Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, my idle trolling seems to have started quite a debate. I'm most interested by WEBF's point of view - ie that to mount a successful air attack on a capital ship, you need ISTAR and other land-based support. So how are we planning to do ASFAO(M) from our carriers?
Thread Starter
Idle Trolling?
I'm most interested by WEBF's point of view - ie that to mount a successful air attack on a capital ship, you need ISTAR and other land-based support.
Putting words in my mouth? And ASFAO(M)? Eh?
I thought we were discussing a carrier being attacked specifically by land based stealth/LO aircraft?
You mentioned that a USAF General had claimed that the B2 could wipe out all US carriers in a day. I simply asked how they would find them without radar or third party assets.
You cannot engage a target if you don't know where it is. A carrier is mobile and to find it exactly when you want to attack will generally require some sort of third party such as an MPA with a large radar. If a stealth aircraft was to start searching with radar it is no longer stealthy.
As for satellite imagery, can it be real time to the same extent as an MPA? Surely there's the small problem of having to wait for the satellite to pass overhead again. A low earth orbit will put the satellite in position every 90 minutes say. At 30 knots ships can travel 45 nm in that time, in any direction. Not very helpful if you are trying to point an anti ship missile at it.
An earlier comment by LO...
The capital ship (now the aircraft carrier) has a new lease of life with the disbandment of AVMF and the absence of a large fleet of Tu-22M3 (You Can Get Rid of Pesky Carriers NOW!!!!) Backfires...
Hmm, I thought the US carrier force and US Naval Aviation enjoyed expansion during the Reagan years? Also wouldn't NATO resupply convoys across the Atlantic be a prime target for the AVMF? In fact, wasn't the reason that the Tomcat was developed to defend US/NATO naval forces and shipping from Soviet aircraft and cruise missiles? Carrier based fighters and AEW aircraft, and ASW aircraft, would have been key to keeping NATO's lifeline to the USA open.
I'm sure that if I look I could find a binder containing an old 1980s publication called Warplane. Remember that? It mentions the scenario described above, and also the commitment of UK carriers. Yes, the Sea Harrier was mentioned in passing, as were the CVS based Sea Kings.
I'm most interested by WEBF's point of view - ie that to mount a successful air attack on a capital ship, you need ISTAR and other land-based support.
Putting words in my mouth? And ASFAO(M)? Eh?
I thought we were discussing a carrier being attacked specifically by land based stealth/LO aircraft?
You mentioned that a USAF General had claimed that the B2 could wipe out all US carriers in a day. I simply asked how they would find them without radar or third party assets.You cannot engage a target if you don't know where it is. A carrier is mobile and to find it exactly when you want to attack will generally require some sort of third party such as an MPA with a large radar. If a stealth aircraft was to start searching with radar it is no longer stealthy.
As for satellite imagery, can it be real time to the same extent as an MPA? Surely there's the small problem of having to wait for the satellite to pass overhead again. A low earth orbit will put the satellite in position every 90 minutes say. At 30 knots ships can travel 45 nm in that time, in any direction. Not very helpful if you are trying to point an anti ship missile at it.
An earlier comment by LO...
The capital ship (now the aircraft carrier) has a new lease of life with the disbandment of AVMF and the absence of a large fleet of Tu-22M3 (You Can Get Rid of Pesky Carriers NOW!!!!) Backfires...
Hmm, I thought the US carrier force and US Naval Aviation enjoyed expansion during the Reagan years? Also wouldn't NATO resupply convoys across the Atlantic be a prime target for the AVMF? In fact, wasn't the reason that the Tomcat was developed to defend US/NATO naval forces and shipping from Soviet aircraft and cruise missiles? Carrier based fighters and AEW aircraft, and ASW aircraft, would have been key to keeping NATO's lifeline to the USA open.
I'm sure that if I look I could find a binder containing an old 1980s publication called Warplane. Remember that? It mentions the scenario described above, and also the commitment of UK carriers. Yes, the Sea Harrier was mentioned in passing, as were the CVS based Sea Kings.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 8th Oct 2007 at 22:49.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You cannot engage a target if you don't know where it is. A carrier is mobile and to find it exactly when you want to attack will generally require some sort of third party such as an MPA with a large radar. If a stealth aircraft was to start searching with radar it is no longer stealthy.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
sorry if I misunderstood you. I certainly hadn't intended to start a debate about how to attack carriers with stealth aircraft!
