was not optimized, the radar images, however, showed a wide range 
of details of the ice and a good correspondence between the radar 
image and the actual ice features as they appeared on the photo- 
mosaics. 
The results from the SLAR studies were consistent and in agreement 
with SLAR measurements made by USA and Canada in the Arctic, on the 
Great Lakes and on the St Lawrence river. In judging the utility of 
SLAR, the all-weather, day-and-night operational capability, the 
ability to provide repeated and timely coverage and the high mapping 
capacity should be kept in mind. 
The results obtained during SEA ICE 75, together with the above 
considerations, indicate that SLAR has enough proven and demonstrated 
capabilities to be the primary sensor in a future sea-ice surveillance 
and mapping system (according to SEA ICE 75 Summary Report by 
Âke Blomquist, Claës Pilo, and Thomas Thompson). 
5.1.2 FLAR, ODAR and ship's radar 
The FLAR (Forward Looking Airborne Radar), used in SEA ICE 75, was 
tested at flight levels up to 1,800 m without any definite diffe- 
rences in mapping quality. 
The major differences between FLAR and SLAR concern the type of 
presentation, the resolution and the time of integration. 
One advantage of the FLAR is the real time presentation and the 
possibility of mapping at different scales, which makes it possible 
for an operator to have an overall view of the ice situation and 
then to select and map in greater detail areas of special interest. 
The main advantage of the SLAR is its considerably higher resolution 
which makes the SLAR more suited for detailed mapping. Another 
advantage is that the SLAR in contrast to FLAR gives an image which 
is comparable to an ordinary map.