French and British Sonar

[Doc Savage]

I was wondering. There is so much literature available on the Net (and on this forum) about American and Russian sonar and their relative capabilities. But there doesn't seem to be much info about the French and British sonar systems. Even the Japanese, German, Chinese etc. stuff.
How do their sonar systems stack up as compared to the Russian and American stuff? Do any of them have high sensitivity sonars or is it pretty much No.1 USA, No. 2 Russia and everybody else far behind?

[LuftWolf]

The United States and the UK have an open door agreement for military technology, so its safe to assume that the capabilities of all UK equipment is comparable to that of the United States.

Germany has the third largest economy in the world, and is a major exporter of high technology goods, as well as military hardware.

France is major exporter of military equipment as well, and we are all familiar with the technological capabilities of the Japanese.

In general, I'd probably have to go US, UK/Commonwealth, Germany/Japan, France, the rest of the EU and THEN (probably by a fairly wide margin) Russia and China, but that's strictly an amateur appraisal.

[Kurushio]

You forgot to mention the UK is a number one weapons technology producer as well. You know, Marconi? etc. So I doubt they're good thanks only to the "open-door" policy. :up:

[LuftWolf]

You forgot to mention the UK is a number one weapons technology producer as well. You know, Marconi? etc. So I doubt they're good thanks only to the "open-door" policy. :up:

Well, I assumed that this was implied. :)

[Amizaur]

They were at least very good - french, german and swedish sonars (swedish radars foer long time equal to US and GB). Sonars in most cases better than russian, the Russians sometimes copied them if managed to get documentation. Currently the new most modern sonars produced by euro-consorties (joined british, german, french and italic partners) are probably on par or in some cases better than US systems (for example torpedo seekers for Black Shark, low frequency sonars for Type-212 and new euro-frigates that are said to have det range up to 10 times better than previous generations and already demostrated impressive detection and tracking ranges against quiet submarines... can't remeber details, maybe I'll find them later but I remember i was very impreessed... something like SURTASS pefrormance on small frigate and shallow water :-) or at least TB-29...

[Kurushio]

Nope...I'll never believe anyone has better systems then the Americans. Never. Equal to...doubtful, but maybe? Better? No. Wishful thinking...that's all. :up:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Nope...I'll never believe anyone has better systems then the Americans. Never. Equal to...doubtful, but maybe? Better? No. Wishful thinking...that's all. :up:

I can buy the general concept of someone's equipment being better than the US, but the idea that a small frigate sonar would be better than SURTASS is admittedly hard to chew down. It is hard to believe the frigate sonar would have the physical aperture and the like necessary to beat the TB-29, let alone the even longer and unwieldy SURTASS, even if we assume somewhat better signal processing.

[Kurushio]

I wont accept anyones sonar being better then the Americans. Because technology isn't acquired out of thin air. It takes experience and it's a process of learning...i.e the technology tree and how much capital you pump into R&D. Yes, China can make a jet fighter...and a good one...but one to match an F-22? :lol: The US has been playing with Sonar against the Soviets in real combat situations (i.e. not a lab or sim) for nigh on half a decade. Now, historically nuetral Sweden has better Sonar technology then the Americans? :lol: Maybe made by Ikea to boot. :)

[DAB]

I was wondering. There is so much literature available on the Net (and on this forum) about American and Russian sonar and their relative capabilities. But there doesn't seem to be much info about the French and British sonar systems. Even the Japanese, German, Chinese etc. stuff.
How do their sonar systems stack up as compared to the Russian and American stuff? Do any of them have high sensitivity sonars or is it pretty much No.1 USA, No. 2 Russia and everybody else far behind?
The United States and the UK have an open door agreement for military technology, so its safe to assume that the capabilities of all UK equipment is comparable to that of the United States.

Germany has the third largest economy in the world, and is a major exporter of high technology goods, as well as military hardware.

France is major exporter of military equipment as well, and we are all familiar with the technological capabilities of the Japanese.

In general, I'd probably have to go US, UK/Commonwealth, Germany/Japan, France, the rest of the EU and THEN (probably by a fairly wide margin) Russia and China, but that's strictly an amateur appraisal.
I suspect the people worldwide that can answer this authoratively can be counted on one hand...

The question is further complicated by the question of combat doctine. A British Nuclear attack boat designed in 1990 was expected to do far more littoral water ops then its American equivilant - and it is generally presumed that British designs are generally superior to their US counterparts in that regard. On the other hand, American Subs were generally ahead when it came to networking the various Sonar systems - as US combat doctrine places more emphasis on accurate TMA Firing Solutions then the British did.

Anouther example (but slightly off topic) is Electonic capabilities and espionage. The US generally equips a dedicated boat to forfill this role, whilst, in the UK, such a capability is generally fitted out at least on the Trafalgar Class.

And then we go onto the French, whose independent approach makes it practically impossible to figure out whats going on there.

One final thing though, Commonwealth navy's such as Canada and Australlia tend to use US equipment on their boats. This may have something to do with US capabilities, or the combat doctrines of those countries (or the fact that US companies can undercut UK counterparts). But you can't put the commonwealth in the same catagory as the UK.

To be frank, i'm going to decline to rank the nations. But I think you can say that the US, UK, Australlia and Canadian navies are close enough in capability, that when you consider the vast variences in local conditions that may be encountered, advantage comes from training rather then technological edge. The French I will also tentitvely guess are on a par with those navys.

[Henson]

I know the germans, for one, have one hell of a combat control system, especially suited for littoral ops.

