Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Engineer said:

Actually, they are not the same -- things are not represented as pixels in radar images. Software are used to do post-processing and convert the data into images that human can understand, but what a radar sees is not what a CCD in a camera sees. Actually, radar is more similar to a sonar than with an optical sensor. Two things that radar sees that CCD cannot are polarity and phase. These are used in remote sensing to distinguished types of materials.

Click to expand...

when using real-time processing system or any current electronic system, wheather the image/signal is capture by optical, ir, radar everything is done in digital domain. everything is in pixels for 2d image, everything is 1 & 0's.

radar is different than optical sensor but the processing of data into a 2d area is same, all data is convert into digital format, into pixels. i work both in RF and Optical sensor before, and the real-time processing system don't care is radar or optical sensor, it only receive raw digital data, and process it using user algorithm. you can't bent the physic, the further you are, the smaller the object become on your sensor. image radar has its own resolutions, range, coverage limitation. if the target is too far away, the resolution is saturated, you won't able to get a good data with it, unless zoom in or getting closer. why do you think all the elint/sgint and other system usually gather intel near area of interest. the further away, the bigger the area the more diffcult to detect something. a carrier in a million square mile ocean with other ships require alot resource to detect, id, track, its very diffcult operation. however, if you limit the area to hundreds sq mile, the job is much easier. radar resolution vs coverage is finite, you have to weight in the pros and cons depend on the situation.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

delft said:

I miss something. Satellites and high flying UAVs are likely to be able to recognize the wave pattern of a fast moving ship. So an aircraft carrier turning into the wind and increasing speed for flight operations can be recognized and its position estimated by the wave pattern it produces. A reason perhaps to look at narrower carriers, perhaps tricats as the experimental vessel whose photographs we have been admiring the last few days.

Click to expand...

there are alot ways to detect, id and track the target. but issues become area of coverage, multiple detection, and false alarm. back to my parking lot example, if you do the same on a much smaller area, then it take less time and easier to find the object. but if you have alot area to cover and alot detetion occurs which require go through each one, then it require much longer time. also moving object can mess up the current detected database. for example if you detect an oil tanker in grid1, and when the same tanker move to grid X, and your satelite is currently scan in grid X, you have another detection, which need to processed to check is the correct targets, its redundant, waste of resource and time.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

s002wjh said:

when using real-time processing system or any current electronic system, wheather the image/signal is capture by optical, ir, radar everything is done in digital domain. everything is in pixels for 2d image, everything is 1 & 0's.

radar is different than optical sensor but the processing of data into a 2d area is same, all data is convert into digital format, into pixels. i work both in RF and Optical sensor before, and the real-time processing system don't care is radar or optical sensor, it only receive raw digital data, and process it using user algorithm...

Click to expand...

Waving your hands in the air and saying the data is in 0's and 1's means absolutely nothing. Radar telemetries, digital images, and Microsoft Word documents are all stored as 0's and 1's, but you are grasping at straws if you were to claim they can be treated as the same thing.

Your claim of real-time processing system don't care about the type of sensor is fundamentally flawed, so is your continuous application of an image processing example for radars. From these observation, I seriously doubt you actually understand how radar works. Different sensors produce different raw-data. As an example, CCD produces electron count for each pixel whereas receiving elements on a radar produce intensity, frequency, polarization and phase information. Because of such difference, the processing systems must be tailor made for each type of sensor. In other words, the data are different, and even though they are in 0's and 1's, they are not processed in the same manner.

While the data from a SAR can be post-processed into images that humans can understand, and this is done often, they can also be post-processed for completely different purposes. Purposes such as allowing another processing system to pick out and track targets moving over a static background, as is done with AESA radars on modern military aircraft. And because there are a lot more information in the raw-data from a radar, it is possible to discern the type of object from which the signal is bounced off of. As I have pointed out before which you conveniently ignored, this is routinely done in remote sensing. An example being the top of the carrier deck vs. the top of containers on a container ship. This can be done without having the outline of the target.

s002wjh said:

you can't bent the physic, the further you are, the smaller the object become on your sensor. image radar has its own resolutions, range, coverage limitation. if the target is too far away, the resolution is saturated, you won't able to get a good data with it, unless zoom in or getting closer.

Click to expand...

