of its near-range location. As noted 

 previously, we did not detect the growlers 

 in 50-1 1°N, 51-23°W. Though beam mode 

 W-2 is not suited to detection of contacts of 

 this size, these "small" ice masses can 

 equal a ton or more (900 kg) and pose a 

 significant hazard to shipping (CMP, 1994). 

 However, beam-modes that are more 

 appropriate for growler detection, Fine or 

 Extended High, would require a much 

 greater number of images to cover the 

 same illuminated area as would be needed 

 using Wide-2 images. Finally, we made no 

 mention of the degradation in detection 

 capabilities with increasing wind speed 

 and/or wave height. However, it is well 

 documented that these factors directly 

 affect the detection capabilities of radar 

 systems (Vachon, et al., 1997; CMP, 1994; 

 Willis, etal., 1996) 



Given the present state of RADARSAT 

 point target capabilities, is it feasible for Ice 

 Patrol to conduct its mission using 

 RADARSAT data in place of aerial 

 reconnaissance? Clearly, IIP has the 

 requirement to detect the small masses of 

 ice that may drift to extreme locations 

 along with the frigid and southward-moving 

 Labrador Current. Its mission is to 

 "determine and broadcast the 

 southeastern, southern and southwestern 

 limit of all known ice (LAKI)", a subtle, but 

 significant difference from detecting all or 

 even most of the icebergs in the 

 operational area. The advantages of 

 spaceborne reconnaissance are broad 

 areal and instantaneous coverage and 

 good repeat coverage of a specified area. 

 The user derives additional benefit from 

 RADARSAT's offering of several beam- 

 mode settings. In addition, it is not 

 weather or visibility dependent and is not 

 manpower intensive for the end user. 

 However, the cost per processed and near- 

 real-time delivered image can be 

 substantial. The advantages of aerial 

 reconnaissance are increased flexibility 

 and much greater user control. Also, we 



have the ability, at least under some 

 conditions, to visually corroborate our radar 

 data. These data do not require as much 

 processing and, therefore, can be 

 delivered and incorporated into our ice 

 reporting products extremely rapidly. 

 Finally, with both FLAR and SLAR 

 operating, IIP receives integrated data from 

 these complementary systems, allowing IIP 

 to perform reconnaissance more effectively 

 and less expensively than with either 

 system alone. Airborne disadvantages are 

 that it is extremely labor intensive and can 

 be expensive, both in the operation of the 

 aircraft and radar sensors, as well as in 

 personnel support for lodging and logistics 

 for a 15-person crew for 9-day 

 detachments to St. John's. Also, the 

 repeat coverage of a particular region of 

 our operational area is lower. 



Presently ignoring the detection 

 capabilities, the question becomes: is it 

 more economical to perform International 

 Ice Patrol's mission using airborne or 

 spaceborne radar remote sensing 

 techniques? Traditional airborne 



reconnaissance, via Coast Guard Hercules 

 C-130 using SLAR and FLAR, covers, on 

 average, a 300km x 300km area per sortie. 

 The most critical region of HP's patrol 

 responsibility is between 41 °N and 49°N, 

 and between 44°W and 55°W, or an area 

 of about 750,000 km 2 . To patrol this area, 

 IIP requires about 8 days of 

 reconnaissance, each day covering 

 approximately 90,000 km 2 . This patrolled 

 area is actually covered at 200% since 

 each leg of reconnaissance benefits from 

 "double coverage" or overlap from the 

 preceding leg. Also, this considers the 

 optimal condition of fully functional SLAR 

 and FLAR. Although the area numbers are 

 not precise (there may be areas of overlap, 

 decreased emphasis, or less than 200% 

 coverage), they are submitted for 

 discussion. Averaged over the past three 



61 



