Tuesday, July 22, 2025

Satellite Imagery Dispersal

There is a significant faction of military/naval observers who have the mistaken belief that satellites can see every vessel sailing on the ocean and that the satellites have some sort of direct link to the firing controls on ships and aircraft thus rendering every ship a kill waiting to happen.  This is nonsense, as ComNavOps has repeatedly pointed out.  The resolution of satellite imagery precludes that kind of omnipotent detection and tracking.  If you have sufficient resolution then you give up breadth of field.  If you have breadth of field then you give up resolution.
 
All this is compounded by the fact that satellite imagery is in high demand and the raw image must be processed and analyzed.  After that, it has to be dispersed to the hundreds of offices wanting access to it.  In the case of fire control, you have to add in layers of command (bureaucracy) before any useful detection/tracking imagery can reach a ship or aircraft where it can be put to actual firing use. 
 
The entire process takes hours or days.  We simply don’t have the kind of instantaneous, raw image-to-the-missile-launch-button that so many imagine.
 
Many of you still doubt that reality.  Well, here’s more proof. 
 
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is working with US Combatant Commands (COCOMS) to operationally test an early version of its Joint Regional Edge Node (J-REN) system designed to speed satellite-based intelligence to the battlefield, according to NGA officials.
 
NGA began development of J-REN — a modernization of NGA’s current information technology “pipe” to more rapidly fulfil commanders’ requests for urgent access to remote sensing imagery and analysis — just last year.[1]

The lack of timeliness of satellite imagery has been a known and on-going issue for many years and even recent advances have been insufficient.
 
The ever-increasing calls from COCOMS for more timely imagery and analysis from remote sensing satellites has been the subject of a tug-of-war between NGA and the Space Force — an issue the two agencies have been struggling to work out for more than a year.
 
The concept is to avoid clogging up limited communications bandwidth with overly-dense data packages, while still ensuring that military operators have good enough information to work with …[1]

There you have it.  If satellites were the omnipotent, all-seeing miracles with direct links to firing controls, this entire effort wouldn’t even be happening, would it?  The blindingly obvious conclusion is that the image-to-fire-control process is a slow one, as ComNavOps has repeatedly stated.
 
 
_________________________________
 
[1]Breaking Defense website, “NGA field testing new processor to speed imagery to US regional commands”, Theresa Hitchens, 18-Apr-2025,
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/04/nga-field-testing-new-processor-to-speed-imagery-to-us-regional-commands/

9 comments:

  1. Yes, satellite cannot pin-point locate and track ships. Except geosynchronous satellites, satellites "fly" fast over a place. You can only get approximate location of a ship. Geosynchronous satellites MUST fly over equator at 22,236 miles above sea level. It is very difficult to obtain useful image from that height. Right now, only China has a geosynchronous satellite capable to take SAR images from that attitude (Yaogan-41):

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

    To identify a ship in a very large image file, use human eyes is very slow. Computer AI can help but neither US nor China gives details on their capabilities on this front.

    Once you obtain an approximate location of a ship, say carrier, you then need to send a reconnaissance aircraft to provide more precise location for missile to attack (missile's radar can home only a small area). For the case of China, WZ-8 might be made for this purpose so their DF-26 can hit carriers from afar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More information on Yaogan-41

      https://interestingengineering.com/military/china-radar-satellite-declassified

      Since they are over equator, geosynchronous satellites cannot monitor areas of high latitude.

      Delete
  2. Any thought about visually scrambling in some fashion the top of a ship to confuse a satellite? Grey metal on a grey sea seems like it's been done for a long time already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EO/IR sats basically have to trade away either field of view or zoom resolution, because they're using phyiscal lenses to focus the image. If they have wide field of view, they can't zoom in close enough to differntiate a CVN from a merchantman. From orbit under EO and IR, a CVN looks similar to any container ship or merchantman.

      There are certain tricks you can do with lightning to let a CVN mimic a merchantman, and vice versa, allowing a merchant ship to use deception lighting to appear as if it's a CVN underway.

      Delete
  3. This makes SecDef Hegseth's decision to kill the Air Force's interim AWACS, the E-7 Wedgetail, in favor of satellite based AEW, even more perplexing. Especially when satellite based AEW has not even reached the proof of concept stage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exported E-7's rectangular shaped radar doesn't meet what Air Force want. You can surf web and find its capability is far behind E-2D's. Air Force asked Boeing to upgrade its radar. In return, Boeing gave Pentagon a bill which is far too high. Worse, there is no ready to use radar meet Air Force's demands .... do you trust Boeing's R&D?

      E-2D's problem lies on it cannot fly high enough to cover an area like B-737 and it can only carry 3 control officers.

      If Pentagon keeps pursuing E-7, likely, you will hear delay after delay ...... until eventually project cancellation with lots of loss. Put E-2D's radar on B-737? not an easy task as you think.

      Delete
  4. Agreed. The Wedgetail is already proven by allies and in production ready for use. One can argue their value in peer warfare, but the US military usually fights less sophisticated nations.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thinking about the role of high-tech in the future, why doesn't the Navy Marine Corps team have anything like this?:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L3Harris_EA-37B_Compass_Call

    A carrier version would be great, but would cost billions and a decade to develop. But the Marines are looking for a high-tech role, they could buy a couple squadrons of these off the production line, and scrap a hundred of their outdated "combat" rotorcraft to afford them. Note there are never any "air assaults'" in Ukraine since drones would wipe them out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Note the USAF is only buying ten aircraft, so no, there won't be any available to support Navy/Marine air ops.

      Delete

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