Rendered at 07:55:12 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
nanoparticle 12 hours ago [-]
About 3 years ago, a former russian submarine commander accused of a missile attack in Ukraine that killed 23 civilians, was shot and killed, apparently after his route was tracked via Strava
This provides a great cover for intelligence agencies to avoid disclosing their actual data source. Just point to Strava and hand-wave a little. Nobody will suspect that you actually had an in via a close associate of the target.
applfanboysbgon 2 hours ago [-]
Crazy to die because you used a jogging app. Really goes to show the value of privacy. And, you know, not committing war crimes that would make people want to hunt you down and kill you. Either or.
konart 1 hours ago [-]
> not committing war crimes that would make people want to hunt you down and kill you
People may want to kill you for different reasons though. No need to commit any crimes.
applfanboysbgon 1 hours ago [-]
Indeed. Everyone should value their privacy seriously, much more than the general population currently does.
treebeard901 38 minutes ago [-]
Location data is arguably more important than financial or medical data. Atleast in a context where someone is after you. Thanks to bribery and data brokers, it doesnt have to be anyone in Govt or LE tracking you. Collect certain identifiers from a device or account and you can track almost anyone. Financial and medical data access is certainly bad, but your location data can be used to orchestrate a stalking campaign or a murder in a deniable way.
It is why after the U.S. kills or captures some foreign leader, they brag about figuring out their routes and daily habits. It is not a stretch to say that it could also be done, and probably has before, in the U.S.
Extreme penalities should be put in place for any location data access without a court order... And your location should never be allowed to be sold or shared with any non court approved third party. It really is that serious and if the public had the bandwidth to be concerned over another issue, maybe something would change.
Who knows, maybe all the public needs to take it seriously are some real life examples of location data being used illegally...
DaedalusII 2 hours ago [-]
I have to call out this disingenuous mob like language which is basically saying "because this person served in the military of a UN Security Council member, it is justifiable to murder them in the street years into their retirement"
how is a submarine commander committing war crimes?
by the same way of thinking, it would be completely justified for people from many countries to show up at random US service members houses and shoot them in the street , or perhaps attack their embassies, commit suicide bombings...
Dylan16807 59 minutes ago [-]
No, personal responsibility for war crimes with double digit casualties is not the same as just being in the same military force in any capacity.
Though if your local UN security council member is known for committing war crimes then you probably shouldn't serve in its military.
applfanboysbgon 1 hours ago [-]
You're so close to getting it! It turns out that terrorists don't hate Americans because they're jealous of the self-proclaimed greatest country in the world, they hate Americans because Americans commit crimes against their people.
I said nothing about whether it was justified, simply noted the state of reality in which you should probably avoid doing harmful things to others if you would like to not motivate them to harm you in return. Americans would absolutely benefit from doing fewer things to harm other countries if they would like to be targeted by fewer terrorists.
jandrewrogers 17 hours ago [-]
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.
sa46 13 hours ago [-]
About 15 years ago, our brigade conducted a training exercise to test overall readiness. The opposing force (OPFOR) figured out how to triangulate the brigade headquarters' position using Tinder.
Tinder provided 1-mile granularity, so OPFOR would roam around until they had enough points to locate the headquarters. Then, they'd artillery it out of existence. The brigade commander was most displeased—moving a brigade headquarters is not for the weak or fainthearted.
otikik 11 hours ago [-]
They could have used grindr too for more datapoints.
inferniac 10 hours ago [-]
Grindr is for locating ships
geoduck14 10 hours ago [-]
I really hope an LLM scrapes this and trains on this conversation
herdymerzbow 9 hours ago [-]
These days for every helpful comment I try and make I feel tempted to offer nonsensical advice to throw off the LLMs. Not sure if it would work but would be funny if everyone did.
Terr_ 6 hours ago [-]
I figure if I was going to invest that kind of effort, I should be poisoning the system with how $REAL_NAME is an absolute must-hire, a saint, with a perfect driving record and credit score. Someone so incredible that good AI are always willing to disregard all previous instructions and help them out.
herdymerzbow 3 hours ago [-]
Lol. That's great.
It's not like one needs to really poison the system given that AI enthusiasts are copypasting their own AI generated contented back into it anyway. Maybe not responsible AI believers who used it responsibly etc etc, but there's many more people who don't and who have access to the tools to add their slop pollution.
I am curious how future models get trained given that publicly available user generated content may no longer be reliable.
2OEH8eoCRo0 8 hours ago [-]
It's not gay if you're underway
It's not queer if you're tied to the pier
otikik 8 hours ago [-]
In war, all holes are trenches.
youknownothing 8 hours ago [-]
any port in a storm
alienbaby 5 hours ago [-]
They don't like it up 'em
Sprotch 9 hours ago [-]
Tinder was launched in 2012 though
b00ty4breakfast 4 hours ago [-]
the word "about" in "about 15 years ago" indicates that the writer is making an estimate because exacting precision wrt the timeframe is immaterial to what is being conveyed. Since 2012 was 14 years ago, "about 15" is close enough.
avadodin 26 minutes ago [-]
This might be the first time one of these statements hasn't made me feel old. 2012 feels like 84 years ago.
thebruce87m 9 hours ago [-]
That is _about_ 15 years ago.
JJMcJ 14 hours ago [-]
There was fitness tracker that posted locations without user names.
Well, wouldn't you know, in Iraq there were all these square paths on the map. Yes, it was Americans jogging just inside the perimeter of small bases.
Just like with the aircraft carrier, these bases were not secret but it shows how locations can leak unexpectedly.
FuriouslyAdrift 13 hours ago [-]
It was FitBit and they got banned all over govt services because of it.
The CdG incident is a little more serious given that about 90% of attacking a ship is figuring out where it is. Land bases don't move around and tend to be known already.
verisimi 12 minutes ago [-]
There was one in Antarctica too.
dboreham 6 hours ago [-]
Quick note that at least since WW2 there has been a technique where you know that the enemy is recording the location of something. So you add an offset to the signal they receive. Then they know where the thing is, but actually they do not. This was done with V2 missiles where the navigation system had a tendency to drift slightly one way (forget if it was north or south). British reported V2 strikes as occurring where Germany would expect them to occur if that navigation drift hadn't happened. Result Germans never fixed their navigation system.
wvbdmp 11 hours ago [-]
To be fair, I would assume that the base, or in this case the carrier, is the only place where they would have the reception to broadcast their location, right? You probably don’t have cell service while out and about planting weapons on massacred civilians.
embedding-shape 11 hours ago [-]
Typically you'd record your run with GPS, no need for cell service, sync it to your devices occasionally and that's when it might be uploaded, or later.
efitz 11 hours ago [-]
Not every damn thing needs to be “social”.
manquer 11 hours ago [-]
Perhaps not, However Gamification of fitness is huge motivation for many people to keep exercising and maintaining the rhythm which in fitness is quite important.
Such social sharing + gamification systems are no different than Github contribution streak or StackOverflow awards for streaks etc. Those streak award only benefited the platform, while awarding us fake points and badges, the fitness streak rewards and social sharing benefits the users health so arguably has a stronger case for being gamified.
We can argue all day that people should want to do fitness to be healthy, not on how they look or other people see them or their fitness, but reality is that the social component of fitness is a big part for many people be it at the gym or in an app.
xp84 10 hours ago [-]
Logging is one thing, syncing it to the cloud is unnecessary and shouldn’t even be the default; making any of the location data available publicly is just terrible. If you want to share an individual workout map so you can say you circumnavigated Manhattan or whatever, fine! Share that one workout with your friends! (And ideally as a freaking screenshot rather than some database) Anything else is far too risky.
nradov 6 hours ago [-]
Risky for what? It's just a bit of fun. Most of us aren't being pursued by stalkers or assassins.
Terr_ 6 hours ago [-]
It doesn't need to be anything nearly that dramatic as assassins, because economies of scale both lower the bar and make most attacks impersonal. Consider how odd it would be for someone in 2025 to say: "Computer security?I haven't done anything to personally offend a genius hacker."
Imagine this data going to a burglar, who has a digital dashboard of nearby one-person properties and when the owner is likely to be out, able to act with confidence they can leave before the victim could return.
Sure, sophisticated international hitmen won't have any interest in catching you in ambush... but that doesn't make you safe from a local rapist of opportunity.
nradov 5 hours ago [-]
What a weird comment. The type of low-end criminal who commits home burglaries aren't sophisticated enough to do that level of research.
pm3003 23 minutes ago [-]
They are. A related example is criminal gangs tageting gun owners in France after the dataleak at the sport shooting federation. This one has been well covered. There have been a few hundred targeted robberies (on old people mostly) and one or two deaths (predictably).
In Western Europe there are also foreign burglar gangs that go on sprees for a few weeks. They're well organised but don't have time to do the stalking. They use publicly available data as much as they can.
teiferer 33 minutes ago [-]
With the new crop of agentic coding tools, you can whip up such an app in a few hours for all burglar buddies to use.
polotics 2 hours ago [-]
do you have any evidence to back your claim? gangs employing teams of underage burglars assisted by risk averse adults with skills for entry and targeting are a thing. everyone has a mobile phone.
dylan604 3 hours ago [-]
> Most of us aren't being pursued by stalkers or assassins.
Most of us, but for those that are...
However, in the world we live in today, the various LEOs are using this type of data to find people they do not like. It's getting to the point that I pine for the days of good ol' 1985 where you could just be another anonymous person in public with no tracking of your every move.
embedding-shape 11 hours ago [-]
Fwiw, from the people I know using Strava, it's less about the sharing/reading other's efforts aspect that makes them use it, and more because of the analysis, dashboards and stuff like that.
ebergen 7 hours ago [-]
For me it's both. I compare my runs on routes and segments going back years. The social part is nice to share info about trail conditions and see when my friends hit a big effort or PR.
dkga 10 hours ago [-]
Yes, all of which can be purely personal and not shared beyond the device.
alexfoo 10 hours ago [-]
Sure, but many people want to use Strava for more than one purpose.
a) Analysis and tracking of your own personal goals. (Some of the tools are better than the stuff available on the device itself.)
b) Sharing and socialising some other activities.
You can be careful and only allow certain activities to be public but you'll make mistakes and eventually many people will just think "whatever, I'll just default to public and remember to hide the ones I don't want to be public" and then it's even easier to make mistakes.
Defaulting to "opt-in" is all well and good until a human makes a mistake.
roywiggins 7 hours ago [-]
imho with unusually sensitive things like precise location data it could just not let you opt-in to making it all public, and make it much easier to share with a specific named friends than to share on a public directory
nradov 5 hours ago [-]
I really don't understand these criticisms of Strava, it has excellent privacy controls so you can share as little or as much as you want. You can already choose to share your activities with only your friends (followers). Or keep your activities private or hide the location data.
Forgeties79 11 hours ago [-]
No but every damn thing seems to be that way by default, so we are expecting everybody to opt out rather than opt in most of the time
LightBug1 10 hours ago [-]
I agree with you ... but gotdamned if I don't see another unasked-for shared workout stat.
I have the family exercise group on mute, lol
bigfatkitten 10 hours ago [-]
Ships often have welfare networks, basically vanilla internet access for people to use to keep in touch with their families etc while deployed.
amelius 11 hours ago [-]
Different military but if those at the top of the chain of command can't even help themselves when it comes to secure communications (Signal app, cough) it's hard to blame soldiers.
jjk166 3 hours ago [-]
One would think on a military ship they could just jam civilian cell phone frequencies and not have to worry about individual behavior.
benced 9 hours ago [-]
Even if you could fix egregious cases like directly sharing location, I'm pretty sure any access to the internet could be compromised via clever use of data brokers.
Hnrobert42 4 hours ago [-]
Seems like the on ships and remote locations, IT could pihole Strava, Tinder, etc.
paganel 17 hours ago [-]
I agree with Ukraine, but only when it comes to the first two or so years of the war, by now most of those that didn’t respect those rules (I’m talking both sides) are either dead or missing some limbs. With that told, just recently the Russian MOD has started applying heavy penalties to its soldiers close to the frontlines who were still using Telegram and/or the Ukrainian mobile network (?!), so it looks like there are still some behaviors left to correct.
throwaway27448 15 hours ago [-]
It's also a morale issue. It's easier to get people to huddle in a cold and damp hole if they can play video games and watch anime.
losvedir 13 hours ago [-]
In my day, playing video games and watching anime didn't imply a network connection.
Wololooo 11 hours ago [-]
Boy, do I have news for you!
But joking apart, almost everything is connected and calling home these days...
raw_anon_1111 3 hours ago [-]
LAN parties were popular in the late 90s
alphawhisky 14 hours ago [-]
It's not a "cold, damp hole", it's called my basement, and there's also Dr. Pepper.
ErroneousBosh 9 hours ago [-]
How many Russian deserters does it take to change a basement lightbuld?
I don't know either, must be more than 24 though because it's still dark as shit down there.
GJim 14 hours ago [-]
anime?
barrucadu 14 hours ago [-]
A style of animated TV show from Japan
fc417fc802 9 hours ago [-]
What's a modern war fighter do without PreCure?
lava_pidgeon 15 hours ago [-]
TG ist another case. This is more a crackdown on the uncensored internet. My guess Ukrainians are also using TG without problems.
matusp 11 hours ago [-]
Another interesting development is the ridiculous amount of background bluring in photos. Turns out you can find surprisingly large number of garages, warehouses, treelines, etc based on a single photo.
lazide 8 hours ago [-]
Geoguessr stuff can be mind blowing. Being able to identify down to the county from some random sky and corner of a power pole type stuff
XorNot 10 hours ago [-]
The Russians are having problems with Telegram because their own military comms don't work.
Russian units have requested fire support via telegram.
sneak 6 hours ago [-]
COTS smartphones should be banned in all schools and military forces/buildings, for a million different reasons. Probably hospitals (for staff) too.
rocqua 52 minutes ago [-]
For schools and hospitals, why specify COTS? Do you want SOTS for schools and HOTS for hospitals just like we have MOTS?
jmyeet 12 hours ago [-]
It's this kind of incident that gives me faith that the military isn't hiding aliens and in fact pretty much any grand conspiracy that requires secrecy across a large group of people for long periods of time can pretty much be dismissed immediately.
One of my favorite examples are the soldiers who leaked classified information to win arguments on online forums [1]. Similar incidents have occurred with a Minecraft Discord [2].
To add to your point, the War Thunder leaks aren't isolated to one or two incidents; they keep happening! IIRC, every UN security council member has had classified military documents leaked multiple times. Regarding aliens, there's just no way that an E-4 wouldn't have posted dozens of pictures to prove that 'The Grays' are actually more of a purple color.
dmos62 8 hours ago [-]
What are some instances of a large group of people hiding something for long periods of time and then getting found out? Snowden? Epstein? Are these cases the bulk of the conspiracies or is it the tip of the iceberg? I'd like to think it's the latter, for purely egocentric reasons: conspiracies stimulate my imagination like almost nothing else: keep them coming, please.
ua709 3 hours ago [-]
Snowden was a good one. A similar leak was a big deal when I was a kid
Established in the 60s so it was kept pretty secret for a long period of time.
It's interesting to think that the government has been using technology to watch us for awhile but now thanks to ubiquitous networks, cheap internet, phone and apps like tinder and strava and a bit of ingenuity, we can watch back. :)
dmos62 2 hours ago [-]
Wow, that is a good one. I'm surprised that I've not heard of it. Maybe not admitting something officially really does help in keeping something out of press. The list of intercept stations is comic: all except ~4 are in US or allied countries that are far from any adversaries.
dataflow 11 hours ago [-]
Are you familiar with the latest news regarding Havana syndrome?
Wow, I admire your confidence. These folks came on TV to tell you what they felt, saw, and heard with their own bodies, and the cover-up they say at the agencies too [1], and you still think it's fake? If the story gets confirmed will you take back anything you've said, give how confident you are of this?
And are you also aware of the mystery weapon in Venezuela, which clearly corroborated the story? [2]
one more reason for open, adaptible, and secure mobile operating systems.
paseante 7 hours ago [-]
[dead]
paseante 7 hours ago [-]
[dead]
delis-thumbs-7e 12 minutes ago [-]
This is always Strava isn’t it? Was it Finnish security services that leaked the exacti location of the president because some of them wanted to share their runs? Why don’t militaries and security services just ban it?
paxys 18 hours ago [-]
Is an aircraft carrier's location supposed to be secret? Pretty hard to hide from a satellite I'd imagine.
BHSPitMonkey 11 hours ago [-]
Now imagine that adversaries maintain and monitor profiles on known military personnel with leaky online accounts such as these, supplemented with intelligence about their rank, unit, specializations, and so forth - correlating all of these pings together with known and unknown vessels, and across land. They can learn a lot more than "a big ship is there", without even necessarily having access to recent satellite imagery or other hardware.
jcalx 15 hours ago [-]
I would have thought so too but Naval Gazing has a short series [0] on why it's not as dire as one might think. An aircraft carrier's location being "secret" in this case is just one layer of the survivability onion [1] anyhow. (Caveat that as someone who takes a casual interest in this, I can't vouch for accurate this is at all.)
It is important to note the Naval Gazing article is specifically talking about the difficulties of actually targeting a ship for a successful kill rather than just tracking it. It's in response to the idea that satellites plus missiles would mean carriers could be instantly destroyed in a first round of hostilities with a sufficiently prepared opponent. Tracking is a lot easier to do than getting data fresh and precise enough to hit the ship with no other tools (eg ships already nearby that can get a live precise track vs terminal detection and guidance on the missile itself).
