passive detection range comparison between LWAMI and SC

[Castout]

I just installed SC again and realized that the average detection range in SC is far further out than in LWAMI 3.08.

For example Akula II traveling at 5 knots could detect with her passive towed array A US sub traveling at 2 knots at 43 km range.

has anyone ever detected a slow moving sub at that far out distance in DW with LWAMI(or stock)? I believe you can't. I never detected anythong that far out especially a slow moving sub.

I've read that a 20 km direct sound contact detection is no special thing but in DW it seems unlikely.

Hmm this got me thinking to increase the overall passive detection range in DW.
Anybody got any suggestion on how to do that? Which parameter do I need to change to increase passive sensor detection range? Of course without having to increase the noise level of the platforms.

[Hitman]

Considering what I have readed so far, I would say that SCX had a much more accurate true-to-life detection range than LWAMI 3.08, however I believe that in DW it was purposedly left low to allow a better playability of all platforms. If you increase the detection range and sensitivity dramatically, the Kilo becomes unusable, and the air units can make your life much thougher than it already is.

SC was a sub vs. sub game, hence it didn't matter as long as it was balanced. However, even so the fast and long range weapons of the Akula unbalanced the game a lot (The fact that a US sub can detect a russian one first is irrelevant if he needs to shoot his ADCAPs from a far range that gives the enemy a good chance of evading them, and replying with a snapshot that will get the US sub way before the ADCAPs are 1/3 on his way to the enemy).

[Molon Labe]

Considering what I have readed so far, I would say that SCX had a much more accurate true-to-life detection range than LWAMI 3.08, however I believe that in DW it was purposedly left low to allow a better playability of all platforms. If you increase the detection range and sensitivity dramatically, the Kilo becomes unusable, and the air units can make your life much thougher than it already is.
SCX and LWAMI have rather similar detection ranges; just as SC and DW have similar ranges. In both cases, the mods tightened things up a bit. I can't speak for SCX, but in LWAMI this was done for both realism and balance reasons. It's impossible to create a truly "realistic" acoustic model, so there isn't much point in arguing over the slight differences between SCX and LWAMI detection ranges. The truth is that it all depends on acoustic conditions. LW's main goal in making adjustments to the sonar model was to make detection ranges more dependent on the acoustic conditions than they were in stock DW, and that has definitely happened.


SC was a sub vs. sub game, hence it didn't matter as long as it was balanced. However, even so the fast and long range weapons of the Akula unbalanced the game a lot (The fact that a US sub can detect a russian one first is irrelevant if he needs to shoot his ADCAPs from a far range that gives the enemy a good chance of evading them, and replying with a snapshot that will get the US sub way before the ADCAPs are 1/3 on his way to the enemy).
You've analyzed a key balance issue very astutely.

Bringing this back to modding, DW leaves us very few variables in the (very abstracted) acoustic model to play with. So, there is no set of values for sonar sensitivity and PSL's that will yield an accurate detection ranges for all acoustic conditions--no matter what you're going to be too high to be realistic in some cases and too low in others. So which ones values should we use? I would argue, choose the subset that makes the sim most competitive.

[Molon Labe]

I just installed SC again and realized that the average detection range in SC is far further out than in LWAMI 3.08.

For example Akula II traveling at 5 knots could detect with her passive towed array A US sub traveling at 2 knots at 43 km range.

has anyone ever detected a slow moving sub at that far out distance in DW with LWAMI(or stock)? I believe you can't. I never detected anythong that far out especially a slow moving sub.
LWAMI detections against slow-moving subs tend to be rather short. You can definitely get direct-path contacts against a 688I on the Pelamida from 40km+, but the 688I would need to be, well, I'm not sure how high, but more than 2 knots.


I've read that a 20 km direct sound contact detection is no special thing but in DW it seems unlikely.
That's just wrong. 20km direct contacts are very common in DW, both with and without LWAMI and including contacts against the quietest submarines at patrol speeds.

[PeriscopeDepth]

SC sonar model doesn't take into account speed of target. The only difference in signal level will be if the target is cavitating.