I also didn't intend to put words into your mouth. You did say:
"You cannot engage a target if you don't know where it is. A carrier is mobile and to find it exactly when you want to attack will generally require some sort of third party such as an MPA with a large radar.",
and my observation was that under current plans, we appear to be poorly placed to field such capabilities from our planned carriers. A properly developed MASC may help, but it doesn't give you all the enablers a full air campaign would need. I am strongly in favour of the UK having carriers, but in my view we need to keep things in perspective, viz:
1. They are not invulnerable. Not just to stealth, but to things like silkworm and submarines. Yes, we have defences, but a concerted attack stands a chance of success.
2. They primarily exist to project air power. Whether that's counter-land, counter-maritime or providing the DCA cover the JOINT COMMANDER deems appropriate for maritime assets. I don't particularly like the analogy of floating airfields because I think the term makes maritime types feel that the significant levels of skill and specialist personnel and equipment are overlooked, but if you lose sight of what you're trying to achieve with the carriers you are not applying military force efficiently.
3. Combining points 1 and 2, we must guard against the danger that the lollipop starts to lick itself once you get into a high threat environment. If your fleet primarily exists to provide escorts and support to the carriers, and the bulk of air activity is protecting the fleet, you may not be contributing much to the joint effort.
4. We must also keep in perspective what a carrier, as planned, can and can't do. if you have absolutely no host nation support, you can forget about realistic MPA, AWACS, AAR, Recce, EW and actually DCA cover for a big air campaign. Likewise, no land campaign of any size is feasible without some level of HNS. So what we can use carriers for is small-scale focussed intervention. This is fine if they're where they need to be and at sea (with only 2 hulls, that worries me), or we have a lot of time to react, or our int is incredibly good. If you fall down on any of those, guess what you're going to use? Yes, land-based air power. It might need a heroic effort like BLACK BUCK, and we can argue all day about persistency (remember the B-1s that provided CAS in Afghanistan had many, many bombs and could stay on station for many, many hours), but carriers are not the only way to be expeditionary with air power. The old cliche about moving Australia 1000 miles east (actually it was a pacific island, can't remember which, and all the evidence suggests this was misguided staff officer 'initiative' and not directed deceit) only serves to illustrate that actually there isn't much of the globe you can't get to by air - and I don't think we have a ship in that bit nowadays anyway. Carriers are also invaluable for giving you basing OPTIONS when there is doubt about where you can/should put a small number of combat aircraft, but we should always aim for the step ashore as soon as possible as operating from concrete invariably means better sortie generation rates, faster resupply etc.
5. Carrier based air power fills a vital niche in specialised circumstances, but it is a very expensive way of projecting it and my original post was just suggesting that with suitable air capability, the cost-benefit analysis becomes 'highly scenario-dependent', a bit like TLAM. I always find it interesting that the examples of host nation support, access, basing and overflight not being forthcoming which are usually dragged out (Op ELDORADO CANYON, Turkey in TELIC etc) are all things where the aim was achieved anyway - and we don't seem to mention things like when Royal was denied permission to come ashore at Karachi to go to Afghanistan and had to steam several days back to somewhere with an airfield to get inserted by air.
That turned into a bit of a rant. I'm sure people will correct me on anything I've got wrong!
Regards,
OA
PS - The term ASFAO(M) means anti-surface force air operations (maritime) and superseded the term TASMO in UK doctrine about 5 years ago - although a number of publications haven't been updated since then and still mention TASMO.
sorry if I misunderstood you. I certainly hadn't intended to start a debate about how to attack carriers with stealth aircraft!
I also didn't intend to put words into your mouth. You did say:
"You cannot engage a target if you don't know where it is. A carrier is mobile and to find it exactly when you want to attack will generally require some sort of third party such as an MPA with a large radar.",
and my observation was that under current plans, we appear to be poorly placed to field such capabilities from our planned carriers. A properly developed MASC may help, but it doesn't give you all the enablers a full air campaign would need. I am strongly in favour of the UK having carriers, but in my view we need to keep things in perspective, viz:
1. They are not invulnerable. Not just to stealth, but to things like silkworm and submarines. Yes, we have defences, but a concerted attack stands a chance of success.
2. They primarily exist to project air power. Whether that's counter-land, counter-maritime or providing the DCA cover the JOINT COMMANDER deems appropriate for maritime assets. I don't particularly like the analogy of floating airfields because I think the term makes maritime types feel that the significant levels of skill and specialist personnel and equipment are overlooked, but if you lose sight of what you're trying to achieve with the carriers you are not applying military force efficiently.