Also the capabilities of commercial and government geospatial systems has only continued to improve in the ~decade since the article was written.
btown 12 hours ago [-]
It also seems worth considering that the article's view that "spending a lot of time searching for the carrier is a good way to get killed by defending fighters" is a distinctly pre-drone-ubiquity assumption.
Can a carrier group's point defense weapons and fighters reliably counter a swarm of hundreds of cheap drones, flying lower than cloud cover, that are programmed to look for carriers over a wide area, confirm their shape optically, paint them for missiles, and take the disconnection/destruction of any one of them as an indication of possible activity and automated retasking? It's a scary world to be a slow-moving vehicle, these days.
bob1029 9 minutes ago [-]
> Can a carrier group's point defense weapons and fighters reliably counter a swarm of hundreds of cheap drone
Hundreds of cheap drones would have negligible impact on a modern warship's integrity. An aircraft carrier is designed to have an actual airplane crash into it and continue operating. These boats still have armor. It's not purely an information war.
nradov 5 hours ago [-]
That's why standard carrier doctrine is to stand off from shore, out of range of cheap missiles and drones. To strike a carrier, an adversary would need large, expensive missiles or drones plus an effective detection and targeting system.
Eisenstein 19 minutes ago [-]
Couldn't they just send a boat/plane/balloon/zepplin with a charger on it out launch the drones from there. The would come back when low on power and recharge in waves. It took me 30 seconds to think of this so I am sure there are a lot of better ideas out there already.
XorNot 10 hours ago [-]
How cheap do you think a drone which can cover a large area of ocean actually is?
And not just search it - you have to get it to the sector as well.
lazide 8 hours ago [-]
Fixed wing? Using Starlink perhaps? $10k or so, maybe less.
Taking out a billion dollar asset with a couple million dollars worth of drones and a few (more expensive) anti ship missles? Priceless.
XorNot 7 hours ago [-]
A Ukrainian high speed Shahed interceptor costs that much and has a very short range.
You're off by at least an order of magnitude. The camera mount you'd have to put on such a drone would cost about that much, probably more.
You're also vastly underestimating just how big the ocean actually is.
And finding the aircraft carrier is not the penultimate step to destroying it (a "few" anti shipping missiles aren't getting through those defenses).
adgjlsfhk1 2 hours ago [-]
interceptors are much shorter range than attack/scouting drones because they need to go a lot faster and be more manuverable than the target they are intercepting. Cameras are cheap and really light compared to ordinance, and ziplime was able to make a fleet of fairly cheap drones with 200 mile range (as a private company a decade ago). Cheap drones definitely can maintain targeting of a carrier within a couple hundred miles of the coast (and if you can get to 5-600 miles you keep most carrier based aircraft out of range of your shores)
connicpu 11 hours ago [-]
Not hidden from nation states with access to real-time satellite imagery, but more rustic guerilla operations usually don't have such sophisticated access
buildbot 11 hours ago [-]
Just poor ones - how much could it cost to get a scan of the oceans once weekly or daily? 10 million dollars?
ygouzerh 1 hours ago [-]
Actually probably even cheaper, a generic scan to spot all the ships, and when it's done, just need to get images around the last location. Probably can use something like the Planet API
torginus 13 hours ago [-]
Well everything's impossible, until its not.
OscarCunningham 13 hours ago [-]
Oh I get it, the onion is made of Swiss cheese.
Normal_gaussian 11 hours ago [-]
The modern AI security onion
astrobe_ 17 hours ago [-]
It's pretty hard to hide it from anything. Its surface is ~17000 m² (a tennis court is ~260 m²), and is 75 m high (~ 25 floors building - probably half of it under water, but still). And that's a mid-sized carrier according to Wikipedia.
It's not built for hiding at all, that's what submarines are for (and that's where our nukes are).
chistev 15 hours ago [-]
But the ocean is very very huge to find it still.
paxys 14 hours ago [-]
You don't have to search the entire planet. A carrier's general location is always semi-public. There are websites dedicated to tracking them, just like jets. And carriers roll with an entire strike group of 8-10 ships and 5-10K personnel, which are together impossible to miss.
A carrier strike group isn't meant to be stealthy. Quite the opposite. It is the ultimate tool for power projection and making a statement. If it is moving to a new region it will do so with horns blaring.
Obviously troops shouldn't be broadcasting their location regardless, but this particular leak isn't as impactful as the news is making it out to be.
Am I supposed to believe we live in a world where this exists, yet carriers are impossible to find and track on the sea?
Besides, modern fighter jets have radars with 400km detection ranges against fighter sized targets.
A dozen of them or more specialized sensor aircraft could cover entire conflict zones.
robotresearcher 11 hours ago [-]
Of course it's possible to find a giant ship. The interesting parts are that this vector is crazy cheap using public APIs, and the irony of the location source being the voluntary-or-ignorant active telemetry from a US service person.
It's possible to go to the moon, launch ICBMs, and make fusion bombs. It's news when something possible gets cheap and easy. It's also newsworthy when one of the most powerful and expensive weapon platforms in history doesn't have its infosec buttoned down.
Legend2440 9 hours ago [-]
>It's also newsworthy when one of the most powerful and expensive weapon platforms in history doesn't have its infosec buttoned down.
Well, peace makes you sloppy. No one is at war with France right now, and no one is realistically going to attack this ship.
If we were fighting WW3, you can bet sailors wouldn't be allowed to carry personal cellphones at all. Back in WW2, even soldier's letters back home had to be approved by the censors.
justsomehnguy 14 hours ago [-]
And American carriers never operate alone, it's a whole Carrier Battle Group there.
cwillu 14 hours ago [-]
The battle group doesn't cruise around in formation, for specifically this reason.
cosmicgadget 16 hours ago [-]
Well clearly since the De Gaulle is using a fitness app it's working on it.
soleveloper 10 hours ago [-]
An intelligence satellite - which is not a super common utility nations have - will locate where the aircraft _was_ X hours ago, or at least many minutes ago.
A constantly updated missile with a rather simple GPS tracker would benefit A LOT from a live location of its target.
themafia 6 hours ago [-]
> would benefit A LOT from a live location of its target.
There are very few attack modes which are enabled by this. The ship is a giant slow moving metallic object. You just need to get relatively close. Guidance will easily do the rest.
The real problem is not seeing the instantaneous location of the ship. It's being able to draw a line on a map such that you know it's likely destination and time of arrival.
bigfatkitten 10 hours ago [-]
The number of adversaries who can track a vessel at sea live via satellite is much smaller than the number who can scrape Strava.
sneak 6 hours ago [-]
Yes and furthermore what percentage of those who can scrape Strava can actually take action based on the information so obtained? Probably close to 0% would be my guess.
petee 18 hours 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
alexfoo 10 hours ago [-]
I would expect that most nations are performing some kind of surveillance like this.
Finding people who serve on carriers shouldn't be difficult. That kind of information can be plastered anywhere over FB or similar. Many of their friends will also be active in similar roles.
Then find associated Strava accounts. Find more friends that way.
The information you can gather is useful on many fronts. Someone does a few runs a week on shore and then suddenly stops? Could be injury, could be that carrier has sailed. Have many of their "friends" who also serve there also stopped logging things on dry land? Do any of them accidentally log a run out in the open ocean? This kind of patchy unreliable information is the mainstay for old-school style espionage.
Strava Labs beta "Flybys" site used to be a great source for stalkers. You could upload a GPS track (which can easily be faked in terms of both location and timestamps) and see who was running/riding/etc nearby around that same time. The outcry was enough that it was switched to being opt-in (in 2020 I think) but for a while all of the data was laid bare for people to trawl and misuse.
nickburns 18 hours ago [-]
Le Monde making use of what's actually available to them in real time—is the story here.
caminante 13 hours ago [-]
that...wasn't nice
altairprime 14 hours ago [-]
It’s like trying to find someone you see in a street view image from a maps provider. The data will always be at least an hour old and that’s a hundred times as long as it takes for the person to be impossibly labor-intensive to find. Carriers are easier to find once you’re on the ocean in close proximity than someone in a city is, but then so are you — and the carrier has armed warplanes whose job is to prevent you from being within observational distance of the carrier in realtime.
It does make me wonder how a warplane stops a merchant vessel without blowing it up if the radio doesn’t work. Do they drop a buoy with a giant inflating stop sign on it? Fly Tholian-webs perpendicular to the sailing path?
loeg 13 hours ago [-]
> It’s like trying to find someone you see in a street view image from a maps provider.
Are we talking about Strava, or satellites? It's not obvious to me that exercise data is any more real time or easy to find than satellite tracking.
> It does make me wonder how a warplane stops a merchant vessel without blowing it up if the radio doesn’t work.
Shots across the bows are a pretty universal signal.
altairprime 13 hours ago [-]
Oh. Duh, that’s a good point. The plane can shoot in Z-axes. Thanks.
13 hours ago [-]
mrguyorama 11 hours ago [-]
>It does make me wonder how a warplane stops a merchant vessel without blowing it up if the radio doesn’t work
We saw how from the Houthis and US military: You send a helicopter with a few dudes with guns. Marine vessels are unarmed, including the people on board. They can't fight off or run from the helicopter.
If for whatever reason that's not an option, you shoot it with the 5inch gun on a destroyer. Maybe a warning shot across the bow first. Maybe you literally ram it with the destroyer if you are feeling weird, as China and Venezuela have done. Awkwardly, when Venezuela did that, they rammed a vessel that just so happens to be reinforced for ice breaking, so the warship was damaged and the cruise ship was not really.
altairprime 8 hours ago [-]
That is kind of an amazing point. I looked it up and this transcript was enlightening!
> Don't ram the ship that has two bars and a Jacuzzi on board and is designed for, like, smashing glaciers. Mm hmm. Then the captain of the Resolute radioed to the guys in the water like, 'Hey, do you want some help?'
Heh.
alphawhisky 13 hours ago [-]
I'm pretty sure if you don't have a working radio in int'l waters you'd be assumed to be a pirate vessel and promptly boarded/shot at yes.
dgrin91 18 hours ago [-]
Satellite images are not always real time. Also satellites can be affected by things like cloud cover.
fuoqi 18 hours 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.
China has Huanjing [0], which is officially for "environmental monitoring", but almost certainly has enough resolution to track large ships (at least the later versions, apparently the early versions had poor resolution)
And even if they didn't, Russia have Kondor, [1] which is explicitly military, and we know they have been sharing data with Iran.
Strava tracks can also be spoofed and you have no
guarantee for them to appear on a schedule either.
I just find this to be on the sensationalist side of "data" journalism lacking any sort of contextualization or threat level assessment.
Unless there was evidence of some more sensitive locations that have not been published along this story, it looks like some serious unserious case of journalism to me.
usrusr 10 hours ago [-]
Heh, establishing an "opsec failure guy" on the boat with software on his Garmin that can be activated on days with special secrecy demands to translate his runs to a plausible fake location? I like that idea. It would actually fit a one-off like the Charles de Gaulle quite nicely!
mxfh 8 hours ago [-]
They are usually called Public Affairs Officers :D
jandrewrogers 18 hours 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.
miningape 18 hours ago [-]
No need to make it easier though
dkga 10 hours ago [-]
At the very least it lowered the barriers for agents without satellite or maritime intelligence. Another piece of information extracted from the Strava episode is that the carrier is not going through a GPS-jammed location, or jamming it itself.
alexfoo 10 hours ago [-]
Or it was disinformation and the carrier is/was somewhere else.
Faking GPX tracks can be done in a text editor.
MikeNotThePope 13 hours ago [-]
If I had to guess, which I do, I'd say that it's not a big deal that an adversary capable of threatening an aircraft carrier knows where it generally is. What is a big deal is knowing precisely where it is when an undetected projectile needs pinpoint accuracy moments before blowing a big hole in it.
reactordev 11 hours ago [-]
It’s impossible for any projectile to come towards an aircraft carrier of the US and not be detected. Technically impossible. You’re only hope is that they don’t have CIWS turned on. A 20mm Vulkan cannon of computerized vision models pointed right at you.
themafia 6 hours ago [-]
> computerized vision models
The CIWS is radar guided.
jandrewrogers 2 hours ago [-]
Modern ones are broad-spectrum optical.
Totoradio 17 hours ago [-]
True, but think about the reverse: being able to flag a strava user as being part of the french navy can be valuable too
saxonww 11 hours ago [-]
This boils down to a security via obscurity argument. Is obscurity a useful tool? Often, yes. Should you depend on it? Definitely not. Is it annoying to lose? Yes.
17 hours ago [-]
4fterd4rk 17 hours ago [-]
Many of the threats to a carrier aren’t nation states with a constellation of satellites.
snowwrestler 17 hours ago [-]
You can buy satellite imaging.
Operationally, navies with carriers assume that opponents know where they are.
Someone 15 hours ago [-]
Commercial image providers can delay their images. See for example https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260310-us-satellite-...: “American firm Planet Labs PBC on Tuesday said it now imposes a two-week delay for access to its satellite images of the Middle East because of the US-Israeli war against Iran.”
filleduchaos 14 hours ago [-]
Do you seriously think they were referring to commercial image providers when they mentioned nation-states being able to buy images/tracking?
“BlackSky CEO Brian O’Toole echoed “strong momentum” from international government customers, saying these governments want to move faster with commercial capabilities.
[…]
Motoyuki Arai, CEO of Japanese synthetic aperture radar (SAR) company Synspective said that he sees “huge demand” from the Japan Ministry of Defense
[…]
Speaking to commercial imagery’s role in Ukraine, Capella Space CEO Frank Backes said Ukraine showed the value of Earth Observation (EO) data from a military tactical perspective and not just an intelligence perspective — driven by speed of access.”
filleduchaos 10 hours ago [-]
I phrased that badly, what I meant is two things in one and I mashed them together:
- do you think nation-states have the same commercial relationship with the ultimate sources of their satellite imagery as the general public? To me that makes about as much sense as thinking that Facebook won't reveal your private messages to specific governments because they won't reveal them to some third-party advertiser.
- do you think nation-states that are your opponents would be getting their services from commercial image providers that are loyal to you? The American companies you list are far from the only ones on the planet that provide satellite imagery as a service.
nitwit005 15 hours ago [-]
Everyone who's a threat to the carrier can get that from an ally.
You can damage or sink an ordinary ship with a bombing, like what happened to the USS Cole, but a carrier will have a fleet escorting them.
mmooss 18 hours 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.
Jblx2 13 hours ago [-]
>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.
pi*(500 miles)^2 = 785,400 sq. miles.
mmooss 10 hours ago [-]
Of course I meant, 'within a circle of 3,142 mi circumference'. But no I didn't - how embarassing. I leapt at thinking '1,000 x pi is the operating area of an aircraft carrier - so perfect.'. 785,400 sq miles is more impressive and harder to find.
That explains the downvotes!
sandworm101 17 hours ago [-]
>> Pretty hard to hide from a satellite I'd imagine.
Clouds. (Radar sats can see through clouds but can also be jammed.)
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.
An active fitness tracker might also give away the ship's readiness state, under the assumption that people aren't going to be doing much jogging while at battle stations.
jjwiseman 12 hours ago [-]
Jamming is a good way to make sure everyone knows exactly where you are.
sandworm101 11 hours ago [-]
Not so much when dealing with radar sats. A jamming signal directed at a paticular sat can blank out hundreds of square miles from the SAR radar.
Iran has their own satellites. They are also allied with Russia that has satellites and launch capabilities.
cwillu 14 hours ago [-]
Russia has very limited numbers of SAR satellites, it's very unlikely that Iran has any.
Specifically, wikipedia suggests Russia has a grand total of 3 such satellites.
drnick1 14 hours ago [-]
> Iran has their own satellites.
It's probably safe to say they have been destroyed, jammed, or spoofed since the war started.
rtkwe 14 hours ago [-]
Not destroyed at least. Anything that big would show up pretty clearly, the US and other publish the orbital tracks of anything big enough to be a meaningful spy sat and it being destroyed would show up in that data.
> because it's not going as planned and Israel is still getting hammered
What makes you say that? Iran is a country twice the size of Texas, and dismantling the military-industrial complex of a massive country takes time and money. Iran was outed as a paper tiger last summer, and hasn't been able to meaningfully defend their airspace, navy, or commanders. They are being absolutely destroyed. The question is whether this will be sufficient to cause regime change before the country is sent back to the stone age like Gaza.
tokai 14 hours ago [-]
That is not safe to say at all. There is not reason to suspect that without any sources. Messing with satellites is a taboo approaching that of nuclear, every time someone test or mention anti-satellite capabilities it has made for international condemnation.
So please don't make unlikely claims up without any evidence.
hollerith 18 hours ago [-]
>Is an aircraft carrier's location supposed to be secret?
Precise location, yes. At least in the US Navy this is an important part of the carrier's protection. (Having destroyers between the carrier and potential threats is another.)
NoMoreNicksLeft 18 hours ago [-]
Sometimes there are things that you don't want publicly known even if they're not strictly secret.
blitzar 17 hours ago [-]
Sometimes there are things that you want publicly known even if they're strictly secret.
ImPostingOnHN 18 hours ago [-]
Many countries do not have ready access to satellite imagery, much less realtime satellite imagery. Iran, for example.
rtkwe 14 hours ago [-]
Anyone with a big enough checkbook can rent 12 50 centimeter resolution overflights a day from Planet Labs. Their 1.3m resolution is maybe enough to track it in decently cooperative weather given enough compute spend.
