Hitting Your Target : Part 1 - How ISTAR Works

[jhungary]

Hitting your Target : Part 1 - How ISTAR Works.

ISTAR is the term for modern combat unit to search, look for and track their target. ISTAR dominate the world needs for tracking and providing targeting solution to the ground and thus able to provide a prompt strike on any target in the world.

After reading this essay, I am hoping to bring a clearer sense for audience to have a basic understanding on how ISTAR works and how it's important to have any influence to any modern guided weaponry.

Upon finishing this article, you should

-Have a basic understanding on how ISTAR works.
-Have a basic knowledge to understand between facts and fictions
-Understanding the 4 stage of Targeting Guidance.

Introduction

After a crazy exchange with a PDF fan boy (@antonius123) here when he is talking about how ASAT can destroy US satellite or how DF-Whatever series can destroy any ship it wanted. While these is no more than science fictions, in reality, the purported thesis have ignore the basic ISTAR requirement and hence the performance of these weapon will thus becoming invalid. That got me thinking, how much normal people understand how ISTAR (or to some extend, C4ISTAR) impact on real battlefield?

As a combat veteran, having been working in TOC for communication and coordination between strike group in Afghanistan where I have to use satellite to carry out many different task, this may come nature to me, but for a normal person, how much could he/she know about how ISTAR work?

This article will be broken into 2 parts, the ISTAR itself, and the myth of these so called "Magic Weapon"

What is ISTAR?

ISTAR stands for Intelligence/Information, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance is something you use for battlefield control, in another words, it combine C&C structure and Target Acquisition capability (Usually use with C4 and form C4ISTAR)

In the US, the ISTAR Network over the horizon is done with a series of E-Type Aircraft. Where as E-3G Sentry and EP-3 provide targeting data on Air, Surface and Subsurface, E-8 JSTAR provide real-time tracking solution and data processing to Command and Control Element, and E-4/EC-135 (formerly as they are retired, now I am not sure which aircraft took its place) will provide Command And Control over Battlefield. Supplement by assorted ISTAR/RSTA unit with the US Army, US Navy and Marine and also National Reconnaissance Office.

For China, the only ISTAR capability we know of is provided by Satellite imagery, which as with all satellite imagery (and all communication) comes with a real time delay, which means the mode of tracking cannot be done in real time. (Time Gap will appear from target acquisition to target tracking, and more seriously, from Target Tracking to Command and Control element) Supplement of Target information can be fed from KJ-series AWACS and Ground Base Radar.

By definition, ISTAR is not a real-time system, even if you have a scout sniper providing real time update to your target. Why? Because of something we called Operational Delay.

Operation Delay

The only flaw in any given ISTAR system is the delay from the sensor to the decision making component. While you are looking at your target on one hand and given command to strike the target can happen on the other side of the earth. To the strike platform can be on another different plane altogether.

The time when your sensor (either a human agent or a machine feedback) to the command decision to the strike platform, time is taken to verify, calculate and assess the target. Given the sensor information a real time lag.

If the sensor is a human agent, a human can arrange and compensate the time lag and relocate between the command decision to the strike platform releasing the strike. Human can compensate the error or lag in the decision because your brain can do one thing, match what you are seeing to what you are thinking. Especially so when the strike platform is the human sensor (eg, a sniper on HVT), still the decision is not real-time, but the action is near real time. Don't forget, a target can no longer be a target if certain requirement are met.

However in beyond visual range targeting. You cannot use your human agent as a go-between, as that is out of your visual range. While you can use human agent to try and coordinate the target information and parameter, the ultimate result is heavily depending on how much you can break down the discipline of ISTAR and perform a near real time solution.

ISTAR Explained

As said, ISTAR is the acronym Intelligence/Information, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance. So, there are 4 stages in ISTAR

1. Intelligence/Information - Target information, what's the target looks like, what's te description? Location?
2. Surveillance - Monitoring Target, location and Movement
3. Target Acquisition - Acquire the Target, track it and label it (Friendly, Foe or Unknown)
   
4. Reconnaissance - Understand the location of the target.

In reality, S, TA and R is the way to achieve the I, which is information gathering. By providing a solution to monitor the target, Detect, Locate and Acquire the Target and by exploring the location of the target, it help you build a complete picture of Target Information, and commander using this information to build valuable intel, thus effective plan the strike.

