• DaddleDew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      You have to be in visual range, or radar range if you have one, which is the horizon plus a bit more depending how high above sea level your are and how tall your target is.

      If you’re on a ship, unless you’re using an advanced radar that bounces signals against the ionosphere or you have a meteorological phenomena called an inversion which can curve your radar energy over the horizon a little bit, your radar horizon is surprisingly short, something around 12 nautical miles give or take. And the sea is big and Iran is quite far.

      This is one big reason why aircraft are used for surveillance at sea. They can go much higher than any ship’s radar antenna mast every could be which significantly expands their radar horizon. They can also scan a huge area relatively quickly as they can travel much faster.

      Because if this fuck up, Iran now has the intel that the French carrier is approaching without even having to send an aircraft out to look for it. If they even still have the ability to do so at this point.

      • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        1 day ago

        So satellites can see my truck’s plate but an aircraft carrier and it’s escrow fleet are too… Small?

        • astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          36
          ·
          1 day ago

          Sort of. Satellite resources are surprisingly scarce, so a lot are focused where people are, i.e. land. Plus, for the imagery sats that are focused on the ocean, ships are also tiny in a literal ocean of blue. It’s just a spec. While the resolution could be good, have fun looking for that spec. That’s why most countries use signal collection to locate vessels at sea. (I’m over-simplifying a lot, but you get the picture)

          • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            While the resolution could be good, have fun looking for that spec.

            Seems like an simple but tedious job. Something that a computer can do.

            Object detection algorithms are incredibly fast and can learn to tell the difference between an aircraft carrier and an ocean.

            • astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              1 day ago

              There are a surprising amount of false positives when using object detection on maritime imagery. While a carrier is a spec, there are a ton of specs in the ocean that can look similar enough. Plus, weather has a huge hand to play. If it were always perfectly clear, then it’s an easier problem, but one cloud can really mess up the detection. Ultimately, ship detection is a difficult problem (not intractable but still hard).

              • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 day ago

                False positives are fine, you assign 1, 10, 50, 100 analysts to review hits. You only need to find it once, then the search area becomes incredibly small for each subsequent satellite pass.

                I’m not saying that it is easy, just that you don’t need to have a surface ship within 15 nm in order to see it.

                • EddoWagt@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  21 hours ago

                  I’m not saying that it is easy

                  It kind of sounds like you’re saying that. Anyways, there’s a reason submarines exist

                  • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 hours ago

                    It is simple, it is not easy.

                    ‘Take a picture of the entire ocean and look for ships’ is simple, but executing that plan is not.

                    It requires hundreds of millions of dollars of reconnaissance satellites, and an entire branch of personnel to operate and digest the information.

                    This is why the US operates carrier battle groups instead of just sailing their carriers everywhere with a small escort. They can’t hide, but they can pack enough offensive and defensive power into a tiny area to make most attacks infeasible.

                    Anyways, there’s a reason submarines exist

                    True, and even they’re vulnerable when they surface (if they’re moving), the v-shaped wake is also very detectable from space where satellites can detect wave heights within 3cm. It’s not easy for humans to find, but with billions of dollars to spend on computers, these kinds of things are very much within the reach of sovereign nations.

        • Iconoclast@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          You still need to know where to point that spy satellite’s camera at. If you take picture that covers hundreds of square kilometers then you don’t have enough resolution to spot the ship but you can’t zoom in much either because you don’t know where to zoom.

          It’s different with buildings because you know where they are.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          It’s the ocean. The majority of Earths surface where there’s usually not much going on

        • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          Or as a duck if they need to move.

          BTW sweden have some cool ship disguises.

          Edit: went looking for it, couldn’t even find a photo.

          Yeah, that’s how good they are.

          Found an old, not very effective but fun one:

          • rmuk@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            19 hours ago

            The Swedish Navy’s ships do have some bonkers designs, like massive barcodes printed on the side. It’s so that when they get back to port they can scan the navy in.

      • gnutrino@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        Because if this fuck up, Iran now has the intel that the French carrier is approaching without even having to send an aircraft out to look for it.

        It wasn’t exactly a secret, France publicly announced it was being moved to the eastern med

    • njordomir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      I saw the location on one of those “war dashboards” a day or two ago. Can’t have been that secret.