Monday, March 31, 2008
Saturday, March 29, 2008
The Strategic Warfare Reading List
INTRODUCTION
Any serious student or researcher focusing on the concept of strategic warfare can often be hard-pressed to find suitable in-depth source material. The purpose of this article is to provide students, researchers, and historians with a reading list consisting of some of the most interesting and valuable sources that I have collected in the field of strategic warfare.
THE READING LIST
Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat - NASIC
NASIC's report detailing the current major strategic missile systems in service or development is a useful starting point when researching strategic delivery systems. Most major programs are mentioned, and basic details such as range and throw weight are provided, as well as a few choice illustrations. The only serious drawback is that the document is only 30 pages in length, meaning that there is not a great deal of detailed information about any of the systems mentioned therein. However, it is a valuable reference tool, containing data on most major missile non-US missile systems in development or service. This unclassified publication can be found online here.
US Strategic and Defensive Missile Systems 1950-2004 - Mark A Berhow
Number 36 in Osprey Publishing's Fortress Series, this volume is a short yet suprisingly detailed account of the development and deployment of American land-based defensive and strategic missile systems. While naval strategic weapons are not covered, all major US ICBM programs are given mention, as are the HAWK, NIKE and SAFEGUARD defensive missile programs. A final mention is given to the current NMD system being deployed. It should be noted that PATRIOT and THAAD, among others, are not covered, as they have not been deployed as operational defensive systems in the United States.
Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces - Pavel Podvig
This is the single, definitive reference source dealing with the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal. All major delivery systems are covered, from strategic bombers to submarine launched ballistic missiles. The technical data is absolutely first rate, and a history of each program is provided. Topics such as nuclear production facilities, nuclear testing, and strategic defense are also covered in exhaustive detail. There are also extensive endnotes for each chapter, with some of them providing further details and insight into little-known weapon systems alluded to or mentioned briefly in the text. The only drawback is that Mr. Podvig's work was published in 2001, and as such does not deal with the most current systems such as the RS-24 ICBM. He does maintain a website here, which provides up-to-date information supplementing his excellent text. This is the one reference work that any serious Cold War researcher simply must obtain.
The Kremlin's Nuclear Sword - Steven J. Zaloga
This is a shorter, less technical alternative to Podvig's work. It shares the same main drawback of being slightly aged, having been published in 2002. The main advantage to Zaloga's work is that the political side of the equation is given more attention, as are many of the developmental systems which did not enter production. The work is organized chronologically, which can be an inconvenience for a researcher focusing on one type of delivery system. The chronological layout does allow for a more historical analysis to be made, allowing the reader to examine the types of delivery systems that were in development concurrently. Zaloga's work does have merit as a secondary source, or as a primary source if Podvig's work cannot be located. Space surveillance, defensive systems, and nuclear testing and production are either not covered in Zaloga's work, or are only briefly mentioned. All in all, an excellent overview of Russian strategic nuclear forces and a better source than Podvig's where the political side is concerned.
The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb - Richard Rhodes
Both of these extensive reference works offer a great deal of historical and political insight into the American nuclear weapons programs during the early days of the Cold War. Be warned; while both books tend to focus more on the political and historical implications of the programs, they do delve into the weapons development aspect and as such can get very technical.
The ABM Treaty Charade - William T. Lee
This is one of the most interesting reference works on the Cold War, and consequently it is also one of the hardest to find. It is a higly technical look at the Soviet nationwide ABM network, the existance of which was denied by Western intelligence during the run-up to the signing of the ABM Treaty. There is a healthy dose of political discourse dealing with the rationale behind the West's ignorance of the USSR's progress, as well as a concise overview of Soviet ABM programs. The bulk of the work details the evidence supporting the idea that a nationwide ABM network existed in the Soviet Union. If a copy can be obtained, this is one of the most significant and revealing works on the Cold War yet published, and the only English-language publication dealing solely with Soviet ABM programs.
Space Weapons, Earth Wars - Bob Preston et al
Anti-missile and anti-satellite systems are becoming the new rage in the field of strategic warfare. While it primarily focuses on space warfare systems from an American standpoint, delving into the rationale behind acquiring such systems and how best to employ them, this reference work is invaluable to anyone interested in the topic as there is a great deal of technical data presented that cannot be found anywhere else. Various types of systems are described, as well as the technical requirements that they must meet in order to be successful. As a RAND publication, it can be found online here.
CONCLUSION
Strategic warfare is one of the most interesting topics in the field of military studies. By using the sources listed above, any researcher will be well on his or her way to gaining a more complete understanding of the weapon systems and the political motives behind their development. As I locate more source material, I will update this article with the relevant details.
Any serious student or researcher focusing on the concept of strategic warfare can often be hard-pressed to find suitable in-depth source material. The purpose of this article is to provide students, researchers, and historians with a reading list consisting of some of the most interesting and valuable sources that I have collected in the field of strategic warfare.
THE READING LIST
Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat - NASIC
NASIC's report detailing the current major strategic missile systems in service or development is a useful starting point when researching strategic delivery systems. Most major programs are mentioned, and basic details such as range and throw weight are provided, as well as a few choice illustrations. The only serious drawback is that the document is only 30 pages in length, meaning that there is not a great deal of detailed information about any of the systems mentioned therein. However, it is a valuable reference tool, containing data on most major missile non-US missile systems in development or service. This unclassified publication can be found online here.
US Strategic and Defensive Missile Systems 1950-2004 - Mark A Berhow
Number 36 in Osprey Publishing's Fortress Series, this volume is a short yet suprisingly detailed account of the development and deployment of American land-based defensive and strategic missile systems. While naval strategic weapons are not covered, all major US ICBM programs are given mention, as are the HAWK, NIKE and SAFEGUARD defensive missile programs. A final mention is given to the current NMD system being deployed. It should be noted that PATRIOT and THAAD, among others, are not covered, as they have not been deployed as operational defensive systems in the United States.
Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces - Pavel Podvig
This is the single, definitive reference source dealing with the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal. All major delivery systems are covered, from strategic bombers to submarine launched ballistic missiles. The technical data is absolutely first rate, and a history of each program is provided. Topics such as nuclear production facilities, nuclear testing, and strategic defense are also covered in exhaustive detail. There are also extensive endnotes for each chapter, with some of them providing further details and insight into little-known weapon systems alluded to or mentioned briefly in the text. The only drawback is that Mr. Podvig's work was published in 2001, and as such does not deal with the most current systems such as the RS-24 ICBM. He does maintain a website here, which provides up-to-date information supplementing his excellent text. This is the one reference work that any serious Cold War researcher simply must obtain.
The Kremlin's Nuclear Sword - Steven J. Zaloga
This is a shorter, less technical alternative to Podvig's work. It shares the same main drawback of being slightly aged, having been published in 2002. The main advantage to Zaloga's work is that the political side of the equation is given more attention, as are many of the developmental systems which did not enter production. The work is organized chronologically, which can be an inconvenience for a researcher focusing on one type of delivery system. The chronological layout does allow for a more historical analysis to be made, allowing the reader to examine the types of delivery systems that were in development concurrently. Zaloga's work does have merit as a secondary source, or as a primary source if Podvig's work cannot be located. Space surveillance, defensive systems, and nuclear testing and production are either not covered in Zaloga's work, or are only briefly mentioned. All in all, an excellent overview of Russian strategic nuclear forces and a better source than Podvig's where the political side is concerned.