3. Combining points 1 and 2, we must guard against the danger that the lollipop starts to lick itself once you get into a high threat environment. If your fleet primarily exists to provide escorts and support to the carriers, and the bulk of air activity is protecting the fleet, you may not be contributing much to the joint effort.
4. We must also keep in perspective what a carrier, as planned, can and can't do. if you have absolutely no host nation support, you can forget about realistic MPA, AWACS, AAR, Recce, EW and actually DCA cover for a big air campaign. Likewise, no land campaign of any size is feasible without some level of HNS. So what we can use carriers for is small-scale focussed intervention. This is fine if they're where they need to be and at sea (with only 2 hulls, that worries me), or we have a lot of time to react, or our int is incredibly good. If you fall down on any of those, guess what you're going to use? Yes, land-based air power. It might need a heroic effort like BLACK BUCK, and we can argue all day about persistency (remember the B-1s that provided CAS in Afghanistan had many, many bombs and could stay on station for many, many hours), but carriers are not the only way to be expeditionary with air power. The old cliche about moving Australia 1000 miles east (actually it was a pacific island, can't remember which, and all the evidence suggests this was misguided staff officer 'initiative' and not directed deceit) only serves to illustrate that actually there isn't much of the globe you can't get to by air - and I don't think we have a ship in that bit nowadays anyway. Carriers are also invaluable for giving you basing OPTIONS when there is doubt about where you can/should put a small number of combat aircraft, but we should always aim for the step ashore as soon as possible as operating from concrete invariably means better sortie generation rates, faster resupply etc.
5. Carrier based air power fills a vital niche in specialised circumstances, but it is a very expensive way of projecting it and my original post was just suggesting that with suitable air capability, the cost-benefit analysis becomes 'highly scenario-dependent', a bit like TLAM. I always find it interesting that the examples of host nation support, access, basing and overflight not being forthcoming which are usually dragged out (Op ELDORADO CANYON, Turkey in TELIC etc) are all things where the aim was achieved anyway - and we don't seem to mention things like when Royal was denied permission to come ashore at Karachi to go to Afghanistan and had to steam several days back to somewhere with an airfield to get inserted by air.
That turned into a bit of a rant. I'm sure people will correct me on anything I've got wrong!
Regards,
OA
PS - The term ASFAO(M) means anti-surface force air operations (maritime) and superseded the term TASMO in UK doctrine about 5 years ago - although a number of publications haven't been updated since then and still mention TASMO.
Last edited by Occasional Aviator; 9th Oct 2007 at 15:45. Reason: Tipping Wrist-aches
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Age: 75
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the combat system on T45 etc etc
It will indeed sir, but what can it then do? If the other ship happens to be a T45 then that's ok (apart from the detection range at low altitude problem I've already referred to) But if it's to a T23 for example the T23 cannot use any missilery of its own to engage a target that has been signalled to it . i.e. it cannot queue anybody else's missile.
Come to think of it, if it's a T23 will it have a C.I.C at all?
Rugby fans will love this one.
Latest news from the Rugby World Cup 2007:
and
Come to think of it, if it's a T23 will it have a C.I.C at all?
Rugby fans will love this one.
Latest news from the Rugby World Cup 2007:
- [*]
and
- Australia meet New Zealand at the Airport
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big surface ships = fat easy targets. They can be found and tracked through heavy cloud cover by space-based radar and high altitude UAV's -- probably too high and too far away for your Aster SAM's to reach.
You guys have a concept of surface warfare that is out of date for the 21st century .... too many mental pictures from WWII or that lucky little Falkland Islands war.
I wouldn't advise either the USA or UK to invest too much more money in big surface warships, including aircraft carriers.
If the UK wants carriers, get something cheaper -- amphibious assault ships that can handle F-35's -- some floating platforms that are more expendable and replaceable.
Comke to think of it, WWII teaches us that aircraft carriers are sinkable and may need to be replaced by ships that can be built in a finite amount of time.
You guys have a concept of surface warfare that is out of date for the 21st century .... too many mental pictures from WWII or that lucky little Falkland Islands war.
I wouldn't advise either the USA or UK to invest too much more money in big surface warships, including aircraft carriers.