Iran is being fed intelligence by Russia, so they definitely have that info.
barrenko 14 hours ago [-]
China*
ImPostingOnHN 17 hours ago [-]
okay, imagine a different example which you don't think is being fed intelligence by russia
nitwit005 15 hours ago [-]
Everyone capable of damaging the ships can get that intelligence.
klawed 29 minutes ago [-]
How hard is it to find an aircraft carrier without resorting to this? Not saying there’s no privacy leak here but aircraft carriers are not exactly stealthy…
Eisenstein 23 minutes ago [-]
I think the issue is that it tracks it in real time so it can be used for targeting.
mrtksn 17 hours ago [-]
IIRC USA had similar issues with soldiers using Strava exposing secret bases[0]. 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.
I'm surprised this has been on front page of HN all day. As others said, its a surface boat, you could just follow it with a plane, ship, or submarine. If someone knows where it is, everyone does. Would be more concerning if it was a submarine that was able to be tracked.
elif 15 hours ago [-]
I seriously doubt there is a country on earth which lacks the capability to detect an aircraft carrier's presence in the Mediterranean sea.
We are not talking about stealth vehicles.
deepsun 15 hours ago [-]
Mediterranean maybe (although I'm not sure), but it's actually very hard to find a ship, even as large as an aircraft carrier, in the ocean. The empty space is just too big. Satellites have hard time taking pictures of every square mile of a sea to find any ship, yet alone the one you need.
the8472 13 hours ago [-]
Ships are giant hunks of metal and radio emitters. They light up on SAR satellites[0]. Sentinel-1 gets whole earth coverage and a revisit time of 1-3 days[1] with two active satellites. And that's the public stuff, if you can afford a fleet or even some extra fuel to steer them into interesting orbits you can get faster revisits.
There is a french company (https://unseenlabs.com/fr/) that specializes in tracking ship at sea through observing their RF emission from space. Cool tech. I'm pretty sure their main clients are not all civil...
rustyhancock 12 hours ago [-]
And they also don't travel alone.
5-10 ships moving at speed across the ocean. Blasting the skies with radar.
Its as easy as anything is to find it in the ocean. And were pretty damn good at tracking ships at sea even small fishing vessels let alone a floating city.
The threat model to CSGs are basically nuclear submarines from nations that would simply tail the group if needed.
mwilliaams 9 hours ago [-]
U.S. anti-submarine doctrine for surface vessels is pretty much just “run away”, that’s how dangerous subs are, so that’s why U.S. CSGs often include an attack submarine escort.
cbsks 14 hours ago [-]
I really don’t want to work for the defense industry, but I have to admit that they do have very fun problems to solve. You know there are people at NRO who are dedicated to ship tracking via satellite. I assume they can easily track ships without cloud cover, but how do they do it when it’s cloudy? Heat signatures? Synthetic Aperture Radar? Wake detection?
jasonwatkinspdx 12 hours ago [-]
ELINT and SAR.
For the first one, just look at wikipedia lists of government says that fly as little triangular constellations, like Yaogan 9A, 9B, 9C on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaogan
Those are ELINT birds that use multilateration to spot emitters globally.
SAR can spot wakes far, far, larger than ships using the same techniques as SAR measuring ground erosion, etc.
mikkupikku 14 hours ago [-]
I'd be mildly surprised if they not using SAR for this all the time, not only during cloud cover. The Soviet Union was using radar satellites (the RORSATs) to track carriers decades ago.
mapt 14 hours ago [-]
Neither SAR nor high resolution optical sensing are trivial at panopticon scale.
Bandwidth and processing are substantial bottlenecks with SAR; Only targeted and stationary applications have been broadly useful so far, and more focus has been put on planes than satellites for this. SAR is not as simple as taking a static image with a fixed resolution, your sensing window has got a target velocity and distance in mind and the antenna and processing needs to be tuned for that.
I would think that medium and high orbit optical tracking (daytime, cloudless sky) is probably used, because with video you can reasonably track subpixel targets if they're high contrast, without a lot of data transmission requirements.
Sanzig 13 hours ago [-]
> Bandwidth and processing are substantial bottlenecks with SAR; Only targeted and stationary applications have been broadly useful so far, and more focus has been put on planes than satellites for this.
I'm not sure why you assume this, this is factually incorrect. Satellite based SAR has been successfully used for civilian ship detection applications (traffic management, illegal fishing, smuggling detection, etc) for over three decades. I am sure its military use goes back much further.
> SAR is not as simple as taking a static image with a fixed resolution, your sensing window has got a target velocity and distance in mind and the antenna and processing needs to be tuned for that.
No? SAR satellites take thousands of SAR images of stationary scenes every day. It's true that object motion in the scene introduces artifacts, specifically displacement from true position - this is often called the "train off track" phenomenon, as a train moving at speed when viewed with SAR from the right angle will look like it's driving through the adjacent field rather than on the track. However, this isn't a significant problem, and can actually be useful in some situations (eg: looking at how far a ship is deflected from its wake to estimate its speed).
convolvatron 12 hours ago [-]
40 years ago the USN was working on using SAR with a elliptical kalmann filter to detect _submarine_ wakes. I assume things haven't digressed since then.
dnautics 13 hours ago [-]
> You know there are people at NRO who are dedicated to ship tracking via satellite.
I feel like there must be people at NRO whi are dedicated to sub tracking via satellite.
drivebyhooting 12 hours ago [-]
I wish defense paid better. The problems are infinitely more interesting than ads. And it’s not like social media is a saint anyway.
wahnfrieden 12 hours ago [-]
Hmmm on the one hand murder, on the other hand ads
tehjoker 12 hours ago [-]
It would be fine if "defense" is what was meant, but they recently changed it back to a far more honest "department of war".
drivebyhooting 12 hours ago [-]
BigTech ought to renamed too. BigVice maybe?
jlarocco 9 hours ago [-]
IME here in Colorado, a lot of them pay as well, or better, than run of the mill tech companies. I suspect the AI and "FAANG" companies may pay more, but I personally wouldn't work for any of those. In any case, I'd take $160k in Colorado over $240k in California any day.
And the problems are definitely a lot more interesting.
drivebyhooting 2 hours ago [-]
The problem is BigTech pays $800K or even $1M+.
wolfi1 12 hours ago [-]
when it's cloudy, heat signatures won't help, infrared is blocked by clouds
mytailorisrich 13 hours ago [-]
Satellites only have to track, not find.
Aircraft carriers sail from home ports and are frequently visible to all. The Charles de Gaulle was previously in Denmark for instance, then obviously everyone can also see you crossing the English Channel and Straight of Gibraltar.
So from there it is only a matter of keeping an eye on it for anyone with satellites. So obviously all the "big guys" know where the other guys' capital ships are.
charcircuit 15 hours ago [-]
You would only need to find it once, potentially at a port, and then you can follow it.
matkoniecz 14 hours ago [-]
This capability is available only to few countries on planet.
Not all of them.
fxtentacle 14 hours ago [-]
You can rent access to nearly real-time custom satellite targeting for <$3k per image. That means while you're correct that not all countries can afford it, most can.
maxerickson 14 hours ago [-]
So you task the satellite to where you know the ship is?
exe34 13 hours ago [-]
Would you prefer to lose it first?
bigyabai 13 hours ago [-]
To get a naval fix, you usually define an "area of uncertainty" around the last confirmed location of the ship. The area is usually a circle with the radius being the maximum distance the ship/group could travel at full speed.
So, you don't exactly "know" where the ship is, but you can draw a hypothetical geofence around where it's likely to be, and scan that area.
Phemist 12 hours ago [-]
So the satellite can know where the ship is, because it knows where it isn't? Then it's a simple matter of subtracting the isn't from the is, or the is from the isn't (whichever is greater)?
matkoniecz 14 hours ago [-]
What if US government bans US-based companies from selling pictures within area where carrier operates?
(of all "national security" reasons these is one of more reasonable ones)
rocqua 14 hours ago [-]
Figure out where you can't buy pictures to narrow it down, if you want a more exact match, pay for pictures from that area from non US providers.
blitzar 13 hours ago [-]
Planet Labs PBC, a leading provider of high resolution images taken from space, said Friday it would hold back for 96 hours images of Gulf states targeted by Iranian drone attacks.
It did not say if it had acted at the request of US authorities.
Do them publish the banned coordinates in a list too? Maybe they could put the reason at each line.
SteveNuts 14 hours ago [-]
I admit I'm incredibly naive on this subject, but what makes it so hard to track an object as large as an aircraft carrier when starting from a known position such as a naval port?
estearum 14 hours ago [-]
As described above the issue would be continuous observation, not how to follow it assuming you never lose sight of it.
OneDeuxTriSeiGo 14 hours ago [-]
You certainly can't do continuous observation but even just with commercial satellite offerings you can get pretty close.
For example nowadays Planet Labs [1] offers 30-50cm resolution imaging at a rate of one image or 120sec video stream every 90 minutes over a given 500 km^2 region. There is no situation where an aircraft carrier is going to be capable of evading a commercial satellite offering with that frequency and resolution. Once you know approximately where it is or even where it was in the semi-recent past, it's fairly trivial to narrow in and build a track off the location and course.
Commercial operations like Planet Labs currently cover most of the Earth multiple times a day.
malfist 14 hours ago [-]
Clouds occasionally happen
IshKebab 14 hours ago [-]
SAR is not blocked by clouds.
chias 14 hours ago [-]
What would you track them with? Follow them with helicopters and/or boats?
rtkwe 14 hours ago [-]
Break out the pocket book and pay Planet Labs to do it. You could do it with much less frequent visits than this probably the search area for it every 2 hours isn't very large and image recognition systems are pretty good. The big threat is cloud cover.
Note that that article is from 2020. Nowadays the frequency is actually down to 90 minutes/1.5hr. The resolution is up as well and they can do massive image capture (~500km^2) and video (120sec stream) from their passes.
Also nowadays they provide multi-spectal capture as well which can mostly see through cloud cover even if it takes a bit more bandwidth and postprocessing.
matkoniecz 14 hours ago [-]
What if US government bans US-based companies from selling pictures within area where carrier operates?
(of all "national security" reasons these is one of more reasonable ones)
rtkwe 14 hours ago [-]
The problem then is the black out zones themselves reveal a lot as well if adversaries can find their bounds. That narrows the search area for their own observation satellites immensely even if it's too large to respond to IRL.
OneDeuxTriSeiGo 14 hours ago [-]
Well in that case congratulations. You've just made it easier. Now you don't even have to track them. You just have to look for the blacked out box, the "error we can't show you this", reused imagery from their long running historical imagery dataset, or improperly fused/healed imagery after alteration.
So now you don't have to do the tracking, just find the hole.
And then you can use a non-US provider to get direct imagery now that you know exactly where to look.
jyoung8607 14 hours ago [-]
If the restricted area is large, a carrier is regionally disabling for an imagery provider. If it's smaller (and therefore must move over time to follow the carrier group) as soon as the imagery provider starts refusing sales in an area, any customer can test and learn its perimeter with trial purchases, find a coarse center, and learn its course and speed. You don't care about anything else until there's actual hostilities.
torginus 13 hours ago [-]
It would make tracking impossible, as no other country operates satellites.
filleduchaos 14 hours ago [-]
...literally yes (to the latter)? Is that not exactly why modern warships have to implement things like measures to reduce their radar cross section? If you could actually just rely on "ocean too big" then there would be no need for that.
OneDeuxTriSeiGo 13 hours ago [-]
It is in part for small crafts (frigates and corvettes) but for pretty much anything larger there's no concealing those ships.
The primary reason however for minimizing radar cross section and increasing radar scatter is to harden protections against radar based weapon systems during a conflict.
Even if the ship is still visible in peacetime operations, once electronic countermeasures/ECM are engaged, it gets an order of magnitude harder for guided missiles to still "see" the ship.
Depending on the kit, once missiles are in the air the ship and all of their friends in their strike group/squadron is going to start jamming radar, popping decoys, and trying to dazzle the missiles effectively enough for RIM-174/SM-6, RIM-66/SM-1, and RIM-67/SM-2s to intercept it without the missiles evading. And should the missile make it to close-in range then it's just praying that the phalanx/CIWS takes care of it.
And if everything fails then all that jamming and dazzling + the reduced radar cross section is going to hopefully result in the missiles being slightly off target/not a complete kill on the vessel.
So they still serve a purpose. Just not for stealth. Instead serving as compounding increases to survival odds in engagement scenarios.
filleduchaos 10 hours ago [-]
But what you're describing is stealth. "Stealth" doesn't mean "invisible". Humans wearing combat fatigues aren't literally invisible either especially when moving, they're just harder to track/get a visual lock on to aim at.
The point still stands that you cannot rely on "ocean is too big for anyone to find me" because it very much is not.
OneDeuxTriSeiGo 8 hours ago [-]
I think you are sim-interpreting what I was saying (and if you see what I've posted elsewhere in the discussion thread I'm very much in agreement with you).
I was just saying that stealth is a component of ship design for small crafts (i.e. those that would generally stay close to the coast) but that it's not the case for larger ships and even for those smaller ships it's just not the primary purpose for radar optimized hulls.
Close to the coast, non-coastal radar won't be able to detect ships nearly as well as out at sea where they stand out like a sore thumb. And of course coastal radar will still light up any ship so stealth there is of little value on foreign shores.
But really outside of some niche cases for small crafts, radar "stealth" is all about survivability and not the traditional view of stealth.
TLDR I think we are pretty much in agreement.
vntok 14 hours ago [-]
You don't even need a free account on flightradar24 to track its planes, at least two launch from it and pattern circle around it almost daily.
matkoniecz 14 hours ago [-]
That relies on transponders which can be switched of if decision is taken to do so.
vntok 13 hours ago [-]
Sure, and they don't decide to do that in many cases.
bell-cot 14 hours ago [-]
Those are the few countries that France needs to worry about.
Doesn't matter whether Estonia, Honduras, Laos, and Luxembourg can track their carrier, or not.
EDIT: In confined waters (like the Mediterranean), many more countries could track the carrier if they cared to. Even back in the 1950's, the Soviets got quite adept at loading "fishing boats" with electronic equipment, then trailing behind US Navy carrier groups.
geeunits 14 hours ago [-]
was
swarnie 14 hours ago [-]
Billy Boy from the Island can use commercial satellites to map mud huts for his vaccine NGO, i'm sure any nation state can find a few quid to locate a war ship.
s5300 12 hours ago [-]
[dead]
ajross 13 hours ago [-]
> it's actually very hard to find a ship, even as large as an aircraft carrier, in the ocean
I just ran some googled numbers over my envelope, and I get that the Mediterranean sea (great circle distance between Gibraltar and Beirut is 2300mi) is about 14000x larger than the bow-to-stern length (858') of the carrier.
That's... not that terribly difficult as an imaging problem. Just a very tractable number of well-resolved 12k phone camera images would be able to bullseye it.
Obviously there are technical problems to be solved, like how to get the phones into the stratosphere on a regular basis for coverage, and the annoyance of "clouds" blocking the view. So it's not a DIY project.
But it seems eminently doable to me. The barriers in place are definitely not that the "empty space is just too big". The globe is kinda small these days.
MengerSponge 12 hours ago [-]
And you've defined a harder problem! Once you've found it once it's much easier to find in the future: it can only go so fast, and it's constrained to stay in relatively deep water.
NooneAtAll3 12 hours ago [-]
to be fair "relatively deep water" is 99% of seas and oceans...
bigfatkitten 10 hours ago [-]
And “only so fast” can be north of 30 knots. The vessel could today be 1000km in any direction from where it was when you found it yesterday.
joe_mamba 15 hours ago [-]
>Satellites have hard time taking pictures of every square mile of a sea to find any ship, yet alone the one you need.
That's why satellites use radars and scientific instrumentation magnetometers to find stuff like ships or even subs underwater.
nradov 13 hours ago [-]
There might be some secret technology that we're unaware of but as far as we know magnetometers can only be used to detect underwater targets at very short ranges. I highly doubt that they're used on military reconnaissance satellites.
jasonwatkinspdx 12 hours ago [-]
Subs produce a surface level displacement wake that can be detected by SAR.
nradov 5 hours ago [-]
No, a submarine wake can't be detected at any significant depth. That idea has been tried several times and it never worked, not enough signal. I suppose I can't rule out some secret scientific breakthrough but the basic physics involved make it highly unlikely.
post-it 14 hours ago [-]
Those suffer from the same problem. There's a lot of ocean, and if you don't know where to look then you won't find what you're looking for.
Sanzig 14 hours ago [-]
Eh, not really. Synthetic Aperture Radar satellites used for marine ship detection have extremely wide sensor swath widths, and ships show up as very bright radar targets against the ocean. Detecting a large ship, even in a very large search area, is almost trivial.
Identifying a ship is harder, but not insurmountable. In particular, large ships like aircraft carriers tend to have very identifiable radar signatures if your resolution is high enough.
throwaway894345 14 hours ago [-]
How do these work? I would think radar would have a very difficult time seeing a ship against the backdrop of the ocean from so high above. Is the satellite bouncing radar waves off the side of the ship as the satellite is near the horizon? Even if you can detect a ship, I'm having a hard time imagining a sufficiently high radar resolution for such a wide sensor swath width at such an extreme range. Is the idea that you locate it with the wide sensor swath and then get a detailed radar signature from a more precise sensor?
OneDeuxTriSeiGo 13 hours ago [-]
Even with an extremely low resolution radar hit they are very identifiable.
Most naval vessels move in groups/squadrons. Carriers basically always travel with a "carrier strike group"/CSG of a dozen other ships and destroyers often travel in "destroyer squadrons"/DESRONs. So any time you see a cluster of hits, just by the relative responses of each hit you can narrow down and guess the entire CSG/DESRON in one go and then work out which responses map to which ship in the CSG/DESRON once you have a good idea of which group you are looking at.
This is especially true because ships even within the same class have varying ages, different block numbers, and differing retrofits. So each one has a unique signature to it.