The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb - Richard Rhodes
Both of these extensive reference works offer a great deal of historical and political insight into the American nuclear weapons programs during the early days of the Cold War. Be warned; while both books tend to focus more on the political and historical implications of the programs, they do delve into the weapons development aspect and as such can get very technical.
The ABM Treaty Charade - William T. Lee
This is one of the most interesting reference works on the Cold War, and consequently it is also one of the hardest to find. It is a higly technical look at the Soviet nationwide ABM network, the existance of which was denied by Western intelligence during the run-up to the signing of the ABM Treaty. There is a healthy dose of political discourse dealing with the rationale behind the West's ignorance of the USSR's progress, as well as a concise overview of Soviet ABM programs. The bulk of the work details the evidence supporting the idea that a nationwide ABM network existed in the Soviet Union. If a copy can be obtained, this is one of the most significant and revealing works on the Cold War yet published, and the only English-language publication dealing solely with Soviet ABM programs.
Space Weapons, Earth Wars - Bob Preston et al
Anti-missile and anti-satellite systems are becoming the new rage in the field of strategic warfare. While it primarily focuses on space warfare systems from an American standpoint, delving into the rationale behind acquiring such systems and how best to employ them, this reference work is invaluable to anyone interested in the topic as there is a great deal of technical data presented that cannot be found anywhere else. Various types of systems are described, as well as the technical requirements that they must meet in order to be successful. As a RAND publication, it can be found online here.
CONCLUSION
Strategic warfare is one of the most interesting topics in the field of military studies. By using the sources listed above, any researcher will be well on his or her way to gaining a more complete understanding of the weapon systems and the political motives behind their development. As I locate more source material, I will update this article with the relevant details.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Iran and the S-300PT
INTRODUCTION
Open-source reporting indicates that Iran has purchased the S-300PT SAM system from Belarus. The S-300PT will represent the most modern, advanced SAM system in Iran when it is operationally deployed.
IRANIAN S-300PT SYSTEMS
According to Jane's International Defence Review, Iran is now the owner of four S-300PT battalions. Two of these units were sourced from Belarus, and had been deployed as capital-area air defence units around Minsk. The other two units were sourced from an undisclosed nation and were recently refurbished by Belarussian technicians working at an IRGC facility in Iran, where the units were stored.
A typical Belarussian S-300PT battery consisted of twelve TELs, one 5N63 (FLAP LID) engagement radar, and one 5N66 (CLAM SHELL) low altitude detection radar. It is therefore logical to assume that the two "battalions" obtained from Belarus were in fact two complete firing batteries worth of equipment. Combined with the other two units refurbished in Iran, this gives Iran a total deployable force of approximately four S-300PT batteries.
Jane's goes on to state that both the 5V55K and 5V55R missiles were included in the deal with Belarus, implying that the systems were of the improved S-300PT-1 or S-300PT-1A variant. Baseline S-300PT systems lacked the ability to employ the SAGG-guided 5V55R weapon, and were limited to using the command-guided 5V55K only. It is possible that the extended-range 5V55RUD was also included.
The S-300PT provides Iran with a modern, complex, and very effective SAM system. Iran's current strategic SAM systems, the HQ-2 (CSA-1 GUIDELINE) and S-200 (SA-5 GAMMON), are limited by their single-target engagement capability. The S-300PT's 5N63 radar system can prosecute six targets simultaneously, while guiding a maximum of two missiles to each target.
The S-300PT is also a far more mobile system than its Iranian stablemates. It is not, however, a true mobile SAM system. The 5N63 radar system is not vehicle-borne, and is mounted on a towed trailer for transport. 40V6 mast assemblies are required to erect the 5N63 and 5N66 radar systems, although the 5N63 could remain on its trailer for operation if required. These factors lend the S-300PT to a fixed site layout rather than a mobile environment.
POSTULATED DEPLOYMENT
Four S-300PT batteries will result in a significant increase in overall capability, but are not enough to upgrade the entire Iranian air defense network. In order to maximize their effectiveness, Iran will likely adopt one of two deployment strategies. The systems will likely be deployed to protect either significant military facilities, or significant nuclear weapons research and production facilities, or a combination of the two.
Should Iran choose to deploy its four S-300PT batteries to defend militarily significant sites, the following would be the likely locations:
-Tehran, home to Iran's military command
-Tabriz, home to Iran's silo-based missile deterrent
-Bushehr, home to an IrIAF fighter unit and S-200 battery covering much of the Persian Gulf region
-Bandar Abbas, Iran's primary naval facility in the Persian Gulf region and home to the Kilo submarine fleet
The following image depicts the areas defended by S-300PT batteries at the aforementioned locations. The three range rings around each site denote the 47km 5V55K missile, the 75km 5V55R missile, and the 90km 5V55RUD missile.
Should Iran choose to deploy its four S-300PT batteries to defend significant nuclear weapons research and development sites, the four likely locations are as follows:
-Tehran, home to the nuclear research center
-Bushehr, home to the contentious nuclear reactor program
-Natanz, home to a fuel enrichment facility
-Esfahan, home to a uranium conversion facility
The following image depicts the areas defended by S-300PT batteries at the aforementioned locations. The three range rings around each site denote the 47km 5V55K missile, the 75km 5V55R missile, and the 90km 5V55RUD missile.
To illustrate the limited effect that the S-300PT's presence will have in the context of the overall Iranian air defense picture, consider the following image. In this image, the S-300PTs have been deployed at the nuclear facilities. HQ-2, S-200, and HAWK engagement zones are also displayed, the HQ-2 being denoted by dark red rings, the S-200 by light purple, and the HAWK by orange.
As can be seen, the short-range of even the 5V55RUD-equipped S-300PT does not result in a significant increase in capability. The S-300PT does have a multiple target engagement capability advantage, and this is why the system is likely to be deployed as a point defense asset to protect various facilities. To create a more potent air defense network overall, either a longer-range system would be required, or an increased number of S-300PT batteries.
HARDENED DEPLOYMENT CONCEPTS
On occasion, Iran has turned to North Korea for military assistance. It is possible that North Korea could be called upon to aid in increasing the survivability of Iran's most modern strategic SAM system through the use of hardened launch sites. North Korea has been shown to employ significant hardening techniques at S-125 (SA-3 GOA) and S-200 sites, to include the use of silos used to house the engagement radars, which are ostensibly fitted to elevating platforms. Similar techniques, if employed by the Iranians, could help to make the S-300PT systems far more survivable. Iran has shown a degree of competence in the field of hardened facilities recently with the silo-based missile complex at Tabriz, and could certainly undertake a hardened deployment of the S- 300PT on its own, but North Korean assistance in this regard may still be worthwhile given their experience with hardened siting of SAM systems.
Given the nature of the system, the S-300PT could be deployed in two separate types of hardened facility. The first would feature underground garages for the complete TELs. The second would feature much simpler hardened silos for the individual, sealed launch canisters.
The first example of a hardened site concept for the S-300PT system involves a below-ground, concrete hardened garage. Inside this garage, the 5P85 TEL is mounted. When elevated for launch, a retractable skirt would join the missile tubes with the silo opening. The silo would be covered with quick-opening launch doors, likely covered with debris or dirt when closed to assist in keeping the location hidden. A control bunker would be provided for launch crews, and an entry door would allow the removal of the TEL for maintenance or reloading. Finally, an exhaust extraction fan would prevent the buildup of toxic gasses inside the garage bay.