PD

[Castout]

However, even so the fast and long range weapons of the Akula unbalanced the game a lot (The fact that a US sub can detect a russian one first is irrelevant if he needs to shoot his ADCAPs from a far range that gives the enemy a good chance of evading them, and replying with a snapshot that will get the US sub way before the ADCAPs are 1/3 on his way to the enemy).

Which begs the question why the US didn't introduce submarine launched ASROC? Perhpas the US already did but it's just not represented in DW?

[Castout]

SC sonar model doesn't take into account speed of target. The only difference in signal level will be if the target is cavitating.

PD

Really? Oh lame :). Makes DW twice a better game just basing on that fact alone

[Castout]

Considering what I have readed so far, I would say that SCX had a much more accurate true-to-life detection range than LWAMI 3.08, however I believe that in DW it was purposedly left low to allow a better playability of all platforms. If you increase the detection range and sensitivity dramatically, the Kilo becomes unusable, and the air units can make your life much thougher than it already is.

well I would like exactly that. I mean I only care about realism and don't give a damn about playability balancing. The war machines were never built with regard to balance with the enemy capability but rather to give it the edge to outstealth, outdetect, outmaneuver, outgun, and outkill its opponent or would be opponent. War was never meant to be fair. So war simulation should not give a damn about balancing imo. Balancing could be done through careful scenario design imo. Like starting the game farther out from the enemy detection range for example.

Scenarios would need to be readjusted in order to reflect the changed parameters though.

I for one perhaps a few more out there wish there is a mod out there that address this realism issue in passive detection ranges in DW.
I believe they are rather short at the moment.
I as long as I can remember never once used the ASROC unless tha data came from radio link when playing the Akula. Or attacking a warship with ASM at long ranges unless it was emitting its radar or was pinging. Furthermore on few occasions I've felt I'm cruising too blind(or deaf) so that enemy warships could get into dangerously close ranges with me only realizing it almost too late.

[GrayOwl]

Considering what I have readed so far, I would say that SCX had a much more accurate true-to-life detection range than LWAMI 3.08, however I believe that in DW it was purposedly left low to allow a better playability of all platforms. If you increase the detection range and sensitivity dramatically, the Kilo becomes unusable, and the air units can make your life much thougher than it already is.

well I would like exactly that. I mean I only care about realism and don't give a damn about playability balancing. The war machines were never built with regard to balance with the enemy capability but rather to give it the edge to outstealth, outdetect, outmaneuver, outgun, and outkill its opponent or would be opponent. War was never meant to be fair. So war simulation should not give a damn about balancing imo. Balancing could be done through careful scenario design imo. Like starting the game farther out from the enemy detection range for example.

Scenarios would need to be readjusted in order to reflect the changed parameters though.

I for one perhaps a few more out there wish there is a mod out there that address this realism issue in passive detection ranges in DW.
I believe they are rather short at the moment.
I as long as I can remember never once used the ASROC unless tha data came from radio link when playing the Akula. Or attacking a warship with ASM at long ranges unless it was emitting its radar or was pinging. Furthermore on few occasions I've felt I'm cruising too blind(or deaf) so that enemy warships could get into dangerously close ranges with me only realizing it almost too late.

Can imagine Shturmovik IL-2 with balance??? LOL

If it sim - in him can not be of any balance.
If DW is sim. LOL
I simply enjoy by the order - "Full Ruder Left" or "Full Rudder Right".
Excellent sim, excellent Physics! The sub is floating where it would be desirable her, but not there where I wish.

[PeriscopeDepth]

However, even so the fast and long range weapons of the Akula unbalanced the game a lot (The fact that a US sub can detect a russian one first is irrelevant if he needs to shoot his ADCAPs from a far range that gives the enemy a good chance of evading them, and replying with a snapshot that will get the US sub way before the ADCAPs are 1/3 on his way to the enemy).
Which begs the question why the US didn't introduce submarine launched ASROC? Perhpas the US already did but it's just not represented in DW? The US did, but it has not been in service since the late 1980s. And it's only payload was a nuclear warhead. Which leads me to believe one reason why the US doesn't have a SUBROC in inventory now is that detection of a modern SSK/SSN at patrol speeds, even with a US sensor advantage, would likely be at ranges that would make SUBROC unnecessary. Or it could just be that the reason for its being (Soviet SSBNs) became unreachable after modern SLBMs allowed them to patrol from beneath the ice.