One thing that is hard to grasp is that a Combat Control System (CCS) is not as one-size-fits-all as we would like it to be. After a couple of semi-failed experiments with fully integrated CCS (BSY-1 and 2) the US and Australia moved towards CCS Mk2 Block 1C, which is a deep-water traditional american system paired with the new COTS sonar system (BQQ-10). That combo is awesome for tracking submarines; however, while it is a step-up for the US as far as operating in high contact density waters, it still leaves something to be desired in that regard. The new BYG-1 with BQQ-10 (ARCI) is an improvement on that, and the great thing about it is the rapid upgrades that are now possible because of the use of commercially available computer technology.

Some of the european vendors, on the other hand, have been working on systems that were specifically designed for littorals with high-contact densities for decades now. Those are really good at that, but are not as good at tracking submarines. There is currently no perfect middle ground, so the americans go their way and the rest go theirs. We have different missions and different focus, and our CCS/sonar systems reflect that. An ASUW mission has substantially different requirements than an ASW mission or an ISR.

[Amizaur]

Nope...I'll never believe anyone has better systems then the Americans. Never. Equal to...doubtful, but maybe? Better? No. Wishful thinking...that's all. :up:

Yeah, think so still... if it's so good, then no need to design better systems... ;-))) waste of money... ;-)))

"I can't accept" - it sometimes becomes a bad habit of declining reality... ;-) Some thing ARE better in friends of even enemy. It's better to recognise that, accept and work to get ahead, than decline...

Maybe I don't remembed the details, as I mentioned, it's not as good as SURTASS or maybe even TB-29 in deep water, but was demostrated to detect and track quiet (not quietest, but quiet enaugh to give US hard time in excersices) conventional subs from - IIRC - few dosens of kilometers in not so deep water. Something around ten times better than previous generation of such systems. It's not aimed at deep water performance, although should work well, but I suppose it to be better in shallow water scenarios, which are conditions at which european sonars always had to work, and have much more experience in that matter. US admits clearly to be still only learning how to use it's blue water systems in shallow waters. And try to develop new, shallow water systems, often - I have to admit - looking perspectively and relaxing further developing of more advanced passive systems, to go for something like low probability of detection variable depth towed low frecuency active sonar designed to work in shallow waters - completly new class of sonar system. But years and years can pass become it becomes operational, and currently all sub commanders can do is using creative tactics and upgrading theirs software...
Second example - previous generation of european (non-british) active torpedo seekers had acquire range of about 2000m. The best US system, on board of ADCAP, is reporded to have around 5000m max range, maybe bit longer in ideal conditions and large (Typhhon) targets. The new Black Shark european torpedo has a seeker with TYPICAL range in good conditions around 7000m. And they don't target Typhoons... smaller things.
So it is better in range and I can bet better in other areas (signal processing, counter-countermeasures). Because it's newer, and today's evolution of computer power and signal processing is very fast, and because the ADCAP has known (details classifield) problems with detection small targets in shallow water "in some types of scenarios" and it's still not fixed today AFAIK. New BlackShark seeker was developed with just that conditions in mond - shallow waters, small targets - because those are european conditions and most wanted export capabilities. Yes, if ADCAP seeker was projected not years ago, but in same time as Black Shark seeker, it would be most probably as good if not better. But it was not, it's older tech, and currently, I believe, in fact worse. In most if not all areas. Just as APG-63V1, even though great radar, is not as good as EF Typhoons Captor. Of course in radars situation is different - there ARE more modern Us radars, APG-77/79/80 familiy. But there are not more modern torpedo seekers or certain types of sonars. Torps and subs have to use older ones. Name it out of phase generation change if you like...

[Amizaur]

Yes, China can make a jet fighter...and a good one...but one to match an F-22? :lol:

We don't talk here about China. Or even Russia. We are talking about european united consorties, something like Airbus vs Boeing.

The US has been playing with Sonar against the Soviets in real combat situations (i.e. not a lab or sim) for nigh on half a decade.

Again, we don't compare here to Russians. And don't talk about blue water, which is 95% of Us experience and cash invested.

Now, historically nuetral Sweden has better Sonar technology then the Americans? :lol: Maybe made by Ikea to boot. :)

We don't talk about Sweden sonars again :D but european. Sweden was given as example for radars. In fact I have no idea how good sweden sonars are, but I wouldn't expect them to be worse than let's say german. ESPECIALLY in Baltic - like, shallow water conditions. Here they are probably better. Whose was that sub US leased and tried to counter for a year in shallow, and opts for another year ? ;) I have no doubt that the sub itself made dosens of simulated attack on searching ships itself. Historically common result in such excercises - blue navy vs small diesels in shallow waters that they know better.

And the last - if you had bet in let's say 70's or 80's that Sweden radars can't be as good as American ones... you could have nasty surprise maybe... For example radar and avionics of Saab J-37 Viggen fighter were said to be in many aspects (not sheer power maybe, just like Viggen was not top-end airframe) better than those on US F-15As and later F-15Cs... Just like Gripen radar, avionics and datalinks are better than all F-16C versions with exception of Block 60. Even Block 52+ with newest APG-68(V)7 or 9 are maybe equally (overall) good radars, but still worse avionics (especially situational awarnes - related and datalinks - both critical to A2A performance). Of course Gripen was and still is specialised A2A fighter with some attack capabilites integrated, so in A2G role is less modern and capable than late F-16s blocks...

Of course you can say, and you'd be right, that today US has AESA radars, JSFs and F-22s. You are right. Sweden dropped from technology race some time ago - for top-end systems at least. But in 70s and 80's there were no better US radars than APG-63... and FWIK Sweden radar was shorter ranged, but very comparable in counter-counter measures and capabilites, and the overal Vigggen avionics (not to mention datalinks!) were better on Viggen than on F-15s.
Best european for sure. Better than Tornado's F3 systems too, with exeption for radar range also.