If the UK wants carriers, get something cheaper -- amphibious assault ships that can handle F-35's -- some floating platforms that are more expendable and replaceable.
Comke to think of it, WWII teaches us that aircraft carriers are sinkable and may need to be replaced by ships that can be built in a finite amount of time.
Thread Starter
Big surface ships = fat easy targets. They can be found and tracked through heavy cloud cover by space-based radar and high altitude UAV's -- probably too high and too far away for your Aster SAM's to reach.
Exactly how many nations have spaced based radar? As for UAVs, can't caeeier based fighters deal with them?
Comke to think of it, WWII teaches us that aircraft carriers are sinkable and may need to be replaced by ships that can be built in a finite amount of time.
It also teaches us the airfields are liable to be bombed or captured. It teaches that victory would have been impossible in the Atlantic, Pacific or the Med without carriers.
Or are you advocating a "quantity versus quality" type debate?
Edited for poor typing skills.
Exactly how many nations have spaced based radar? As for UAVs, can't caeeier based fighters deal with them?
Comke to think of it, WWII teaches us that aircraft carriers are sinkable and may need to be replaced by ships that can be built in a finite amount of time.
It also teaches us the airfields are liable to be bombed or captured. It teaches that victory would have been impossible in the Atlantic, Pacific or the Med without carriers.
Or are you advocating a "quantity versus quality" type debate?
Edited for poor typing skills.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 10th Oct 2007 at 16:58.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edit Required?
WEBF,
a slightly knee-jerk post perhaps? I don't think you meant to say :
"It [WW2] teaches that victory would have been impossible in the Atlantic, Pacific or the Med with carriers."
I think you mean "without" - although it also teaches that victory in the Med and Atlantic at least (don't know enough about the Pacifiic) would not have been possible without land-based air power too - arguably this had a bigger impact than carrier air, particularly in the Atlantic. The Med also makes quite a convincing case for the "step-afloat/ashore" (floating airfield if you like) approach to the use of carriers - witness the RAF contribution to the relief of Malta.
The capabilities are complementary.
a slightly knee-jerk post perhaps? I don't think you meant to say :
"It [WW2] teaches that victory would have been impossible in the Atlantic, Pacific or the Med with carriers."
I think you mean "without" - although it also teaches that victory in the Med and Atlantic at least (don't know enough about the Pacifiic) would not have been possible without land-based air power too - arguably this had a bigger impact than carrier air, particularly in the Atlantic. The Med also makes quite a convincing case for the "step-afloat/ashore" (floating airfield if you like) approach to the use of carriers - witness the RAF contribution to the relief of Malta.
The capabilities are complementary.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Another Queen Elizabeth ???
Well yes and no. Its another 92,000grt liner coming out of the factory in Italy. The 2014 sail past of two Queen Elizabeths will be an interesting site.
Here
Here
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You cannot engage a target if you don't know where it is. A carrier is mobile and to find it exactly when you want to attack will generally require some sort of third party such as an MPA with a large radar. If a stealth aircraft was to start searching with radar it is no longer stealthy.
As for satellite imagery, can it be real time to the same extent as an MPA? Surely there's the small problem of having to wait for the satellite to pass overhead again. A low earth orbit will put the satellite in position every 90 minutes say. At 30 knots ships can travel 45 nm in that time, in any direction. Not very helpful if you are trying to point an anti ship missile at it.
Ship on northeast Atlantic tracked by Synthetic Aperture Radar from Space Shuttle Endeavour, altitude about 200 miles:
It's the small white spot at lower left, and the purple line is its wake. The optical visibility need not have been good. It might be an RN warship, for all we know.
http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/pio/sr...c/sc-naocn.gif
As for satellite imagery, can it be real time to the same extent as an MPA? Surely there's the small problem of having to wait for the satellite to pass overhead again. A low earth orbit will put the satellite in position every 90 minutes say. At 30 knots ships can travel 45 nm in that time, in any direction. Not very helpful if you are trying to point an anti ship missile at it.