You are repeating yourself, so I will repeat mine: First, detection, tracking, and identification are not done in a single step as you are envisioning. Second, targets that much smaller than the resolution of the scan will not get picked up. Your requirement that they do when they produce much smaller RCS than a carrier is frankly stupid and is a transparent attempt at . Thirdly, search algorithm will be used to make best use of coverage and time. I have provided an example which involves prioritizing targets during initial detection, prioritize targets again during track, and the targets with highest priority will be looked at with a narrow beam.

I will also take this opportunity to request again that you put serious thought as to how USN would detect and track ships in sea in a battlefield.

s002wjh said:

why do you think all the elint/sgint and other system usually gather intel near area of interest. the further away, the bigger the area the more diffcult to detect something. a carrier in a million square mile ocean with other ships require alot resource to detect, id, track, its very diffcult operation. however, if you limit the area to hundreds sq mile, the job is much easier. radar resolution vs coverage is finite, you have to weight in the pros and cons depend on the situation.

Click to expand...

What do you define as "near"? It is apparent that you don't even have a clear definition of this word which makes it .

If you look at Table 2 of , ELINT satellites have altitude of at least 1000 km. While they are still in Low Earth Orbit, they are still higher than . Now, the ELINT satellites have to be in the line-of-sight of their targets, and it is obvious that you are confusing this concept with distance.

SAR can provide a lot of coverage in a short amount of time. We have seen how most of the Earth was scanned in the in just 11 days. SAR is a solution to the problems you have stated.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Engineer said:

Waving your hands in the air and saying the data is in 0's and 1's means absolutely nothing. Radar telemetries, digital images, and Microsoft Word documents are all stored as 0's and 1's, but you are grasping at straws if you were to claim they can be treated as the same thing.

Your claim of real-time processing system don't care about the type of sensor is fundamentally flawed, so is your continuous application of an image processing example for radars. From these observation, I seriously doubt you actually understand how radar works. Different sensors produce different raw-data. As an example, CCD produces electron count for each pixel whereas receiving elements on a radar produce intensity, frequency, polarization and phase information. Because of such difference, the processing systems must be tailor made for each type of sensor. In other words, the data are different, and even though they are in 0's and 1's, they are not processed in the same manner.

While the data from a SAR can be post-processed into images that humans can understand, and this is done often, they can also be post-processed for completely different purposes. Purposes such as allowing another processing system to pick out and track targets moving over a static background, as is done with AESA radars on modern military aircraft. And because there are a lot more information in the raw-data from a radar, it is possible to discern the type of object from which the signal is bounced off of. As I have pointed out before which you conveniently ignored, this is routinely done in remote sensing. An example being the top of the carrier deck vs. the top of containers on a container ship. This can be done without having the outline of the target.
yes processor has different algorithm in it for different type of operations, i mention this in previous post. SAR mapping of earth is different than finding something small in the ocean. the fundemental concept of all active radar system is send a pulse and receive the echo of the pulse to determine the speed, distance of object. if the object is too far, you lose resolution, weak echo. i said it before is not matter of detecting etc, but the area of coverage and occurances of detections. if you have small area to scan then it take less time compare to large area with alot ships!!! you can't change this fact, all radar is limited by coverage and resolution. to detect something like ships you need narrow coverage and high resolution.

You are repeating yourself, so I will repeat mine: First, detection, tracking, and identification are not done in a single step as you are envisioning. Second, targets that much smaller than the resolution of the scan will not get picked up. Your requirement that they do when they produce much smaller RCS than a carrier is frankly stupid and is a transparent attempt at

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Thirdly, search algorithm will be used to make best use of coverage and time. I have provided an example which involves prioritizing targets during initial detection, prioritize targets again during track, and the targets with highest priority will be looked at with a narrow beam.
let me know what set of parameter you use to prioritizing the targets, id, and tracking it in a million sq mile of ocean with thousands detections. you can detect ships, you can use algorithm to filter the size of ships, the speed, but you can't use radar to id the ships without some other information. also we are not talking about a few dozen targets in a hundred sq mile coverage.

I will also take this opportunity to request again that you put serious thought as to how USN would detect and track ships in sea in a battlefield.


What do you define as "near"? It is apparent that you don't even have a clear definition of this word which makes it

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

If you look at Table 2 of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, ELINT satellites have altitude of at least 1000 km. While they are still in Low Earth Orbit, they are still higher than

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Now, the ELINT satellites have to be in the line-of-sight of their targets, and it is obvious that you are confusing this concept with distance.

SAR can provide a lot of coverage in a short amount of time. We have seen how most of the Earth was scanned in the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in just 11 days. SAR is a solution to the problems you have stated.