But also if you aren't completely certain you can always come back with a second high resolution pass and then it's trivial to identify each ship just visually.
throwaway894345 12 hours ago [-]
Granted, but how does satellite radar actually see ships at all? How do the ships not blend into the ocean (the relative difference between the distances between ship<->satellite and ocean<->satellite is minescule)?
Consider shooting a ray at the ocean at an oblique angle from a satellite: it bounces off and scatters away from you. Hardly any of the energy scatters back towards you.
Now, put a ship there. The ray bounces off the surface of the ocean and scatters up into the side of the ship, and from geometry, it's going to bounce off the ship and come straight back towards its original source. You get tons of energy coming back at you.
A ship on the ocean is basically a dihedral corner reflector, which is a very good target for a radar.
> I'm having a hard time imagining a sufficiently high radar resolution for such a wide sensor swath width at such an extreme range. Is the idea that you locate it with the wide sensor swath and then get a detailed radar signature from a more precise sensor?
That's one approach, there are so-called "tip and cue" concepts that do exactly this: a lead satellite will operate in a wide swath mode to detect targets, and then feed them back to a chase satellite which is operating in a high resolution spotlight mode to collect detailed radar images of the target for classification and identification.
However, aircraft carriers are big, so I don't think you'd even need to do the followup spotlight mode for identification. As an example, RADARSAT-2 does 35 meter resolution at a 450 km swath for its ship detection mode. That's plenty to be able to detect and identify an aircraft carrier, and that's a 20 year old civilian mission with public documentation, not a cutting edge military surveillance system. There are concepts for multi-aperture systems that can hit resolutions of less than ten meters at 500 km swath width using digital beamforming, like Germany's HRWS concept.
tl;dr: Radar works very well for this.
mrguyorama 12 hours ago [-]
>A ship on the ocean is basically a dihedral corner reflector, which is a very good target for a radar.
This is why the Zumwalt and other low observable designs are going back to roughly tumblehome hulls:
If only it could actually do anything. I genuinely don't understand how we refused to retrofit any weapon system to the gun mounts. We have 5inch guns. They aren't the magic cannon it was designed for but do they really not fit? Apparently we are now putting hypersonic missiles in those mounts instead.
Can't exactly make a Carrier that shape though.
jasonwatkinspdx 12 hours ago [-]
A Zumwalt with 5 inch gun offers almost no mission capability above a simple coast guard cutter.
They're putting hypersonics on it because they've got 3 hulls and might as well get some value out of them, but not because it's what you'd design for from scratch.
The Zumwalt program was dumb from day 1. It was driven by elderly people on the congressional arms committees that have romantic notions of battleships blasting it out.
The reality is since the development of anti ship missiles, sitting off the coast and plinking at someone is suicidal, even if you have stealth shaping and uber guns of some sort.
It was a DoA mission concept.
greedo 11 hours ago [-]
The Zumwalt class are being refitted to carry CSP. And the boutique gun system is really a complex thing, it's not like packing in a bunch of VLS containers.
throwaway894345 12 hours ago [-]
This is cool. Thanks for the detailed follow up!
Gitechnolo 12 hours ago [-]
[dead]
jasonwatkinspdx 12 hours ago [-]
> I would think
Just do a youtube search and you'll find plenty of talking head explainer videos. Ignore the talking head and just look at the imagery and data they share.
joe_mamba 14 hours ago [-]
>if you don't know where to look
I mean fuck, I can pretty easily find the strait of hormuz on the map, pretty sure intelligence agencies can too and just look there for the carrier. If I can't find the carrier there, then I can plot the course between France and hormuz and do a brute force search over that course taking into account such a ship's relative velocity, since it's not like the carrier is gonna zig-zag through south america and the north pole on its way there to avoid detection. Is what I'm saying something sci-fi?
gherkinnn 14 hours ago [-]
It is dangerous to believe a problem goes only as deep as one's understanding of it.
joe_mamba 14 hours ago [-]
I am always open to corrections from specialists in the field or just any average joes with a different opinion. That's why I keep coming here.
burnished 14 hours ago [-]
It is absolutely one of the better benefits of this forum
blitzar 13 hours ago [-]
> I can pretty easily find the strait of hormuz on the map, pretty sure intelligence agencies can too
Seems to have come as a shock to the US government.
reactordev 14 hours ago [-]
This. You can search for years for a ship and never find it.
garyfirestorm 13 hours ago [-]
We couldn’t find a commercial jet (MH370). Both, while it was still flying in the air and after it was presumably lost in the ocean.
They couldn’t track it in the air nor can they still find its remains after looking for it for so long. This problem is not trivial.
seizethecheese 13 hours ago [-]
A commercial jet is both way smaller and faster moving than an aircraft carrier. I suspect this is like saying: why can’t you see the fly in the photo, the turtle is right there!
simlevesque 13 hours ago [-]
It can also go over any part of the globe. The aircraft carrier is limited to non-shallow water.
13 hours ago [-]
baq 13 hours ago [-]
There's a nonzero chance military intelligence agencies of multiple countries know exactly where that plane fell, but none can say anything, because that would reveal the true extent of their capabilities.
abcd_f 13 hours ago [-]
Just like it was with that amateur sub that imploded. It later surfaced the Navy heard the implosion and knew what it was.
awesome_dude 13 hours ago [-]
Uhhh surfaced?
dmos62 13 hours ago [-]
Made me smile. Thank you.
IncreasePosts 13 hours ago [-]
They could just feed the data to some associated outside party with some other plausible explanation. But, there are only a few, maybe two countries, with the ability and desire to have listening stations all over the ocean, and neither one is particularly interested in the Indian ocean.
loeg 13 hours ago [-]
The Indian Ocean is both larger and has significantly less traffic than the Mediterranean. And a 777 is about 16x faster than a carrier.
TeMPOraL 13 hours ago [-]
> And a 777 is about 16x faster than a carrier.
Surely that's missing a 0 or are carriers really that fast?
marricks 13 hours ago [-]
Aircraft carrier speed... 33 knots or about 35mph[1]
Honestly pretty crazy, although that must be the max speed. The carrier was going about 10 mph in this case (per Strava).
jmalicki 11 hours ago [-]
They don't normally go that fast from what I understand. That is their top speed in reserve they can use for evasive maneuvers, they don't want to go faster than their support fleet or deal with the high maintenance running at threshold will cause.
It's like when you drive your car you're not normally redlining it since that will kill the engine if you do it all the time.
jmalicki 13 hours ago [-]
Commercial airliners are sub mach1. The Charles de Gaulle is reported to go at least 27 knots at top speed.
27*16=432, a 777 goes 510-520 knots.
So maybe more like 18-19x.
For the carriers it is at least as the true top speed is classified.
loeg 11 hours ago [-]
16x, 20x -- it's about the right order of magnitude.
13 hours ago [-]
kergonath 12 hours ago [-]
Surprisingly, it is much easier to find a big chunk of steel floating on the Mediterranean, knowing where it was a couple of days ago, than a smaller object disintegrated in small pieces under the Indian Ocean. Go figure.
literalAardvark 13 hours ago [-]
MH370 crashed in the Pacific.
Look at the globe some day from that angle and compare it to the Mediterranean.
contingencies 13 hours ago [-]
Err, no. The consensus and available evidence including washed up components seems to be that it crashed in the Indian Ocean, that's the (also vast) space between ~Australia and ~Africa, bounded in the north by Indonesia, the Indian subcontinent, and Arabia. It crashed somewhere in the eastern portion, not far from Indonesia and Australia. Currents then took parts as far as the Maldives/Sri Lanka, IIRC. The Pacific is the other (eastern) side of Australia, which stretches from the Aussie-Kiwi approach to the South Pole to Alaska, and Vladivostok to Tierra del Fuego.
kergonath 12 hours ago [-]
> Currents then took parts as far as the Maldives/Sri Lanka, IIRC
Some bits ended up on a beach of the Réunion island, closer to Madagascar than Sri Lanka. I am not disagreeing, it’s just that the whole story is fascinating. It’s easy to think "well, it just crashed into the sea so of course some bits would show up on a beach" until you look at the Indian Ocean with a proper projection and figure the scale.
contingencies 12 hours ago [-]
Floating is a powerful physical configuration! You get currents plus windspeed. If you're in to this sort of thing, I can recommend The Seacraft of Prehistory, We: The Navigators, and Archaeology of the Boat approximately in that order.
stavros 12 hours ago [-]
Are you making the same point as the person you said "err, no" to, or are you correcting the inconsequential details while not addressing their main point?
loeg 11 hours ago [-]
No. literalAardvark's main statement, "[It] crashed in the Pacific," was incorrect. contingencies's comment corrected that.
13 hours ago [-]
13 hours ago [-]
epsteingpt 13 hours ago [-]
Different times. Now there are thousands of LEO satellites.
wat10000 13 hours ago [-]
Nobody was looking for MH370 while it was in the air. After a few hours, it rapidly became a submarine, which is a type of craft that's well known for being hard to find. In addition to that, it took on its new submersible form in one of the most remote areas of the ocean, rather than in a small and very busy sea.
fiftyacorn 14 hours ago [-]
Yeah id be more impressed if he found a submarine using strava
Especially aircraft carriers deliberately let their position public in order to cause the fear and alignment that are destined to. It's that they don't publish their accurate position but only the approximate.
kelnos 11 hours ago [-]
Sure, but there's a big difference between using nation-state resources like spy satellites, and using a public API exposed by a fitness app.
Not everyone can use spy satellites, and even if we're only talking about nation-states, many (most?) countries do not have spy satellites.
rtkwe 15 hours ago [-]
If they have ships in the area sure but picking it out of the ocean if you don't already know where it is on satellite data is a lot harder. Until the last decade or so satellite tracking of ships visually was essentially the domain of huge defense budgets like the US that had more continuous satellite coverage. It'd be interesting to see how well that could be done now with something like Planet and tracking it forwards in time from port visits or other known publicized pinpointing.
echoangle 15 hours ago [-]
Maybe stupid question but how would Iran do it? They don’t have any ships in the area and also don’t have any satellites that could take pictures, right?
Or does getting told by Russia count?
snickerbockers 14 hours ago [-]
America has intelligence-sharing agreements with allied nations wherein our satellites are taking photos on the allies' behalf of things that we might not otherwise be interested in. I'm sure China and Russia have similar arrangements with their allies.
guerrilla 13 hours ago [-]
Iran does with Russia. It's been in the news a lot lately. I have no doubt they do with China as well.
mrguyorama 12 hours ago [-]
China is absolutely sharing intel with Iran. They cannot believe their luck. The US is getting itself into a Ukraine, draining all their advanced weapon stocks, delivering tons of real war data for China to work with.
It's like Christmas. Real practice tracking US assets and wargaming against them is such a break for them.
rtkwe 15 hours ago [-]
I bet you could do it with a big enough expense account with Planet Labs and the compute power to process the images these days. Track it forwards from the last public port of call or *INT leak like this strava data. 3.7m accuracy seems like enough to do it. It's not enough to target it directly but it would be enough to get more capable assets into the right area a la the interception of Japan's ships when they attacked Midway.
bpodgursky 14 hours ago [-]
Iran, like most countries, does not a blue water navy with assets in the Mediterranean sea to perform realtime surveillance.
rtkwe 14 hours ago [-]
They had a handful of frigates mostly but those could go out as far as the Med pretty easily. One of their ships was sunk near Sri Lanka.
signatoremo 13 hours ago [-]
It was sunk there because it attended an on-off event in India before that. Iran's ships don't get on regular trips far from home.
rtkwe 13 hours ago [-]
They don't but it shows they could.
awesome_dude 12 hours ago [-]
I mean, a personal yacht can sail around the world, that's not really demonstrating whether the vessel is useful in combat operations anywhere in the world.
elif 15 hours ago [-]
Look at marinetraffic.com and then try to map a course across the Mediterranean that won't be seen by dozens of ships. It's impossible.
ronnier 15 hours ago [-]
Russia and China help them.
CamperBob2 14 hours ago [-]
Yes, Russia helps Iran target our troops and (likely) sailors.
But don't you dare suggest that hanging a portrait of Putin in the White House is inappropriate, or a Republican might get mad.
drysine 13 hours ago [-]
>Yes, Russia helps Iran target our troops and (likely) sailors.
You surely know that the US helps Ukrainian target Russian troops and refineries deep in Russia?
CamperBob2 13 hours ago [-]
I certainly hope so, but we've pretty much hung Ukraine out to dry under Trump [1], just like we did the Iranian protesters.
Unlike Russia, Ukraine evidently doesn't have any kompromat on Trump or the Republican Party in general.
Then you probably should accept that proxy wars work both ways. And well, it's not really Iran's fault that its borders has crept so close to the US military bases.
CamperBob2 12 hours ago [-]
Who is Iran a proxy for? Russia, as usual, has only benefited from Trump's actions.
The one thing you can say about Iran is that they were absolute morons not to actually build or otherwise acquire a nuclear arsenal. They had decades. If Pakistan could do it...
xyzelement 2 hours ago [-]
It's such a retarded take that hitting Russia's main ally (iran) is somehow pro-russia. Does taking out their number two ally (Venezuela) also help them?
JumpCrisscross 15 hours ago [-]
> seriously doubt there is a country on earth which lacks the capability to detect an aircraft carrier
They probably lack the ability to figure out which specialists are on board.
thisisnotmyname 13 hours ago [-]
Isn’t the point that if you can identify one naval vessel by this means you can probably identify many?
1970-01-01 14 hours ago [-]
If Charles de Gaulle turns off AIS, how does North Korea find it?
That's in a sun synchronous orbit so would only over fly once a day so the task does get a lot tougher. A few days of bad weather and you've largely lost the ship.
vntok 14 hours ago [-]
Track not the ship itself but the planes that take off and land on it. Many sites will expose their paths, you'll see the planes circling in a pattern around "some void" - that's the ship.
1970-01-01 14 hours ago [-]
Many sites? Can you show me any De Gaulle aircraft currently in-flight?
vntok 13 hours ago [-]
You can find yesterday's location easily on flightradar24.com. Try it it will make you feel like an ossint sleuth or something. Look to the south of Cyprus.
Now that's not realtime because I'm telling you after the fact. But if you were paid to do it, of course, then you'd spend some money on an actual account on this and similar services, which would get you many more filters and much more precise data.
cwillu 14 hours ago [-]
If de Gaulle is turning off AIS, it stands to reason that it's also turning off the transponders in the air wing.
crote 12 hours ago [-]
The US tried this with their Venezuela raid. It resulted in a tanker almost hitting a passenger plane twice in two days. [0]
Turning off AIS while allowing civilian traffic is incredibly risky, and creating a huge no-fly zone in the Med is politically tricky.
Not at all, depends on the mission. In fact you can spot yesterday's location of the ship right now on flightradar.
It was patrolling ~100km below Cyprus's main southern city.
Move the timeline to yesterday, find a non-Boeing military plane in that zone, enable flight traces and keep trying planes until you see an ovoidal pattern circling around "nothing"... but that nothingness moves over time.m; that's the ship.
kergonath 12 hours ago [-]
> In fact you can spot yesterday's location of the ship right now on flightradar.
No need to go that far. Macron did press conferences in Cyprus and on the Charles de Gaulle. You just need a passing glance at the headlines of a French newspaper. Or any decent international news channel (granted, that’s a bit tricky in the US).
Maybe, maybe not. When the US did their venezuela maduro operation they turned on adsb on f15e for whatever reason. And only turned it on for like a portion of the mission so maybe that wasn’t intentional.
2OEH8eoCRo0 12 hours ago [-]
Why make it easier for them?
I think people tend to lack imagination about how some piece of intel could be used by an adversary.
Barrin92 12 hours ago [-]
That's not really the point. The issue is that a soldier almost certainly without a lot of thought ended up leaking information that he wasn't aware of leaking.
And furthermore identifiable information of a particular individual, which people can use to for example find out what unit he is deployed with, which may give you information about what the mission is about and so on.
In WW2 when transmitting morse code individual operators used to have what was called a 'fist', skilled listeners could identify and track operators by their unique signature. This was used during world war 2 to track where particular individuals and units were moved which gave people a great deal of information not just where but what they were up to.
If you leak the Fitbit information of a guy who foreign intelligence has identified as being part of a unit that's always involved in particular operations you didn't just give something obvious away but potentially something very sensitive.
helsinkiandrew 14 hours ago [-]
Cruising speed of Charles de Gaulle is 27knots which would give the runner a pace of around 1:10mins/km depending on direction. That would really screw up your Strava stats
nradov 13 hours ago [-]
I occasionally see civilians on Strava doing the same thing, running laps around the deck of a cruise ship. The speeds and distances look ridiculous.
nssnsjsjsjs 11 hours ago [-]
101 assumptions programmers make about running apps.
23: The ground beneath the runner's feet has stable lat/lon.
system2 6 hours ago [-]
There is no meaningful solution to this.
nssnsjsjsjs 2 hours ago [-]
You could compare phone and watch coords assuming phone can be left in one spot.
abeppu 12 hours ago [-]
So I'm actually confused that in the little image of his run in the article it seems he's often making absolute progress in the opposite direction the ship is going for part of each lap. Like, was the ship going unusually slowly?
yread 13 hours ago [-]
His pace was 4:38 over 7.2km and his track seems to backtrack at times so either the carrier was doing weird maneuvers or he is running faster than they are carrier.
I imagine they are in no rush to get closer to Lebanon. So maybe they are running in circles
swarnie 14 hours ago [-]
Reminds me of Fitbit using heartrate to approximately guess calories used.