Makes DW twice a better game just basing on that fact alone DW's sonar model is overall much more polished than SC. It still works within the constraints of the age old NavalSimEngine, but introduces several things that SC didn't have or didn't do as well (more sophisticated ray tracing and bearing error). It's not perfect, but no ASW sim will be. And with LWAMI, DW makes for quite a compelling simulation.

PD

[Molon Labe]

well I would like exactly that. I mean I only care about realism and don't give a damn about playability balancing. ...

I for one perhaps a few more out there wish there is a mod out there that address this realism issue in passive detection ranges in DW.
I believe they are rather short at the moment.
They are short in some and long in others (http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/snf0322.htm#Toc05). A mod CANNOT be made to be more realistic in this regard. If you change the values to better represent detection ranges in some situations, you also make sim represent detection ranges less realistically in others situations. It's a zero-sum game that there is no way to win, short of remaking the NavalSimEngine.

I as long as I can remember never once used the ASROC unless tha data came from radio link when playing the Akula. Or attacking a warship with ASM at long ranges unless it was emitting its radar or was pinging.
Then you're doing it wrong. The SUBROC is the Akula's primary ASW weapon in DW, accounting for far more kills in MP matches than the UGST, and in many cases, at ranges that a UGST would not have been likely to score a hit (beyond 10-15nm). As for warships, the max range you can get ESM is something like 15nm. You can track skimmers in CVs out to at least 90nm and get direct path detection ranges beyond 30nm. So, again, if you can't track them unless they have their radars on, you're doing something wrong.

If your evaluation of the realism of the detection ranges is based on the experiences you've related here, then you're going to have to go back and look at the sim and see what's really possible.

[Castout]

They are short in some and long in others (http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/snf0322.htm#Toc05).
Whaaa. . .at Hey there might be female simmers here :rotfl:

Some people like to quote the bible just like that short, simple and wrong.

[TLAM Strike]

However, even so the fast and long range weapons of the Akula unbalanced the game a lot (The fact that a US sub can detect a russian one first is irrelevant if he needs to shoot his ADCAPs from a far range that gives the enemy a good chance of evading them, and replying with a snapshot that will get the US sub way before the ADCAPs are 1/3 on his way to the enemy).
Which begs the question why the US didn't introduce submarine launched ASROC? Perhpas the US already did but it's just not represented in DW? The US did, but it has not been in service since the late 1980s. And it's only payload was a nuclear warhead. Which leads me to believe one reason why the US doesn't have a SUBROC in inventory now is that detection of a modern SSK/SSN at patrol speeds, even with a US sensor advantage, would likely be at ranges that would make SUBROC unnecessary. Or it could just be that the reason for its being (Soviet SSBNs) became unreachable after modern SLBMs allowed them to patrol from beneath the ice.PD Well its sucessor SEALANCE was canceled due to the Soviet Union collapsing. Sealance whent way over budget since it was intended to be both for Submarines and Surface ships with diffrent payloads and huge range (3rd convergince zone range, In other words of longer range than the N-16's 655mm verson but 533mm in calaber!) Sealance's development was folded in to VLA, the Verticle Launched ASROC found on the AEGIES ships. Plus US sub captains didn't like the SUBROC since it genneraly required a ping to use effectivly.

[To be]

They are short in some and long in others (http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/snf0322.htm#Toc05).
Whaaa. . .at Hey there might be female simmers here
I am sure there are. What is your point?
Some people like to quote the bible just like that short, simple and wrong.
Again, what is the relevancy to this thread?

Perhaps you should review this: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting

[Molon Labe]

the first one was just a little semi perverted joke.

the second one... probably also a joke but i don't understand its relevance either.

