• DaddleDew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours 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.

      • gnutrino@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 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

        • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours 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.

          • rmuk@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            29 minutes 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.

      • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        9 hours 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
          25
          ·
          9 hours 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
            9
            ·
            8 hours ago

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

            Seems like an easy 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
              8
              ·
              7 hours 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
                ·
                6 hours 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
                  ·
                  2 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

        • Iconoclast@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours 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
          ·
          7 hours ago

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

    • njordomir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

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