Friday, September 13, 2024

Satellite Surveillance Reality

People keep wanting to believe that satellites can track every ship on the ocean in real time, with the data being tied directly to the launch buttons of anti-ship weapons.  I keep refuting this idea but it persists.  Here’s some relevant information on the subject from our space force. 
By the early 2030s, the Space Force hopes to have satellites equipped with sensors to target aircraft in the hands of operators, according to the service’s second in command, Gen. Michael Guetlein.
 
Satellites equipped with Air Moving Target Indicators (AMTI), which would send precise tracking data to “shooters” on the ground, at sea and in the air, would be a new capability — joining the Space Force’s joint program with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) to develop Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) satellites that track vehicles and ships.
 
“I would say you’re looking at probably early ’30s for some of that capability to start coming online, both for GMTI and for AMTI,” Guetlein told the annual Defense News conference today.[1][emphasis added]
 
These statements demonstrate that satellite tracking is something that does not yet exist but is being worked on and someone hopes to have it working in several years (which, of course, will stretch out to a decade or two, at best).
 
The next quote demonstrates that data is not directly linked to anti-ship launch buttons: 
Space Force since 2021 has been pushing their case to fill part of the gap in ground tracking/targeting left by the Air Force’s retirement of the E-8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft. That campaign has run up against roles and missions related challenges — some of which have yet to be fully resolved — from both the NRO and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA). The NRO owns and operates the nation’s spy satellites, while the NGA is responsible for disseminating space-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) imagery and analysis to users across the US government.[1][emphasis added]

Difficulties abound: 
… the closer I can come to the target, the more resolution I get on the target. As I move to space, it becomes harder and harder to get that same level of resolution on a target … [1]
 
… one of the key challenges for tracking enemy aircraft from space is that airplanes and drones move much faster than tanks, trucks and ships. This is compounded by the fact that to be best able to take high-quality pictures or establish radar images of objects on the ground or in the air, satellites would have to be stationed in low Earth orbit where they themselves move around the Earth at about 7.8 kilometers per second (4.8 miles per second) … [1]
 
I see a ship.  Fire!



We see, then, that the common belief in omniscient satellites, tied directly into fire control circuits is pure fantasy.  The Space Farce wants to make that a thing but the military constantly wants things that never happen (how’s that rail gun and laser coming?).  We’re looking at a decade or more for even the rudiments of this king of capability to happen and that’s probably being ridiculously optimistic.
 
Once and for all, let’s give up the fantasy of the all-seeing eye-in-the-sky providing real time weapons launch control.
 
 
 
_____________________________
 
[1]Breaking Defense, “Space Force vice wants sats to track aircraft by early 2030s”, Theresa Hitchens, 4-Sep-2024,
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/09/space-force-vice-wants-sats-to-track-aircraft-by-early-2030s/
Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

17 comments:

  1. John DallmanSeptember 13, 2024 at 12:12 PM

    Oh, this one again. I remember a fantasy the Bush 43 administration had: active radar satellites in low earth orbit, armed with missiles and lasers to give the USAF total air supremacy world-wide. It wasn't technologically practical, and allies pointed out that the inevitable mistaken shoot-downs of airliners would unite the world against the USA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousSeptember 13, 2024 at 3:59 PM

      There were many fantastic ideas, but few have become reality if any. This is why you still need reconnaissance, for instance, spy aircrafts (i.e. WZ-8, etc.) to locate its precise location for missile attack. Satellite image can only provide coarse location while the satellite flight over that region. At least now, only China has one satellite at geosynchronous orbit (22,236 miles above earth) has SAR capable to take workable image on earth. Even analyze that image require strong AI capability (impossible for human to analyze a huge area). This is how Pentagon was very concerned about WZ-8 while China displayed it in 2019. WZ-8 is unmanned spy drone can fly high and very fast (faster than SR-71).

      Delete
    2. AnonymousSeptember 14, 2024 at 3:39 PM

      This is dangerous despite its current purpose is for civilian use:

      https://www.csis.org/analysis/no-place-hide-look-chinas-geosynchronous-surveillance-capabilities

      Delete
  2. AnonymousSeptember 13, 2024 at 6:45 PM

    It's definitely a work in progress, as all things are. Consider Aegis - the navy wanted Aegis combat system in the 50s, and only got the combat system and radar in then89s and VLS in the 90s.