[bishop]

SC sonar model doesn't take into account speed of target. The only difference in signal level will be if the target is cavitating.

PD

If this is related to the speed/noise issue that was discussed back when DW was first released, I'm not sure this is true of SC. In the archive threads on this topic, Amizaur ran several tests on SC, both stock 1.08 and SCXII and concluded speed/noise modeling actually worked quite well. At the top of the thread he tested against SCX, then further down he tested again on Stock 1.08.

He concluded with "So I would say that the SC speed/noise relation was quite good and I would be absolutely happy if I had the same relation restored in DW :-)."

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB_archive1/viewtopic.php?t=33674&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

[PeriscopeDepth]

Plus US sub captains didn't like the SUBROC since it genneraly required a ping to use effectivly.
Hmmm...I wonder why the precision of a ping was required? It was after all a rocket with a nuclear depth charge, no?

Bishop,
I guess I stand corrected. Reading that thread again was fun. Ah, back in the heady days of DW. :)

PD

[TLAM Strike]

Plus US sub captains didn't like the SUBROC since it genneraly required a ping to use effectivly.
Hmmm...I wonder why the precision of a ping was required? It was after all a rocket with a nuclear depth charge, no?PD

Well when people think of nuclear blasts they think of huge city blasting explosions blasting wooden buildings to matchsticks.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/Images/WE01.jpg

But underwater its diffrent. The SUBROC only had a 5kt nuclear depth bomb, even for a tactical nuke that is tiny. Water helps to decrease the effects of the blast, the deeper the less effective the blast (which is why Russian subs were always being made to go deeper) and the blast is spread out over the entire hull of the sub rather than just one part as with a torpedo warhead or a depth charge so a sub is better able to survive a nuclear blast than a depth charge attack. Just to give you an idea how small a punch the SUBROC delivered here is a pic of a live test of a ASROC with a 10kt W44 warhead. Not that big of a blast (the ship is no more than 5 nm away.) Now imagin that much deeper at half the yeld, and you don't have a fancy BSY-1 fire control computer to help you do TMA (All OHP style DRTs). You miss judge the solution and you've got a really ticked off Russian sub out there possably with his own SUBROC getting ready to launch.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Asrocnuke1962.jpg

[MBot]

[PIC of nuclear ASROC explosion]


I know nukes are bad, but this is such a phantastic photo. You even see the ASROC launcher of the destroyer still trained towards the explosion. I all their terribleness, nuclear explosions have some kind of weird beauty.

[goldorak]

I know nukes are bad, but this is such a phantastic photo. You even see the ASROC launcher of the destroyer still trained towards the explosion. I all their terribleness, nuclear explosions have some kind of weird beauty.

You should have a peek at the book "100 suns" if you're looking for nice pictures of atomic explosions. ;)

[Frame57]

Plus US sub captains didn't like the SUBROC since it genneraly required a ping to use effectivly.
Hmmm...I wonder why the precision of a ping was required? It was after all a rocket with a nuclear depth charge, no?PD

Well when people think of nuclear blasts they think of huge city blasting explosions blasting wooden buildings to matchsticks.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/Images/WE01.jpg

But underwater its diffrent. The SUBROC only had a 5kt nuclear depth bomb, even for a tactical nuke that is tiny. Water helps to decrease the effects of the blast, the deeper the less effective the blast (which is why Russian subs were always being made to go deeper) and the blast is spread out over the entire hull of the sub rather than just one part as with a torpedo warhead or a depth charge so a sub is better able to survive a nuclear blast than a depth charge attack. Just to give you an idea how small a punch the SUBROC delivered here is a pic of a live test of a ASROC with a 10kt W44 warhead. Not that big of a blast (the ship is no more than 5 nm away.) Now imagin that much deeper at half the yeld, and you don't have a fancy BSY-1 fire control computer to help you do TMA (All OHP style DRTs). You miss judge the solution and you've got a really ticked off Russian sub out there possably with his own SUBROC getting ready to launch.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Asrocnuke1962.jpgI respectfully disagree on this point. Commodore Ward my ex CO spoke of this on occaison. Russian Subs were designed to go deeper to flee the MK-48. The threshold of a conventional torp is affected by water pressure. But a nuclear warhead it actually aids its intention and design. It dramatically increases water pressure. The goal is to implode the enemy with pressure produced by shock waves. Not to incinerate them.