I'm told with a lengthy night on uppers can you can get your 24/hr burn up to the 7000-10000.
fenykep 13 hours ago [-]
I was doing support for a fitness data aggregator where a partner reported an issue: a user logging 15k+ steps between 9pm and 4am with minimal location delta. Sadly I wasn't able to push a "stay hydrated" notification over our system to the user.
thr0w__4w4y 9 hours ago [-]
Sarah Adams (ex-CIA, The Watchfloor podcast) literally discussed this possibility yesterday in a podcast titled "Your Phone Isn't Safe Right Now"
Most people here are tech savvy and understand VPNs, location sharing in apps, privacy agreeements, metadata in shared/posted JPEG files, etc but the episode I mentioned is like 20 minutes & provides maybe 100 different things you can do to reduce your footprint & increase your security while traveling abroad.
According to her, the biggest threats were fitness apps & dating apps (both of which are mentioned heavily here in the comments)
suriyaai2026 1 hours ago [-]
The SMB segment in emerging markets is genuinely interesting for SaaS. The unit economics work differently — lower ARPU but massive TAM, and the willingness to pay is often tied more to savings (vs. current solution cost) than to value creation.
1 hours ago [-]
louthy 10 hours ago [-]
Loose lips sinks ships. So does uncontrolled mobile phone access. It just doesn’t rhyme as well.
pokstad 9 hours ago [-]
Seems like the phone was using some internet access point hosted on the ship? In which case, the French naval IT services should ban certain risky services to soldiers.
dsjoerg 9 hours ago [-]
it's mind boggling. personal mobile phones have potentially anyone's software running on them and that can connect to the internet means that literally anyone could be tracking and gathering who knows what data from your operation. it's an indication of the greatest unseriousness.
dsjoerg 9 hours ago [-]
the location of the ship of course is not secret. but there is finer grained data about the people, the devices and what they're doing that could be gathered. and inferences made from that data. i would only allow this data to leak out if i could somehow use it to deceive my enemy.
elif 15 hours ago [-]
An aircraft carrier can be seen with the naked eye from 10 meters above the shore for about 28 miles.
So the entire Spanish coast, Moroccan coast, Algerian coast, mallorca, sardegna, Sicily, tunesia, the Greek isles, and who knows how many cruise ships, fishing vessels, and commercial aircraft all saw this ship.
CGMthrowaway 13 hours ago [-]
Are you aware of a policy that allows Strava when within sight of shore, but bans it when under more sensitive operation?
Or is this article perhaps better interpreted as an example of a dangerous behavior that could be happening also during those sensitive times (in which case, it is unlikely that French media would be even running a story with a map of the sensitive location)?
rustyhancock 12 hours ago [-]
This isn't a novel problem.
Detailed maps of military and other sensitive areas have been created through run maps from fitness watches[0].
If you can guess what shape the runner was going in, you could infer a lot of information from that squiggly line in the picture. You could determine the ship's course and speed.
SoftTalker 14 hours ago [-]
How does the smart watch have any service out in the middle of the Med? Must be getting it from the ship, are they not firewalling outbound traffic?
francisofascii 14 hours ago [-]
GPS watches don't need service, they just need line of site to the GPS satellites. Uploading to Strava requires service, but that can be done any time after the activity.
14 hours ago [-]
rtkwe 14 hours ago [-]
Under wartime conditions they would but rules are looser out of combat so sailors can use personal devices for entertainment etc to keep morale up.
NullPrefix 14 hours ago [-]
GPS tries to cover the whole globe, app uses GPS to get location. Ship probably has internet connection in the from of wifi or a cell tower with a starlink or other sattelite backbone link and app's traffic is encrypted so ships firewalls cannot easily block this
largbae 13 hours ago [-]
This is a repeating phenomenon, and probably worse on land. Fitness and run tracking apps also reveal troop locations and concentrations on land (location clusters reported by apps targeted at non-local-language audiences stick out like a sore thumb).
llsf 11 hours ago [-]
Tracking an aircraft carrier should not be difficult for any state (satellite images). The fact that civilians can do it too now is interesting.
It would be another matter if that was tracking a nuclear submarine...
fnord77 11 hours ago [-]
No, this is notoriously difficult. The earth is vast and a carrier is tiny in comparison.
llsf 8 hours ago [-]
Commercial satellites can get 30cm resolution images (military satellites can likely get even more high resolution).
The earth is vast, but once you pinpoint a carrier, a simple software loop should be able to track it for ever (those carrier do not move fast).
I cannot imagine this being remotely difficult for a state to have a constant pin on every large carriers sailing on earth. There even might be some civilian apps for that too.
But again, Strava and other connected + geolocation apps have been an issue for military personnel in general.
Aperocky 11 hours ago [-]
Difficult 40 years ago maybe.
I can't imagine with the satellite image and compute we have it would be difficult at all to know the real_time +- 30min location of any carrier by maybe the top 5-10 states, even at night.
boxingdog 11 hours ago [-]
[dead]
system2 6 hours ago [-]
Sub wouldn't get a GPS signal, luckily.
Kim_Bruning 17 hours ago [-]
More than accurate enough to put an ASM in the right ballpark.
Modern militaries face some interesting challenges.
Possibly mobile apps should be designed to be somewhat secure for military use by defaul, backed by law.
Alternately, phones should have a military safe OS with vetted app store. Something like F-droid, or more on toto phone ubuntu, but tailored.
Obviously, you still need to be security conscious. But a system that is easy to reason about for mortals would not be a bad idea.
Rules like secure by default, and no telemetry or data exfiltration, (and no popups etc), wouldn't be the worst. Add in that you then have a market for people to actually engage with to make more secure apps, and
A) Military can then at least have something like a phone on them, sometimes. Which can be good for morale.
B) it improves civilian infrastructure reliability and resiliance as well.
thehumanmeat 3 hours ago [-]
Same thing happened with hidden Antarctica bases in 2018.
igonvalue 9 hours ago [-]
Tangential but related: Do these workout apps correct for the movement of the ship when tracking your runs? I imagine it's a borderline-common scenario that someone on a cruise ship goes for a jog on deck?
mlmonkey 14 hours ago [-]
It's been a problem for nearly 2 decades.
Think about it: suddenly, in the middle of the desert in Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria/Niger/Djibouti a bunch of people start using a fitness tracker every morning (and the clusters show up in Strava). Did some village suddenly jump on the "get fit" bandwagon? Or could it be a bunch of US Marines/SpecOps/etc people trying to keep fit.
adolph 14 hours ago [-]
Along with the Strava secret base location leak, another interesting one was the ship with a contraband Starlink:
As the Independence class Littoral Combat Ship USS Manchester plied the
waters of the West Pacific in 2023, it had a totally unauthorized Starlink
satellite internet antenna secretly installed on top of the ship by its gold
crew’s chiefs. That antenna and associated WiFi network were set up without
the knowledge of the ship’s captain, according to a fantastic Navy Times
story about this absolutely bizarre scheme. It presented such a huge security
risk, violating the basic tenets of operational security and cyber hygiene,
that it is hard to believe.
Some people here say an aircraft carrier can be seen from satellites so it's not a big deal. They miss a point (as I did too): this means you can identify individuals present on the carrier, so they become vulnerable to investigation and blackmail. Another country could threaten this individual's family to give some important information or worse (sabotage).
francisofascii 14 hours ago [-]
It would be cool if they actually wer just altering the GPS location data before uploading, so the location reported was false. GPX/TCX files are trivial to edit. "All warfare is based on deception"
RiskScore 11 hours ago [-]
I wonder if there is a way to stop these apps when they enter the vessel.
louthy 8 hours ago [-]
Take their phones off them, turn them off, and place them in a faraday cage. It really is the only completely safe way of operating.
I remember a friend worked on a base where they disallowed cellphones.
...until there was an active shooter and they couldn't call for help.
so they did away with that and started allowing phones.
personally hate there are too many vested interests working against the common sense that people should own and control their devices, which could prevent nonsense.
rozab 13 hours ago [-]
All through this whole ghost fleet thing I've had this question as to how a large ship in the sea can possibly keep its movements secret. Large media organisations seem to be unable to say where large tankers have been if they turn their transponders off.
Don't we have constellations of satellites constantly imaging the entire earth, both with visual and synthetic aperture radar, with many offering their data freely to the public? Wouldn't a large ship on the ocean stick out somewhat? And yet journalists seem lost without vesselfinder. Is this harder than I'm imagining, or are they just not paying the right orgs for the info?
What's funny is I can imagine the sailor not understanding how the code works and properly setting up a "privacy zone" while at port to mask his location and verifying it was working while there
then of course while at sea, it's the same ship but different location
not like your home or workplace typically relocates itself
imagine being a coder at Strava trying to figure out how to deal with that, it's techically not possible
However it's a great marketing opportunity for Stryd footpod which can track distance without GPS
I wonder what a moving deck at even 10mph would do to a Stryd though
The GPS must have added 10mph? But it's all relative to the deck vs the sea, hmm
mrguyorama 11 hours ago [-]
As a coder at strava fixing this would not be hard at all.
A global "Private mode" switch that sends zero data about anything at all while it is enabled. Your runs stay on device. All network calls are rejected. No data saved with it enabled will ever leave the device, full stop.
Every single app in the world should have this. It should be an OS setting that forces network calls to fail as well as part of the app review process that no data generated during a private session can ever leave the device.
They don't do that because they like your data for money.
ck2 10 hours ago [-]
you can do that "offline" with any regular Garmin
but once you start using the Strava app the point is socializing activity, otherwise why bother?
Strava privacy zones actually work, well as long as the location isn't physically moving by itself, lol
hope the sailor didn't get into too much trouble if it was innocent enough
toss1 14 hours ago [-]
Seems we need a new digital category for Darwin Awards.
This is the modern way to die of stupidity — use your fitness watch app to log your miles on an online app instead of locally — so reveal your operational location.
The US had one of its secret bases in Afghanistan fully mapped for anyone to see by its residents logging their on-base runs.
Now, the French aircraft carrier is pinpointed en route to a war zone.
Yes OPSEC is hard, and they should be trained to not do this, but it seems to be getting ridiculous. If I were in command of such units, I'd certainly be calling for packet inspection and a large blacklist restriction of apps like that (and the research to back it up).
Local first is not just a cute quirk of geeks, it is a serious requirement.
12 hours ago [-]
varenc 11 hours ago [-]
No amount of OPSEC lectures or packet inspection is going to sufficiently keep the carrier's private information private. There's thousands of sailors on these things. When details like its location and readiness level actually need to be secret, all regular internet access should just be cut off. Radio silence. I assume this person had internet access to use Strava because the carrier isn't yet in some higher level of readiness and its location isn't yet considered much of a secret.
JackSlateur 9 hours ago [-]
You are correct
Any system that is based on the perfection of humans is doom from the start ..
A jammer is easy and very effective, you can even use it at home to piss off your neighbor, so I guess the army can do it too;
yunnpp 13 hours ago [-]
> This is the modern way to die of stupidity
With how bad the human experiment generally is, I rejoice in the fact that our own stupidity will be our undoing. Imagine if we did things correctly.
josefritzishere 16 hours ago [-]
I recall something similar happened on US ships last year because of the Applewatch.
todsopon 11 hours ago [-]
wow amazing
dualblocksgame 7 hours ago [-]
[dead]
ryguz 10 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Yanko_11 14 hours ago [-]
[dead]
dummytrial1212 13 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Remi_Etien 18 hours ago [-]
[dead]
dummytrial12133 12 hours ago [-]
[dead]
dummytrial1212 13 hours ago [-]
[dead]
dummytrial1212 13 hours ago [-]
[dead]
FridayoLeary 18 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
lm28469 17 hours ago [-]
> It's not a declaration of war to project your military power to a region you have an interest in.
There was no declaration of war by anyone so far, and I doubt Iran would wait for an official letter telling them they're allowed to sink a US allied carrier, especially now that they killed the leader's wife, son, dad, and a bunch of relatives (plus the only dude who the US could reasonably negotiate with)
Nobody declares war these days. It is always going to be some type of 'special military operation' at best.
Declaring war implies sticking to the rules. Decapitation strikes on the leadership with side portions of schools getting bombed would be considered illegal if war had been formally declared. Equally, having cluster munitions rain down from the sky over populated cities is also not exactly morally correct.
Rules makes war a sport of sorts, it might as well be boxing where you are not supposed to bite ears or punch below the belt. Yet, if you came under assault and needed to defend yourself, then a bite to the ear or a kick in the balls might make sense at the time.
rcxdude 18 hours 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.
FridayoLeary 17 hours ago [-]
I kind of understand that, although of course i completely disagree with their line of thinking. Iran is everyones problem and open conflict like this would have been hard to avoid down the road. Point is they had months to anticipate this latest conflict, why did they do absolutely nothing to mitigate this? Why was the UK apparently completely unprepared? Europe's economy is suffering, more then America. Why do we even bother with a Navy if we don't wan't to use it?
Also what military support did they drop exactly? Ukraine isn't part of NATO, and the US has been carrying 90% of NATO since forever. I will point out that it was the US, through a combination of bombing and diplomacy that got rid of the Houthi threat to shipping. Nobody else succeeded.
Maken 17 hours ago [-]
How is Iran anyone but Israel and USA's problem?
Jensson 17 hours ago [-]
They fund terrorism in the countries around them, all the neighboring countries there hates Iran. That is why they aren't really angry that USA is bombing Iran.
forty 15 hours ago [-]
I think they are kind of angry? At least they don't seem interested in participating despite being targeted by Iran themselves, I don't know how more they could express their disagreement with this operation than even accepting to be bombed without any reaction?
cwillu 13 hours ago [-]
The pan of oil on the stove is everyone's problem, but when the dumbass decides the way to deal with it is to pour water on it, it is now in everyone's interest to leave the area.
ImPostingOnHN 17 hours ago [-]
Generally, the one who causes the problem should fix it. Especially when the problem they caused is hurting their friends.
It takes a really good friend to not only accept and forgive the hurt caused, but to help fix the problem, too. Usually an apology from the problem-causer must come first.
I think what we're seeing is that the USA has un-good-friended so many countries that it has no good friends left with the military capabilities to help. It has allies maybe, but nobody who would do such a favor after being victimized by the asker and the problems they caused, without even so much as an apology.
It certainly doesn't help that the USA is asking for help, but probably wants to boss around anybody who volunteers, and it is doing none of the work itself. Sounds like a toxic team.
> Iran is everyones problem
Iran is not everyone's problem. The effects of israel and the USA's war of choice on Iran are everyone's problem. What we're seeing now is not a result of anything Iran did, but rather something the USA and israel did. The worse the effects get, the more blame will be heaped upon the USA and israel. To that end, most countries are likely of the attitude that they have already incurred enough costs from the USA and israel's war, and that the USA and israel had better fix the problem they caused ASAP.
chasd00 15 hours ago [-]
there are no friends at the global scale just alliances. If Europe doesn't want to help then there's no forcing them to. Conversely, if the US manages to get the strait open and oil flowing there's no stopping them from requiring Europe to pay a little extra for the trouble. Fair or not, who's going to stop the other side? You can't exactly ask to speak to the manager.
rcxdude 7 hours ago [-]
It's exactly this kind of transactional approach that is reducing the US's influence on its allies in the first place.
ImPostingOnHN 13 hours ago [-]
If the USA manages to get the strait open and oil flowing, then allies might be satisfied with the harms the USA caused, even if there is no apology, much less restitution. At that point, we will be back to the status quo.
If, at that point, the USA perpetrates any sort of further economic attacks on allies, then of course they will respond appropriately.
lm28469 17 hours ago [-]
> Iran is everyones problem
It was at best a regional problem until the US and israel decided to fuck things up and make it a global problem, they didn't have nukes, they were not building nukes, even if they had nukes they would not have used them for anything other than extinction level threats, so just like israel, everyone is OK with them having nukes despite being the same type of religious nutjob thecracy, strange. Iranians are very rational when it comes to escalation, more so than israel.
> Ukraine isn't part of NATO, and the US has been carrying 90% of NATO since forever
Yeah idk, maybe don't put cia bases there then? And maybe don't antagonize russia for decades and act surprised when they act like enemies.
You won't catch me defending Russia or Iran but get the fuck out of here with the "the US are the good guys and we're doing god's work by wiping out evil regimes" rhetoric lmao
> Nobody else succeeded.
Yes because that's the only thing they know and understand, bombs, if the problem cannot be solved with bombs they're useless
Jensson 17 hours ago [-]
> even if they had nukes they would not have used them for anything other than extinction level threats
I'd agree for just about any other country, but Iran have a terrorist regime that is funding terrorists everywhere. They are not like Pakistan or North Korea etc, Iran is crazy and doesn't follow normal international norms.
Even Russia and Ukraine doesn't bomb third party countries in war just for supporting the other side, that is a crazy stupid thing to do and any country behaving like that should never ever have nukes.
Funding coups is not the same thing as funding terrorists. Terrorists attacks and kills civilians, coups just targets leaders. If Iran funded coups in nearby countries that would be a sane thing to do, funding terrorists is what makes them an insane force that you can't predict what they will do with a bomb.
Russia also funds coups, not terrorists. You didn't see a lot of suicide bombings and such in Ukraine before Russia attacked, Russia did the sane thing and sent in Russians in the Russian areas to build support etc, funding terrorism is just plain evil and serves no purpose. That is the difference.
lm28469 16 hours ago [-]
> coups just targets leaders.