Click to expand...

you can detect and track easily if you know where to look. US track ships/planes because they have intel which narrow the coverage area of the search grid. you CAN NOT detect, id and track EASILY if the area is million sq mile with thousands ships, and blindly search the ocean, its called needle in the haystack!!!! and don't bring earth mapping sar again, its different system than the satelite use for detecting ships. do you think FAA can det/id/track a single airplane in the sky with all other airplanes in the mix using radar and other sensor in an area of 1/3 US without checking airplanes transponder code etc.

seriously do the parking alot experiment, i don't care how many camera you use or people you use, let me know how long take you to find a single object in a sea of similar object.

from your own pdf. earth mapping sar is different than a narrow coverage high res sat, the latter cover less area compare to high coverage, low res satelite

Satellite sensors are intended for a wide variety
of purposes, several of which have little reconnaissance value. Lowresolution
sensors, such as broad-scale weather-sensing platforms – the
Fengyun series, for example – can be excluded because the images they
produce are not precise enough to distinguish even large ships. As a
rule, only satellites known to have resolutions at or under 30 meters
were considered.

Click to expand...

to detect EM signal at longer range using elint system, the receiver has to be sensitive enough to receive the target signals. however with larger area, longer distance, the more noise you gonna have, the weaker the signal. for example its not possible to detect an Anti-air emitter with a ELINT satelite, is it possible to detect/identify a EM signal from carriers, no one knows. for starter the EM signal signature from US military are classfied, without good sigint database, its not possible to id the EM signal.

back to sat det/id/track of carrier. unless china has 100s sat, UAV, reconnaissance platform, it will take too long/too diffcult to find a carrier in a large area. few sat and some other reconnaissance platform is not enough

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

s002wjh said:

you can detect and track easily if you know where to look. US track ships/planes because they have intel which narrow the coverage area of the search grid.

Click to expand...

SAR provides detection, and track follows after. Knowing where to look is certainly helpful, but it does not constitute as a proof that detecting a CVBG with SAR is impossible.

s002wjh said:

you CAN NOT detect, id and track EASILY if the area is million sq mile with thousands ships, and blindly search the ocean, its called needle in the haystack!!!!

Click to expand...

. It also involves searching huge area of land without an idea as to where to look. It is arguably more complicated than tracking sea targets because of clutters from vegetation and much smaller size of land targets. How do you think they distinguish thousand civilian cars from military vehicles on land?

Searching a needle in the haystack is a near impossible task if you doing it by hand. If you use a sensitive metal detection device, then it is rather simple. That metal detection device is an analogy for radar.

s002wjh said:

...and don't bring earth mapping sar again, its different system than the satelite use for detecting ships.

Click to expand...

This is blatantly false! Synthetic Aperture Radar is just an AESA radar, which is the exact type of radar used on military aircraft to detect air, land and sea targets today. It is called SAR instead of AESA because of the former's processing ability to generate maps of the terrain.

s002wjh said:

do you think FAA can det/id/track a single airplane in the sky with all other airplanes in the mix using radar and other sensor in an area of 1/3 US without checking airplanes transponder code etc.

seriously do the parking alot experiment, i don't care how many camera you use or people you use, let me know how long take you to find a single object in a sea of similar object.

Click to expand...

And how do you think the USN would do it? I take your continuous avoidance to this question as a silent admittance that detection, tracking, and identification of ships on the ocean is not impossible as you are portraying it to be.

Your silly thought-experiment has already been addressed in this previous post of mine. Bringing it up again isn't going to make your position any stronger.

s002wjh said:

you can detect and track easily if you know where to look. US track ships/planes because they have intel which narrow the coverage area of the search grid.

Click to expand...

SAR provides detection, and track follows after. Knowing where to look is certainly helpful, but it does not constitute as a proof that detecting a CVBG with SAR is impossible.

s002wjh said:

you CAN NOT detect, id and track EASILY if the area is million sq mile with thousands ships, and blindly search the ocean, its called needle in the haystack!!!!

Click to expand...

. It also involves searching huge area of land without an idea as to where to look. It is arguably more complicated than tracking sea targets because of clutters from vegetation and much smaller size of land targets. How do you think they distinguish thousand civilian cars from military vehicles on land?

Searching a needle in the haystack is a near impossible task if you doing it by hand. If you use a sensitive metal detection device, then it is rather simple. That metal detection device is an analogy for radar.

s002wjh said:

...and don't bring earth mapping sar again, its different system than the satelite use for detecting ships.

Click to expand...

