5 ms·

This capability is available only to few countries on planet. Not all of them.

SteveNuts 7mo ago
I admit I'm incredibly naive on this subject, but what makes it so hard to track an object as large as an aircraft carrier when starting from a known position such as a naval port?
- malfist 7mo ago
  Clouds occasionally happen
  - IshKebab 7mo ago
    SAR is not blocked by clouds.
- estearum 7mo ago
  As described above the issue would be continuous observation, not how to follow it assuming you never lose sight of it.
  - rtkwe 7mo ago
    Commercial operations like Planet Labs currently cover most of the Earth multiple times a day.
    - matkoniecz 7mo ago
      This should not be assumed to be available in case of a war. See say https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/leading-satellite-firm-hold-back-161336526.html https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/leading-satellite-firm-hol... > Planet Labs PBC, a leading provider of high resolution images taken from space, said Friday it would hold back for 96 hours images of Gulf states targeted by Iranian drone attacks.
  - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 7mo ago
    You certainly can't do continuous observation but even just with commercial satellite offerings you can get pretty close. For example nowadays Planet Labs [1] offers 30-50cm resolution imaging at a rate of one image or 120sec video stream every 90 minutes over a given 500 km^2 region. There is no situation where an aircraft carrier is going to be capable of evading a commercial satellite offering with that frequency and resolution. Once you know approximately where it is or even where it was in the semi-recent past, it's fairly trivial to narrow in and build a track off the location and course. 1. https://www.planet.com/products/satellite-monitoring/ https://www.planet.com/products/satellite-monitoring/
- chias 7mo ago
  What would you track them with? Follow them with helicopters and/or boats?
  - filleduchaos 7mo ago
    ...literally yes (to the latter)? Is that not exactly why modern warships have to implement things like measures to reduce their radar cross section? If you could actually just rely on "ocean too big" then there would be no need for that.
    - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 7mo ago
      It is in part for small crafts (frigates and corvettes) but for pretty much anything larger there's no concealing those ships. The primary reason however for minimizing radar cross section and increasing radar scatter is to harden protections against radar based weapon systems during a conflict. Even if the ship is still visible in peacetime operations, once electronic countermeasures/ECM are engaged, it gets an order of magnitude harder for guided missiles to still "see" the ship. Depending on the kit, once missiles are in the air the ship and all of their friends in their strike group/squadron is going to start jamming radar, popping decoys, and trying to dazzle the missiles effectively enough for RIM-174/SM-6, RIM-66/SM-1, and RIM-67/SM-2s to intercept it without the missiles evading. And should the missile make it to close-in range then it's just praying that the phalanx/CIWS takes care of it. And if everything fails then all that jamming and dazzling + the reduced radar cross section is going to hopefully result in the missiles being slightly off target/not a complete kill on the vessel. So they still serve a purpose. Just not for stealth. Instead serving as compounding increases to survival odds in engagement scenarios.
      - filleduchaos 7mo ago
        But what you're describing is stealth. "Stealth" doesn't mean "invisible". Humans wearing combat fatigues aren't literally invisible either especially when moving, they're just harder to track/get a visual lock on to aim at. The point still stands that you cannot rely on "ocean is too big for anyone to find me" because it very much is not.
fxtentacle 7mo ago
You can rent access to nearly real-time custom satellite targeting for <$3k per image. That means while you're correct that not all countries can afford it, most can.
- matkoniecz 7mo ago
  What if US government bans US-based companies from selling pictures within area where carrier operates? (of all "national security" reasons these is one of more reasonable ones)
  - rocqua 7mo ago
    Figure out where you can't buy pictures to narrow it down, if you want a more exact match, pay for pictures from that area from non US providers.
  - blitzar 7mo ago
    Planet Labs PBC, a leading provider of high resolution images taken from space, said Friday it would hold back for 96 hours images of Gulf states targeted by Iranian drone attacks. It did not say if it had acted at the request of US authorities. https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/leading-satellite-firm-hold-back-161336526.html https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/leading-satellite-firm-hol...
  - marcosdumay 7mo ago
    Do them publish the banned coordinates in a list too? Maybe they could put the reason at each line.
    - matkoniecz 7mo ago
      No, it would be wide area. Like delay covering entire area of war. See say https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/leading-satellite-firm-hold-back-161336526.html https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/leading-satellite-firm-hol... > Planet Labs PBC, a leading provider of high resolution images taken from space, said Friday it would hold back for 96 hours images of Gulf states targeted by Iranian drone attacks.
swarnie 7mo ago
Billy Boy from the Island can use commercial satellites to map mud huts for his vaccine NGO, i'm sure any nation state can find a few quid to locate a war ship.
bell-cot 7mo ago
Those are the few countries that France needs to worry about. Doesn't matter whether Estonia, Honduras, Laos, and Luxembourg can track their carrier, or not. EDIT: In confined waters (like the Mediterranean), many more countries could track the carrier if they cared to. Even back in the 1950's, the Soviets got quite adept at loading "fishing boats" with electronic equipment, then trailing behind US Navy carrier groups.
geeunits 7mo ago
was
s5300 7mo ago
[dead]