[Doc Savage]

Thanks for the replies. I was hunting for info by googling around but they mostly lead to the usual suspects - Naval-tech.com, fas, Global security etc.
About the Americans, there's some pretty good stuff available on the direction they are going.
This site
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content.php?P=04REVIEW177
seems to suggest thst they're working on using Fiber Optic hydrophones in their next generation systems. That was already implemented on the WAA on the Virginia class subs and the newer TB-33 Towed array will use the same kind of hydrophones. (I believe the existing sonars around the world use PeizoElectric hydrophones. Just getting a basic grasp of what that meant-had to relearn some of my high school Physics)
Another good site - http://www.navlog.org/TB29.html talking about the TB-29A - basically a lower cost version of the TB-29 because it uses COTS technology. I keep hearing the term ARCI which I'm assuming has something to do with COTS.

I have a question about the Combat Control systems on submarines - BSY-1 and 2, SUBTICS, the new system on the Astutes... What exactly do they do? Are they just really advanced data processors for the sonars or do they do more (target localization/TMA and weapons guidance)?

[Kurushio]

Yes, China can make a jet fighter...and a good one...but one to match an F-22? :lol:

We don't talk here about China. Or even Russia. We are talking about european united consorties, something like Airbus vs Boeing.

The US has been playing with Sonar against the Soviets in real combat situations (i.e. not a lab or sim) for nigh on half a decade.

Again, we don't compare here to Russians. And don't talk about blue water, which is 95% of Us experience and cash invested.

Now, historically nuetral Sweden has better Sonar technology then the Americans? :lol: Maybe made by Ikea to boot. :)
We don't talk about Sweden sonars again :D but european. Sweden was given as example for radars. In fact I have no idea how good sweden sonars are, but I wouldn't expect them to be worse than let's say german. ESPECIALLY in Baltic - like, shallow water conditions. Here they are probably better. Whose was that sub US leased and tried to counter for a year in shallow, and opts for another year ? ;) I have no doubt that the sub itself made dosens of simulated attack on searching ships itself. Historically common result in such excercises - blue navy vs small diesels in shallow waters that they know better.

And the last - if you had bet in let's say 70's or 80's that Sweden radars can't be as good as American ones... you could have nasty surprise maybe... For example radar and avionics of Saab J-37 Viggen fighter were said to be in many aspects (not sheer power maybe, just like Viggen was not top-end airframe) better than those on US F-15As and later F-15Cs... Just like Gripen radar, avionics and datalinks are better than all F-16C versions with exception of Block 60. Even Block 52+ with newest APG-68(V)7 or 9 are maybe equally (overall) good radars, but still worse avionics (especially situational awarnes - related and datalinks - both critical to A2A performance). Of course Gripen was and still is specialised A2A fighter with some attack capabilites integrated, so in A2G role is less modern and capable than late F-16s blocks...

Of course you can say, and you'd be right, that today US has AESA radars, JSFs and F-22s. You are right. Sweden dropped from technology race some time ago - for top-end systems at least. But in 70s and 80's there were no better US radars than APG-63... and FWIK Sweden radar was shorter ranged, but very comparable in counter-counter measures and capabilites, and the overal Vigggen avionics (not to mention datalinks!) were better on Viggen than on F-15s.
Best european for sure. Better than Tornado's F3 systems too, with exeption for radar range also.
Please tell me your whole post is a joke? You say "we don't take about Russia here...we don't talk about Sweden here..." and then you go on about RADAR when the whole bloody discussion is about SONAR!!! :stare: :roll:

...and then...you mention Sweden and Russia in your post before mine and you harp on about a Swedish plane in the rest of your post...oh but "we don't talk about Sweden"!!!! :down:


...by the way Amizaur, weren't you the one who said a US Carrier could only do 30 knots? ;)

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

...by the way Amizaur, weren't you the one who said a US Carrier could only do 30 knots? ;)

Yes. What's the problem?

The point of Amizaur's diatribe is that there are many examples of people being able to match US tech in some areas. America's superiority is in having pretty good tech overall as opposed to necessarily leading in every last field - though of course the US has some unique stuff of its own like stealth planes.

[jasonbirder]

Sweden has had a huge amount of experience in shallow water (Baltic obviously) submarine operations during the cold war.
They agressively protected their neutrality and had numerous encounters with Soviet submarines...
Their home grown Arms industry has a tremendous reputation for innovation - look at the Viggen, the S-Tank etc.
The Grippen was the first new-generation fighter to come into service - long before Eurofighter & F22 and before even the Rafale - whilst more limited in some of its capabilities than thos planes- that is because of Swedens specific defence needs rather than their ability to produce advanced equipment.

Thats not forgetting that at one stage Britains late model Trafalger Class submarines were considered to have a quieter propulsion system than their (at the time) contemparies - the late 668 class

Whilst I wouldn't argue that across the board US systems are the most advanced in the world - its not a wise assumption to consider European products...automatically inferior...

[Linton]

Sweden wasn't just chasing Russian submarines.Some of the intruders came from the colonies."The secret war against Sweden" is a very convincing read.
The Rn guards its secrets very well but reference to some of the Janes books will fill in some detail.