An illustration of the concept described above is provided below:
The alternative to basing the entire TEL inside of a hardened facility is to simply mount the individual launch canisters inside of hardened silos. These silos would be far cheaper to develop and maintain, and would require far less time to construct given their smaller scale. These remote launch facilities would consist of a number of silos, each containing four 5V55-series launch tubes. As the 5V55 missile tubes are sealed until launch, they could remain inside the silo until they are launched. The only above-ground component required would be a communications antenna, allowing launch commands to be transmitted from the fire control facility. If the radar is located in close proximity, the launch silos could be connected via more secure cables. However, using radio commands would permit the launch sites to be dispersed over greater distances, potentially making them much harder to locate. Basing the missile canisters inside of silo complexes also allows the TELs themselves to be held in reserve in the event that the silo complexes are destroyed, allowing Iran to retain the ability to redeploy the system should the need arise.
An illustration of the concept described above is provided below:
LACK OF EW SUPPORT
The main problem with such a small number of deployable batteries is that they cannot be employed to maximum effect. Doing so would involve the use of EW assets such as the 36D6 (TIN SHIELD) or 64N6 (BIG BIRD) EW radars to provide target acquisition data. the 5N63 engagement radar employed by the S-300PT can perform independent target acquisition functions, but the system is more effective with off-board cueing, providing quicker reaction times. A long-range radar system such as the 64N6 can also acquire targets at roughly twice the range of the 5N63, providing a greater degree of early warning and enhanced situational awareness.
As there is no evidence to suggest that Iran obtained either the 36D6 or the 64N6, it is likely that the batteries will, for the time being, be left to operate as independent units. In this regard, it is entirely possible that Iran may choose to keep its S-300PT batteries garrisoned, deploying them to predetermined locations when the need arises. The only issue with this strategy is that the S-300PT does require a semi-prepared site to operate from, and such sites, unless they are of the hardened, sub-surface variety described earlier, are easily located in overhead imagery.
CONCLUSION
The S-300PT represents the most advanced SAM system in the Iranian inventory. When the Belarussian systems are delivered, the four S-300PT batteries will represent a serious roadblock towards a limited incursion by an aggressor such as Israel seeking to destabilize the region by striking Iranian nuclear weapons production facilities. The S-300PT will not, however, close Iranian airspace to a large-scale aerial offensive. To achieve that goal, Iran must continue to pursue acquisition of more modern S-300PM-1/2 or S-400 SAM systems from Russia, and the EW systems to integrate them on a national level.
SOURCES
-All satellite imagery provided courtesy of Google Earth
-SAM range data taken from Jane's Land-Based Air Defence
-"Iran set to acquire S-300PTs from Belarus" - Jane's International Defence Review, February 1, 2008
Open-source reporting indicates that Iran has purchased the S-300PT SAM system from Belarus. The S-300PT will represent the most modern, advanced SAM system in Iran when it is operationally deployed.
IRANIAN S-300PT SYSTEMS
According to Jane's International Defence Review, Iran is now the owner of four S-300PT battalions. Two of these units were sourced from Belarus, and had been deployed as capital-area air defence units around Minsk. The other two units were sourced from an undisclosed nation and were recently refurbished by Belarussian technicians working at an IRGC facility in Iran, where the units were stored.
A typical Belarussian S-300PT battery consisted of twelve TELs, one 5N63 (FLAP LID) engagement radar, and one 5N66 (CLAM SHELL) low altitude detection radar. It is therefore logical to assume that the two "battalions" obtained from Belarus were in fact two complete firing batteries worth of equipment. Combined with the other two units refurbished in Iran, this gives Iran a total deployable force of approximately four S-300PT batteries.
Jane's goes on to state that both the 5V55K and 5V55R missiles were included in the deal with Belarus, implying that the systems were of the improved S-300PT-1 or S-300PT-1A variant. Baseline S-300PT systems lacked the ability to employ the SAGG-guided 5V55R weapon, and were limited to using the command-guided 5V55K only. It is possible that the extended-range 5V55RUD was also included.
The S-300PT provides Iran with a modern, complex, and very effective SAM system. Iran's current strategic SAM systems, the HQ-2 (CSA-1 GUIDELINE) and S-200 (SA-5 GAMMON), are limited by their single-target engagement capability. The S-300PT's 5N63 radar system can prosecute six targets simultaneously, while guiding a maximum of two missiles to each target.
The S-300PT is also a far more mobile system than its Iranian stablemates. It is not, however, a true mobile SAM system. The 5N63 radar system is not vehicle-borne, and is mounted on a towed trailer for transport. 40V6 mast assemblies are required to erect the 5N63 and 5N66 radar systems, although the 5N63 could remain on its trailer for operation if required. These factors lend the S-300PT to a fixed site layout rather than a mobile environment.
POSTULATED DEPLOYMENT
Four S-300PT batteries will result in a significant increase in overall capability, but are not enough to upgrade the entire Iranian air defense network. In order to maximize their effectiveness, Iran will likely adopt one of two deployment strategies. The systems will likely be deployed to protect either significant military facilities, or significant nuclear weapons research and production facilities, or a combination of the two.
Should Iran choose to deploy its four S-300PT batteries to defend militarily significant sites, the following would be the likely locations:
-Tehran, home to Iran's military command
-Tabriz, home to Iran's silo-based missile deterrent
-Bushehr, home to an IrIAF fighter unit and S-200 battery covering much of the Persian Gulf region
-Bandar Abbas, Iran's primary naval facility in the Persian Gulf region and home to the Kilo submarine fleet
The following image depicts the areas defended by S-300PT batteries at the aforementioned locations. The three range rings around each site denote the 47km 5V55K missile, the 75km 5V55R missile, and the 90km 5V55RUD missile.
Should Iran choose to deploy its four S-300PT batteries to defend significant nuclear weapons research and development sites, the four likely locations are as follows:
-Tehran, home to the nuclear research center
-Bushehr, home to the contentious nuclear reactor program
-Natanz, home to a fuel enrichment facility
-Esfahan, home to a uranium conversion facility
The following image depicts the areas defended by S-300PT batteries at the aforementioned locations. The three range rings around each site denote the 47km 5V55K missile, the 75km 5V55R missile, and the 90km 5V55RUD missile.
To illustrate the limited effect that the S-300PT's presence will have in the context of the overall Iranian air defense picture, consider the following image. In this image, the S-300PTs have been deployed at the nuclear facilities. HQ-2, S-200, and HAWK engagement zones are also displayed, the HQ-2 being denoted by dark red rings, the S-200 by light purple, and the HAWK by orange.
As can be seen, the short-range of even the 5V55RUD-equipped S-300PT does not result in a significant increase in capability. The S-300PT does have a multiple target engagement capability advantage, and this is why the system is likely to be deployed as a point defense asset to protect various facilities. To create a more potent air defense network overall, either a longer-range system would be required, or an increased number of S-300PT batteries.
HARDENED DEPLOYMENT CONCEPTS
On occasion, Iran has turned to North Korea for military assistance. It is possible that North Korea could be called upon to aid in increasing the survivability of Iran's most modern strategic SAM system through the use of hardened launch sites. North Korea has been shown to employ significant hardening techniques at S-125 (SA-3 GOA) and S-200 sites, to include the use of silos used to house the engagement radars, which are ostensibly fitted to elevating platforms. Similar techniques, if employed by the Iranians, could help to make the S-300PT systems far more survivable. Iran has shown a degree of competence in the field of hardened facilities recently with the silo-based missile complex at Tabriz, and could certainly undertake a hardened deployment of the S- 300PT on its own, but North Korean assistance in this regard may still be worthwhile given their experience with hardened siting of SAM systems.
