6 ms·

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 s

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?

estearum 6mo ago
As described above the issue would be continuous observation, not how to follow it assuming you never lose sight of it.
- rtkwe 6mo ago
  Commercial operations like Planet Labs currently cover most of the Earth multiple times a day.
  - matkoniecz 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo ago
What would you track them with? Follow them with helicopters and/or boats?
- filleduchaos 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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.
malfist 6mo ago
Clouds occasionally happen
- IshKebab 6mo ago
  SAR is not blocked by clouds.

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?

estearum 6mo ago

As described above the issue would be continuous observation, not how to follow it assuming you never lose sight of it.

rtkwe 6mo ago
Commercial operations like Planet Labs currently cover most of the Earth multiple times a day.
- matkoniecz 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo ago

What would you track them with? Follow them with helicopters and/or boats?

filleduchaos 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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.

malfist 6mo ago

Clouds occasionally happen

IshKebab 6mo ago
SAR is not blocked by clouds.