[Kurushio]

Ok, but we are talking SONAR here. No...what I find annoying is that people from the ex-Soviet states, all they seem to do is try to put down the US military. They are so biased it makes it hard on the eyes...and frankly I'm bored with it. Not just here...but on literally every forum out there including a military forum where this bloke supposedly to do with Sptz would whine and cry about how Russians/Soviets were falsely portrayed as inferior blah blah blah... :damn:

...and I'm predictably seeing the same thing here. So a CVN can just about do 30 knots. :roll: US sonar is pretty much behind the rest of the world. Well you know what I say to these ex-stalinists who've come out from behind the Iron Curtain? I say: if the US defeated you with such crappy weapons/systems...what does that say about Soviet/Eastern Bloc equipment? :rock:

Now please...lets leave the chip off the shoulder. :down:

[jasonbirder]

Bias based on nationality seemes to be a little bit of a reccuring theme I encounter on the forum of every sim I've played...
Just have a look at the Il2 Forgotten Battles forum for some classic examples...(Mustangs won the war...Focke Wulfs are undermodelled blah, blah, blah....yawn)
Unfortunately if you have a preconceived opinion (EG:US equipment is the best...or Soviet equipment is unfairly viewed as being unsophisticated or inferior) its likely you will look for evidence that supports your own point of view...

Facts are that each nation is likely to have strengths and weaknesses...

US are strong in Deep Water Sonar & Integrated Combat Systems
Soviets have proven ability in deep diving fast submarines and strong/damage resistant hulls
Many European navies have extensive experience of shallow water/high target density environments
Etc etc...

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Ok, but we are talking SONAR here.
Sonar is actually quite similar to radar - it is a sensor, and dependent on electronics and the like.

No...what I find annoying is that people from the ex-Soviet states, all they seem to do is try to put down the US military.
Woah. So everyone that doesn't just dogmatically worship the United States is an "ex-Soviet"?
Even if they are "supporting" West European products (Amizaur, who I talked to and know he's not particularly positive on Russian products)? BTW, Amizaur claims to come from Poland, which has no great love for Russia...
Stuart Slade (http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm) (a.k.a. 40-knot myth killer) is a ex-Soviet? Despite the fact he wasn't particularly positive on Russian subs (the Russian sub history pages on the old Warships1.com page is largely his work, and they weren't too positive)?

They are so biased it makes it hard on the eyes...and frankly I'm bored with it.
I find it stunning you aren't more bored with boards where everyone thinks the same thing...

Not just here...but on literally every forum out there including a military forum where this bloke supposedly to do with Sptz would whine and cry about how Russians/Soviets were falsely portrayed as inferior blah blah blah... :damn:
Now, let's be objective. There is a certain tendency to do that in the West. Consider the early depictions of the AA-11 Archer in Larry Bond's books (i.e. Red Phoenix and Vortex) - given how he described the missile, it is obvious he does not know much about it at the time, which is reasonable. But you'd notice he automatically assumes it is a far inferior weapon to the Sidewinder despite coming out years later.

...and I'm predictably seeing the same thing here. So a CVN can just about do 30 knots. :roll:

Let's start w/ you explaining to us what's so abhorrent about the idea that even an American aircraft carrier is forced to obey the laws of physics. With a HP:tonne ratio of only 3:1, even counting its large size it is moving plenty swift at 30-33 knots.

US sonar is pretty much behind the rest of the world.

Ahh, how did this conclusion come about?

Well you know what I say to these ex-stalinists who've come out from behind the Iron Curtain? I say: if the US defeated you with such crappy weapons/systems...what does that say about Soviet/Eastern Bloc equipment? :rock:

Any good "ex-stalinist" could easily point out that you were going after Third World nations. :D

Now please...lets leave the chip off the shoulder. :down:

Same goes to you, Kurushio...

[FERdeBOER]

Ok, but we are talking SONAR here. No...what I find annoying is that people from the ex-Soviet states, all they seem to do is try to put down the US military. They are so biased it makes it hard on the eyes...and frankly I'm bored with it. Not just here...but on literally every forum out there including a military forum where this bloke supposedly to do with Sptz would whine and cry about how Russians/Soviets were falsely portrayed as inferior blah blah blah... :damn:

Wow, I'm from Spain, not precisely an ex-Soviet country. Even more, we have had a dictator for 40 years supported by USA on exchage of naval bases and airports.

The believe of the all-powerfull USA tech is growed by books and films.
If you read Clancy's books (specially the last ones), the Americans are the best in all and the rest are poor countries that can't do anything by themselves.

So, the rocked that launched the Apolo missions were designed for Germans, the ICBMs also.
The Atomic bomb too.
Norwegians (is correct the spell?) are the best country about oceanography, and that includes study of underwater sound propagation, ocean salinity and temperature and so on...
A lot of scientific discoveries in America are made by European an Asian people that works for the Americas.

That's because the U.S. have the money and the will. I agree that the overall of all radar, sonar, missiles, communications, vehicles... are the best on the world. But I can't see why not that country can be better in that kind of sensor, and that other country be better in avionics...
And there's another thing: the objetive. You can not have all things on the same sensor and can not put all kind of sensors on the same ship.
As an example, the cats have great night vission and can see objets in movement with great accuracy. On exange, they have not very good periferical sight.

Same thing happens with sonar. The Americans needed a specific kind of sonar, that can receive data on determinate range and frequency becuase their doctrine and the enemy (the Soviet Union).
Maybe the Americans have the best capacity for tracking nuclear boomers, but not diesels on shallow waters because that was not the priority.

Well you know what I say to these ex-stalinists who've come out from behind the Iron Curtain? I say: if the US defeated you with such crappy weapons/systems...what does that say about Soviet/Eastern Bloc equipment? :rock:

Amazing. What a history lesson. All of us remember that famous battle when a lone US sub defeated the entire Soviet Navy...

[Kurushio]

Sorry Fre de Boer, your post is just too over-simplified. At this point, I find Hollywood or Clancy's books more believable.

And about cats...you do realise they don't have sonar? :yep:

[Amizaur]

No...what I find annoying is that people from the ex-Soviet states, all they seem to do is try to put down the US military.

You are walking on VERY thin ice here... Have you problems with geography, history, or both ?

[Kurushio]

No...what I find annoying is that people from the ex-Soviet states, all they seem to do is try to put down the US military.
You are walking on VERY thin ice here... Have you problems with geography, history, or both ?