    Spaceborne AEW is a pie in the sky fantasy for now, but at least we are taking steps to improve our space recon, which at presebt is only limited to EO abd IR photorecon sats.

    ReplyDelete
  3. NickSeptember 14, 2024 at 5:55 AM

    "Satellite Surveillance Reality"
    Reported that Ukraine has had major success in finding and hitting 1,000 plus Russian targets with the ICEYE microsatellite constellation with its synthetic aperture radar "Metal objects in particular stand out in the imagery created by the active radar sensor"
    https://www.twz.com/news-features/peoples-satellite-helped-ukraine-hit-over-1000-targets-spy-agency-says

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsSeptember 14, 2024 at 7:20 AM

      "Ukraine has had major success in finding and hitting 1,000 plus Russian targets"

      Yeah, I'd take that with a boulder size grain of salt. It's a propaganda claim by Ukraine whose main purpose is probably to generate good PR to continue the crowd funding.

      For example, it may well be that most of those targets would have been struck anyway.

      What constitutes a "target"? A warship would be a good target (but doesn't really need a satellite to find). A soldier's mess kit is a meaningless target.

      For example, what does "hitting" mean? Struck by a fragment of shrapnel and did no damage?

      I note that the claim is 1500 targets over a two year period which is an average of two targets per day. In the context of a war, two targets per day is laughably small.

      I also note throughout the article that repeated references are made to the delay between imaging and action, just as this post points out.

      This just points out the need to carefully analyze these kinds of claims. We've seen both sides make contradictory and unfounded claims for propaganda purposes.

      Perhaps the next time you post someone's claim, you might take a shot a analyzing the claim, as well. That would be helpful and add some useful context. Thanks!

      Delete
    2. NickSeptember 14, 2024 at 11:43 AM

      Must say impressed with images provided from the X-band SAR able to “see” through heavy cloud cover and in the dark from the ICEYE microsatellites from numerous other web sites, seen mention the constellation has the ability to visit same area of interest 15 times every 24 hours for updates, though sure limitations I'm not aware of as you suggest, but think system looking good for its relatively low cost reconnaissance ability from space than the previous generation of the few and very expensive reconnaissance satellities in much higher orbits. So I'm more optomistic, time will tell.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsSeptember 14, 2024 at 12:35 PM

      "I'm more optomistic"

      The question is how well it will work in a war. As far as we know, neither Ukraine nor Russia is putting any serious effort into denying the other side's satellite surveillance or communications. It seems highly unlikely that will be the situation in a China-US war. Satellites will be contested physically with destruction, via software through cyber attacks, and through communications to/from the satellite and ground station among other means.

      What the result of that will be ... ?

      Delete
    4. ComNavOpsSeptember 14, 2024 at 12:40 PM

      What little I know about ICEYE is that they seem to be a commercial product of one company. I'm guessing that all the data from all the satellites downloads to a single ground station. If that ground station were sabotaged ... no satellite data. A single point of vulnerability.

      It is also noteworthy that the ICEYE satellites use commercial off-the-shelf components none of which are hardened against shock, EMP, radition, etc. which would likely be present in a war.

      I very much doubt that China is sitting back saying, well, there's nothing we can do about satellites. Are we "hardening" satellites against combat conditions? I have no idea but I suspect not.

      Delete
    5. ComNavOpsSeptember 14, 2024 at 12:44 PM

      "Must say impressed with images"

      I was impressed with all of our weapons (well, no, not really but I'm making a point) until they got to Ukraine and all of them failed to greater or lesser extents ... mostly greater! Similarly, I'm impressed with satellites in an uncontested, unopposed, unhindered scenario. Will I be impressed with them in combat? History says no.

      Delete
    6. NickSeptember 15, 2024 at 10:26 AM

      As always you make very cogent points though do wonder if the sheer number of these cheap microsatellites if produced in their hundreds/thousands and updated continuously to counter any weaknesses exposed would mitigate the countermeasures you mention and launched possibly weekly. It seems tcurrently much cheaper to attack than defend with cheap drones/UAVs, thinking of the Red Sea and Houthi drones with the Burkes firing SM-2s etc.