[Castout]

SC sonar model doesn't take into account speed of target. The only difference in signal level will be if the target is cavitating.

PD
If this is related to the speed/noise issue that was discussed back when DW was first released, I'm not sure this is true of SC. In the archive threads on this topic, Amizaur ran several tests on SC, both stock 1.08 and SCXII and concluded speed/noise modeling actually worked quite well. At the top of the thread he tested against SCX, then further down he tested again on Stock 1.08.

He concluded with "So I would say that the SC speed/noise relation was quite good and I would be absolutely happy if I had the same relation restored in DW :-)."

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB_archive1/viewtopic.php?t=33674&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

That hurts ouch. I guess I've to spend more time with SC.

[TLAM Strike]

I respectfully disagree on this point. Commodore Ward my ex CO spoke of this on occaison. Russian Subs were designed to go deeper to flee the MK-48. The threshold of a conventional torp is affected by water pressure. But a nuclear warhead it actually aids its intention and design. It dramatically increases water pressure. The goal is to implode the enemy with pressure produced by shock waves. Not to incinerate them.

I just used that whole "Matchstick" thing as an example on how people think about nuclear weapons. I didn't mean to imply a SUBROC was ment to incinerate its target (at least when used against subs)

Well I think your CO got it backwards. Russian subs have always been designed to go deep, along with speed its the edge they have always had over our subs. The November had a 100 meter depth advantage over its American counterparts and the Russians have only gained on us in that area. The MK-48 was what was redesigned to compete with (the assumed) capablites of the Alfa. Of course the SUBROC predates the MK-48 so if Russian subs were being designed to defeat the current us ASW weapons of their era they were being designed to defeat the SUBROC and ASTOR both nuclear weapons, since the MK-37 could (unless fired from very close range or in the baffles) be simply out run.

I'm not totaly sure but it seems logical that increased water presure would have a negitive effect on the yeld of a nuclear weapon, simply from the explosive (kenetic) force having to push though more matter. Or maybe I'm thinking of thermal energy having to fight though pressure while kenetic energy would be aided by it. Do we have any phisics students out there? :hmm:

[Dr.Sid]

While the pressure of waters gets higher, density does not (or just a very little) because water can't be compressed (much). It is very different from gasses in this aspect.
Also both density and pressure actually makes the sound (or shockwave) travel faster and better.
I guess the pressure would add to the shock when it comes to overcoming stress limits.

[MBot]

(the assumed) capablites of the Alfa.

Just a little interesting sidenote. It seems those assumtions where not that far off after all. I just read Rising Tide, where a former Alfa skipper talks about diving the boat to 3000ft.

[goldorak]

(the assumed) capablites of the Alfa.

Just a little interesting sidenote. It seems those assumtions where not that far off after all. I just read Rising Tide, where a former Alfa skipper talks about diving the boat to 3000ft.

Didn't the alfa have a hull of pure titanium ?
A very fine and costly piece of soviet engineering.
Why do american subs have to be so conservative. All the maverick designs came from the east. :p

[Castout]

(the assumed) capablites of the Alfa.
Just a little interesting sidenote. It seems those assumtions where not that far off after all. I just read Rising Tide, where a former Alfa skipper talks about diving the boat to 3000ft.
Didn't the alfa have a hull of pure titanium ?
A very fine and costly piece of soviet engineering.
Why do american subs have to be so conservative. All the maverick designs came from the east. :p

And why did the Russians never put their titanium hulled submarine into full fledge production ? instead their backbone attack SSN were the Victors and now the Akula(Bars) class which is steeled hulled. I guess that tells us something....something prevented the Russians from putting its titanium hulled sub into full production imo.

The alfa I think I read it somewhere once went past right into a middle of NATO fleet exercise in high speed and deep depth. It was diving so deep that no weapon could touch it. It was very loud though so everyone could hear it. That was the event that sparked the development of the ADCAP I think. But I believe everyone here knows this story.