Biased people. Yes, I have a problem with them. :yep: Do you know one? ;)

[Amizaur]

Biased people. Yes, I have a problem with them. :yep: Do you know one? ;)

I'm just answering one. Personally, I don't bother where are you from. I'm answering to your arguments. You seem to do otherwise.

Unfortunately, reading in hurry then I didn't notice this:

Well you know what I say to these ex-stalinists who've come out from behind the Iron Curtain?

Actually the thin ice you walked, already cracked.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Figured out who can pee farther yet guys?

PD

[Linton]

You might want to remember that sonar(originally asdic) and radar were both invented here in Britain

[FERdeBOER]

You might want to remember that sonar(originally asdic) and radar were both invented here in Britain

Active sonar, yes. Passive... is hard to say who invented it, but Leonardo Da Vinci already described that if you introduce a tube on the water and put your ear on one side, you can hear a boat from far distance.

Wonder what Dan Brown think about it :hmm: :rotfl:

[FERdeBOER]

And about cats...you do realise they don't have sonar? :yep:

Yes, I know they have also an excelent ear :yep: , but that will turn the topic to a "National Geographic" one :up:

[Kurushio]

And about cats...you do realise they don't have sonar? :yep:
Yes, I know they have also an excelent ear :yep: , but that will turn the topic to a "National Geographic" one :up:

Cats also clean their arse with their tongue. :rock:

[LoBlo]

I'ld say that all those navies mentioned are probably more or less capable of creating comparable sonar systems. Its probably safe to say that most of their systems are roughly on even par, with minor hedging and optimizations. The actual physics knowledge, mathematical algorithsm, and hardware needed to create those systems possessed by all.

If there are performance differences then they are most likely due to differences in program timelines and development budgets. Countries with smaller fleets have an advantage in that they can oftentimes implement new technology more quickly into their systems simply due to the fact that they have less of a fleet to upgrade. At the same time, altough a larger navy could update its tech, it may choose to hold off on upgrades because of the large number of platforms in service, and may even wait until a new more significant technology improvement has finished development until it fields the systems.

A good example of this is the evolution of Phased Array Radar Technology over the last thirty years: http://www.harpoonhq.com/waypoint/articles/Article_044.pdf Many of the systems of the next generation european ships are as good or better than the original Aegis system, however, the US will hold off on upgrading its own systems until its ready to deploy its next generation of destroyers currently under development. Each side has temporary moments where its on top of the other.

*IF* a large budget power (i.e. the US) decides that it *MUST* have a superior system then it will bring its large $400+ billion dollar defense budget to bare, fielding the system when its ready. The obvious example of this is the VA and SW sub which has bested most (if not all) of the other subs in the world, but at double and triple the cost (3billion per sub).

All and all, like what has already been said, each side will claim a better system than the other.

[XabbaRus]

Kurushio it is the arrogance to believe point blank that no can be better than you is what leads to the downfall of nations, companies, sports teams etc.

Sure overall the US leads but there are many areas in defence where the US might not have the lead and maybe lagged behind.

During the 80's and early 90's the Soviet Union/Russia was ahead in A2A missile technology. They had an operation ASRAAM equivalent a decade before anyone else.

How about the IRST, have been deployed on Russian aircraft starting I think with the MiG-23. Their missile tech is still good and I'd wager that in terms of microcircuit tech and processors they are up there now since they can get more open access to high end COTs stuff, no need to produce their own.

Torpedoes, take a look at the Spearfish the RN uses, speaking to a couple of guys who know the weapon, they'd take it over an ADCAP.

Sun Tzu would have a few words for you. Never believe that no one can be better that you. It will come back and bite you in the backside. It's the main reason the UK has slipped in standing.

[LoBlo]

It's the main reason the UK has slipped in standing.

Hm...that's interesting. What do you mean? Yes I myself have noticed that it many regards British pride and arrogance is more pronounced and more deeply intrenched than even American arrogance a lot of the tme...:hmm: :yep: ... but I never considered it a source of UK "slipping"... unless of course you mean starting back from the American Revolutionary War...:doh:

[LuftWolf]

Figured out who can pee farther yet guys?

PD

Actually, as someone who had family in Poland and Romania before the Nazis and the Stalinists did their best to make sure this wasn't the case, I think Kurushio needs to get his facts straight before he starts insulting people who lived through this personally.

Cheers,
David

[Kurushio]

Figured out who can pee farther yet guys?

PD
Actually, as someone who had family in Poland and Romania before the Nazis and the Stalinists did their best to make sure this wasn't the case, I think Kurushio needs to get his facts straight before he starts insulting people who lived through this personally.

Cheers,
David

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=94484&page=3

2nd to last post...

[LuftWolf]

I read it after I posted this.

Understood.

Cheers,
David

[Orm]

Ok, but we are talking SONAR here. No...what I find annoying is that people from the ex-Soviet states, all they seem to do is try to put down the US military. They are so biased it makes it hard on the eyes...and frankly I'm bored with it. Not just here...but on literally every forum out there including a military forum where this bloke supposedly to do with Sptz would whine and cry about how Russians/Soviets were falsely portrayed as inferior blah blah blah... :damn:

...and I'm predictably seeing the same thing here. So a CVN can just about do 30 knots. :roll: US sonar is pretty much behind the rest of the world. Well you know what I say to these ex-stalinists who've come out from behind the Iron Curtain? I say: if the US defeated you with such crappy weapons/systems...what does that say about Soviet/Eastern Bloc equipment? :rock:

Now please...lets leave the chip off the shoulder. :down:


You are still living in a myth. Wake up and look at the realities.

[Palindromeria]

thanks for reminding me why i havent read these forums lately !