      Delete
    7. ComNavOpsSeptember 15, 2024 at 10:56 AM

      " It seems tcurrently much cheaper to attack than defend"

      Only if you go about it stupidly! If we sit back, allow attacks, and then try to shoot down the drones/missiles (shooting arrows instead of archers) then you're quite correct ... but that would be stupid.

      On the other hand, if, instead, we attack the archers, meaning the factories that build the drones/missiles, the warehouses, the incoming supply ships, the banks that handle the financial transactions, and so forth, then the economic equation changes drastically. That would be the smart way to do things. Of course, no one is accusing the military of being smart about this ...

      Delete
    8. ComNavOpsSeptember 15, 2024 at 2:39 PM

      "wonder if the sheer number of these cheap microsatellites if produced in their hundreds/thousands"

      Without addressing the feasibility of the idea, run the concept through the filter of war. If you were China (or vice versa) and these satellites were actually effective and would hurt your war effort, what would you do? They're manufactured at a single location, outside the US ... Wouldn't you make certain that the manufacturing site was sabotaged or destroyed in some fashion? In one stroke, there goes the "hundreds/thousands" of future satellites that you were counting on for you war effort.

      Think operationally, FROM BOTH SIDES, as we discuss weapons, sensors, and plans. 98% of everything put forth in these comments is completely one-sided with only the most cursory of operational analysis applied, if even that.

      This is one of my overarching themes on the blog - think operationally, from both sides. I'll keep hammering on it.

      If you still like your idea about hundreds/thousands of micro-satellites, why don't you take the opposite side (the Chinese side, presumably) and try to predict what their response would be. Does their response invalidate your idea? If so, you need a new idea or you need to make changes. Perhaps the enemy response is inadequate, in which case you're even more sure it would work? You get the idea? Look at it from both sides!

      Delete
  4. AnonymousSeptember 15, 2024 at 6:46 PM

    The Chinese seem to be placing a lot of investment into satellite surveillance. From the Pentagon's 2022 report (https://www.defense.gov/CMPR/):

    As of the end of 2021, China's ISR satellite fleet contained more than 260 systems—a quantity​ second only to the United States, and nearly doubling China's in-orbit systems since 2018.​ The PLA owns and operates about half of the world's ISR systems, most of which could​ support monitoring, tracking, and targeting of U.S. and allied forces worldwide, especially​ throughout the Indo-Pacific region. These satellites also allow the PLA to monitor potential​ regional flashpoints, including the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan, Indian Ocean, and the South​ China Sea.​
    ​
    Recent improvements to China's space-based ISR capabilities emphasize the development,​ procurement, and use of increasingly capable satellites with digital camera technology as well​ as space-based radar for all-weather, 24-hour coverage. These improvements increase​ China's monitoring capabilities—including observation of U.S. aircraft carriers,​
    expeditionary strike groups, and deployed air wings. Space capabilities will enhance potential​ PLA military operations farther from the Chinese coast. These capabilities are being​ augmented with electronic reconnaissance satellites that monitor radar and radio​ transmissions.​

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousSeptember 16, 2024 at 4:21 PM

      US also spends heavily on satellites. It depends on each nation's R&D capabilities.

      Not just US and China, other nations also want. Russia emergently launched a few satellites after the Ukraine War had started.

      Japan, EU, S. Korea, N. Korea, Iran, .... all invest in satellites

      Delete
  5. AnonymousSeptember 16, 2024 at 2:03 PM

    I was on a SSBN in the '70s and many crewmembers thought we'd be blown out of the water before we launched all our missiles (i.e. 16 missiles in 15 minutes). I thought that was BS then and still think so. The only way a sub would have been attacked is if a surface ship just happened to be within 10 miles and at battle stations. The technology "may" now exist, but I don't believe any navy is at the state of readiness to detect and prosecute that quickly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsSeptember 17, 2024 at 1:33 PM

      "many crewmembers thought we'd be blown out of the water before we launched all our missiles "

      As every ASW exercise or real world engagement ever conducted has emphatically demonstrated, there is nothing harder to find and kill than a sub. Sure, if you start launching missiles in the middle of the enemy fleet you'll probably have a rough day but, otherwise, it's hard to imagine a safer war machine.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)