How ISTAR impact Targeting and Planning?

Without ISTAR, every targeting solution and planning would simply fall apart. ISTAR focus on interaction between the person planning an attack to the subject of attack.

If the information provided is not up to date. The target may become irreverent, or the strike plan will become "expired" and you ended up hitting nothing but misses.

With ISTAR, the more information provided would provide a more definite picture of your target, however, with more information, there are need to process these information. Thus, creating a lag between ISTAR and command decision. On the other hand, lack of ISTAR would make the target remain in the dark.

Also, ISTAR would affect Target-Target relationship. For example. if i have a HVT (High Value Target) i need to eliminate, to formulate a strike, I will need to know what the HVT know, where he is going or what he is doing at all time. It could lead me to another target (if he is in a chain) or he could provide me with a new target. Or rendering himself neutral. However, I cannot know the status update until I have a good ISTAR system in place to feed me the information I need, in a timely fashion.

ISTAR and Target Guidance

As mentioned before, it's absurd to think a weapon system, any weapon system can attack a target automatically while itself being fed with real time information. Why? The basic answer lies in the fact that Computer processing is not at all like Human. For a Human, I can distinguish and filter specific information, and also human brain can be multi tasking.

For a human, we can understand trivial fact, but for a computer, for it to understand the targeting information, it have to be specific.

Say for example. Can you spot the 3 Buses on the main road in this Satellite Image?

For a human, you know what a bus is, you know what it looks like. And how did it appear in the map and you know the different between a bus and a part of a building.

However, for a computer, you will need to put in the specifics, computer do not define a bus like we do nor the term "Main Road/MSR", for it, a bus or a road is a shape, however, you should also know that everything in the computer is a shape, more precisely, a state.

So instead of a bus, you will need to list a series of states that the computer can understand, (For example, an rectangle box usually on the side of a road, have window and exhaust and is moving) however, each state also overlap each other. The state of Road, Automobile, House, Water, all comingle with each other, hence for a computer, they cannot tell you what is a bus, what is a part of a wall. Then they will do the next best thing. They will return all result that met the requirement (a part of an object have it states similar to a bus.

Even if a computer is advance enough to tell the different between a bus and a part of a building, There are another problem, the hand off.

Using the Sat Image again as an example. We can see three buses on the main road, how would the computer track all 3? When 2 buses is going North Bound and 1 going South? At some point, the computer system in charge of this satellite would have to break off either one (as the satellite cannot go North and South at the same time) so information have to hand off to the second satellite which are either going north or south, but how would Sat A communicate with Sat B about the target hand off? The answer is, it can't, And Sat B will need to reacquire the target for itself, that mean another set of Operational Delay.

What does that mean?

As said before, no ISTAR system are actually real time, the meaning or more like a revelation, this mean ISTAR alone is not enough to guide a precision weaponry strike. Target information cannot be obtain in real time, and the system itself cannot be use to track an item and give out the information real time, and some even cannot turn out information at all.

Further Ramification would be explain in Part 2

 

[jhungary]

@Slav Defence @AUSTERLITZ @Neutron @PARIKRAMA @Levina @Oscar @Davos @Hamartia Antidote @Blue Marlin @Desertfalcon @Tipu7 @TankMan @Gufi @DESERT FIGHTER @indiatester @somebozo @قناص
@Naif al Hilali @Neptune @Starlord @WAJsal

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Superb article as always.
How far are anti satellite weapons a threat to this information gathering process?Such a development seems inevitable in the next 2-3 decades.How much can Electronic countermeasures disrupt the process?

 

[jhungary]

Superb article as always.
How far are anti satellite weapons a threat to this information gathering process?Such a development seems inevitable in the next 2-3 decades.How much can Electronic countermeasures disrupt the process?

Hey,

Thanks, I was going to explain the ASAT and the Impact on ISTAR on my second article, but I will give you a taste here.

The ASAT threat is minimal. There are 3 reasons behind this.

