This is a common problem across militaries. It is difficult to stop soldiers from leaking their location if they have access to mobile phones and the Internet. Individual cases are usually a combination of naïveté, ignorance, and an unwillingness to be inconvenienced.
It still happens in Ukraine, where immediate risk to life and limb is much more severe than this case.
mrtksn 1 minutes ago [-]
IIRC USA had similar issues with soldiers using Strava exposing secret bases. I wonder wat kind of connectivity they had, was it Satellite internet for the carrier or did it sync once they got close to the shore? For the first one maybe they should switch to whitelist and not whitelist Strava.
paxys 46 minutes ago [-]
Is an aircraft carrier's location supposed to be secret? Pretty hard to hide from a satellite I'd imagine.
sandworm101 2 minutes ago [-]
>> Pretty hard to hide from a satellite I'd imagine.
Clouds.
But even on a clear day, most of the people looking to target a carrier these days (Iran/hamas etc) don't have their own satellites. But a real-time GPS position accurate to few meters? That could be tactically useful to anyone with a drone.
petee 34 minutes ago [-]
I'd guess it also risks exposing a specific account as a crew member, making them trackable back on shore; particularly if you're uploading the same routes
miningape 42 minutes ago [-]
No need to make it easier though
nickburns 43 minutes ago [-]
Le Monde making use of what's actually available to them in real time—is the story here.
dgrin91 41 minutes ago [-]
Satellite images are not always real time. Also satellites can be affected by things like cloud cover.
jandrewrogers 11 minutes ago [-]
Clouds only affect a narrow range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Plenty of satellite constellations use synthetic aperture radar, for example, which can see ships regardless of cloud cover. There are gaps in revisit rates, especially over the ocean, but even that has come way down.
fuoqi 19 minutes ago [-]
For tracking of military ships it's much better to use radar imaging satellites (e.g. see [0]). They can cover a larger area, see ships really well, and almost not affected by weather.
I will not be surprised if China has a constellation of such satellites to track US carriers and it's why Pentagon keeps them relatively far from Iran, since it's likely that China confidentially shares targeting information with them.
>Is an aircraft carrier's location supposed to be secret?
Yes.
ImPostingOnHN 24 minutes ago [-]
Many countries do not have ready access to satellite imagery, much less realtime satellite imagery. Iran, for example.
NoMoreNicksLeft 33 minutes ago [-]
Sometimes there are things that you don't want publicly known even if they're not strictly secret.
mmooss 25 minutes ago [-]
> Pretty hard to hide from a satellite I'd imagine.
At one time I guessed that too, but I've heard navy people explain that it's actually pretty effective. Imagine saying 'pretty hard to hide in North America from a satellite' - it's actually not hard because the area is so large; there aren't live images of the entire area and someone needs to examine them. Oceans are an order of magnitude larger.
A significant element of security for naval ships is hiding in the ocean. US aircraft carrier planes have a ~500 mi effective radius without refueling; even if you see a plane, all you know is that the ship might be in a ~3,142 square mile area. And remember that to target them, you need a precise target and the ships tend to be moving.
With ML image recognition at least some of that security is lost. Also, the Mediterranean is smaller than the oceans, but the precision issue applies. And we might guess that countries keep critical areas under constant surveillance - e.g., I doubt anything sails near the Taiwan Strait without many countries having a live picture.
orian 25 minutes ago [-]
Maybe it was just an old stupid treason? Someone against the war and… hard to believe there are no rules about location.
Unrelated but the UK has 2 aircraft carriers (but not enough planes, but that's for a different time). Why aren't they being deployed? this war is literally the reason why they were built. It's not a declaration of war to project your military power to a region you have an interest in. But of course our navy is a laughingstock, taking a full week to deploy a solitary destroyer while our bases are under attack. (and the US basically broadcast their intentions months in advance). Meanwhile the straight of Hormuz needs defending and that is also something that's very much in the UKs interest as its continued closure is costing our economy. I'm confused what the logic is.
rcxdude 14 minutes ago [-]
I think the international community is demonstrating to the US that they can't drop their military support for their allies and also expect that they still help to clean up their messes.
detaro 6 minutes ago [-]
deploy and do what exactly? Get involved and potentially sacrifice a few UK soldiers to stroke Trumps ego? Sit around and look pretty? Having a carrier there doesn't magically make problems go away.
Ekaros 9 minutes ago [-]
You do not put your resources in danger unless you are actually ready to commit to it. And I mean possible loss of them and then entering to much hotter war.
14 minutes ago [-]
Remi_Etien 35 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
Rendered at 14:31:33 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
It still happens in Ukraine, where immediate risk to life and limb is much more severe than this case.
Clouds.
But even on a clear day, most of the people looking to target a carrier these days (Iran/hamas etc) don't have their own satellites. But a real-time GPS position accurate to few meters? That could be tactically useful to anyone with a drone.
I will not be surprised if China has a constellation of such satellites to track US carriers and it's why Pentagon keeps them relatively far from Iran, since it's likely that China confidentially shares targeting information with them.
[0]: https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Coperni...
Yes.
At one time I guessed that too, but I've heard navy people explain that it's actually pretty effective. Imagine saying 'pretty hard to hide in North America from a satellite' - it's actually not hard because the area is so large; there aren't live images of the entire area and someone needs to examine them. Oceans are an order of magnitude larger.
A significant element of security for naval ships is hiding in the ocean. US aircraft carrier planes have a ~500 mi effective radius without refueling; even if you see a plane, all you know is that the ship might be in a ~3,142 square mile area. And remember that to target them, you need a precise target and the ships tend to be moving.
With ML image recognition at least some of that security is lost. Also, the Mediterranean is smaller than the oceans, but the precision issue applies. And we might guess that countries keep critical areas under constant surveillance - e.g., I doubt anything sails near the Taiwan Strait without many countries having a live picture.