Given the nature of the system, the S-300PT could be deployed in two separate types of hardened facility. The first would feature underground garages for the complete TELs. The second would feature much simpler hardened silos for the individual, sealed launch canisters.
The first example of a hardened site concept for the S-300PT system involves a below-ground, concrete hardened garage. Inside this garage, the 5P85 TEL is mounted. When elevated for launch, a retractable skirt would join the missile tubes with the silo opening. The silo would be covered with quick-opening launch doors, likely covered with debris or dirt when closed to assist in keeping the location hidden. A control bunker would be provided for launch crews, and an entry door would allow the removal of the TEL for maintenance or reloading. Finally, an exhaust extraction fan would prevent the buildup of toxic gasses inside the garage bay.
An illustration of the concept described above is provided below:
The alternative to basing the entire TEL inside of a hardened facility is to simply mount the individual launch canisters inside of hardened silos. These silos would be far cheaper to develop and maintain, and would require far less time to construct given their smaller scale. These remote launch facilities would consist of a number of silos, each containing four 5V55-series launch tubes. As the 5V55 missile tubes are sealed until launch, they could remain inside the silo until they are launched. The only above-ground component required would be a communications antenna, allowing launch commands to be transmitted from the fire control facility. If the radar is located in close proximity, the launch silos could be connected via more secure cables. However, using radio commands would permit the launch sites to be dispersed over greater distances, potentially making them much harder to locate. Basing the missile canisters inside of silo complexes also allows the TELs themselves to be held in reserve in the event that the silo complexes are destroyed, allowing Iran to retain the ability to redeploy the system should the need arise.
An illustration of the concept described above is provided below:
LACK OF EW SUPPORT
The main problem with such a small number of deployable batteries is that they cannot be employed to maximum effect. Doing so would involve the use of EW assets such as the 36D6 (TIN SHIELD) or 64N6 (BIG BIRD) EW radars to provide target acquisition data. the 5N63 engagement radar employed by the S-300PT can perform independent target acquisition functions, but the system is more effective with off-board cueing, providing quicker reaction times. A long-range radar system such as the 64N6 can also acquire targets at roughly twice the range of the 5N63, providing a greater degree of early warning and enhanced situational awareness.
As there is no evidence to suggest that Iran obtained either the 36D6 or the 64N6, it is likely that the batteries will, for the time being, be left to operate as independent units. In this regard, it is entirely possible that Iran may choose to keep its S-300PT batteries garrisoned, deploying them to predetermined locations when the need arises. The only issue with this strategy is that the S-300PT does require a semi-prepared site to operate from, and such sites, unless they are of the hardened, sub-surface variety described earlier, are easily located in overhead imagery.
CONCLUSION
The S-300PT represents the most advanced SAM system in the Iranian inventory. When the Belarussian systems are delivered, the four S-300PT batteries will represent a serious roadblock towards a limited incursion by an aggressor such as Israel seeking to destabilize the region by striking Iranian nuclear weapons production facilities. The S-300PT will not, however, close Iranian airspace to a large-scale aerial offensive. To achieve that goal, Iran must continue to pursue acquisition of more modern S-300PM-1/2 or S-400 SAM systems from Russia, and the EW systems to integrate them on a national level.
SOURCES
-All satellite imagery provided courtesy of Google Earth
-SAM range data taken from Jane's Land-Based Air Defence
-"Iran set to acquire S-300PTs from Belarus" - Jane's International Defence Review, February 1, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Current Developments
INTRODUCTION
Just a quick note to keep you all informed on the current goings-on related to this site and its content.
IMINT & ANALYSIS FEATURED IN JANE'S
As online subscribers have no doubt discovered, Jane's Missiles & Rockets has two articles in their February print edition featuring the work of this website. In "Iran may have lined up S-300 SAM systems", my work detailing Iran's air defense network is discussed. "China deploys KS-1A SAM" is a report detailing my discovery of the first KS-1A SAM site in China, featured first on this blog a month ago. Hopefully I can contribute more to Jane's and other industry-related publications in the future.
FORTHCOMING PROJECTS
The next three articles for this site are being prepared, and they are going to take a little bit of time, so bear with me. The most extensive is going to be an analysis of China's air defense network, with a good deal of future projection mixed in. Special attention will be given to air defenses along the Taiwan Strait. The other two articles are going to be a feature on Russian space surveillance facilities (inspired by my recent discovery of the Far East Krona site in Google Earth) and an analysis of the impact of the S-300PT in Iranian service.
SAM SITE PROJECTS
The SAM Site .kmz file for Google Earth is still updated on a regular basis whenever I have enough new locations to warrant uploading a new file. I am also looking at developing a document based on that data, something along the lines of a guide to worldwide SAM systems broken down by nation, and featuring location data and information on the numbers and types of individual components at each location.
THE S-300P
I am still preparing what should be the definitive look at the S-300P SAM system, to replace an earlier article on this site, as well as numerous other things. Smaller-scope articles will still be posted as time permits, but my current primary focus is on the Chinese article, so bear with me if the site appears stagnant for a week or so.
CONCLUSION
As always, comments are welcome and encouraged. I'd encourage visitors to post a comment to this thread to suggest ideas for future articles as well.
Just a quick note to keep you all informed on the current goings-on related to this site and its content.
IMINT & ANALYSIS FEATURED IN JANE'S
As online subscribers have no doubt discovered, Jane's Missiles & Rockets has two articles in their February print edition featuring the work of this website. In "Iran may have lined up S-300 SAM systems", my work detailing Iran's air defense network is discussed. "China deploys KS-1A SAM" is a report detailing my discovery of the first KS-1A SAM site in China, featured first on this blog a month ago. Hopefully I can contribute more to Jane's and other industry-related publications in the future.
FORTHCOMING PROJECTS
The next three articles for this site are being prepared, and they are going to take a little bit of time, so bear with me. The most extensive is going to be an analysis of China's air defense network, with a good deal of future projection mixed in. Special attention will be given to air defenses along the Taiwan Strait. The other two articles are going to be a feature on Russian space surveillance facilities (inspired by my recent discovery of the Far East Krona site in Google Earth) and an analysis of the impact of the S-300PT in Iranian service.
SAM SITE PROJECTS
The SAM Site .kmz file for Google Earth is still updated on a regular basis whenever I have enough new locations to warrant uploading a new file. I am also looking at developing a document based on that data, something along the lines of a guide to worldwide SAM systems broken down by nation, and featuring location data and information on the numbers and types of individual components at each location.
THE S-300P
I am still preparing what should be the definitive look at the S-300P SAM system, to replace an earlier article on this site, as well as numerous other things. Smaller-scope articles will still be posted as time permits, but my current primary focus is on the Chinese article, so bear with me if the site appears stagnant for a week or so.
CONCLUSION
As always, comments are welcome and encouraged. I'd encourage visitors to post a comment to this thread to suggest ideas for future articles as well.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
China's J-10: An Imagery Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The most important modernisation program underway within China's PLAAF is the introduction of the Chengdu J-10 into widespread service. The J-10 is a modern, 4th generation fighter aircraft combining a canard-delta layout with modern avionics and a BVR air-to-air weapon system. Careful analysis of current and past open-source overhead imagery has provided a detailed look at the current status of the J-10 program insofar as operational deployment is concerned. This highlights the value of overhead imagery as an analysis tool, as the J-10 program was not even officially acknowledged by the Chinese military until late 2006. Such secrecy is common in China, and goes a long way towards discrediting the various designs purported to represent the next-generation XXJ, which were revealed as far back as 2002. The fact that China refused to acknowledge an aircraft already visible in hundreds of photographs but at the same time was releasing images of the designs competing for a new stealthy fighter program would seem to be an obvious contradiction in policy, but that is another issue entirely.