Ship on northeast Atlantic tracked by Synthetic Aperture Radar from Space Shuttle Endeavour, altitude about 200 miles:
It's the small white spot at lower left, and the purple line is its wake. The optical visibility need not have been good. It might be an RN warship, for all we know.
http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/pio/sr...c/sc-naocn.gif
Suspicion breeds confidence
Back in the 80s, the Soviets had a system we called SOSS. (Soviet Ocean Surveillance System), It consisted of ground based electronic systems, air (i.e Bear) based long range aircraft and satellites. Not very effective in the Indian Ocean, but very accurate in the GIUK area. I doubt much has changed, but unless you are Russia and to a much lesser extent China it doesn't matter because you don't have it. I don't see us fighting either, so the debate is largely academic.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's academic at the moment, but surely we shouldn't base our planning assumptions on the idea that technology will not spread and the situation won't change... if we did that, why would we need Astute, T45, MRA4 and a Trident replacement?
Elmo
Well done old son, you've spotted a ship from a satellite. Congratulations.
Now - is it a merchant vessel? Containership (speed 20+kts, length 300m x 50m?), SAR profile variable depending on loading condition?
Or is it a warship?
Don't know? Ah what the hell, lets just blat off everything in the inventory - it's bound to hit something......
Well done old son, you've spotted a ship from a satellite. Congratulations.
Now - is it a merchant vessel? Containership (speed 20+kts, length 300m x 50m?), SAR profile variable depending on loading condition?
Or is it a warship?
Don't know? Ah what the hell, lets just blat off everything in the inventory - it's bound to hit something......
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but...
NaB,
not sure I see your point mate. Of course you're not going to attack something straight off a SAR picture, just as you wouldn't just attack a primary radar return from a warship or an aircraft.
But, with a suitable information grid this provides data to the FIND function in the F2T2EA cycle. What you use for the rest of the F2T2 functions could be land-based MPA, it could be long-range/persistent UAVs, or, providing we have a carrier in the area, it could be something like MASC, or even a submarine or a surface scout (again, providing they're in the right place). Then, when you decide to engage, you could use carrier air, land-based air, missiles launched from land, air, surface or sub-surface, or even rods from the gods.
None of this makes the point either way as far as I can see.
not sure I see your point mate. Of course you're not going to attack something straight off a SAR picture, just as you wouldn't just attack a primary radar return from a warship or an aircraft.
But, with a suitable information grid this provides data to the FIND function in the F2T2EA cycle. What you use for the rest of the F2T2 functions could be land-based MPA, it could be long-range/persistent UAVs, or, providing we have a carrier in the area, it could be something like MASC, or even a submarine or a surface scout (again, providing they're in the right place). Then, when you decide to engage, you could use carrier air, land-based air, missiles launched from land, air, surface or sub-surface, or even rods from the gods.
None of this makes the point either way as far as I can see.
Sorry, not being clear enough. The hard part is not the first part of whatever the acronym for detect, identify, track, evaluate, prosecute is these days. It remains identifying a contact detected on a wide area search.
Your follow up points are absolutely valid. However, Elmo seems to think that some sort of hook-up to a satellite feed will allow direct targeting by a stealth bomber and that is what I'm attempting to counter.
Your follow up points are absolutely valid. However, Elmo seems to think that some sort of hook-up to a satellite feed will allow direct targeting by a stealth bomber and that is what I'm attempting to counter.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done old son, you've spotted a ship from a satellite. Congratulations.
Now - is it a merchant vessel? Containership (speed 20+kts, length 300m x 50m?), SAR profile variable depending on loading condition?
Or is it a warship?
Don't know? Ah what the hell, lets just blat off everything in the inventory - it's bound to hit something......
Detection of ship wakes in SAR image using rotated window radon transform
Journal Journal of Electronics (China)
Publisher Science Press, co-published with Springer-Verlag GmbH
ISSN 0217-9822 (Print) 1993-0615 (Online)
Issue Volume 19, Number 1 / January, 2002
Category Papers
DOI 10.1007/s11767-002-0005-3
Pages 30-36
Subject Collection Engineering
SpringerLink Date Thursday, August 09, 2007
Papers
Detection of ship wakes in SAR image using rotated window radon transform
Chen Yi 1 and Jin Yaqui 1
(1) Center of Wave Scattering and Remote Sensing, Dept. of Electronics, Fudan Univ., 200433 Shanghai
Abstract A novel method of rotated window Radon transform is developed for identifying the linear texture in SAR image. It is applied to automatic detection of the ship wakes of SEASAT SAR image. The location and direction of the traveling ship can be quickly and accurately detected. In some cases, the ship velocity can also be obtained.
Key words Ship wakes - SAR image - Rotated window Radon transform
Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.49831060, No.69771007), and National Defense Foundation
Ship detection of the airborne SAR images
Wang, P. Chong, J. Wang, H.
