is very important to the military. The less clearly and the slower that they are able to get information around, the less they are able to coordinate attacks and defenses. So even disregarding the control of UAVs, having Internet access everywhere is immensely huge for them.
In general, any wireless service is going to be slower and more expensive the longer the transmission distance (unless you’re using a directed beam, like a laser). The drop-off in strength of a signal being emitted in a spherical beacon is cubic. With a satellite dish, I’m sure that you can bring that down, significantly, but that relies on your ability to have a dish and to target the dish directly at the satellite. A UAV is probably not going to be outfitted with a satellite dish. “Satellite dish” and “aerodynamic” aren’t compatible. I’d assume that they’re dealing with cubic dropoff rates for internet access.
Most satellite internet is fairly slow and expensive because they’re putting satellites high up in space.
A satellite is only of value if it’s over you. If it’s over the horizon then it’s not and the further away that it is, the worse that it is.
Businesses only want satellites over territory that’s economically justifiable. The USA (and its antipode) might be covered in satellites. Ukraine isn’t a space power and any satellite coverage that it might have is incidental.
Starlink has a different strategy than traditional satellite carriers. They have more, cheaper, expendable satellites that fly in a much lower orbit for a shorter period of time. The service is better because they’re closer and the satellites are always in the sky due to their sheer quantity.
Starlink sats move faster then geostationary sats. They have to because they are in a much lower orbit. This is what makes the ping time so, so much better. Geostationary sats are ‘Parked’ over one spot.
They move over many countries. There are thousands of these. As they move they hand off communication to the next sat in line.
This is what is known as using commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products. They are usable out of the box and may be cheaper than setting up your own communications network (or whatever), but carries security, supply chain, and other risks. For example, if you want to use GPS to drop your bombs, better be sure it cannot be spoofed, jammed, be vulnerable to Selective Availability, and so on.
I suppose the obvious answer is that Starlink provides an affordable alternative to Ukraine having their own dedicated network of military communications satellites.
Musk’s conundrum is a valid one IMHO. To what extent should a private corporation be providing these sort of services that have strategic military applications? Musk’s ability to enable or disable such services, well intentioned or not, becomes tantamount to deciding foreign policy, based on who he makes those services available to (or not).
And if Starlink is being used by Ukrainian (or any other) military, what should the response be if it comes under attack (whether cyber or physical)?
I also wonder what Ukraine would be using for cellular comms if there was no Starlink? Even more I wonder how your average Ivan Wagnerov calls his mom and his girlfriend (and Ukrainian artillery) on his mobile?
Surely its not the standard civilan tower network like (Verizon in the US). It’s probably pretty patchy in UKR and the roaming charges would be a bitch.
So how do average soldiers get their cell signals? Military comms satelites, I’d guess. Or maybe armies have portable medium-area microwave links that can send it all to the nearest place where they can run fiber lines.
As to the question at hand, I think the previous posters are right – Ukraine doesn’t have the capability to build its own military satellite network. Starlink was the cheapest alternative, and they thought it was turned on right to the border, but it wasn’t. Musk sided with the Russians and left it off.
I mean that comic is a really bad example because even with working engines in there tanks France lost rather hard outside of international interference.