This is blatantly false! Synthetic Aperture Radar is just an AESA radar, which is the exact type of radar used on military aircraft to detect air, land and sea targets today. It is called SAR instead of AESA because of the former's processing ability to generate maps of the terrain.

s002wjh said:

do you think FAA can det/id/track a single airplane in the sky with all other airplanes in the mix using radar and other sensor in an area of 1/3 US without checking airplanes transponder code etc.

seriously do the parking alot experiment, i don't care how many camera you use or people you use, let me know how long take you to find a single object in a sea of similar object.

Click to expand...

And how do you think the USN would do it? I take your continuous avoidance to this question as a silent admittance that detection, tracking, and identification of ships on the ocean is not impossible as you are portraying it to be.

Your silly thought-experiment has already been addressed in this previous post of mine. Bringing it up again isn't going to make your position any stronger.

s002wjh said:

from your own pdf. earth mapping sar is different than a narrow coverage high res sat, the latter cover less area compare to high coverage, low res satelite

Click to expand...

Actually, they are identical. AESA can adjust the beam to provide low-resolution and high coverage, or high-resolution and low-coverage. These can be switched instantaneously.

s002wjh said:

to detect EM signal at longer range using elint system, the receiver has to be sensitive enough to receive the target signals. however with larger area, longer distance, the more noise you gonna have, the weaker the signal. for example its not possible to detect an Anti-air emitter with a ELINT satelite, is it possible to detect/identify a EM signal from carriers, no one knows. for starter the EM signal signature from US military are classfied, without good sigint database, its not possible to id the EM signal.

Click to expand...

You are still confusing the concept of line-of-sight and distance.

s002wjh said:

back to sat det/id/track of carrier. unless china has 100s sat, UAV, reconnaissance platform, it will take too long/too diffcult to find a carrier in a large area. few sat and some other reconnaissance platform is not enough

Click to expand...

There is no evidence that proves 100 satellites are needed. However, China is launching more and more reconnaissance satellites, and it also employs over-the-horizon radars, and detection platforms in the air. Satellites are by no mean the only detection that China has.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Engineer said:

SAR provides detection, and track follows after. Knowing where to look is certainly helpful, but it does not constitute as a proof that detecting a CVBG with SAR is impossible.

its not impossible its just diffcult like finding 1 needle in a haystack along with 1000 shorter needles. actually more like big haystack

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. It also involves searching huge area of land without an idea as to where to look. It is arguably more complicated than tracking sea targets because of clutters from vegetation and much smaller size of land targets. How do you think they distinguish thousand civilian cars from military vehicles on land?
seriouslly youtube? again its about coverage area and resolution. did they even mention the area of coverage. if its hundred mile with know threat signature, sure its easy to find and destroy it. its total different when the search grid is million sq mile with unknown em signature, or other type of signature.

Searching a needle in the haystack is a near impossible task if you doing it by hand. If you use a sensitive metal detection device, then it is rather simple. That metal detection device is an analogy for radar.

and if i put 2000 needle in it, how long take you to determine which is the correct one. if i bury 2000 needle in 50sq mile beach, and ask 100 guys with 100 metal detector to search for 1 needle, how long it takes.


This is blatantly false! Synthetic Aperture Radar is just an AESA radar, which is the exact type of radar used on military aircraft to detect air, land and sea targets today. It is called SAR instead of AESA because of the former's processing ability to generate maps of the terrain.
each radar system has its own purpose. some don't care about ships, but large deposit of material beneath the earth or mapping large terrain of earth. some radar has higher resolution and narrow coverage use to detection moving ships.

And how do you think the USN would do it? I take your continuous avoidance to this question as a silent admittance that detection, tracking, and identification of ships on the ocean is not impossible as you are portraying it to be.
Your silly thought-experiment has already been addressed in this previous post of mine. Bringing it up again isn't going to make your position any stronger.

Click to expand...

USN doing when they know the general area of target. otherwise, they will have the same trouble to find a single ship in a vast area. i have repeatly said its about area, resource, #'s of detected target. using radar to id ships is much more diffcult anyway. radar is better for detection.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

s002wjh said:

yes processor has different algorithm in it for different type of operations, i mention this in previous post. SAR mapping of earth is different than finding something small in the ocean. the fundemental concept of all active radar system is send a pulse and receive the echo of the pulse to determine the speed, distance of object. if the object is too far, you lose resolution, weak echo. i said it before is not matter of detecting etc, but the area of coverage and occurances of detections. if you have small area to scan then it take less time compare to large area with alot ships!!! you can't change this fact, all radar is limited by coverage and resolution. to detect something like ships you need narrow coverage and high resolution.