[SandyCaesar]

That story's new to me.

AFAIK, the Russian Sierras are the modern-day version of the Alfas, only much quieter and without the replaceable reactor core. No mass-production, once again.

But, going backwards, Alfas and Sierras can dive to that depth to evade attacks. Fine. I'm wondering, though, what they could do down there. 3000 feet sounds far deeper than what Russian torpedos can do, and while a titanium pressure hull can stand that, I'm not sure about an opened torpedo tube. So they could go super-deep for evasion, but for attacks they'd have to pop up to within the Mk48's envelope. Am I right?

[Frame57]

That story's new to me.

AFAIK, the Russian Sierras are the modern-day version of the Alfas, only much quieter and without the replaceable reactor core. No mass-production, once again.

But, going backwards, Alfas and Sierras can dive to that depth to evade attacks. Fine. I'm wondering, though, what they could do down there. 3000 feet sounds far deeper than what Russian torpedos can do, and while a titanium pressure hull can stand that, I'm not sure about an opened torpedo tube. So they could go super-deep for evasion, but for attacks they'd have to pop up to within the Mk48's envelope. Am I right?yep! You need to have enough air pressure to implulse the fish out of the tubes. they would have had to come to shallower depth..

[MBot]

I wonder what the tactical implications are from being able to dive into the deep sound channel. In my limited understanding of sonar this should give you a nice boost in detection range.

I guess deeper operating depth also give your sub generaly greater flexibility in utilizing layers.


Didn't the alfa have a hull of pure titanium ?


Yes, this made the Alfas (just as the Papa, Mike and the Sierra Class) immune to MAD detection from aircraft. And I guess also against magnetic proxy fuzes on torpedos.

[goldorak]

Yes, this made the Alfas (just as the Papa, Mike and the Sierra Class) immune to MAD detection from aircraft. And I guess also against magnetic proxy fuzes on torpedos.


A real pity this feature is not modelled in the "unspeakable mod". :cry:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

And why did the Russians never put their titanium hulled submarine into full fledge production ? instead their backbone attack SSN were the Victors and now the Akula(Bars) class which is steeled hulled. I guess that tells us something....something prevented the Russians from putting its titanium hulled sub into full production imo.
Mostly cost. For the Alfas, they were also let down by their primitive surroundings - their bismuth-cooled plants might have been a cooler idea if their base infrastructure had a more reliable electrical supply.

Another factor is that they resolved the problems of using High-Yield steels. The yield ratings of the pressure hull steel on the Akula is roughly equivalent to HY-140 (100kg/mm^2 - do the conversion to pounds per square inch). This at a time when American (688s) were using HY-80 and they were thinking of HY-100 for Seawolf. With that steel, 600m class test depths (similar to Sierra, though one step short of Mike) became feasible at a reasonable mass penalty ... the Soviet's next decision is obvious...

(the assumed) capablites of the Alfa.
Just a little interesting sidenote. It seems those assumtions where not that far off after all. I just read Rising Tide, where a former Alfa skipper talks about diving the boat to 3000ft.

The whole Alfa diving depth thing is pretty funny. Apparently Based on observations, the Americans (NATO?) assigned a high depth rating for the Alfa. Then the Cold War ended and the Russian sources came out which suggested a much lower depth, such as a "working" depth of 320-350m and a "maximum" depth of 400 or so (AFAIK, nobody said "crush"). The Americans believed them over their observations and all the sources are re-written, and now we have testimony again :)

I think the real problem is what Stuart Slade once uttered in his article about Alfas (it was in Warships1.com, but some time ago the entire site became unavailable even in the Wayback Machine and so it is now lost unless someone stashed a copy). IIRC, he mentions about how of loss of control at high (Alfa) speeds will cause a submarine to plunge very far below its depth, and this requires a high margin of safety. This will provide a reason for the Russians to write a very conservative working and maximum depth, while leaving the Russian Captains the margin (since the hull strength is there) to dive deep at their own risk (which is minimal if they aren't travelling at high speed at the same time).