TEST FACILITIES
Chengdu
Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) is the manufacturer of the J-10 fighter aircraft. Many of the early flight tests took place from Chengdu's facility located northwest of Chengdu in central China. Many of the prototypes are still located at the CAC facility and continue to serve various purposes in the continued development of the J-10.
The following image depicts the J-10 area at CAC's flight test facility:
Xian-Yanliang
Xian-Yanliang is home to the Chinese Flight Test Establishment, or CFTE. The CFTE handles the bulk of the flight test programs for the PLAAF, and as such evaluated the J-10 extensively. Xian-Yanliang is located to the northeast of Xian in central China.
The following image depicts a J-10 on the ramp at the CFTE facility:
Dingxin AB
Dingxin airbase, located in north central China near the Shuangchengzi missile test range, is home to a great deal of PLAAF flight test efforts. Pockmarked terrain and targets marked in the desert indicate that among other things, Dingxin is home to weapons integration testing. As such, J-10s have deployed to Dingxin on various occasions beginning in 2002 to conduct trials of the weapon system, including integration of the PL-12 ARH MRAAM.
The following image depicts a lineup of six J-10s on the ramp at Dingxin:
Imagery available in October of 2006 depicted three J-10s on the ramp at Dingxin, with one of the aircraft participating in an apparent display lineup for government or military officials, as seen in the images below:
Cangzhou AB and Jiugucheng AB
J-10s are visible in residence at two airbases known to be subordinate to the Chinese Flight Test & Training Center (FTTC). The FTTC is based at Cangzhou AB south of Beijing. It has been reported that between six and ten J-10s were delivered to Cangzhou in March of 2003 to form the 13th Operational Trials Regiment. Recent imagery taken from 2006 and 2007, however, suggests that six aircraft were delivered to Jiugucheng AB further south, a location also associated with the FTTC in some sources. This does not indicate that no J-10s were operated or are currently operated from Cangzhou AB, but as no J-10s are visible in available imagery of Cangzhou AB one can only speculate as to the status of any J-10 unit at that location.
At least three J-10s are still visible on the ramp at Jiugucheng AB, with six shelters having been constructed for housing the new fighters. The following two images illustrate the alteration of the ramp area. The first image depicts three J-10s sitting behind three of the four hangars, while the second image illustrates the fact that at least two more hangars have been constructed for the J-10s in residence, with a further eight hangars having been constructed for additional aircraft:
If the J-10 Operational Trials Regiment was in fact based at Cangzhou AB, it is possible that the unit based at Jiugucheng is the operational conversion unit tasked with pilot training for J-10 crews. Conversely, the opposite may be true; the OTR may have been based at Jiugucheng AB, with the larger 10 aircraft OCU being located at Cangzhou AB. Whatever the case may be, it is obvious that the J-10 has operated at some point in the past from Jiugucheng AB in some capacity, and the construction of the new hangar spaces does seem to indicate a more permanent presence than an Operational Trials Regiment, whose aircraft may have been reapportioned to operational units following the certicifation of the J-10 for operational service in 2004.
OPERATIONAL UNITS
Liuliang AB
The first operational J-10 unit was the 131st Air Regiment of the 44th Fighter Division. This unit formed between July and August of 2004.
The following image depicts the 28 shelters for the J-10s based at Liuliang AB, as seen in photographs of the PLAAF induction ceremony:
Changxing AB
The second operational J-10 unit formed in early 2006 at Changxing AB near Shanghai.
The following image depicts the 28 shelters for the J-10s based at Changxing AB, as well as a solitary J-10 parked on the open ramp:
Siuxi AB
The most recent J-10 unit known to have been formed became operational in 2007 at Siuxi AB, located in southern China north of Hainan Island. Currently available imagery is outdated and does not yet indicate any evidence of J-10 operations from this location.
CURRENT INVENTORY
The following image illustrates the current airbases where J-10s are known to operate or have operated in the past, as described above:
Analysis of the hangar spaces at Liuliang and Changxing air bases indicates that an operational J-10 regiment would consist of no fewer than 28 aircraft. Discounting test aircraft and accounting for the fact that the 4th Air Regiment is known to be operating out of Siuxi AB despite the fact that currently available imagery does not depict any newly constructed hangars for the J-10 unit, there should be no less than 84 J-10s between the three operational units, provided that they are all at full strength. There are also up to 16 other trials aircraft spread between Jiugucheng and Cangzhou airbases, indicating that over 100 J-10s may have been produced to date when the various flight test articles held by Chengdu are accounted for.
The next J-10 unit to enter operational service will most likely be found in either the Nanjing or Guangzhou Military Region. Found across the strait from Formosa, the presence of a J-10 unit in this geographical region would fill a current gap between Changxing and Siuxi airbases.
CONCLUSION
Replacing the large numbers of J-7s with the new J-10 is a top priority for the PLAAF. The J-10 is by far the most advanced aircraft yet to be produced by the Chinese military aviation complex, and as such will enable the PLAAF to be far more effective in a modern air combat environment. With hundreds of FLANKER-family aircraft already in service, and up to 300 J-10s projected to be produced, the PLAAF is rapidly becoming one of the more modern and well equipped air arms in the world, a welcome change from as recently as ten years ago when FLANKERs were scarce, and aged designs like the J-7 and J-8 were relied upon to provide the bulk of the Chinese air combat force.
SOURCES
-All overhead imagery provided courtesy of Google Earth.
Scramble
Sinodefence
Chinese Military Aviation
The most important modernisation program underway within China's PLAAF is the introduction of the Chengdu J-10 into widespread service. The J-10 is a modern, 4th generation fighter aircraft combining a canard-delta layout with modern avionics and a BVR air-to-air weapon system. Careful analysis of current and past open-source overhead imagery has provided a detailed look at the current status of the J-10 program insofar as operational deployment is concerned. This highlights the value of overhead imagery as an analysis tool, as the J-10 program was not even officially acknowledged by the Chinese military until late 2006. Such secrecy is common in China, and goes a long way towards discrediting the various designs purported to represent the next-generation XXJ, which were revealed as far back as 2002. The fact that China refused to acknowledge an aircraft already visible in hundreds of photographs but at the same time was releasing images of the designs competing for a new stealthy fighter program would seem to be an obvious contradiction in policy, but that is another issue entirely.
TEST FACILITIES
Chengdu
Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) is the manufacturer of the J-10 fighter aircraft. Many of the early flight tests took place from Chengdu's facility located northwest of Chengdu in central China. Many of the prototypes are still located at the CAC facility and continue to serve various purposes in the continued development of the J-10.
The following image depicts the J-10 area at CAC's flight test facility:
Xian-Yanliang
Xian-Yanliang is home to the Chinese Flight Test Establishment, or CFTE. The CFTE handles the bulk of the flight test programs for the PLAAF, and as such evaluated the J-10 extensively. Xian-Yanliang is located to the northeast of Xian in central China.
The following image depicts a J-10 on the ramp at the CFTE facility:
Dingxin AB
Dingxin airbase, located in north central China near the Shuangchengzi missile test range, is home to a great deal of PLAAF flight test efforts. Pockmarked terrain and targets marked in the desert indicate that among other things, Dingxin is home to weapons integration testing. As such, J-10s have deployed to Dingxin on various occasions beginning in 2002 to conduct trials of the weapon system, including integration of the PL-12 ARH MRAAM.