Inst. of Electron., Acad. Sinica, Beijing;
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u7808545u33j1612/
This paper appears in: Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2000. Proceedings. IGARSS 2000. IEEE 2000 International
Publication Date: 2000
Volume: 1, On page(s): 348-350 vol.1
Meeting Date: 07/24/2000 - 07/28/2000
Location: Honolulu, HI, USA
ISBN: 0-7803-6359-0
References Cited: 8
INSPEC Accession Number: 6754600
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/IGARSS.2000.860515
Posted online: 2002-08-06 23:26:23.0
Abstract
Ship detection is one of the important tasks of seaport surveillance. We develop a series of steps to detect them. First, several filters are used to reduce the speckle. Then the sea image with ships is segmented with the entropic thresholding method. Next, every ship is detected. Finally, we calculate the feature parameters of every ship. Those features can be used for later classification and recognition. In this paper, we compare several methods for each step. In high resolution SAR images, large-size ship targets appear as bright pixel groups with high contrast of the background that depends on the ocean backscatter, varies with incidence angle and sea conditions. The pixels of a certain ship can be divided into two sorts. The high peaks are caused by corner reflection and the in-plane scatterers cause the low peaks. The intensity of the low peaks varies while the imaging conditions alert. So we believe the high peaks would be a more robust characteristic. The airborne SAR is an L-band SAR with a resolution of 1.5 m
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/6913/18663/00860515.pdf
Accession Number : ADA243042
Title : Classification of SAR Ship Images with the Aid of a Syntactic Pattern Recognition Algorithm.
Descriptive Note : Technical note,
Corporate Author : DEFENCE RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT OTTAWA (ONTARIO)
Personal Author(s) : Klepko, Robert
Report Date : JUL 1991
Pagination or Media Count : 26
Abstract : Synthetic aperture radar systems have made possible the generation of radar images of ships with high enough resolution to allow numerous targets or scatterers to be visible. With the availability of numerous scatterers in one radar image, it is theoretically possible to identify the class of a ship. The SAR image of a ship is a function of location of scatterers, SAR system frequency, radar-to-ship viewing angle, amount and type of sea-induced ship motion, and length of aperture. Because of the dependence on these variables, the number of images representing any one ship is large. It is the job of radar operator to study and understand the many radar images that can be encountered, and attempt to make the correct classification. Fast classification response times are required, since these images would normally be acquired in real time. A syntactic pattern recognition algorithm (called the Coarse Feature Classifier (CFC)) has been developed to aid the radar operator to perform the task of classifying SAR images of ships. By having the algorithm perform some of the tasks that the operator normally performs, one obtains the potential benefits of improved accuracy and speed of classification, and reduced operator fatigue. The algorithm extracts numerous features from the input SAR image which are then compared to a library of similar features in order to select the ship(s) from the library which best resembles the input ship image. Details of the operation of the CFC are discussed.
Descriptors : ACCURACY, ALGORITHMS, BENEFITS, CLASSIFICATION, FATIGUE, FREQUENCY, IMAGES, INPUT, OPERATORS(PERSONNEL), PATTERN RECOGNITION, QUICK REACTION, RADAR EQUIPMENT, RADAR IMAGES, RADAR OPERATORS, REACTION TIME, REAL TIME, REDUCTION, RESPONSE, SHIPS, SYNTAX, SYNTHETIC APERTURE RADAR, VELOCITY.
Subject Categories : ACTIVE AND PASSIVE RADAR DETECTION & EQUIPMENT
COMPUTER PROGRAMMING AND SOFTWARE
Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA243042
Now - is it a merchant vessel? Containership (speed 20+kts, length 300m x 50m?), SAR profile variable depending on loading condition?
Or is it a warship?
Don't know? Ah what the hell, lets just blat off everything in the inventory - it's bound to hit something......
Detection of ship wakes in SAR image using rotated window radon transform
Journal Journal of Electronics (China)
Publisher Science Press, co-published with Springer-Verlag GmbH
ISSN 0217-9822 (Print) 1993-0615 (Online)
Issue Volume 19, Number 1 / January, 2002
Category Papers
DOI 10.1007/s11767-002-0005-3
Pages 30-36
Subject Collection Engineering
SpringerLink Date Thursday, August 09, 2007
Papers
Detection of ship wakes in SAR image using rotated window radon transform
Chen Yi 1 and Jin Yaqui 1
(1) Center of Wave Scattering and Remote Sensing, Dept. of Electronics, Fudan Univ., 200433 Shanghai
Abstract A novel method of rotated window Radon transform is developed for identifying the linear texture in SAR image. It is applied to automatic detection of the ship wakes of SEASAT SAR image. The location and direction of the traveling ship can be quickly and accurately detected. In some cases, the ship velocity can also be obtained.