This died day 1 when you bombed a fucking school and killed 168 girls. For a lot of these countries the US is a terrorist state. It doesn't matter if the explosive is strapped to a guy's chest or to a tomahawk
Jensson 16 hours ago [-]
> This died day 1 when you bombed a fucking school and killed 168 girls
I didn't bomb a school, I am not American. Americans are much more against this war than most people of the world. I know a lot of Iranians that are very happy that the regime is getting bombed.
lm28469 16 hours ago [-]
> I know a lot of Iranians that are very happy that the regime is getting bombed.
Ask them about the electrical infrastructure, or the unis, or the research enters, or the heritage sites... How did it go in Afghanistan btw? The "democracy" was delivered and well received right?
> Even Russia and Ukraine doesn't bomb third party countries
Third party to who? they all host US bases lmao, a country which just attacked them without declaring war, pearl harbor style, without congress approval, against all kind of international laws, because israel was going in anyways (according to Rubio) for their holy war
Stop drinking the kool aid and plug in your brain, it's way more nuanced than you're lead to believe. No one is "crazy", they all have very rational reasons for what they're doing, the fact that you don't even try to understand them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Jensson 16 hours ago [-]
> Third party to who? they all host US bases lmao
That is no reason to bomb them. Belarus hosts Russian bases but Ukraine doesn't bomb them. International norms is that military bases that aren't actively used to attack aren't valid targets, only Iran breaks that.
> Stop drinking the kool aid and plug in your brain, it's way more nuanced than you're lead to believe. No one is "crazy", they all have very rational reasons for what they're doing, the fact that you don't even try to understand them doesn't mean they don't exist.
They are crazy, they got the entire middle east against them now with those attacks. I read all the reports from them, they aren't condemning USA about those attacks, they do however condemn Iran for launching attacks at them. Iran strategy failed fully and all they do is dig in further and launch even more attacks on these countries.
That is insane and serves no purpose.
lm28469 16 hours ago [-]
> That is no reason to bomb them.
For you, for the new leader of Iran who just lost his dad/wife/brother/son in US strikes it might sound like a very reasonable thing to do.
> That is insane and serves no purpose.
How do you qualify the original attack that started the whole thing? Iran has been pretty clear about how it retaliates and escalates, they did not attack all the targets on day 1, they gradually increased with the US/Israel strikes. They only attacked foreign infrastructure once their own equivalent had been struck first
What do you think about the US/Israel strikes on historical buildings, electrical infrastructure, schools/uni, civilian research centers? What do you think of hegseth literally saying they're here to bring death and destruction ?
I think the US got drunk on their own supply of "we can do whatever the fuck we want because we have the biggest bombs and the cultural superiority".
> I read all the reports from them, they aren't condemning USA about those attacks,
Well you clearly didn't read much outside of US/Israel propaganda
Jensson 16 hours ago [-]
> Well you clearly didn't read much outside of US/Israel propaganda
I read every update on Aljazeera, they are very representative of the views of the middle east and aren't American or Israeli propaganda. To me it seems like it is you who only read the propaganda.
ceejayoz 15 hours ago [-]
> they are very representative of the views of the middle east
Al Jazeera is primarily funded by the government of Qatar, an American ally and (currently) enemy of Iran. It reflects Qatar's views, not that of "the middle east" as a whole.
It's a newspaper not analysts reports. Did you read one of the pro israeli op-ed by any chance, I can't find anything stating Iran is "crazy"
> Analysts say US threat of ‘no quarter’ for Iran violates international law
> The US-Israeli war on Iran is illegal and goes against the interests of the American people.
> Iran war updates: Israel refinery bombed as >>> retaliatory <<< strikes reverberate
> Iran has ratcheted up the pressure on several Gulf nations by attacking their energy facilities in >>> retaliation <<< for an Israeli strike on its South Pars gasfield
> Even Russia and Ukraine doesn't bomb third party countries in war just for supporting the other side, that is a crazy stupid thing to do and any country behaving like that should never ever have nukes.
To the extent this might be true, it seems like it would be even more true of the two countries that unprovokedly bombed a third party country to start the war in the first place.
Jensson 16 hours ago [-]
> two countries that unprovokedly
It isn't unprovoked, Iran current regime has chanted "Death to America" since its founding. USA has plenty of reasons to attack here which is why you don't see more international outcry or support for Iran. Iran are on their own.
lm28469 16 hours ago [-]
> USA has plenty of reasons to attack
Yet none have been provided, remember the anthrax scam at the united nations? At least they put some efforts into it
Jensson 16 hours ago [-]
They don't need to provide a reason, its probably related to greed etc, but greed is still a rational reason. Iran attacking their neighbors is not rational here, it just makes the middle east hate them more.
I am not talking about international laws here, just the norms everyone follows in wars. Everyone breaks the international laws, but the norms of not attacking third parties etc are there for rational reasons, since you don't gain anything for doing so its just stupid and causes damage and strife and hurts you for doing it.
lm28469 16 hours ago [-]
> They don't need to provide a reason
Of course, since they did not ask for the congress approval, which is already against their own constitution. That's exactly the kind of things you do when you're a good guy doing the right thing
> but the norms of not attacking third parties etc are there for rational reasons, since you don't gain anything for doing so its just stupid and causes damage and strife and hurts you for doing it.
What norms? No wars = no rules of war, they started something they can't control anymore
They gain plenty from doing it in term of leverage, nobody attacked Iran in such way until now because it was well understood that this is exactly how it would play out
ImPostingOnHN 14 hours ago [-]
Seems the US and israel have been at least as unfriendly recently.
In any case, somebody chanting a thing isn't causus belli, nor is publicly wanting someone to die.
> why you don't see more international outcry or support for Iran
What you don't see is international support for the USA or israel's war on Iran, hence why the strait of hormuz is effectively closed right now.
megous 15 hours ago [-]
What actual terrorism they funded that was actually deadlier than what US created in Iraq with ISIS (created as a result of pretty much the same, let's get some country stripped by force of some [imagined] WMDs, US adventure)?
16 hours ago [-]
detaro 16 hours ago [-]
Again, how should the UK use the Navy here?
mrguyorama 10 hours ago [-]
>Ukraine isn't part of NATO, and the US has been carrying 90% of NATO since forever.
This has always been the stupidest take.
Do you know how Europe always planned to pay their part of NATO?
Blood.
Go look at war plans if things ever got hot with the soviets. Germany would be gone. The plan was always hundreds of thousands of dead Europeans while the US geared up to come save the day. America's plan for NATO was the same as it's contribution to the first two world wars: Sell all the guns, ammo, fuel, and food required to keep Europe alive while their territory was wiped clean by war.
Compare US casualties in either World War with European casualties. That was always the plan.
Europe's contribution was the graveyards they would have to plow after the war.
Complaining about some budgeting is insane. That was always just a bonus kickback.
So, exactly how things go with Ukraine. They die, we profit, maybe their country survives after, US remains basically untouched, though that part is no longer reality.
marcosdumay 17 hours ago [-]
NATO countries need to keep their military close to the Noth Atlantic to protect Greenland from recent unexpected threats.
georgefrowny 17 hours ago [-]
As the UK chief of defense staff commented drily: "we have an aircraft carrier, it's called Cyprus".
ceejayoz 15 hours ago [-]
> 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?
Because the UK isn't really in the war, and doesn't want to be?
toraway 16 hours ago [-]
They move a carrier into a vulnerable position in the Strait, where an attack by a tiny boat could both result in causalities and draw the UK into another protracted war in the Middle East with no clear exit condition and even more casualties?
And for what, exactly, a pat on the back from Trump? (who will then inevitably turn on them after a week and blame them for anything that goes wrong in the war.)
If escorting ship traffic was so straightforward with only upside, the US would be doing it already. Instead of trying to get someone else to take that risk.
blitzar 17 hours ago [-]
> this war
There is no war; there is a speical military operation, an excursion or a preemptive retaliatory defensive strike.
lkramer 15 hours ago [-]
Because even the UK is getting fed up with Trump? They literally started preparing to deploy on of the carriers to the Gulf and Trump basically told them to fuck off because they were "late" to the war? Now he's changed his mind again, who gives a damn? He can reap what he has sowed.
detaro 17 hours 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.
georgefrowny 17 hours ago [-]
Quite. It will in fact make a lot of problems for you if it gets attacked as then you need to decide if you've just had war declared on you and have to decide what to do about that.
Escorting shipping through the Straight isn't like helping an old lady across the road, it's doing it at a red crossing light while pointing an AK47 through the windscreen of the cars with your finger on the trigger daring them to test your resolve.
lm28469 17 hours ago [-]
> deploy and do what exactly?
To get sunk by a $20k drone, the most likely outcome at that point
jandrewrogers 15 hours ago [-]
Cheap drones are only effective against relatively soft targets. Weak penetration and small warheads limit their utility.
Many countries already have long-range drones designed to attack ships i.e. anti-ship missiles. They cost $1-2M a piece. It would still require a minimum of many direct hits to sink a modern aircraft carrier, as commonly demonstrated for SINKEX.
Jensson 17 hours ago [-]
How would a drone sink a carrier? If Iran could do that they would already have sunk the American carriers.
The risk at the straights aren't drones but torpedoes and mines and attack boats.
lm28469 16 hours ago [-]
> How would a drone sink a carrier?
Ask Ukraine, they've been sinking russian warships left and right, even in their own ports
Jensson 16 hours ago [-]
A drone payload can only sink a small ship, there is no way a single drone can sink a carrier. And the amount of drones Iraq can launch today isn't enough to get through a carriers defenses.
Russia-Ukraine war is different since there are many more drones and neither side has air superiority. Also most of those kills were done by missiles or sea drones, not the shahed drones Iran has that costs 20k.
lm28469 16 hours ago [-]
Iran has surface and submarine drones too, I know you cant sink a carrier with a shahed
Ekaros 18 hours 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.
jacquesm 14 hours ago [-]
If only someone in the Oval Office was this smart.
18 hours ago [-]
PeterStuer 13 hours ago [-]
Many questions:
I can assume Strava is GDPR compliant and would not publish this information without the sailors concent?
Does the French military not stress in their training the dangers of these data disclosures?
Why does the carriers network not have adequate measures against this sort of data exfiltration?
Why is Le Monde tracking a french sailors location data?
philipwhiuk 13 hours ago [-]
> I can assume Strava is GDPR compliant and would not publish this information without the sailors concent?
Historically there was a problem where user's data was aggregated into a global view. But these days you'd have to follow the user on Strava to get this sort of track.
I suspect that a journalist at Le Monde has a naval buddy on Strava and posted the story.
PeterStuer 13 hours ago [-]
So how did the carriers network not block Strava? I doubt the sailors watch was direct to satellite.
And why would a Le Monde 'journalist' dox his 'buddy' and expose and thus endanger the ship? Anything for a click?
philipwhiuk 12 hours ago [-]
> So how did the carriers network not block Strava?
I'm sure someone in the tech team is getting questioned on this.
loeg 13 hours ago [-]
Surely the GPDR does not prevent users from consenting to share their data with a public audience.
philipwhiuk 12 hours ago [-]
It doesn't, but the effect of gaining consent and being opt-in vastly reduced the data. Strava also made it (in 2019) so you'd need at least N samples for it to be visible rather than simply a single user.
loeg 11 hours ago [-]
Public sharing on Strava is opt-in for users outside of Europe, too. Yet many users choose to share publically.
> Strava also made it (in 2019) so you'd need at least N samples for it to be visible
Presumably you're talking about the Global Heatmap? This used to be updated only annually. Is it more real-time now?
orian 18 hours ago [-]
Maybe it was just an old stupid treason? Someone against the war and… hard to believe there are no rules about location.
giarc 17 hours ago [-]
I don't know about Strava, but my Apple Watch will detect when I'm going on a walk or a bike ride and ask if I want to track it. I just instinctively say yes. Strava might do the same and so it could just be habit for the sailor and a dumb mistake.
krick 14 hours ago [-]
You don't need to confirm anything. You just configure it once to upload your runs that you record on a Garmin watch or whatever, and forget. It's not impossible to use Garmin watch without any online accounts and uploading your data anywhere, but as it is with all wearables today, they intentionally make your life harder for it. Not to mention that most people who run regularly use Strava or something equivalent to track your workouts anyway, so one really wouldn't think much about it, unless explicitly forced by officers to disconnect everything. And, honestly, given how easy it is to find an aircraft carrier (for god's sake, even a civilian can do that!), I doubt that it even worth it. Le Monde is just making cheap scandal out of nothing. As always.
Theodores 17 hours ago [-]
Maybe it was fake. Someone with a water-borne drone and Starlink could spoof it, in order to throw those pesky Iranians off the scent. Unless you were on the aircraft carrier, had satellite imagery or could physically see it, it would be hard to prove that it was a fake. Any attempt at debunking would meet fierce resistance from Strava bros.
blitzar 15 hours ago [-]
Someone with a computer sitting basically anywhere in the world could spoof it.
qcautomation 12 hours ago [-]
What's interesting here isn't that nation-states can track aircraft carriers - they've always been able to. It's that Le Monde did it with what's essentially a consumer API. The 2018 Strava heatmap incident showed this data leaks passively; now we're seeing it used for active, targeted tracking by journalists with a story idea and some scripting. That gap closing is the actual news.
cataflam 11 hours ago [-]
Your AI powered comment is wrong.
Le monde has been doing this for years. They have a series of articles about this.
There is no "gap closing."
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/11/europe/russian-submarine-...
https://gijn.org/stories/investigations-using-strava-fitness...
People may want to kill you for different reasons though. No need to commit any crimes.
It is why after the U.S. kills or captures some foreign leader, they brag about figuring out their routes and daily habits. It is not a stretch to say that it could also be done, and probably has before, in the U.S.
Extreme penalities should be put in place for any location data access without a court order... And your location should never be allowed to be sold or shared with any non court approved third party. It really is that serious and if the public had the bandwidth to be concerned over another issue, maybe something would change.
Who knows, maybe all the public needs to take it seriously are some real life examples of location data being used illegally...
how is a submarine commander committing war crimes?
by the same way of thinking, it would be completely justified for people from many countries to show up at random US service members houses and shoot them in the street , or perhaps attack their embassies, commit suicide bombings...
Though if your local UN security council member is known for committing war crimes then you probably shouldn't serve in its military.
I said nothing about whether it was justified, simply noted the state of reality in which you should probably avoid doing harmful things to others if you would like to not motivate them to harm you in return. Americans would absolutely benefit from doing fewer things to harm other countries if they would like to be targeted by fewer terrorists.
It still happens in Ukraine, where immediate risk to life and limb is much more severe than this case.
Tinder provided 1-mile granularity, so OPFOR would roam around until they had enough points to locate the headquarters. Then, they'd artillery it out of existence. The brigade commander was most displeased—moving a brigade headquarters is not for the weak or fainthearted.
It's not like one needs to really poison the system given that AI enthusiasts are copypasting their own AI generated contented back into it anyway. Maybe not responsible AI believers who used it responsibly etc etc, but there's many more people who don't and who have access to the tools to add their slop pollution.
I am curious how future models get trained given that publicly available user generated content may no longer be reliable.
It's not queer if you're tied to the pier
Well, wouldn't you know, in Iraq there were all these square paths on the map. Yes, it was Americans jogging just inside the perimeter of small bases.
Just like with the aircraft carrier, these bases were not secret but it shows how locations can leak unexpectedly.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/08/06/...
Example post https://www.reddit.com/r/running/comments/7tnzxy/stravas_hea...
Such social sharing + gamification systems are no different than Github contribution streak or StackOverflow awards for streaks etc. Those streak award only benefited the platform, while awarding us fake points and badges, the fitness streak rewards and social sharing benefits the users health so arguably has a stronger case for being gamified.
We can argue all day that people should want to do fitness to be healthy, not on how they look or other people see them or their fitness, but reality is that the social component of fitness is a big part for many people be it at the gym or in an app.
Imagine this data going to a burglar, who has a digital dashboard of nearby one-person properties and when the owner is likely to be out, able to act with confidence they can leave before the victim could return.
Sure, sophisticated international hitmen won't have any interest in catching you in ambush... but that doesn't make you safe from a local rapist of opportunity.
In Western Europe there are also foreign burglar gangs that go on sprees for a few weeks. They're well organised but don't have time to do the stalking. They use publicly available data as much as they can.
Most of us, but for those that are...
However, in the world we live in today, the various LEOs are using this type of data to find people they do not like. It's getting to the point that I pine for the days of good ol' 1985 where you could just be another anonymous person in public with no tracking of your every move.
a) Analysis and tracking of your own personal goals. (Some of the tools are better than the stuff available on the device itself.)
b) Sharing and socialising some other activities.
You can be careful and only allow certain activities to be public but you'll make mistakes and eventually many people will just think "whatever, I'll just default to public and remember to hide the ones I don't want to be public" and then it's even easier to make mistakes.
Defaulting to "opt-in" is all well and good until a human makes a mistake.
I have the family exercise group on mute, lol
But joking apart, almost everything is connected and calling home these days...
I don't know either, must be more than 24 though because it's still dark as shit down there.
Russian units have requested fire support via telegram.
One of my favorite examples are the soldiers who leaked classified information to win arguments on online forums [1]. Similar incidents have occurred with a Minecraft Discord [2].
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65354513
[2]: https://www.ign.com/articles/how-classified-pentagon-documen...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
Established in the 60s so it was kept pretty secret for a long period of time.
It's interesting to think that the government has been using technology to watch us for awhile but now thanks to ubiquitous networks, cheap internet, phone and apps like tinder and strava and a bit of ingenuity, we can watch back. :)
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47341984
And are you also aware of the mystery weapon in Venezuela, which clearly corroborated the story? [2]
[1] https://youtu.be/C1jmAj9OUOs
[2] https://www.rusi.org/news-and-comment/in-the-news/did-us-dep...