The following image depicts a lineup of six J-10s on the ramp at Dingxin:
Imagery available in October of 2006 depicted three J-10s on the ramp at Dingxin, with one of the aircraft participating in an apparent display lineup for government or military officials, as seen in the images below:
Cangzhou AB and Jiugucheng AB
J-10s are visible in residence at two airbases known to be subordinate to the Chinese Flight Test & Training Center (FTTC). The FTTC is based at Cangzhou AB south of Beijing. It has been reported that between six and ten J-10s were delivered to Cangzhou in March of 2003 to form the 13th Operational Trials Regiment. Recent imagery taken from 2006 and 2007, however, suggests that six aircraft were delivered to Jiugucheng AB further south, a location also associated with the FTTC in some sources. This does not indicate that no J-10s were operated or are currently operated from Cangzhou AB, but as no J-10s are visible in available imagery of Cangzhou AB one can only speculate as to the status of any J-10 unit at that location.
At least three J-10s are still visible on the ramp at Jiugucheng AB, with six shelters having been constructed for housing the new fighters. The following two images illustrate the alteration of the ramp area. The first image depicts three J-10s sitting behind three of the four hangars, while the second image illustrates the fact that at least two more hangars have been constructed for the J-10s in residence, with a further eight hangars having been constructed for additional aircraft:
If the J-10 Operational Trials Regiment was in fact based at Cangzhou AB, it is possible that the unit based at Jiugucheng is the operational conversion unit tasked with pilot training for J-10 crews. Conversely, the opposite may be true; the OTR may have been based at Jiugucheng AB, with the larger 10 aircraft OCU being located at Cangzhou AB. Whatever the case may be, it is obvious that the J-10 has operated at some point in the past from Jiugucheng AB in some capacity, and the construction of the new hangar spaces does seem to indicate a more permanent presence than an Operational Trials Regiment, whose aircraft may have been reapportioned to operational units following the certicifation of the J-10 for operational service in 2004.
OPERATIONAL UNITS
Liuliang AB
The first operational J-10 unit was the 131st Air Regiment of the 44th Fighter Division. This unit formed between July and August of 2004.
The following image depicts the 28 shelters for the J-10s based at Liuliang AB, as seen in photographs of the PLAAF induction ceremony:
Changxing AB
The second operational J-10 unit formed in early 2006 at Changxing AB near Shanghai.
The following image depicts the 28 shelters for the J-10s based at Changxing AB, as well as a solitary J-10 parked on the open ramp:
Siuxi AB
The most recent J-10 unit known to have been formed became operational in 2007 at Siuxi AB, located in southern China north of Hainan Island. Currently available imagery is outdated and does not yet indicate any evidence of J-10 operations from this location.
CURRENT INVENTORY
The following image illustrates the current airbases where J-10s are known to operate or have operated in the past, as described above:
Analysis of the hangar spaces at Liuliang and Changxing air bases indicates that an operational J-10 regiment would consist of no fewer than 28 aircraft. Discounting test aircraft and accounting for the fact that the 4th Air Regiment is known to be operating out of Siuxi AB despite the fact that currently available imagery does not depict any newly constructed hangars for the J-10 unit, there should be no less than 84 J-10s between the three operational units, provided that they are all at full strength. There are also up to 16 other trials aircraft spread between Jiugucheng and Cangzhou airbases, indicating that over 100 J-10s may have been produced to date when the various flight test articles held by Chengdu are accounted for.
The next J-10 unit to enter operational service will most likely be found in either the Nanjing or Guangzhou Military Region. Found across the strait from Formosa, the presence of a J-10 unit in this geographical region would fill a current gap between Changxing and Siuxi airbases.
CONCLUSION
Replacing the large numbers of J-7s with the new J-10 is a top priority for the PLAAF. The J-10 is by far the most advanced aircraft yet to be produced by the Chinese military aviation complex, and as such will enable the PLAAF to be far more effective in a modern air combat environment. With hundreds of FLANKER-family aircraft already in service, and up to 300 J-10s projected to be produced, the PLAAF is rapidly becoming one of the more modern and well equipped air arms in the world, a welcome change from as recently as ten years ago when FLANKERs were scarce, and aged designs like the J-7 and J-8 were relied upon to provide the bulk of the Chinese air combat force.
SOURCES
-All overhead imagery provided courtesy of Google Earth.
Scramble
Sinodefence
Chinese Military Aviation
Effective Searching in Google Earth
INTRODUCTION
I am often asked about the time and effort it takes to peruse through Google Earth's high resolution imagery to locate various items, most often SAM sites, of which I have catalogued over 1400. Locating military installations and other interesting objects can be a time consuming endeavor, but it can be made far easier with a few simple techniques. In this article I will share some of those techniques which have served me well in the past, with the hope that your experience viewing imagery through such sources as Google Earth will be that much more enjoyable and interesting.
COMPUTER SETTINGS
To begin, we will exmamine some of the basic computer settings that are helpful in examining imagery. My monitor is a widescreen display with a resolution of 1920 x 1200 pixels. Setting your screen to the maximum resolution is helpful when viewing imagery sources as it aids in bringing out some of the fine detail that can be seen. Inside the Google Earth options menu, set the Detail Area to the maximum setting of 1024 x 1024. Even with a widescreen monitor, with the Placemark and Layer tabs expanded on the left of the screen the entire imagery display will then display eitirely in full detail, without any of the areas surrounding the very center of the image being blurred. This will greatly aid in examining what you see before you on your monitor.
BEGINNING EXAMINATION
In the bottom right of the imagery display area in Google Earth, you will notice a label called "Eye alt", followed by a series of numbers and an abbreviation. What these numbers are telling you is the alttude, in either feet or miles, that you are viewing the image from. I have found that the optimal viewing altitude for quick perusal of a given area is 15,000 feet.
When imagery is added into Google Earth, it is usually in the form of strips of either satellite or aerial imagery. These strips are in reality collections of square-shaped images that have been combined together into a mosaic. With my monitor settings, each individual square can be broken up into six rows, with each row being approximately three and a half screens across. Each section can then be examined relatively quickly, by viewing each screen one at a time until each section of imagery has been analysed.
The following graphic illustrates this concept. Notice that coordinates are provided where a single square of imagery can be examined in this fashion, making it easier for you to determine the dimensions of the area based on your own computer's monitor settings.
The key here is to keep an eye out for new areas of high-resolution coverage to examine. When I started my SAM site file, there was very little high-resolution imagery outside of the United States and Western Europe. I kept abreast of imagery updates to Google Earth through the Google Earth Blog, found here. Each time a new area appeared, I went through it to see what I could find.
It should also be noted that "Eye alt" is completely unrelated to the altitude of the terrain found in the lower left corner, denoted by "elev" for elevation. Regardless of the terrain's elevation, your "Eye alt" should be at 15,000 feet. This will give you the same viewpoint at all times. Setting the elevation to 15,000 feet can result in some issues, especially when the terrain is elevated around 5 or 10 thousand feet. You will end up with a much closer viewpoint and have to spend a lot longer examining a given area.
THE HUNT IS ON
Once you have found a pattern for examining an area of imagery, the trick is to find items of interest to tag for identification. There are two ways to do this.
The first method of identifying interesting locations is to simply create a folder and insert a placemark where something of interest may be located. These items can then be revisited later once the area has been thoroughly examined. Close-up inspection will often divulge the identity of the structure or facility.