:doh:

[Kurushio]

Quite a myth cosidering the Soviets lost the war...:rock:

[Orm]

Quite a myth cosidering the Soviets lost the war...:rock:

Sorry, but what war? The cold war was mostly political. I doubt that you will ever know, except in you Clancy book, what would be a real confrontation between the Soviet army and the US/NATO. I can only believe that we would have seen more than one guy getting killed (like it is usually with this author). I think the Iraqi exemple is quite clear. At least, Clancy was correct on one thing, on how to destroy a federal building with an airplane.

[Kurushio]

oooh matron! Obviously someone doesn't like Clancy. May I remind you, Clancy has a Dangerous Waters campaign based on his (and Bond's) book? :yep:

Secondly...the Cold War was a war of military technology, also. You have to remember the Soviets were the aggressors, they even had doctrine on how to win a nuclear confrontation. So if NATO couldn't keep ahead of the Soviets technology wise, the Soviets would've expanded over to Western Europe etc.

About the Iraqi example. First off, do you have any military experience? I don;t think so. Iraq took 3 weeks to invade and conquer. The problem, as it always is, is keeping the peace. It is far more difficult to occupy a nation then to conquer it. This goes all the way back to the Roman times. But the US took 3 weeks to destroy the Iraqi military. I don't think that's too shaby, to be honest. Do you?

Fact remains though...the Soviets lost the Cold War. Cry about it as much as you want. :lol: Still doesn't change the fact. :up:

[Henson]

Tom Clancy doesn't know jack **** about submarines.

Signed "a submariner"

[OKO]

You might want to remember that sonar(originally asdic) and radar were both invented here in Britain

You should read about that, because you wrong.
Neither SONAR nor RADAR were invented by English, sorry ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SONAR

[Orm]

Ok, I thank you for this discussion, but I am out now.

Kurushio said:
About the Iraqi example. First off, do you have any military experience? I don;t think so. Iraq took 3 weeks to invade and conquer. The problem, as it always is, is keeping the peace. It is far more difficult to occupy a nation then to conquer it. This goes all the way back to the Roman times. But the US took 3 weeks to destroy the Iraqi military. I don't think that's too shaby, to be honest. Do you?


BTW, war never end in Iraq, and honestly, I am really surprise that someone think that this conflict is done. Pity for you, because you are going to hurt badly when you will wake up to the reality.

[FERdeBOER]

Obviously someone doesn't like Clancy. May I remind you, Clancy has a Dangerous Waters campaign based on his (and Bond's) book? :yep:

Me neither. I love Red Storm Rising and Hunt for Red October (curiously written with another guy... :hmm:) and I've read other books... Is incredible how a person can be so wrong about other countries. :nope:
On my part, Spain, he is wrong in almost all statements he say about us.
But I don't mind, is just books... histories to get a nice time reading.
On Clancy's score I have to say he is a good scenarios creator, despite the other limitations.

You have to remember the Soviets were the aggressors, they even had doctrine on how to win a nuclear confrontation.
The United States also had doctrine on how to win a nuclear confrontation. And all that doctrines are based on a first strike; the one who can attack first... will die later :dead:

So if NATO couldn't keep ahead of the Soviets technology wise, the Soviets would've expanded over to Western Europe etc.
United States also extended his hands over other countries... almost all South-American!

Iraq took 3 weeks to invade and conquer.
Vini, vidi, vinci.

Fact remains though...the Soviets lost the Cold War. Cry about it as much as you want. :lol: Still doesn't change the fact. :up:
They lost a LOT more than a military race (not war) :yep:

[XabbaRus]

Hmmm funny how Red Storm Rising I think was more Larry Bond than Tom Clancy. Compare how Red Storm Rising reads with his other works and then read Larry Bonds Vortex, you'll see how much of RSR is Clancy's

But guys lets not feed the troll eh...

[Kurushio]

I hope you're not referring to me as a troll? :stare:

No...Red Storm Rising is TOM CLANCY's book. If it was Larry Bond's, his name would be on the front, and not Tom's. :roll: Futhermore, the only time Larry Bond is mentioned, is in the introduction by Tom himself. Otherwise you wouldn't even know he was involved with the book. Futhermore, it says clearly that Tom had a falling out with Larry about writing the book, probably because Tom wanted to become a writer at the time, and Larry was fiddling with other things. So Tom wanted output, Larry wanted to play board games. Tom did the book, Larry was playing with plastic ships.

In other words...IT'S CLANCY'S BOOK. Legally and officially.

So get it out of your system...!!

Answering Henson:

Tom doesn't specialise in subs. He handles every aspect of the military, including ground-pounders. So as the saying goes: Jack of all trade, master of none. Saying that, he did write a book about when he was invited to spend a week on a nuclear sub. He is also friends with admirals, captains etc. So I think your statement is just utter tripe. He doesn't know "jack **** about subs..." based on what? Swearing and uninformed opinions. The traits of a naughty child. :up:

Answering FerdeBoer:

As I said before, Red Storm Rising wasn't WRITTEN with another guy. Tom wanted to write a "what if" book since coming out of college with a Masters in Literature (another common myth: Tom was just an Insurance Salesman) :roll:...a "what if" we had a non-nuclear 3rd world war. He met Larry and they bounced ideas off each other. Then Tom, looking to sell his insurance business and become a writer (his lifetime ambition) asked Larry if he would help him with the novel. It seems Larry was not productive enough for Tom, so they had a falling out and Larry lumped Tom with the actual WRITING of the novel. Though the fact that Red Storm Rising came out AFTER Hunt For Red October, even though it was started BEFORE (RSR is actually Tom's first novel) suggests how frustrated Tom was with Larry in stalling this flipping novel.