Key words Ship wakes - SAR image - Rotated window Radon transform
Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.49831060, No.69771007), and National Defense Foundation
Ship detection of the airborne SAR images
Wang, P. Chong, J. Wang, H.
Inst. of Electron., Acad. Sinica, Beijing;
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u7808545u33j1612/
This paper appears in: Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2000. Proceedings. IGARSS 2000. IEEE 2000 International
Publication Date: 2000
Volume: 1, On page(s): 348-350 vol.1
Meeting Date: 07/24/2000 - 07/28/2000
Location: Honolulu, HI, USA
ISBN: 0-7803-6359-0
References Cited: 8
INSPEC Accession Number: 6754600
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/IGARSS.2000.860515
Posted online: 2002-08-06 23:26:23.0
Abstract
Ship detection is one of the important tasks of seaport surveillance. We develop a series of steps to detect them. First, several filters are used to reduce the speckle. Then the sea image with ships is segmented with the entropic thresholding method. Next, every ship is detected. Finally, we calculate the feature parameters of every ship. Those features can be used for later classification and recognition. In this paper, we compare several methods for each step. In high resolution SAR images, large-size ship targets appear as bright pixel groups with high contrast of the background that depends on the ocean backscatter, varies with incidence angle and sea conditions. The pixels of a certain ship can be divided into two sorts. The high peaks are caused by corner reflection and the in-plane scatterers cause the low peaks. The intensity of the low peaks varies while the imaging conditions alert. So we believe the high peaks would be a more robust characteristic. The airborne SAR is an L-band SAR with a resolution of 1.5 m
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/6913/18663/00860515.pdf
Accession Number : ADA243042
Title : Classification of SAR Ship Images with the Aid of a Syntactic Pattern Recognition Algorithm.
Descriptive Note : Technical note,
Corporate Author : DEFENCE RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT OTTAWA (ONTARIO)
Personal Author(s) : Klepko, Robert
Report Date : JUL 1991
Pagination or Media Count : 26
Abstract : Synthetic aperture radar systems have made possible the generation of radar images of ships with high enough resolution to allow numerous targets or scatterers to be visible. With the availability of numerous scatterers in one radar image, it is theoretically possible to identify the class of a ship. The SAR image of a ship is a function of location of scatterers, SAR system frequency, radar-to-ship viewing angle, amount and type of sea-induced ship motion, and length of aperture. Because of the dependence on these variables, the number of images representing any one ship is large. It is the job of radar operator to study and understand the many radar images that can be encountered, and attempt to make the correct classification. Fast classification response times are required, since these images would normally be acquired in real time. A syntactic pattern recognition algorithm (called the Coarse Feature Classifier (CFC)) has been developed to aid the radar operator to perform the task of classifying SAR images of ships. By having the algorithm perform some of the tasks that the operator normally performs, one obtains the potential benefits of improved accuracy and speed of classification, and reduced operator fatigue. The algorithm extracts numerous features from the input SAR image which are then compared to a library of similar features in order to select the ship(s) from the library which best resembles the input ship image. Details of the operation of the CFC are discussed.
Descriptors : ACCURACY, ALGORITHMS, BENEFITS, CLASSIFICATION, FATIGUE, FREQUENCY, IMAGES, INPUT, OPERATORS(PERSONNEL), PATTERN RECOGNITION, QUICK REACTION, RADAR EQUIPMENT, RADAR IMAGES, RADAR OPERATORS, REACTION TIME, REAL TIME, REDUCTION, RESPONSE, SHIPS, SYNTAX, SYNTHETIC APERTURE RADAR, VELOCITY.
Subject Categories : ACTIVE AND PASSIVE RADAR DETECTION & EQUIPMENT
COMPUTER PROGRAMMING AND SOFTWARE
Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA243042
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day its not hard to locate an aircraft carrier. OTHR could find them fairly easily. They are hardly stealthy but thats not the point of them. Aircraft carriers are not supposed to hide. They are supposed to be parked 200 miles of the baddies coastline. Power projection.