Security Breach Reveals Communist Chinese Party Members Infiltrating The West

[rogue06]

edit not quote

[Mountain Man]

There's a typo in the thread title. It should read:

"Security Breach Reveals Communist Chinese Party Members Infiltrating The West Wing"

[Ronson]

That first Russia should read China. That's what I get for posting on the go.

I just thought the first sentence was sarcasm.

ETA: I see others read it that way as well

[CivilDiscourse]

Yep. Russia has over 1 billion people and the largest army in the world. Their navy has more vessels than ours.

I really don't get why people act like Russia is the biggest problem in the room and ignore the elephant that is China.

I think you meant China.

Though when it comes to navy the question is whether or not their navy has the same capability as ours. More ships doesn't mean much if they can't counter our navy.

(Think of saying that "China has more airplanes than us", but you are counting WW1 era byplanes to modern jets. Granted, this isn't that extreme, but raw numbers don't tell the whole story.)

[rogue06]

I think you meant China.

Though when it comes to navy the question is whether or not their navy has the same capability as ours. More ships doesn't mean much if they can't counter our navy.

(Think of saying that "China has more airplanes than us", but you are counting WW1 era byplanes to modern jets. Granted, this isn't that extreme, but raw numbers don't tell the whole story.)

Naval Task Forces are becoming a relic of a bygone era. Satellites can track them and in case of a real war, one missile could wipe the whole thing out.

[CivilDiscourse]

Naval Task Forces are becoming a relic of a bygone era. Satellites can track them and in case of a real war, one missile could wipe the whole thing out.

Believe it or not, it can be surprisingly hard to track naval ships, even with satellites. My experience is 11 years out of date at this point, but I can speak with experience, even if I can't speak with specifics.

[rogue06]

Believe it or not, it can be surprisingly hard to track naval ships, even with satellites. My experience is 11 years out of date at this point, but I can speak with experience, even if I can't speak with specifics.

I'll take your word for it even though it seems counterintuitive

[CivilDiscourse]

I'll take your word for it even though it seems counterintuitive

In generics, there's alot of things that hurt it.

First is that, relatively speaking, it's looking for a ruler on the ground of central park from 30,000 feet. Ships are small compared to the vastness of the ocean.

Next, there's alot of ships on the ocean that, if the naval ship is taking proper precautions, look alot like those naval ships based on the method of looking (ELINT for example).

Finally, even if you are able to identify the ships from space and have a rough track on them, there's uncertainty on their exact position which precludes using them for targeting. The types of things that detect unknown locations have an accuracy measured in miles. That uncertainty can be reduced through use of aircraft. The thing is knowing that a naval ship is within say 1-20 miles of a location is great intel that can easily lead an air-squadron to take them out, or provide intel on when they might reach a certain port, it's not enough to use a remote missile to take them out (barring the use of large nuclear payloads).

If you get your impression of our satellite tracking capabilities from "Enemy of the State" with Will Smith, I can guarantee you that the movie and those like it is complete and utter fiction on how satellite intelligence actually works.

[rogue06]

In generics, there's alot of things that hurt it.

First is that, relatively speaking, it's looking for a ruler on the ground of central park from 30,000 feet. Ships are small compared to the vastness of the ocean.

Next, there's alot of ships on the ocean that, if the naval ship is taking proper precautions, look alot like those naval ships based on the method of looking (ELINT for example).

Finally, even if you are able to identify the ships from space and have a rough track on them, there's uncertainty on their exact position which precludes using them for targeting. The types of things that detect unknown locations have an accuracy measured in miles. That uncertainty can be reduced through use of aircraft. The thing is knowing that a naval ship is within say 1-20 miles of a location is great intel that can easily lead an air-squadron to take them out, or provide intel on when they might reach a certain port, it's not enough to use a remote missile to take them out (barring the use of large nuclear payloads).

If you get your impression of our satellite tracking capabilities from "Enemy of the State" with Will Smith, I can guarantee you that the movie and those like it is complete and utter fiction on how satellite intelligence actually works.

Ships leave wakes which rulers don't and Task Forces travel in groups which others don't. Further, I'd assume that the Chinese are already tracking them and they aren't going to suddenly vanish from that scrutiny.

As I said it just seems counterintuitive

[CivilDiscourse]

Ships leave wakes which rulers don't and Task Forces travel in groups which others don't. Further, I'd assume that the Chinese are already tracking them and they aren't going to suddenly vanish from that scrutiny.

As I said it just seems counterintuitive

They do, but again, not as big as you might think in the vast ocean. I'm not saying that you can't track ships in the ocean, we can and I did. But there's a big difference between knowing the general location, and being able to target with a missile. Plus naval formations aren't nearly as tight as you see in those photos. The idea that one missile is going to take out an entire task force only holds true if you imagine you are going nuclear. If that's the case, then we might as well throw everything out the window.

The reality is the naval task force is much more relevant in today's world than you think. The ability to project our power across the world and have mobile staging platforms is not a relic of a bygone era.