No, the United States never had doctrine to win a first-strike non-conventional (or nuclear) war. You are just making this up and are far off the mark. Apart from the political aspect, which would go against the constitution etc, the Americans called it MAD (Mutual Assured Destrustion) and always aimed for detent...NEVER an advantage over the Soviets and thus NEVER a scenario for a first strike. Hence why the US put nukes on subs.

The Soviets on the other hand did have scenarios for winning a nuclear war...hence the Cuban Missile Crisis etc..:up:

I can't honestly say I ever read much about Spain in any of Tom's books? When was Spain mentioned and why does he treat your people/nation unfairly? The only one I can think of is in Rainbow 6 (the book) when the terrorists take those people hostage in the amusement park? Can't remember saying anything bad about Spain though.

Vini, Vidi, Vici means we came, we saw, we conquered. That has little to do with Iraq to be honest where it was more like we came, we conquered and then all hell broke loose.

The Cold War was a war...any way you put it. There were wars by proxy...Korea (Russian planes v US planes), Vietnam (Russian and Chinese supplied SAMs taking down US planes), Aghanistan (wasn't it US supplied Stingers taking down Soviet choppers?) etc. etc.
Just like any other war hundreds of thousands died...the Soviets lost. Amen.

In answer to Orm:

Do you know the difference between WAR and INSURGENCY? The Iraqi WAR lasted 3 weeks where the US forces obliterated Iraqi forces and occupied Iraq. The INSURGENCY is still ongoing.

And to all the rest:

As soon as I mentioned I'm a Clancy fan, I see all the negative posts cropped up. Knew this would happen...some people just like to argue. :roll:

p.s. Tom may not know Jack about this and that (or so you claim), but he's the one with friends in the Pentagon, sells millions of books and has a yacht moored in Costa Blanca. :88)

[XabbaRus]

Time to feed I think,

Well Tom might have done the writing, but the whole style and layout bares a lot more resemblance to a Larry Bond novel then any other Clancy novels.

Hmmm, lets see, a fair few current and past submariners who frequent or used to frequent this board have commented at varying length on the inaccuracies that Clancy has in his book. Henson I think is one submariner.

As for the US not having a doctrine to win and survive a first strike nuclear war could you provide your sources?

However I am beginning to think you are Tom Clancy himself maybe with the absolute belief in the total never ending superiority of US equipment over anyone else. You should go to Strategypage.com It is the perfect place for you.

As far as I know you could be making everything up.

[Kurushio]

The only troll is you Xabbabut....we are having a normal discussion and you have to get personal. That, to me is a troll. So please do us all a favour and either get with the program and join in the discussion without getting personal...or shut the *$@! up. :up:

No, I am a big Clancy fan...I wish I was him though. But I'm not. The simple fact remains, if it was Bond's novel, HIS NAME would be on the front. :roll:

Now, I'm going to show you why your statement is so stupid, to say the least. Red Storm Rising was written prior to 1984 (because that's when HforRO came out and we know Tom started writing RsR before that, even though it was published after.) Bond's first novel was published in 1990, nearly a full decade later. Tom has a Masters in Literature. Larry doesn't. Though just the timescale is absurd. Write a book today, then a next one ten years down the line. :roll:

And not only that...you're saying it must be Larry's book because it's in a similar style to the one he wrote about ten years later? Don't you think maybe he was influenced by Tom's writing style? Remember that Tom has given Larry a push in the literary world by giving him some great reviews and comments...because Tom is a nice guy. Though what you say is absurd....Tom is a writer, Larry isn't. End of. :stare:

And no...the US would never have doctrine for a first strike, ecexpt for a pre-emptive (which is launching just before an IMMINENT Soviet strike) aimed at Soviet silos and laucnhers. This is common knowledge. You must remember that the US was and still is a democracy. There is no place in a democracy for the anihilation of your enemies. Unlike Soviet-Stalinist Russia which was more akin to a despotic, dictatorial regime inspired by a mass-murderer in the Hitler mould (Stalin).

[aaken]

Coming back to european sensors, I know of several istances of american nukes being detected by IPD70 passive sonar (italian Sauro class SSK) or the Thomson TA without counterdetection. Even the obsolete IPD64 (italian Toti class SSK) has scored a few detections (that I know of) of american SSN's, always without counterdetection (given the not good performances of the latter hydrophone, the detections were mostly at not-so-far range). I don't know about the new Atlas sensors but they are supposed to be much better than the IPD family.

[XabbaRus]

So I am the troll...Hm I'm not the one calling names though.

No what I have issue with is your complete refusal to even acknowledge that there are areas where the US can be or has been bettered and that it is possible.

As pointed out you live in the Tom Clancy fantasy world that the US reigns supreme over everyone in respect to military technology.

Having seen some of your replies to other people in other threads who have issue with your comments I am not surprised by you.

You seem very similar to a strategypage.com forum poster in style and attitude.

And no...the US would never have doctrine for a first strike, ecexpt for a pre-emptive (which is launching just before an IMMINENT Soviet strike) aimed at Soviet silos and laucnhers. This is common knowledge.

This is in opposition to your previous statement that the US had no "first strike" doctrine. And before you post that you wrote they had no doctrine to win a first strike, you qualified it further down that MAD wasn't a scenario for a first strike.

As everyone knows the US had a first strike doctrine...

[Henson]

My posts here are based on my own personal knowlege of real-world submarine capabilities, tactics, and employment. Since I have read a few NWP's that I am absolutely certain Mr. Clancy has not, I will defer to my own expertise over a fictional novel. Since I have deployed on an SSN and actually performed the mission the people on this forum pretend to, I will defer to my own experience over the experiences of a middle-aged author without dolphins.

I will also refrain from calling you any names. I suggest you do the same.