1.) ASAT system is actually quite complicated. GPS SAT at 20,000 KM above the earth, is out of touch from any Atnmospheric Weapon (ICBM) as they don't get into that far into the space. The only way you can reach this stage is with liquid fuelled rocket, but for it to travel that far, the calculation must be pretty precise, at 1/1000 the error point. Also, Satellite can deploy defensive mechanism, which go from chaff to change its course using booster and program them into gliding into different planar level and inclination. Making it almost impossible for any guided rocket to hit any Satellite. Shooting down an unuse satellite is one thing, shooting down a perfectly functioning satellite where people can sit behind the control is another things.

2.) It's next to impossible to destroy the whole Satellite Constellation at the same time. Take NAVSTAR as an example, there are 24 useable satellite flying at 6 MEO plane at all time, with 7 Satellite act as a back up. With each Satellite flew around the earth twice a day, which mean there are at any given time 4 to 8 Satellite you can use at the same constellation (GPS SAT network). Each position will be changed in every 12 hours, in that you have about 1 and a half hours that the same set of 4-8 Satellite will serve at the same constellation, then 1 of them will break away and a new GPS sat will be in its place (6 changes in 12 hours, mean on average 2 hours per change).

What that mean is, even given the first point does not exist, the Chinese can destory US satellite at will. They will need to destroy all 4 to 8 satellite at the same plane to effectively black out the whole System, and even if ASAT weapon can pull this out, the "Black Out" is going to last for only 90 to 120 minutes before a new satellite come into the orbit. That and then you willhave to destroy the other 4 to 8 set until all 31 satellite runs out.

So, for appoximately 4 set of Satellite Constellation, you will have 8-10 hours in between the first and last strike, By then the American could sortie and pick up all ASAT weapon and destory them.

3.) Even at the worse scenario, All GPS satellite is being destoryed. That didn't do much actually, as US have a large fleet of AWACS, ELINT, Electronic Attack and Defence Aircraft (EC-130, E-4 Night Watch, E-8 JStar, EC-135 Looking Glass, EP-3, EG-18 Growler, E-2D, E-3G, Spy Satellite and all sort of manned and unmanned drone and portable ISTAR platform) Taken out the Satellite does not mean they cannot be attack, the more effective way. Taking out the GPS satellite literally did nothing to the extensive ISTAR network, because at the same time GPS/Spy Satellite are collecting infomation, there are 4 EC-130, 3 E-4, 20 odd EP-3 and assorted E-3G and E-2D they can use as a back up. All of these would provide Targetting information. For airborne and ground control.

For the US, Satellite is redundant system, it can work with ISTAR, it is not at all the total power of ISTAR US military process. In fact, laucnhing ASAT is very ineffective as the trouble you have to go thru to hit satellite that high is more than the gain you have to destory them.

 

[antonius123]

After a crazy exchange with a PDF fan boy (@antonius123) here when he is talking about how ASAT can destroy US satellite or how DF-Whatever series can destroy any ship it wanted. While these is no more than science fictions, in reality, the purported thesis have ignore the basic ISTAR requirement and hence the performance of these weapon will thus becoming invalid. That got me thinking, how much normal people understand how ISTAR (or to some extend, C4ISTAR) impact on real battlefield?

You said ASAT destroying satellites is Science Fiction, then how you would answer what RAND state:

RAND said: "Both belligerents have anti-satellite weapons (ASAT) that are nearly invulnerable to attack, meaning that both countries will be able to destroy a substantial portion of each other’s satellites. The destruction of the American satellite constellation would be especially problematic for the rest of the world since nearly all GPS units connect to American satellites."

http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/rand-report-war-with-china-us-loses-2025

And why people has to believe in you rather than RAND?

Superb article as always.
How far are anti satellite weapons a threat to this information gathering process?Such a development seems inevitable in the next 2-3 decades.How much can Electronic countermeasures disrupt the process?

That is his own composition rather than (superb) article, we still need to see how far he could defend his composition against facts.

I've received many claims and composition from him in another thread, but until now still waiting evidence/citation from him to back his claims.

 

[jhungary]

You said ASAT destroying satellites is Science Fiction, then how you would answer what RAND state:

RAND said: "Both belligerents have anti-satellite weapons (ASAT) that are nearly invulnerable to attack, meaning that both countries will be able to destroy a substantial portion of each other’s satellites. The destruction of the American satellite constellation would be especially problematic for the rest of the world since nearly all GPS units connect to American satellites."

http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/rand-report-war-with-china-us-loses-2025

And why people has to believe in you rather than RAND?