It seems you are thinking heavily of imagery satellites. In general, you don't have continuous coverage with an imagery platform. They are in some sort of orbit. Either a low-earth or highly elliptical orbit. Low earth allows for fast transitions around the planet, but provide only a few quick (90 min or so) passes before a long gap while the orbit lines up again, or a longer (more continual) look over an area with longer blind-spots. Overall coverage depends not only on the orbits, but the number of sattelites in the area, and priority on where to aim the camera. One thing the movies show that is entirely unrealistic is satellite movement. In reality it takes an act of god to move a satellite once it's placed. This is because the onboard fuel is used to maintain orbit over time, and actually moving one shaves years off of it's life. It's not a task undertaken lightly. Satellite intelligence is both more and less sophisticated than what you may have in your head.

[Ronson]

Believe it or not, it can be surprisingly hard to track naval ships, even with satellites. My experience is 11 years out of date at this point, but I can speak with experience, even if I can't speak with specifics.

My guess is they can be tracked so long as you don't lose sight of them.

When I was a teenager living in Huntington Beach, CA, the city police actually owned and operated two helicopters. One night, a helicopter decided to play cat-and-mouse with us, hitting us with a spotlight. It kept turning it on and off for some reason, and every time it went off it lost track of us so we'd start running (before infrared). When the light came back on it started scanning to find us again. We finally got far enough away and in a direction they didn't anticipate and lost it.

Similarly, I assume if radar can identify certain ships before/as they leave port, and if it can keep an eye on them, then they can be tracked. But if you lose sight of them then it will be a bear to find them again in the vastness of the oceans.

[CivilDiscourse]

My guess is they can be tracked so long as you don't lose sight of them.

When I was a teenager living in Huntington Beach, CA, the city police actually owned and operated two helicopters. One night, a helicopter decided to play cat-and-mouse with us, hitting us with a spotlight. It kept turning it on and off for some reason, and every time it went off it lost track of us so we'd start running (before infrared). When the light came back on it started scanning to find us again. We finally got far enough away and in a direction they didn't anticipate and lost it.

Similarly, I assume if radar can identify certain ships before/as they leave port, and if it can keep an eye on them, then they can be tracked. But if you lose sight of them then it will be a bear to find them again in the vastness of the oceans.

Trust me, you WILL lose sight of them. (And of course, this is all assuming that chinese spy satellite technology is on par with ours, which I suspect it is not.

[Ronson]

Trust me, you WILL lose sight of them. (And of course, this is all assuming that chinese spy satellite technology is on par with ours, which I suspect it is not.

Computer apps may be able to locate ships, though, while sifting through random wave patterns looking for the shape of the ship. As long as it doesn't have to scan too far, like looking for a ship in the Indian Ocean that was last seen in the Pacific.

[CivilDiscourse]

Computer apps may be able to locate ships, though, while sifting through random wave patterns looking for the shape of the ship. As long as it doesn't have to scan too far, like looking for a ship in the Indian Ocean that was last seen in the Pacific.

Maybe, but if that ship is in a shipping lain that becomes a needle in a haystack.

Again, you CAN track and find ships in the ocean, but doing so is not necessarily easy, it depends on many factors including the behavior of the ships themselves, and it is not precise enough to use for targeting. If a ship is out of the shipping lanes, and is lighting off every radar they have it can be very easy to know (within reason) where they are, how fast they are moving, and where to intercept them with aircraft/other ships. If they are sticking to shipping lanes, only using their commercial navigation radar, using proper night-time lighting schemes, it can be downright impossible to tell them apart from the hundreds of ships that move along the ocean.

[rogue06]

They do, but again, not as big as you might think in the vast ocean. I'm not saying that you can't track ships in the ocean, we can and I did. But there's a big difference between knowing the general location, and being able to target with a missile. Plus naval formations aren't nearly as tight as you see in those photos. The idea that one missile is going to take out an entire task force only holds true if you imagine you are going nuclear. If that's the case, then we might as well throw everything out the window.

The reality is the naval task force is much more relevant in today's world than you think. The ability to project our power across the world and have mobile staging platforms is not a relic of a bygone era.

It seems you are thinking heavily of imagery satellites. In general, you don't have continuous coverage with an imagery platform. They are in some sort of orbit. Either a low-earth or highly elliptical orbit. Low earth allows for fast transitions around the planet, but provide only a few quick (90 min or so) passes before a long gap while the orbit lines up again, or a longer (more continual) look over an area with longer blind-spots. Overall coverage depends not only on the orbits, but the number of sattelites in the area, and priority on where to aim the camera. One thing the movies show that is entirely unrealistic is satellite movement. In reality it takes an act of god to move a satellite once it's placed. This is because the onboard fuel is used to maintain orbit over time, and actually moving one shaves years off of it's life. It's not a task undertaken lightly. Satellite intelligence is both more and less sophisticated than what you may have in your head.

I think I should emphasize that I'm not talking about missiles that can affect a single ship, but rather the sort than have the potential to wipe out the entire group even if you miss by a mile. A nuke. That's what I meant by "in case of a real war."

But again, I'll bow to your experience in these matters.