5 ms·
Especially considering that their sensor suites must be orders of magnitude more powerful than commercially available civilian equipment.
by maxaf 9y ago
Especially considering that their sensor suites must be orders of magnitude more powerful than commercially available civilian equipment.
- aaronmdjones 9y agoPrimary navigation radar gives away your position, as does active sonar, in the same way that AIS does. If they have the latter off, it's not unreasonable to assume they also have the others off. Passive sonar would pick up a tanker if the engines are running fast enough or the ship isn't particularly streamlined (which tankers invariably aren't) so this is probably a failure of communication.
- gaius 9y agoCrew on the bridge with NODs would seem to be a no-brainer in those conditions, at least.
- blincoln 9y agoSeems like the naval vessels should be using passive radar detection as well, if they're not already. That wouldn't protect them from everything, but it should catch all of the big commercial vessels, right?
- krisoft 9y agoThe tanker was broadcasting its position. That's how we have this nice visualization. I don't understand why you are talking about active systems. They should just have listened to AIS messages. Likewise also don't understand why the article goes on and on about more clever ways the collision avoidance system could be programed. No collision avoidance system can help you if the operators of the stealthy war-machine drop the ball.
- aaronmdjones 9y agoOh, I wasn't aware you can receive other ship's AIS position updates while your own system wasn't active. Even in that case, it's the same as the passive sonar example I illustrated: the ship is there and you can see it, but they didn't avoid it anyway. Failure of communication.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]