That is his own composition rather than (superb) article, we still need to see how far he could defend his composition against facts.

I've received many claims and composition from him in another thread, but until now still waiting evidence/citation from him to back his claims.

That is because RAND Did not said that, you (and the author) took RAND article out of the context. You are either misunderstanding or have not even check what RAND said.

This is the original RAND report quoted by "We Are Mighty website". Not the word twisted version it quote from "We Are Mighty"

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1140.html

But, by 2025, that gap could be much smaller. Even then, however, China could not be confident of gaining military advantage, which suggests the possibility of a prolonged and destructive, yet inconclusive, war. In that event, nonmilitary factors — economic costs, internal political effects, and international reactions — could become more important.

Although a war would harm both economies, damage to China's would be far worse.

I will apologise and eat my word if you can find what you said in the RAND file.

Rand is talking about how China will improve their odds, still is going to lose in a war with the US in 2025, however, since the Chinese technological advance, the losses will be decrease, yet will inflict more American Losses.

The Article by RAND is taken out of context by the author, and subsequently by you. RAND never even touchs GPS system in its article (it mentioned some in regard to war fighting capacity)

To response to "We Are Mighty" point [NOT FROM RAND]

There are an article by an American Admiral that said "If DF-21 if indeed can carry out like that was advertised. The missile would be indestrucrtable." That does not mean DF-21 is indestructible, rather, they express the opinion saying DF-21 is not indestructible.

RAND said, the destruction of American GPS satellite would be "Problematic". However, it did not illustrate how can the destruction of Satellite Constellation is possible nor would that be an apporiate solution to the answer. I can say Laser Weaponry can create problem to Chinese Missile Technology, does that mean that is the case?

This article in the diplomat detail how limited ASAT can carry out the desruption of ASAT missile capability. It detail how and why ASAT become insequential. You can denied that but you have no show any degree on how Satellite works. Shooting down a dead satellite that you can nolonger control is different than shooting down a manned Satellite where you can change planar detail and inclination. Do tell me, how a missile can hit a satellite 20,000km above the earth when it can change their axis? Nnot to mention Satellite comes with Decoy and Countermeasure.

In short, you are living in a dreamland to say ASAT is useful.

 

[antonius123]

That is because RAND Did not said in your capacity, you took RAND article out of the context. You are either misunderstooding what RAND said.

There are an article by an American Admiral that said "If DF-21 if indeed can carry out like that was advertised. The missile would be indestrucrtable." That does not mean DF-21 is indestructible, rather, they express the opinion saying DF-21 is not indestructible.

RAND said, the destruction of American GPS satellite would be "Problematic". However, it did not illustrate how can the destruction of Satellite Constellation is possible nor would that be an apporiate solution to the answer. I can say Laser Weaponry can create problem to Chinese Missile Technology, does that mean that is the case?

This article in the diplomat detail how limited ASAT can carry out the desruption of ASAT missile capability. It detail how and why ASAT become insequential. You can denied that but you have no show any degree on how Satellite works. Shooting down a dead satellite that you can nolonger control is different than shooting down a manned Satellite where you can change planar detail and inclination. Do tell me, how a missile can hit a satellite 20,000km above the earth when it can change their axis? Nnot to mention Satellite comes with Decoy and Countermeasure.

In short, you are living in a dreamland to say ASAT is useful.

ASAT has been tested sucessfully many times, nobody doubt ASAT possibility to destroy satts except you

So far there is no laser weapon tested and successfully hit missiles.

Your argument has no value and should ruin your credibility as military profesional.

 

[jhungary]

ASAT has been tested sucessfully many times, nobody doubt ASAT possibility to destroy satts except you

So far there is no laser weapon tested and successfully hit missiles.

Your argument has no value and should ruin your credibility as military profesional.

Firtst of all, ASAT was tested with a dead satellite. Not a defendable Satellite.

You are arguing like this, since my SAM missile can shoot down many planes that are stationary, therefore can destroy all and invincible. Taken aside the fact that an active enemy aircraft can dodge, manuver and decoy your missile.

Second of all, I was Listing Laser as an sarcastic example to point out your ignorant. Do you know what "does that mean this is the case" at the end means?