Click to expand...

And as I have pointed out, SAR can provide large coverage in a relative short time. This isn't about using mapping algorithm for detecting ships, but about the capability of the radar itself. The resolution require depends on the type of target you wish to detect, and for a large target such as an aircraft carrier, you don't need ultra high-resolution so that you can see fishing boats as well.

s002wjh said:

let me know what set of parameter you use to prioritizing the targets, id, and tracking it in a million sq mile of ocean with thousands detections.

Click to expand...

I have already done so. See this post.

s002wjh said:

you can detect ships, you can use algorithm to filter the size of ships, the speed, but you can't use radar to id the ships without some other information. also we are not talking about a few dozen targets in a hundred sq mile coverage.

Click to expand...

Once again, radar can be used to identify the ships. Unlike optical sensor, radar can also measure frequency, phase, polarization in addition to intensity of echoes. Polarization is routinely used in remote sensing to distinguish types of surface.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

s002wjh said:

its not impossible its just diffcult like finding 1 needle in a haystack along with 1000 shorter needles. actually more like big haystack

Click to expand...

Then you use the same technique to find all the needles, then prioritize them by strength of the signal, and automate the search process with a stronger processing algorithm. Unlike needles in a haystack, ships on the open ocean move. The speed and direction are also parameters help in distinguishing a CVBG from commercial ships.

s002wjh said:

seriouslly youtube? again its about coverage area and resolution. did they even mention the area of coverage. if its hundred mile with know threat signature, sure its easy to find and destroy it. its total different when the search grid is million sq mile with unknown em signature, or other type of signature.

Click to expand...

The coverage from a radar by an aircraft is smaller, but in relation the radar also has to search for smaller targets within a smaller area. The area that a SAR on a satellite needs to cover is huge, but the coverage provided by SAR is also enormous, not to mention the size of sea targets is also much bigger. The proportion of area needed to cover vs. achievable coverage for the two problems are similar. But in any case, the point of the video is to show you that detection, tracking and identification of targets in large area and clutter environment is achievable, not impossible as you are portraying.

s002wjh said:

each radar system has its own purpose. some don't care about ships, but large deposit of material beneath the earth or mapping large terrain of earth. some radar has higher resolution and narrow coverage use to detection moving ships.

Click to expand...

SAR is being applied in military for simultaneous mapping as well as detection, tracking, and identification of targets. Whether or not civilians are interested in tracking ships in the sea with SAR is not a proof in anyway that space-based SAR platforms own by governments cannot be used in detection, tracking, and identification of ships at sea.

s002wjh said:

USN doing when they know the general area of target. otherwise, they will have the same trouble to find a single ship in a vast area. i have repeatly said its about area, resource, #'s of detected target. using radar to id ships is much more diffcult anyway. radar is better for detection.

Click to expand...

General area of a target, another . How big is your definition of general area? Obviously, you have no definition for this.

Detection of ships in sea, tracking of detected targets in sea, switch to narrow beam to zoom into targets of interest -- none of these is impossible. The reasons you have listed are solved, as the shows, and don't actually support your lose definition of "difficult" that intends to mean "impossible".

Does China have enough satellite platforms? No, that's why they will have a lot of work a head of them. However, this cannot be used as proof for your claim that satellites cannot be used in detection and tracking of CVBG.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

s002wjh said:

carrier is not an reflect object which you can easily pic up.

Click to expand...

LOL!

s002wjh said:

sure it emit RF/EM signal, so does other ships, planes in the thousands sq mile

Click to expand...

ELINT satellites will specific look for military signals. Not to say that a CVBG can't go into radio silence, but this is a mean for detection nonetheless.

s002wjh said:

mapping radar is different than detecting, identify, tracking something small in the ocean.for mapping, all you need to do is process the reflected signal to generate a 3d image. but to detect a ship, identify it is complete different case

Click to expand...

SAR is essentially an AESA radar. It is called SAR because of the mapping capability.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

NikeX said:

Concealment and Deception
A combination of obvious if inconvenient passive measures like operating under electronic emissions control conditions and active measures like radar-jamming and transmission of false radar signals was used to hide the allied fleet. They even eluded a Soviet active-radar satellite launched into a low to search for it.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the late reply, but I just want to point out that these SAR satellites from Soviet didn't appear to be reliable to begin with. The project was eventually cancelled.