The second method requires a little more time and patience, and a degree of knowledge. I have been examining SAM sites, for example, for quite some time now. I personally find it easier to immediately identify the sites to save myself the trouble of having to reexamine them and rename the placemarks. Some sites, like those of SA-1 or SA-5 systems, can be readily identified even from 15,000 feet, but others may have to be zoomed in on to clarify their type. The problem here is that you have to be careful when zooming back out to keep your screen centered on the same location it was before you zoomed in. This allows you to avoid skipping something potentially interesting because you reset your screen to a new area when you zoomed back out.
Finding something that looks interesting is a relatively simple task from a 15,000 foot vantage point. Consider the image below. It was screen captured from an altitude of approximately 15,000 feet in Belarus. Residential areas, fields, and forests can be seen, as well as a number of roads. Two facilities in the center of the image stand out immediately. They do so because they are markedly different from their surroundings, seeming "out of place" in a rural area. The northern facility is clearly rectangular and isolated from the surrounding areas, while the southern area has been cleared out from a patch of trees in an interesting pattern. As it turns out, the northern facility houses the 64N6 search radar for the S-300PMU SAM battery in the southern facility.
The simple rule here is to merely see if anything catches your eye. You may end up locating a power plant or a factory, but this can be determined later when you closely examine your finds. With a little bit of experience you will gain a feel for the types of sites and objects that you are looking for and will be able to pick them out of their surroundings with greater ease.
IDENTIFYING OBJECTS
Locating something is only half of the equation. The next step is to identify what you are looking at. There are many ways to do this.
First, the simplest method of identifying something is to see if someone else has done the work for you! In the layers tab of Google Earth, expand the "Gallery" menu and click on the "Google Earth Community" box. This will insert any placemarks that Google Earth users have uploaded into the server. If your location has already been examined, chances are it has a placemark attached to it, which you can then view in Google Earth, and copy into your own file if you desire. This does have an advantage, as you then have a baseline for comparing other items you find if a like item has already been marked. Do take note that the accuracy of placemarks in Google Earth is not guaranteed, however.
The alternative is to identify the locations yourself. This can be a very time consuming endeavor. To be frank, in order to do this effectively, it does help a great deal to have some knowledge about what you are trying to identify. This knowledge can come from personal experience, or from external sources. If you are trying to identify a SAM system, for example, a publication such as Jane's Land Based Air Defence can be of great value. While Jane's does not provide any detail regarding site layouts, it does provide you with some useful information. There are pictures of most of the relevant equipment, for example. It takes a bit of thought to equate a side-on photograph to a piece of top-down imagery, but it can be done. The dimensions provided are very valuable, as they give you a yardstick to compare your finding to. If you are examining a SAM site, for example, and you have determined that the launch rails should be 30 feet long, any potential matches can be measured in Google Earth using the ruler tool found at the top of the screen (do take care to chage the unit of measurement to whatever you have found; if you have been given a length in meters, for example, make sure you aren't measuring in feet!). If you find a number of objects that are 20 feet long, then you are obviously not looking at that particular SAM system. Jane's also provides a list of users for each SAM system. A list of nations associated with what it is you are hunting for can save you a lot of time. For example, according to Jane's the nation of Brazil has no SAM systems identifiable in Google Earth imagery (i.e. large, static SAM sites, not man-portable units or those mounted on small, unidentifable vehicles). That saved me from having to take the time out to examine all of the imagery in Brazil. Organizing your search in a fashion similar to this will make it a lot easier as you won't get frustrated searching for and not finding things in places that they have no business being in the first place!
To be blunt, successfully identifying objects will take some practice, but once you have become proficient it is a much smoother process. It all boils down to the amount of effort you put into the process.
OTHER TRICKS
There are some other tricks to identifying objects in Google Earth.
If you are looking for facilities in a given area, you might do well to locate a map with the facilities marked. Maps can be inserted into Google Earth as Overlays. Overlays place objects such as photographs or maps over the visible imagery. Their transparency can be adjusted so that you can view the imagery through the map. Overlays can be tricky to insert. You have to be careful to match the map to the imagery, and that can take some time to get right. Otherwise, the locations on the map will not match up with the imagery, and the map will be of no help whatsoever.
I used an overlay map to aid in identifying the inner and outer SA-1 SAM rings around Moscow. To do this, I located a map of the SA-1 locations in the CIA's FOIA archives available on the web. The map can be seen below:
Once I had matched the map up with the imagery, I simply adjusted the transparency factor and browsed the area. Fortunately, SA-1 sites are enormous and were easily identifiable even in low-resolution areas, and I had all of them mapped out in short order.
Another technique is to locate an external source of locations far less irritating than something requiring the creation of an overlay. One fine example is Google Earth user LeX2's website depicting SA-5 SAM sites, found here. By zooming in on his map, I was able to then extrapolate the locations of the facilities by searching the same areas in Google Earth. At one point, we had both been identifying SAM sites for a while, and as he had concentrated on SA-5 sites, he inquired about incorporating his sites into my SAM catalog. I enthusiastically agreed, as it would save me the time of finding them myself, and he had located numerous sites in low resolution areas that I would normally not have concentrated on anyway.
This brings us to the third trick, the Google Earth Community, found here. By joining the community, you can post findings on the forum which will eventually be entered into the server to be viewed by everyone in Google Earth. The benefits of this community are sections dedicated for like-minded individuals, such as those of us who primarily hunt down military objects. There is a substantial knowledge base there, and chances are that someone will be able to help you identify something that has you stumped. My SAM site project began at the community as a file containing the aforementioned SA-1 rings, and through the interaction with and encouragement from users there has evolved into the 1400+ site database that it is today.
CONCLUSION
To sum up, the steps for successfully browsing and identifying objects are as follows: set your viewing altitude to 15,000 feet, break the area up into portions denoted by the area encapsulated by the viewing area on your screen, and move piece by piece through a given piece of imagery, marking down the locations of interesting items as you progress. Who knows what you may find! Keep in mind that this is can be very time consuming, however, and may end up with you creating your own blog!
SOURCES
-Satellite imagery of Belarus provided courtesy of Google Earth.
I am often asked about the time and effort it takes to peruse through Google Earth's high resolution imagery to locate various items, most often SAM sites, of which I have catalogued over 1400. Locating military installations and other interesting objects can be a time consuming endeavor, but it can be made far easier with a few simple techniques. In this article I will share some of those techniques which have served me well in the past, with the hope that your experience viewing imagery through such sources as Google Earth will be that much more enjoyable and interesting.
COMPUTER SETTINGS
To begin, we will exmamine some of the basic computer settings that are helpful in examining imagery. My monitor is a widescreen display with a resolution of 1920 x 1200 pixels. Setting your screen to the maximum resolution is helpful when viewing imagery sources as it aids in bringing out some of the fine detail that can be seen. Inside the Google Earth options menu, set the Detail Area to the maximum setting of 1024 x 1024. Even with a widescreen monitor, with the Placemark and Layer tabs expanded on the left of the screen the entire imagery display will then display eitirely in full detail, without any of the areas surrounding the very center of the image being blurred. This will greatly aid in examining what you see before you on your monitor.
BEGINNING EXAMINATION
In the bottom right of the imagery display area in Google Earth, you will notice a label called "Eye alt", followed by a series of numbers and an abbreviation. What these numbers are telling you is the alttude, in either feet or miles, that you are viewing the image from. I have found that the optimal viewing altitude for quick perusal of a given area is 15,000 feet.
When imagery is added into Google Earth, it is usually in the form of strips of either satellite or aerial imagery. These strips are in reality collections of square-shaped images that have been combined together into a mosaic. With my monitor settings, each individual square can be broken up into six rows, with each row being approximately three and a half screens across. Each section can then be examined relatively quickly, by viewing each screen one at a time until each section of imagery has been analysed.