Third of all, my argument have value, just your reply have no value. You keep sayign my reply have no value does not mean it was not true. It's just mean you know nothing about topic at hand and live in your La-La land

 

[antonius123]

Firtst of all, ASAT was tested with a dead satellite. Not a defendable Satellite.

You are arguing like this, since my SAM missile can shoot down many planes that are stationary, therefore can destroy all and invincible. Taken aside the fact that an active enemy aircraft can dodge, manuver and decoy your missile.

Second of all, I was Listing Laser as an sarcastic example to point out your ignorant. Do you know what "does that mean this is the case" at the end means?

Third of all, my argument have value, just your reply have no value. You keep sayign my reply have no value does not mean it was not true. It's just mean you know nothing about topic at hand and live in your La-La land

So now you are claiming that GPS constellation consist of defendable satellite? dare you bring citation for this another claim of you?

Your doubt on current Laser weapon's ability to hit missile is BAD / Faulty sarcasm not comparable with numerous sucessfull ASAT test.

Defending claim with another claim or logical fallacy sarcasm bring no value.

 

[jhungary]

So now you are claiming that GPS constellation consist of defendable satellite? dare you bring citation for this another claim of you?

Your doubt on current Laser weapon's ability to hit missile is BAD / Faulty sarcasm not comparable with numerous sucessfull ASAT test.

Defending claim with another claim or logical fallacy sarcasm bring no value.

No, Satellite only sit in space and waiting to be destroyed. Any government is stupid enough to protect the satellite are to be shot.

I don't know how to reply to this without be sarcastic.

Anyway, the detail (Which countermeasure) is classified, Boeing, however, talked about how their Satellite defend from Ground/Space based jamming in this video.

 

[antonius123]

No, Satellite only sit in space and waiting to be destroyed. Any government is stupid enough to protect the satellite are to be shot.

I don't know how to reply to this without be sarcastic.

Anyway, the detail (Which countermeasure) is classified, Boeing, however, talked about how their Satellite defend from Ground/Space based jamming in this video.

So you are assuming that current US 32 GPS Satellites in the sky must already have self defense system just because there is kind of this invention (defendable satt)? any citation? who is daydreaming wonder weapon now?

You forbid me to say DF26 can hit carriers/destroyer, but you allow your self to claim GPS sats has protection system that ensure it cannot be hit by ASAT. That show you are a fanboy.

This is sarcastic for you: US must already have STAR WARS, because there is laser that capable to shoot object

 

[jhungary]

So you are assuming that current US 32 GPS Satellites in the sky must already have self defense system just because there is kind of this invention (defendable satt)? any citation? who is daydreaming wonder weapon now?

This is sarcastic for you: US must already have STAR WARS, because there is laser that capable to shoot object

So, you assume SAtellite don't have any countermeasurement? So Boeing can put a AESA Antenna but not a simple chaff system in their satellite?

You are funny.

 

[The SC]

So, you assume SAtellite don't have any countermeasurement? So Boeing can put a AESA Antenna but not a simple chaff system in their satellite?

You are funny.

You are talking about Military satellites, and the most recent ones at that.. not civilian satellites like communication and GIS ones. that is the difference..

 

[jhungary]

You are talking about Military satellites, and the most recent ones at that.. not civilian satellites like communication and GIS ones. that is the difference..

He is talking about GPS satellite (NAVSTAR) not some Satellite launched by private company like Immarsat or MLB. Current GPS satellite is Block IIF and Block IIR/RF, all GPS satellite is Military Satellite with USA designation, which is overseen by US Air Force.

You missed a lot of his point to follow what we are saying here. His point is Chinese ASAT can destroy the GPS system by destroying all GPS satellite. I told him these Satellite have self defence mechanism and was employed in a height over current tested ASAT range. Then he said these GPS satellite are likely undefended...

 

[antonius123]

So, you assume SAtellite don't have any countermeasurement? So Boeing can put a AESA Antenna but not a simple chaff system in their satellite?

You are funny.

I dont assume anything. My argument is based on citation - not assumption.

If you are assuming that current 32 GPS sats already has such countermeassurement without being backed by any citation, then somebodye else will be free to assume that Chinese ASAT can do maneuver and avoid that GPS Sat countermeassurement system, then everything will be base on assumption and fantasy, then our discussion become a fanboysm discussion.

It is you who are funny