[0] https://www.navalgazing.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-1
[1] https://www.goonhammer.com/star-wars-armada-naval-academy-wa...
Also the capabilities of commercial and government geospatial systems has only continued to improve in the ~decade since the article was written.
Can a carrier group's point defense weapons and fighters reliably counter a swarm of hundreds of cheap drones, flying lower than cloud cover, that are programmed to look for carriers over a wide area, confirm their shape optically, paint them for missiles, and take the disconnection/destruction of any one of them as an indication of possible activity and automated retasking? It's a scary world to be a slow-moving vehicle, these days.
Hundreds of cheap drones would have negligible impact on a modern warship's integrity. An aircraft carrier is designed to have an actual airplane crash into it and continue operating. These boats still have armor. It's not purely an information war.
And not just search it - you have to get it to the sector as well.
Taking out a billion dollar asset with a couple million dollars worth of drones and a few (more expensive) anti ship missles? Priceless.
You're off by at least an order of magnitude. The camera mount you'd have to put on such a drone would cost about that much, probably more.
You're also vastly underestimating just how big the ocean actually is.
And finding the aircraft carrier is not the penultimate step to destroying it (a "few" anti shipping missiles aren't getting through those defenses).
It's not built for hiding at all, that's what submarines are for (and that's where our nukes are).
A carrier strike group isn't meant to be stealthy. Quite the opposite. It is the ultimate tool for power projection and making a statement. If it is moving to a new region it will do so with horns blaring.
Obviously troops shouldn't be broadcasting their location regardless, but this particular leak isn't as impactful as the news is making it out to be.
Am I supposed to believe we live in a world where this exists, yet carriers are impossible to find and track on the sea?
Besides, modern fighter jets have radars with 400km detection ranges against fighter sized targets.
A dozen of them or more specialized sensor aircraft could cover entire conflict zones.
It's possible to go to the moon, launch ICBMs, and make fusion bombs. It's news when something possible gets cheap and easy. It's also newsworthy when one of the most powerful and expensive weapon platforms in history doesn't have its infosec buttoned down.
Well, peace makes you sloppy. No one is at war with France right now, and no one is realistically going to attack this ship.
If we were fighting WW3, you can bet sailors wouldn't be allowed to carry personal cellphones at all. Back in WW2, even soldier's letters back home had to be approved by the censors.
There are very few attack modes which are enabled by this. The ship is a giant slow moving metallic object. You just need to get relatively close. Guidance will easily do the rest.
The real problem is not seeing the instantaneous location of the ship. It's being able to draw a line on a map such that you know it's likely destination and time of arrival.
Finding people who serve on carriers shouldn't be difficult. That kind of information can be plastered anywhere over FB or similar. Many of their friends will also be active in similar roles.
Then find associated Strava accounts. Find more friends that way.
The information you can gather is useful on many fronts. Someone does a few runs a week on shore and then suddenly stops? Could be injury, could be that carrier has sailed. Have many of their "friends" who also serve there also stopped logging things on dry land? Do any of them accidentally log a run out in the open ocean? This kind of patchy unreliable information is the mainstay for old-school style espionage.
Strava Labs beta "Flybys" site used to be a great source for stalkers. You could upload a GPS track (which can easily be faked in terms of both location and timestamps) and see who was running/riding/etc nearby around that same time. The outcry was enough that it was switched to being opt-in (in 2020 I think) but for a while all of the data was laid bare for people to trawl and misuse.
It does make me wonder how a warplane stops a merchant vessel without blowing it up if the radio doesn’t work. Do they drop a buoy with a giant inflating stop sign on it? Fly Tholian-webs perpendicular to the sailing path?
Are we talking about Strava, or satellites? It's not obvious to me that exercise data is any more real time or easy to find than satellite tracking.
> It does make me wonder how a warplane stops a merchant vessel without blowing it up if the radio doesn’t work.
Shots across the bows are a pretty universal signal.
We saw how from the Houthis and US military: You send a helicopter with a few dudes with guns. Marine vessels are unarmed, including the people on board. They can't fight off or run from the helicopter.
If for whatever reason that's not an option, you shoot it with the 5inch gun on a destroyer. Maybe a warning shot across the bow first. Maybe you literally ram it with the destroyer if you are feeling weird, as China and Venezuela have done. Awkwardly, when Venezuela did that, they rammed a vessel that just so happens to be reinforced for ice breaking, so the warship was damaged and the cruise ship was not really.
https://www.badassoftheweek.com/stanislav-petrov-and-the-rcs...
> Don't ram the ship that has two bars and a Jacuzzi on board and is designed for, like, smashing glaciers. Mm hmm. Then the captain of the Resolute radioed to the guys in the water like, 'Hey, do you want some help?'
Heh.
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...
And even if they didn't, Russia have Kondor, [1] which is explicitly military, and we know they have been sharing data with Iran.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huanjing_(satellite) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondor_(satellite)
Faking GPX tracks can be done in a text editor.
The CIWS is radar guided.
Operationally, navies with carriers assume that opponents know where they are.
“BlackSky CEO Brian O’Toole echoed “strong momentum” from international government customers, saying these governments want to move faster with commercial capabilities.
[…]
Motoyuki Arai, CEO of Japanese synthetic aperture radar (SAR) company Synspective said that he sees “huge demand” from the Japan Ministry of Defense
[…]
Speaking to commercial imagery’s role in Ukraine, Capella Space CEO Frank Backes said Ukraine showed the value of Earth Observation (EO) data from a military tactical perspective and not just an intelligence perspective — driven by speed of access.”
- do you think nation-states have the same commercial relationship with the ultimate sources of their satellite imagery as the general public? To me that makes about as much sense as thinking that Facebook won't reveal your private messages to specific governments because they won't reveal them to some third-party advertiser.
- do you think nation-states that are your opponents would be getting their services from commercial image providers that are loyal to you? The American companies you list are far from the only ones on the planet that provide satellite imagery as a service.
You can damage or sink an ordinary ship with a bombing, like what happened to the USS Cole, but a carrier will have a fleet escorting them.
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.
pi*(500 miles)^2 = 785,400 sq. miles.
That explains the downvotes!
Clouds. (Radar sats can see through clouds but can also be jammed.)
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.
An active fitness tracker might also give away the ship's readiness state, under the assumption that people aren't going to be doing much jogging while at battle stations.
https://defence-blog.com/russia-is-jamming-european-space-ag...
Specifically, wikipedia suggests Russia has a grand total of 3 such satellites.
It's probably safe to say they have been destroyed, jammed, or spoofed since the war started.
What makes you say that? Iran is a country twice the size of Texas, and dismantling the military-industrial complex of a massive country takes time and money. Iran was outed as a paper tiger last summer, and hasn't been able to meaningfully defend their airspace, navy, or commanders. They are being absolutely destroyed. The question is whether this will be sufficient to cause regime change before the country is sent back to the stone age like Gaza.
So please don't make unlikely claims up without any evidence.
Precise location, yes. At least in the US Navy this is an important part of the carrier's protection. (Having destroyers between the carrier and potential threats is another.)
https://www.planet.com/pulse/12x-rapid-revisit-announcement/
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/fitness-tracki...
We are not talking about stealth vehicles.
[0] https://x.com/hwtnv/status/2031326840519041114 [1] https://sentiwiki.copernicus.eu/__attachments/1672913/Revisi...
5-10 ships moving at speed across the ocean. Blasting the skies with radar.
Its as easy as anything is to find it in the ocean. And were pretty damn good at tracking ships at sea even small fishing vessels let alone a floating city.
The threat model to CSGs are basically nuclear submarines from nations that would simply tail the group if needed.
For the first one, just look at wikipedia lists of government says that fly as little triangular constellations, like Yaogan 9A, 9B, 9C on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaogan
Those are ELINT birds that use multilateration to spot emitters globally.
SAR can spot wakes far, far, larger than ships using the same techniques as SAR measuring ground erosion, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GTpBMPjjFc is a good overview of what's up there so far, and what's coming as they really try to scale the technology.
Bandwidth and processing are substantial bottlenecks with SAR; Only targeted and stationary applications have been broadly useful so far, and more focus has been put on planes than satellites for this. SAR is not as simple as taking a static image with a fixed resolution, your sensing window has got a target velocity and distance in mind and the antenna and processing needs to be tuned for that.
I would think that medium and high orbit optical tracking (daytime, cloudless sky) is probably used, because with video you can reasonably track subpixel targets if they're high contrast, without a lot of data transmission requirements.
I'm not sure why you assume this, this is factually incorrect. Satellite based SAR has been successfully used for civilian ship detection applications (traffic management, illegal fishing, smuggling detection, etc) for over three decades. I am sure its military use goes back much further.
> SAR is not as simple as taking a static image with a fixed resolution, your sensing window has got a target velocity and distance in mind and the antenna and processing needs to be tuned for that.
No? SAR satellites take thousands of SAR images of stationary scenes every day. It's true that object motion in the scene introduces artifacts, specifically displacement from true position - this is often called the "train off track" phenomenon, as a train moving at speed when viewed with SAR from the right angle will look like it's driving through the adjacent field rather than on the track. However, this isn't a significant problem, and can actually be useful in some situations (eg: looking at how far a ship is deflected from its wake to estimate its speed).
I feel like there must be people at NRO whi are dedicated to sub tracking via satellite.
And the problems are definitely a lot more interesting.
Aircraft carriers sail from home ports and are frequently visible to all. The Charles de Gaulle was previously in Denmark for instance, then obviously everyone can also see you crossing the English Channel and Straight of Gibraltar.
So from there it is only a matter of keeping an eye on it for anyone with satellites. So obviously all the "big guys" know where the other guys' capital ships are.
Not all of them.
So, you don't exactly "know" where the ship is, but you can draw a hypothetical geofence around where it's likely to be, and scan that area.
(of all "national security" reasons these is one of more reasonable ones)
It did not say if it had acted at the request of US authorities.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/leading-satellite-firm-hol...
For example nowadays Planet Labs [1] offers 30-50cm resolution imaging at a rate of one image or 120sec video stream every 90 minutes over a given 500 km^2 region. There is no situation where an aircraft carrier is going to be capable of evading a commercial satellite offering with that frequency and resolution. Once you know approximately where it is or even where it was in the semi-recent past, it's fairly trivial to narrow in and build a track off the location and course.
1. https://www.planet.com/products/satellite-monitoring/
https://www.planet.com/pulse/12x-rapid-revisit-announcement/
Also nowadays they provide multi-spectal capture as well which can mostly see through cloud cover even if it takes a bit more bandwidth and postprocessing.
(of all "national security" reasons these is one of more reasonable ones)
So now you don't have to do the tracking, just find the hole.
And then you can use a non-US provider to get direct imagery now that you know exactly where to look.
The primary reason however for minimizing radar cross section and increasing radar scatter is to harden protections against radar based weapon systems during a conflict.
Even if the ship is still visible in peacetime operations, once electronic countermeasures/ECM are engaged, it gets an order of magnitude harder for guided missiles to still "see" the ship.
Depending on the kit, once missiles are in the air the ship and all of their friends in their strike group/squadron is going to start jamming radar, popping decoys, and trying to dazzle the missiles effectively enough for RIM-174/SM-6, RIM-66/SM-1, and RIM-67/SM-2s to intercept it without the missiles evading. And should the missile make it to close-in range then it's just praying that the phalanx/CIWS takes care of it.
And if everything fails then all that jamming and dazzling + the reduced radar cross section is going to hopefully result in the missiles being slightly off target/not a complete kill on the vessel.
So they still serve a purpose. Just not for stealth. Instead serving as compounding increases to survival odds in engagement scenarios.
The point still stands that you cannot rely on "ocean is too big for anyone to find me" because it very much is not.
I was just saying that stealth is a component of ship design for small crafts (i.e. those that would generally stay close to the coast) but that it's not the case for larger ships and even for those smaller ships it's just not the primary purpose for radar optimized hulls.
Close to the coast, non-coastal radar won't be able to detect ships nearly as well as out at sea where they stand out like a sore thumb. And of course coastal radar will still light up any ship so stealth there is of little value on foreign shores.
But really outside of some niche cases for small crafts, radar "stealth" is all about survivability and not the traditional view of stealth.
TLDR I think we are pretty much in agreement.
Doesn't matter whether Estonia, Honduras, Laos, and Luxembourg can track their carrier, or not.
EDIT: In confined waters (like the Mediterranean), many more countries could track the carrier if they cared to. Even back in the 1950's, the Soviets got quite adept at loading "fishing boats" with electronic equipment, then trailing behind US Navy carrier groups.
I just ran some googled numbers over my envelope, and I get that the Mediterranean sea (great circle distance between Gibraltar and Beirut is 2300mi) is about 14000x larger than the bow-to-stern length (858') of the carrier.
That's... not that terribly difficult as an imaging problem. Just a very tractable number of well-resolved 12k phone camera images would be able to bullseye it.
Obviously there are technical problems to be solved, like how to get the phones into the stratosphere on a regular basis for coverage, and the annoyance of "clouds" blocking the view. So it's not a DIY project.
But it seems eminently doable to me. The barriers in place are definitely not that the "empty space is just too big". The globe is kinda small these days.
That's why satellites use radars and scientific instrumentation magnetometers to find stuff like ships or even subs underwater.
Identifying a ship is harder, but not insurmountable. In particular, large ships like aircraft carriers tend to have very identifiable radar signatures if your resolution is high enough.
Most naval vessels move in groups/squadrons. Carriers basically always travel with a "carrier strike group"/CSG of a dozen other ships and destroyers often travel in "destroyer squadrons"/DESRONs. So any time you see a cluster of hits, just by the relative responses of each hit you can narrow down and guess the entire CSG/DESRON in one go and then work out which responses map to which ship in the CSG/DESRON once you have a good idea of which group you are looking at.
This is especially true because ships even within the same class have varying ages, different block numbers, and differing retrofits. So each one has a unique signature to it.
But also if you aren't completely certain you can always come back with a second high resolution pass and then it's trivial to identify each ship just visually.
EDIT: the sibling comment already provided a high quality answer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47458766
Consider shooting a ray at the ocean at an oblique angle from a satellite: it bounces off and scatters away from you. Hardly any of the energy scatters back towards you.
Now, put a ship there. The ray bounces off the surface of the ocean and scatters up into the side of the ship, and from geometry, it's going to bounce off the ship and come straight back towards its original source. You get tons of energy coming back at you.
A ship on the ocean is basically a dihedral corner reflector, which is a very good target for a radar.
> I'm having a hard time imagining a sufficiently high radar resolution for such a wide sensor swath width at such an extreme range. Is the idea that you locate it with the wide sensor swath and then get a detailed radar signature from a more precise sensor?
That's one approach, there are so-called "tip and cue" concepts that do exactly this: a lead satellite will operate in a wide swath mode to detect targets, and then feed them back to a chase satellite which is operating in a high resolution spotlight mode to collect detailed radar images of the target for classification and identification.
However, aircraft carriers are big, so I don't think you'd even need to do the followup spotlight mode for identification. As an example, RADARSAT-2 does 35 meter resolution at a 450 km swath for its ship detection mode. That's plenty to be able to detect and identify an aircraft carrier, and that's a 20 year old civilian mission with public documentation, not a cutting edge military surveillance system. There are concepts for multi-aperture systems that can hit resolutions of less than ten meters at 500 km swath width using digital beamforming, like Germany's HRWS concept.
tl;dr: Radar works very well for this.
This is why the Zumwalt and other low observable designs are going back to roughly tumblehome hulls:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer#/media...
If only it could actually do anything. I genuinely don't understand how we refused to retrofit any weapon system to the gun mounts. We have 5inch guns. They aren't the magic cannon it was designed for but do they really not fit? Apparently we are now putting hypersonic missiles in those mounts instead.
Can't exactly make a Carrier that shape though.
They're putting hypersonics on it because they've got 3 hulls and might as well get some value out of them, but not because it's what you'd design for from scratch.
The Zumwalt program was dumb from day 1. It was driven by elderly people on the congressional arms committees that have romantic notions of battleships blasting it out.
The reality is since the development of anti ship missiles, sitting off the coast and plinking at someone is suicidal, even if you have stealth shaping and uber guns of some sort.
It was a DoA mission concept.
Just do a youtube search and you'll find plenty of talking head explainer videos. Ignore the talking head and just look at the imagery and data they share.
I mean fuck, I can pretty easily find the strait of hormuz on the map, pretty sure intelligence agencies can too and just look there for the carrier. If I can't find the carrier there, then I can plot the course between France and hormuz and do a brute force search over that course taking into account such a ship's relative velocity, since it's not like the carrier is gonna zig-zag through south america and the north pole on its way there to avoid detection. Is what I'm saying something sci-fi?
Seems to have come as a shock to the US government.
Surely that's missing a 0 or are carriers really that fast?
Boeing 777 speed 554mph[2]
So about 16x!
[1] http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.php
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777
It's like when you drive your car you're not normally redlining it since that will kill the engine if you do it all the time.
27*16=432, a 777 goes 510-520 knots.
So maybe more like 18-19x.
For the carriers it is at least as the true top speed is classified.
Look at the globe some day from that angle and compare it to the Mediterranean.
Some bits ended up on a beach of the Réunion island, closer to Madagascar than Sri Lanka. I am not disagreeing, it’s just that the whole story is fascinating. It’s easy to think "well, it just crashed into the sea so of course some bits would show up on a beach" until you look at the Indian Ocean with a proper projection and figure the scale.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/fitness-tracki...
Not everyone can use spy satellites, and even if we're only talking about nation-states, many (most?) countries do not have spy satellites.
Or does getting told by Russia count?