The following graphic illustrates this concept. Notice that coordinates are provided where a single square of imagery can be examined in this fashion, making it easier for you to determine the dimensions of the area based on your own computer's monitor settings.
The key here is to keep an eye out for new areas of high-resolution coverage to examine. When I started my SAM site file, there was very little high-resolution imagery outside of the United States and Western Europe. I kept abreast of imagery updates to Google Earth through the Google Earth Blog, found here. Each time a new area appeared, I went through it to see what I could find.
It should also be noted that "Eye alt" is completely unrelated to the altitude of the terrain found in the lower left corner, denoted by "elev" for elevation. Regardless of the terrain's elevation, your "Eye alt" should be at 15,000 feet. This will give you the same viewpoint at all times. Setting the elevation to 15,000 feet can result in some issues, especially when the terrain is elevated around 5 or 10 thousand feet. You will end up with a much closer viewpoint and have to spend a lot longer examining a given area.
THE HUNT IS ON
Once you have found a pattern for examining an area of imagery, the trick is to find items of interest to tag for identification. There are two ways to do this.
The first method of identifying interesting locations is to simply create a folder and insert a placemark where something of interest may be located. These items can then be revisited later once the area has been thoroughly examined. Close-up inspection will often divulge the identity of the structure or facility.
The second method requires a little more time and patience, and a degree of knowledge. I have been examining SAM sites, for example, for quite some time now. I personally find it easier to immediately identify the sites to save myself the trouble of having to reexamine them and rename the placemarks. Some sites, like those of SA-1 or SA-5 systems, can be readily identified even from 15,000 feet, but others may have to be zoomed in on to clarify their type. The problem here is that you have to be careful when zooming back out to keep your screen centered on the same location it was before you zoomed in. This allows you to avoid skipping something potentially interesting because you reset your screen to a new area when you zoomed back out.
Finding something that looks interesting is a relatively simple task from a 15,000 foot vantage point. Consider the image below. It was screen captured from an altitude of approximately 15,000 feet in Belarus. Residential areas, fields, and forests can be seen, as well as a number of roads. Two facilities in the center of the image stand out immediately. They do so because they are markedly different from their surroundings, seeming "out of place" in a rural area. The northern facility is clearly rectangular and isolated from the surrounding areas, while the southern area has been cleared out from a patch of trees in an interesting pattern. As it turns out, the northern facility houses the 64N6 search radar for the S-300PMU SAM battery in the southern facility.
The simple rule here is to merely see if anything catches your eye. You may end up locating a power plant or a factory, but this can be determined later when you closely examine your finds. With a little bit of experience you will gain a feel for the types of sites and objects that you are looking for and will be able to pick them out of their surroundings with greater ease.
IDENTIFYING OBJECTS
Locating something is only half of the equation. The next step is to identify what you are looking at. There are many ways to do this.
First, the simplest method of identifying something is to see if someone else has done the work for you! In the layers tab of Google Earth, expand the "Gallery" menu and click on the "Google Earth Community" box. This will insert any placemarks that Google Earth users have uploaded into the server. If your location has already been examined, chances are it has a placemark attached to it, which you can then view in Google Earth, and copy into your own file if you desire. This does have an advantage, as you then have a baseline for comparing other items you find if a like item has already been marked. Do take note that the accuracy of placemarks in Google Earth is not guaranteed, however.
The alternative is to identify the locations yourself. This can be a very time consuming endeavor. To be frank, in order to do this effectively, it does help a great deal to have some knowledge about what you are trying to identify. This knowledge can come from personal experience, or from external sources. If you are trying to identify a SAM system, for example, a publication such as Jane's Land Based Air Defence can be of great value. While Jane's does not provide any detail regarding site layouts, it does provide you with some useful information. There are pictures of most of the relevant equipment, for example. It takes a bit of thought to equate a side-on photograph to a piece of top-down imagery, but it can be done. The dimensions provided are very valuable, as they give you a yardstick to compare your finding to. If you are examining a SAM site, for example, and you have determined that the launch rails should be 30 feet long, any potential matches can be measured in Google Earth using the ruler tool found at the top of the screen (do take care to chage the unit of measurement to whatever you have found; if you have been given a length in meters, for example, make sure you aren't measuring in feet!). If you find a number of objects that are 20 feet long, then you are obviously not looking at that particular SAM system. Jane's also provides a list of users for each SAM system. A list of nations associated with what it is you are hunting for can save you a lot of time. For example, according to Jane's the nation of Brazil has no SAM systems identifiable in Google Earth imagery (i.e. large, static SAM sites, not man-portable units or those mounted on small, unidentifable vehicles). That saved me from having to take the time out to examine all of the imagery in Brazil. Organizing your search in a fashion similar to this will make it a lot easier as you won't get frustrated searching for and not finding things in places that they have no business being in the first place!
To be blunt, successfully identifying objects will take some practice, but once you have become proficient it is a much smoother process. It all boils down to the amount of effort you put into the process.
OTHER TRICKS
There are some other tricks to identifying objects in Google Earth.
If you are looking for facilities in a given area, you might do well to locate a map with the facilities marked. Maps can be inserted into Google Earth as Overlays. Overlays place objects such as photographs or maps over the visible imagery. Their transparency can be adjusted so that you can view the imagery through the map. Overlays can be tricky to insert. You have to be careful to match the map to the imagery, and that can take some time to get right. Otherwise, the locations on the map will not match up with the imagery, and the map will be of no help whatsoever.
I used an overlay map to aid in identifying the inner and outer SA-1 SAM rings around Moscow. To do this, I located a map of the SA-1 locations in the CIA's FOIA archives available on the web. The map can be seen below:
Once I had matched the map up with the imagery, I simply adjusted the transparency factor and browsed the area. Fortunately, SA-1 sites are enormous and were easily identifiable even in low-resolution areas, and I had all of them mapped out in short order.
Another technique is to locate an external source of locations far less irritating than something requiring the creation of an overlay. One fine example is Google Earth user LeX2's website depicting SA-5 SAM sites, found here. By zooming in on his map, I was able to then extrapolate the locations of the facilities by searching the same areas in Google Earth. At one point, we had both been identifying SAM sites for a while, and as he had concentrated on SA-5 sites, he inquired about incorporating his sites into my SAM catalog. I enthusiastically agreed, as it would save me the time of finding them myself, and he had located numerous sites in low resolution areas that I would normally not have concentrated on anyway.
This brings us to the third trick, the Google Earth Community, found here. By joining the community, you can post findings on the forum which will eventually be entered into the server to be viewed by everyone in Google Earth. The benefits of this community are sections dedicated for like-minded individuals, such as those of us who primarily hunt down military objects. There is a substantial knowledge base there, and chances are that someone will be able to help you identify something that has you stumped. My SAM site project began at the community as a file containing the aforementioned SA-1 rings, and through the interaction with and encouragement from users there has evolved into the 1400+ site database that it is today.
CONCLUSION
To sum up, the steps for successfully browsing and identifying objects are as follows: set your viewing altitude to 15,000 feet, break the area up into portions denoted by the area encapsulated by the viewing area on your screen, and move piece by piece through a given piece of imagery, marking down the locations of interesting items as you progress. Who knows what you may find! Keep in mind that this is can be very time consuming, however, and may end up with you creating your own blog!
SOURCES
-Satellite imagery of Belarus provided courtesy of Google Earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