[Frame57]

I respectfully disagree on this point. Commodore Ward my ex CO spoke of this on occaison. Russian Subs were designed to go deeper to flee the MK-48. The threshold of a conventional torp is affected by water pressure. But a nuclear warhead it actually aids its intention and design. It dramatically increases water pressure. The goal is to implode the enemy with pressure produced by shock waves. Not to incinerate them.

I just used that whole "Matchstick" thing as an example on how people think about nuclear weapons. I didn't mean to imply a SUBROC was ment to incinerate its target (at least when used against subs)

Well I think your CO got it backwards. Russian subs have always been designed to go deep, along with speed its the edge they have always had over our subs. The November had a 100 meter depth advantage over its American counterparts and the Russians have only gained on us in that area. The MK-48 was what was redesigned to compete with (the assumed) capablites of the Alfa. Of course the SUBROC predates the MK-48 so if Russian subs were being designed to defeat the current us ASW weapons of their era they were being designed to defeat the SUBROC and ASTOR both nuclear weapons, since the MK-37 could (unless fired from very close range or in the baffles) be simply out run.

I'm not totaly sure but it seems logical that increased water presure would have a negitive effect on the yeld of a nuclear weapon, simply from the explosive (kenetic) force having to push though more matter. Or maybe I'm thinking of thermal energy having to fight though pressure while kenetic energy would be aided by it. Do we have any phisics students out there? :hmm:The skip may have been referring to the MK-37. We had 48's then and the ADCAP was in developement, basically to go deeper to get the deeper diving boats. But I can tell you that a permit class boat could go about 300 to 400 feet deeper that the Novembers. I believe the Skipjack class was about on even keel with the test depth of the Novemebers.

[Castout]

Yes, this made the Alfas (just as the Papa, Mike and the Sierra Class) immune to MAD detection from aircraft. And I guess also against magnetic proxy fuzes on torpedos.

A real pity this feature is not modelled in the "unspeakable mod". :cry:

Goldorak it is very possible to make a sub in DW undetectable by MAD sensor.

[SandyCaesar]

Well, given that Wiki isn't a dedicated naval source, I'm not that certain about how much to trust it on this matter.

But apparently, just because the Alfa has a titanium hull doesn't mean it's MAD-proof, it gives it a reduced signature.

Quoting from the Wikipedia MAD page:

Function

There is some misunderstanding of the mechanism of detection of submarines in water using the MAD boom system. Magnetic moment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment) displacement is ostensibly the main disturbance, yet submarines are detectable even when oriented parallel to the earth's magnetic field, despite construction with non-ferromagnetic hulls. For example, the Soviet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet)-Russian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) Alfa class submarine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_class_submarine), whose hull is constructed out of titanium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium) to give dramatic submerged performance and protection from detection by MAD sensors, is still detectable.
The Alfa's detectability has led some analysts to deduce that the MAD's name is an intentional deception, so effective that the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) decided to construct the Alfa and even consider building the Typhoon class submarine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_class_submarine) SSBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSBN) out of titanium at one point. Since titanium structures are detectable, MAD sensors do not directly detect deviations in the earth's magnetic field. Instead, they may be described as long-range electric and electromagnetic field detector arrays of great sensitivity.
An electric field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field) is set up in conductors experiencing a variation in physical environmental conditions, providing that they are contiguous and possess sufficient mass. Particularly in submarine hulls, there is a measurable temperature difference between the bottom and top of the hull producing a related salinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinity) difference, as salinity is affected by temperature of water. The difference in salinity creates an electric potential (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential) across the hull. An electric current then flows through the hull, between the laminae of seawater separated by depth and temperature.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
The resulting dynamic electric field produces an electromagnetic field of its own, and thus even a titanium hull will be detectable on a MAD scope, as will a surface ship for the same reason.

[MBot]

Does any of the sonar gurus feels able to valuate the ability of some russian subs to dive into the deep sound channel? And does it still make a difference today with most subs having a towed array that can be droped this deep?