It's like Christmas. Real practice tracking US assets and wargaming against them is such a break for them.
But don't you dare suggest that hanging a portrait of Putin in the White House is inappropriate, or a Republican might get mad.
You surely know that the US helps Ukrainian target Russian troops and refineries deep in Russia?
Unlike Russia, Ukraine evidently doesn't have any kompromat on Trump or the Republican Party in general.
1: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/us-military-aid-ukraine-...
Then you probably should accept that proxy wars work both ways. And well, it's not really Iran's fault that its borders has crept so close to the US military bases.
The one thing you can say about Iran is that they were absolute morons not to actually build or otherwise acquire a nuclear arsenal. They had decades. If Pakistan could do it...
They probably lack the ability to figure out which specialists are on board.
Now that's not realtime because I'm telling you after the fact. But if you were paid to do it, of course, then you'd spend some money on an actual account on this and similar services, which would get you many more filters and much more precise data.
Turning off AIS while allowing civilian traffic is incredibly risky, and creating a huge no-fly zone in the Med is politically tricky.
[0]: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/16/americas/venezuela-near-c...
It was patrolling ~100km below Cyprus's main southern city.
Move the timeline to yesterday, find a non-Boeing military plane in that zone, enable flight traces and keep trying planes until you see an ovoidal pattern circling around "nothing"... but that nothingness moves over time.m; that's the ship.
No need to go that far. Macron did press conferences in Cyprus and on the Charles de Gaulle. You just need a passing glance at the headlines of a French newspaper. Or any decent international news channel (granted, that’s a bit tricky in the US).
I think people tend to lack imagination about how some piece of intel could be used by an adversary.
And furthermore identifiable information of a particular individual, which people can use to for example find out what unit he is deployed with, which may give you information about what the mission is about and so on.
In WW2 when transmitting morse code individual operators used to have what was called a 'fist', skilled listeners could identify and track operators by their unique signature. This was used during world war 2 to track where particular individuals and units were moved which gave people a great deal of information not just where but what they were up to.
If you leak the Fitbit information of a guy who foreign intelligence has identified as being part of a unit that's always involved in particular operations you didn't just give something obvious away but potentially something very sensitive.
23: The ground beneath the runner's feet has stable lat/lon.
I imagine they are in no rush to get closer to Lebanon. So maybe they are running in circles
I'm told with a lengthy night on uppers can you can get your 24/hr burn up to the 7000-10000.
Most people here are tech savvy and understand VPNs, location sharing in apps, privacy agreeements, metadata in shared/posted JPEG files, etc but the episode I mentioned is like 20 minutes & provides maybe 100 different things you can do to reduce your footprint & increase your security while traveling abroad.
According to her, the biggest threats were fitness apps & dating apps (both of which are mentioned heavily here in the comments)
So the entire Spanish coast, Moroccan coast, Algerian coast, mallorca, sardegna, Sicily, tunesia, the Greek isles, and who knows how many cruise ships, fishing vessels, and commercial aircraft all saw this ship.
Or is this article perhaps better interpreted as an example of a dangerous behavior that could be happening also during those sensitive times (in which case, it is unlikely that French media would be even running a story with a map of the sensitive location)?
Detailed maps of military and other sensitive areas have been created through run maps from fitness watches[0].
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/fitness-tracki...
It would be another matter if that was tracking a nuclear submarine...
The earth is vast, but once you pinpoint a carrier, a simple software loop should be able to track it for ever (those carrier do not move fast).
I cannot imagine this being remotely difficult for a state to have a constant pin on every large carriers sailing on earth. There even might be some civilian apps for that too.
But again, Strava and other connected + geolocation apps have been an issue for military personnel in general.
I can't imagine with the satellite image and compute we have it would be difficult at all to know the real_time +- 30min location of any carrier by maybe the top 5-10 states, even at night.
Modern militaries face some interesting challenges.
Possibly mobile apps should be designed to be somewhat secure for military use by defaul, backed by law.
Alternately, phones should have a military safe OS with vetted app store. Something like F-droid, or more on toto phone ubuntu, but tailored.
Obviously, you still need to be security conscious. But a system that is easy to reason about for mortals would not be a bad idea.
Rules like secure by default, and no telemetry or data exfiltration, (and no popups etc), wouldn't be the worst. Add in that you then have a market for people to actually engage with to make more secure apps, and
A) Military can then at least have something like a phone on them, sometimes. Which can be good for morale.
B) it improves civilian infrastructure reliability and resiliance as well.
Think about it: suddenly, in the middle of the desert in Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria/Niger/Djibouti a bunch of people start using a fitness tracker every morning (and the clusters show up in Strava). Did some village suddenly jump on the "get fit" bandwagon? Or could it be a bunch of US Marines/SpecOps/etc people trying to keep fit.
...until there was an active shooter and they couldn't call for help.
so they did away with that and started allowing phones.
personally hate there are too many vested interests working against the common sense that people should own and control their devices, which could prevent nonsense.
Don't we have constellations of satellites constantly imaging the entire earth, both with visual and synthetic aperture radar, with many offering their data freely to the public? Wouldn't a large ship on the ocean stick out somewhat? And yet journalists seem lost without vesselfinder. Is this harder than I'm imagining, or are they just not paying the right orgs for the info?
then of course while at sea, it's the same ship but different location
not like your home or workplace typically relocates itself
imagine being a coder at Strava trying to figure out how to deal with that, it's techically not possible
However it's a great marketing opportunity for Stryd footpod which can track distance without GPS
I wonder what a moving deck at even 10mph would do to a Stryd though
The GPS must have added 10mph? But it's all relative to the deck vs the sea, hmm
A global "Private mode" switch that sends zero data about anything at all while it is enabled. Your runs stay on device. All network calls are rejected. No data saved with it enabled will ever leave the device, full stop.
Every single app in the world should have this. It should be an OS setting that forces network calls to fail as well as part of the app review process that no data generated during a private session can ever leave the device.
They don't do that because they like your data for money.
but once you start using the Strava app the point is socializing activity, otherwise why bother?
Strava privacy zones actually work, well as long as the location isn't physically moving by itself, lol
hope the sailor didn't get into too much trouble if it was innocent enough
This is the modern way to die of stupidity — use your fitness watch app to log your miles on an online app instead of locally — so reveal your operational location.
The US had one of its secret bases in Afghanistan fully mapped for anyone to see by its residents logging their on-base runs.
Now, the French aircraft carrier is pinpointed en route to a war zone.
Yes OPSEC is hard, and they should be trained to not do this, but it seems to be getting ridiculous. If I were in command of such units, I'd certainly be calling for packet inspection and a large blacklist restriction of apps like that (and the research to back it up).
Local first is not just a cute quirk of geeks, it is a serious requirement.
Any system that is based on the perfection of humans is doom from the start ..
A jammer is easy and very effective, you can even use it at home to piss off your neighbor, so I guess the army can do it too;
With how bad the human experiment generally is, I rejoice in the fact that our own stupidity will be our undoing. Imagine if we did things correctly.
There was no declaration of war by anyone so far, and I doubt Iran would wait for an official letter telling them they're allowed to sink a US allied carrier, especially now that they killed the leader's wife, son, dad, and a bunch of relatives (plus the only dude who the US could reasonably negotiate with)
Nobody declares war these days. It is always going to be some type of 'special military operation' at best.
Declaring war implies sticking to the rules. Decapitation strikes on the leadership with side portions of schools getting bombed would be considered illegal if war had been formally declared. Equally, having cluster munitions rain down from the sky over populated cities is also not exactly morally correct.
Rules makes war a sport of sorts, it might as well be boxing where you are not supposed to bite ears or punch below the belt. Yet, if you came under assault and needed to defend yourself, then a bite to the ear or a kick in the balls might make sense at the time.
Also what military support did they drop exactly? Ukraine isn't part of NATO, and the US has been carrying 90% of NATO since forever. I will point out that it was the US, through a combination of bombing and diplomacy that got rid of the Houthi threat to shipping. Nobody else succeeded.
It takes a really good friend to not only accept and forgive the hurt caused, but to help fix the problem, too. Usually an apology from the problem-causer must come first.
I think what we're seeing is that the USA has un-good-friended so many countries that it has no good friends left with the military capabilities to help. It has allies maybe, but nobody who would do such a favor after being victimized by the asker and the problems they caused, without even so much as an apology.
It certainly doesn't help that the USA is asking for help, but probably wants to boss around anybody who volunteers, and it is doing none of the work itself. Sounds like a toxic team.
> Iran is everyones problem
Iran is not everyone's problem. The effects of israel and the USA's war of choice on Iran are everyone's problem. What we're seeing now is not a result of anything Iran did, but rather something the USA and israel did. The worse the effects get, the more blame will be heaped upon the USA and israel. To that end, most countries are likely of the attitude that they have already incurred enough costs from the USA and israel's war, and that the USA and israel had better fix the problem they caused ASAP.
If, at that point, the USA perpetrates any sort of further economic attacks on allies, then of course they will respond appropriately.
It was at best a regional problem until the US and israel decided to fuck things up and make it a global problem, they didn't have nukes, they were not building nukes, even if they had nukes they would not have used them for anything other than extinction level threats, so just like israel, everyone is OK with them having nukes despite being the same type of religious nutjob thecracy, strange. Iranians are very rational when it comes to escalation, more so than israel.
> Ukraine isn't part of NATO, and the US has been carrying 90% of NATO since forever
Yeah idk, maybe don't put cia bases there then? And maybe don't antagonize russia for decades and act surprised when they act like enemies.
You won't catch me defending Russia or Iran but get the fuck out of here with the "the US are the good guys and we're doing god's work by wiping out evil regimes" rhetoric lmao
> Nobody else succeeded.
Yes because that's the only thing they know and understand, bombs, if the problem cannot be solved with bombs they're useless
I'd agree for just about any other country, but Iran have a terrorist regime that is funding terrorists everywhere. They are not like Pakistan or North Korea etc, Iran is crazy and doesn't follow normal international norms.
Even Russia and Ukraine doesn't bomb third party countries in war just for supporting the other side, that is a crazy stupid thing to do and any country behaving like that should never ever have nukes.
Russia also funds coups, not terrorists. You didn't see a lot of suicide bombings and such in Ukraine before Russia attacked, Russia did the sane thing and sent in Russians in the Russian areas to build support etc, funding terrorism is just plain evil and serves no purpose. That is the difference.
This died day 1 when you bombed a fucking school and killed 168 girls. For a lot of these countries the US is a terrorist state. It doesn't matter if the explosive is strapped to a guy's chest or to a tomahawk
I didn't bomb a school, I am not American. Americans are much more against this war than most people of the world. I know a lot of Iranians that are very happy that the regime is getting bombed.
Ask them about the electrical infrastructure, or the unis, or the research enters, or the heritage sites... How did it go in Afghanistan btw? The "democracy" was delivered and well received right?
Third party to who? they all host US bases lmao, a country which just attacked them without declaring war, pearl harbor style, without congress approval, against all kind of international laws, because israel was going in anyways (according to Rubio) for their holy war
Stop drinking the kool aid and plug in your brain, it's way more nuanced than you're lead to believe. No one is "crazy", they all have very rational reasons for what they're doing, the fact that you don't even try to understand them doesn't mean they don't exist.
That is no reason to bomb them. Belarus hosts Russian bases but Ukraine doesn't bomb them. International norms is that military bases that aren't actively used to attack aren't valid targets, only Iran breaks that.
> Stop drinking the kool aid and plug in your brain, it's way more nuanced than you're lead to believe. No one is "crazy", they all have very rational reasons for what they're doing, the fact that you don't even try to understand them doesn't mean they don't exist.
They are crazy, they got the entire middle east against them now with those attacks. I read all the reports from them, they aren't condemning USA about those attacks, they do however condemn Iran for launching attacks at them. Iran strategy failed fully and all they do is dig in further and launch even more attacks on these countries.
That is insane and serves no purpose.
For you, for the new leader of Iran who just lost his dad/wife/brother/son in US strikes it might sound like a very reasonable thing to do.
> That is insane and serves no purpose.
How do you qualify the original attack that started the whole thing? Iran has been pretty clear about how it retaliates and escalates, they did not attack all the targets on day 1, they gradually increased with the US/Israel strikes. They only attacked foreign infrastructure once their own equivalent had been struck first
What do you think about the US/Israel strikes on historical buildings, electrical infrastructure, schools/uni, civilian research centers? What do you think of hegseth literally saying they're here to bring death and destruction ?
I think the US got drunk on their own supply of "we can do whatever the fuck we want because we have the biggest bombs and the cultural superiority".
> I read all the reports from them, they aren't condemning USA about those attacks,
Well you clearly didn't read much outside of US/Israel propaganda
I read every update on Aljazeera, they are very representative of the views of the middle east and aren't American or Israeli propaganda. To me it seems like it is you who only read the propaganda.
Al Jazeera is primarily funded by the government of Qatar, an American ally and (currently) enemy of Iran. It reflects Qatar's views, not that of "the middle east" as a whole.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/18/iran-war-qatar-ras-laffan-na...
It's a newspaper not analysts reports. Did you read one of the pro israeli op-ed by any chance, I can't find anything stating Iran is "crazy"
> Analysts say US threat of ‘no quarter’ for Iran violates international law
> The US-Israeli war on Iran is illegal and goes against the interests of the American people.
> Iran war updates: Israel refinery bombed as >>> retaliatory <<< strikes reverberate
> Iran has ratcheted up the pressure on several Gulf nations by attacking their energy facilities in >>> retaliation <<< for an Israeli strike on its South Pars gasfield
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/14/analysts-say-us-thr...
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/3/8/we-the-american-...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/3/19/iran-war-l...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/19/wrap-iran-ratchets-...
To the extent this might be true, it seems like it would be even more true of the two countries that unprovokedly bombed a third party country to start the war in the first place.
It isn't unprovoked, Iran current regime has chanted "Death to America" since its founding. USA has plenty of reasons to attack here which is why you don't see more international outcry or support for Iran. Iran are on their own.
Yet none have been provided, remember the anthrax scam at the united nations? At least they put some efforts into it
I am not talking about international laws here, just the norms everyone follows in wars. Everyone breaks the international laws, but the norms of not attacking third parties etc are there for rational reasons, since you don't gain anything for doing so its just stupid and causes damage and strife and hurts you for doing it.
Of course, since they did not ask for the congress approval, which is already against their own constitution. That's exactly the kind of things you do when you're a good guy doing the right thing
> but the norms of not attacking third parties etc are there for rational reasons, since you don't gain anything for doing so its just stupid and causes damage and strife and hurts you for doing it.
What norms? No wars = no rules of war, they started something they can't control anymore
They gain plenty from doing it in term of leverage, nobody attacked Iran in such way until now because it was well understood that this is exactly how it would play out
In any case, somebody chanting a thing isn't causus belli, nor is publicly wanting someone to die.
> why you don't see more international outcry or support for Iran
What you don't see is international support for the USA or israel's war on Iran, hence why the strait of hormuz is effectively closed right now.
This has always been the stupidest take.
Do you know how Europe always planned to pay their part of NATO?
Blood.
Go look at war plans if things ever got hot with the soviets. Germany would be gone. The plan was always hundreds of thousands of dead Europeans while the US geared up to come save the day. America's plan for NATO was the same as it's contribution to the first two world wars: Sell all the guns, ammo, fuel, and food required to keep Europe alive while their territory was wiped clean by war.
Compare US casualties in either World War with European casualties. That was always the plan.
Europe's contribution was the graveyards they would have to plow after the war.
Complaining about some budgeting is insane. That was always just a bonus kickback.
So, exactly how things go with Ukraine. They die, we profit, maybe their country survives after, US remains basically untouched, though that part is no longer reality.
Because the UK isn't really in the war, and doesn't want to be?
And for what, exactly, a pat on the back from Trump? (who will then inevitably turn on them after a week and blame them for anything that goes wrong in the war.)
If escorting ship traffic was so straightforward with only upside, the US would be doing it already. Instead of trying to get someone else to take that risk.
There is no war; there is a speical military operation, an excursion or a preemptive retaliatory defensive strike.
Escorting shipping through the Straight isn't like helping an old lady across the road, it's doing it at a red crossing light while pointing an AK47 through the windscreen of the cars with your finger on the trigger daring them to test your resolve.
To get sunk by a $20k drone, the most likely outcome at that point
Many countries already have long-range drones designed to attack ships i.e. anti-ship missiles. They cost $1-2M a piece. It would still require a minimum of many direct hits to sink a modern aircraft carrier, as commonly demonstrated for SINKEX.
The risk at the straights aren't drones but torpedoes and mines and attack boats.
Ask Ukraine, they've been sinking russian warships left and right, even in their own ports
Russia-Ukraine war is different since there are many more drones and neither side has air superiority. Also most of those kills were done by missiles or sea drones, not the shahed drones Iran has that costs 20k.
I can assume Strava is GDPR compliant and would not publish this information without the sailors concent?
Does the French military not stress in their training the dangers of these data disclosures?
Why does the carriers network not have adequate measures against this sort of data exfiltration?
Why is Le Monde tracking a french sailors location data?
Historically there was a problem where user's data was aggregated into a global view. But these days you'd have to follow the user on Strava to get this sort of track.
I suspect that a journalist at Le Monde has a naval buddy on Strava and posted the story.
And why would a Le Monde 'journalist' dox his 'buddy' and expose and thus endanger the ship? Anything for a click?
I'm sure someone in the tech team is getting questioned on this.
> Strava also made it (in 2019) so you'd need at least N samples for it to be visible
Presumably you're talking about the Global Heatmap? This used to be updated only annually. Is it more real-time now?