I admit I'm incredibly naive on this subject, but what makes it so hard to track an object as large as an aircraft carrier when starting from a known position such as a naval port?

malfist 7mo ago
Clouds occasionally happen
- IshKebab 7mo ago
  SAR is not blocked by clouds.
estearum 7mo ago
As described above the issue would be continuous observation, not how to follow it assuming you never lose sight of it.
- rtkwe 7mo ago
  Commercial operations like Planet Labs currently cover most of the Earth multiple times a day.
  - matkoniecz 7mo ago
    This should not be assumed to be available in case of a war. See say https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/leading-satellite-firm-hold-back-161336526.html https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/leading-satellite-firm-hol... > Planet Labs PBC, a leading provider of high resolution images taken from space, said Friday it would hold back for 96 hours images of Gulf states targeted by Iranian drone attacks.
- OneDeuxTriSeiGo 7mo ago
  You certainly can't do continuous observation but even just with commercial satellite offerings you can get pretty close. For example nowadays Planet Labs [1] offers 30-50cm resolution imaging at a rate of one image or 120sec video stream every 90 minutes over a given 500 km^2 region. There is no situation where an aircraft carrier is going to be capable of evading a commercial satellite offering with that frequency and resolution. Once you know approximately where it is or even where it was in the semi-recent past, it's fairly trivial to narrow in and build a track off the location and course. 1. https://www.planet.com/products/satellite-monitoring/ https://www.planet.com/products/satellite-monitoring/
chias 7mo ago
What would you track them with? Follow them with helicopters and/or boats?
- filleduchaos 7mo ago
  ...literally yes (to the latter)? Is that not exactly why modern warships have to implement things like measures to reduce their radar cross section? If you could actually just rely on "ocean too big" then there would be no need for that.
  - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 7mo ago
    It is in part for small crafts (frigates and corvettes) but for pretty much anything larger there's no concealing those ships. The primary reason however for minimizing radar cross section and increasing radar scatter is to harden protections against radar based weapon systems during a conflict. Even if the ship is still visible in peacetime operations, once electronic countermeasures/ECM are engaged, it gets an order of magnitude harder for guided missiles to still "see" the ship. Depending on the kit, once missiles are in the air the ship and all of their friends in their strike group/squadron is going to start jamming radar, popping decoys, and trying to dazzle the missiles effectively enough for RIM-174/SM-6, RIM-66/SM-1, and RIM-67/SM-2s to intercept it without the missiles evading. And should the missile make it to close-in range then it's just praying that the phalanx/CIWS takes care of it. And if everything fails then all that jamming and dazzling + the reduced radar cross section is going to hopefully result in the missiles being slightly off target/not a complete kill on the vessel. So they still serve a purpose. Just not for stealth. Instead serving as compounding increases to survival odds in engagement scenarios.
    - filleduchaos 7mo ago
      But what you're describing is stealth. "Stealth" doesn't mean "invisible". Humans wearing combat fatigues aren't literally invisible either especially when moving, they're just harder to track/get a visual lock on to aim at. The point still stands that you cannot rely on "ocean is too big for anyone to find me" because it very much is not.

fxtentacle 7mo ago

You can rent access to nearly real-time custom satellite targeting for <$3k per image. That means while you're correct that not all countries can afford it, most can.

matkoniecz 7mo ago
What if US government bans US-based companies from selling pictures within area where carrier operates? (of all "national security" reasons these is one of more reasonable ones)
- rocqua 7mo ago
  Figure out where you can't buy pictures to narrow it down, if you want a more exact match, pay for pictures from that area from non US providers.
- blitzar 7mo ago
  Planet Labs PBC, a leading provider of high resolution images taken from space, said Friday it would hold back for 96 hours images of Gulf states targeted by Iranian drone attacks. It did not say if it had acted at the request of US authorities. https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/leading-satellite-firm-hold-back-161336526.html https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/leading-satellite-firm-hol...
- marcosdumay 7mo ago
  Do them publish the banned coordinates in a list too? Maybe they could put the reason at each line.
  - matkoniecz 7mo ago
    No, it would be wide area. Like delay covering entire area of war. See say https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/leading-satellite-firm-hold-back-161336526.html https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/leading-satellite-firm-hol... > Planet Labs PBC, a leading provider of high resolution images taken from space, said Friday it would hold back for 96 hours images of Gulf states targeted by Iranian drone attacks.

swarnie 7mo ago

Billy Boy from the Island can use commercial satellites to map mud huts for his vaccine NGO, i'm sure any nation state can find a few quid to locate a war ship.

bell-cot 7mo ago

Those are the few countries that France needs to worry about. Doesn't matter whether Estonia, Honduras, Laos, and Luxembourg can track their carrier, or not. EDIT: In confined waters (like the Mediterranean), many more countries could track the carrier if they cared to. Even back in the 1950's, the Soviets got quite adept at loading "fishing boats" with electronic equipment, then trailing behind US Navy carrier groups.

geeunits 7mo ago

was

s5300 7mo ago

[dead]