Signed: "A highly informed active duty US Submariner."

[Kurushio]

So I am the troll...Hm I'm not the one calling names though.

No what I have issue with is your complete refusal to even acknowledge that there are areas where the US can be or has been bettered and that it is possible.

As pointed out you live in the Tom Clancy fantasy world that the US reigns supreme over everyone in respect to military technology.

Having seen some of your replies to other people in other threads who have issue with your comments I am not surprised by you.

You seem very similar to a strategypage.com forum poster in style and attitude.

And no...the US would never have doctrine for a first strike, ecexpt for a pre-emptive (which is launching just before an IMMINENT Soviet strike) aimed at Soviet silos and laucnhers. This is common knowledge.
This is in opposition to your previous statement that the US had no "first strike" doctrine. And before you post that you wrote they had no doctrine to win a first strike, you qualified it further down that MAD wasn't a scenario for a first strike.

As everyone knows the US had a first strike doctrine...
You were the only one calling names (called me a troll) and getting personal. But you know what your problem is? Your poor grasp of the English language. So before you jump to your wrong conclusions, I would recommend you ask someone to translate the post to you. Because it is plainly obvious you don't understand them.

For example, you say I stated that the US is in front of everyone in every field of technology, or words to that effect (in your broken English). Show me the post where I supoosedly stated the US in front of everyone. Please do. Because I was referring to sonar, seeing this thread is ABOUT sonar.

Secondly, you don't seem to know the difference between a first-strike and a pre-emptive strike. That's one for your dictionary. ;) They are two completely different things. And everyone and his dog know the US nuclear arms policy during the cold war was purely defensive, with a view at DETENTE (another one for your dictionary) by MAD (mutually assured destruction). The only time the US would ever launch a nuclear attack would be as a PRE-EMPTIVE (your dictionary again) strike, with an aim at taking out Soviet silos and mobile launchers so the Soviets could not launch an effective nuclear strike. Ever heard of the Minutemen ICBMs? What do you think the "minute" in Minuteman comes from?
This is VERY different from FIRST-STRIKE scenarios the Russians had, which aimed at winning a nuclear war against the US. Why do you think they wanted to put missiles on Cuba? As a threat? You can't threaten a nation, if the nation doesn't know what you are doing. It was only picked up by US spy sattelites. That's why the US knew....

So say what you want, you are offensive and should work on your manners and English.

Over and out.

p.s. The Soviets lost. :arrgh!:

[Kurushio]

My posts here are based on my own personal knowlege of real-world submarine capabilities, tactics, and employment. Since I have read a few NWP's that I am absolutely certain Mr. Clancy has not, I will defer to my own expertise over a fictional novel. Since I have deployed on an SSN and actually performed the mission the people on this forum pretend to, I will defer to my own experience over the experiences of a middle-aged author without dolphins.

I will also refrain from calling you any names. I suggest you do the same.

Signed: "A highly informed active duty US Submariner."

Ok, first off, show me where I called you names? Secondly, don't bait me about saying my favourite author and a man I hold great esteem towards knows "...jack **** about sub". You know, you can word it a bit better? If you don't and persist in being so provocative, don't cry about the less then polite answer. Ok? We are all men here (most of us), let's act like one!

Secondly, I'm not doubting you for one minute or your stated expertise. But I would appreciate if you could specify the mistakes Clancy makes. Because if you're referring to the factual book he wrote on a nuclear sub when he was invited to spend a few days at sea, he was limited to writing what he had access to and also limited to not giving away any classified information.
Would you really like to see highly classified info in Clancy's books or novels. What is wrong with you people? So if he writes about classified stuff he goes to prison, if he makes up stuff in order not to write classified stuff, he knows jack ****. Wow, he can't win. :roll:

And to sum it all up...I have no idea why people don't like Tom. He's a military enthusiast and is pro-military. He's loved by many who wear dolphins, wings upturned or not etc and his novel HforRO still remains the only non-fiction book ever published by the Naval Institution Press. I believe it's also available in all naval librarys also...

But yes....continue hating him for no reason. :roll:

[Henson]

I like Tom Clancy too. I have read all of his books and believe him to be an outstanding storyteller.

I also realize that his books are fiction, and that he is a writer of fiction. His job is not to KNOW things, it is to make them up. All of the 'information' in his books is just that: made up.

I stand by my original statement. That is no smear on Mr Clancy or his books (which are outstanding); it is simply the truth. The man knows less about submarines than my father (who spent 24 years in naval aviation). A week on board a VIP tour does not a submariner make, or every member of congress and the mayor of Jefferson City all know just as much about submarines as Captain Zumbar, my current CO. The claim that Mr Clancy is an expert at anything aside from storytelling (a claim that he himself has never made btw) is preposterous.

My intention here is not to create a pissing contest. I only intend to bring the discussion (which I thought was about the realtive differences in modern CCS/Sonar suites...my bad) away from fantasy and into reality.

I have learned through other military forums that there is a certain type of military enthusiast who will always refuse to listen to the voice of actual experience no matter what the topic. Those people are best dealt with as bluntly as possible, because only extremely blunt dialogue has a hope of jarring them from their fantasy world where everything they say is true. After all, why would a rational person of knowledge waste words on an ignorant self-appointed expert when there is finite time in the day?

It is for the above reason that I post bluntly. Blame the colorful language and the artful throw of the referee's yellow 'bull****" flag on my years of service in the Navy.

[XabbaRus]

Nope...I'll never believe anyone has better systems then the Americans. Never. Equal to...doubtful, but maybe? Better? No. Wishful thinking...that's all. :up:

I think that sums it up. Doesn't matter if you were talking about sonar or not. Systems implies a wide range of systems.

Oh BTW people don't hate Tom Clancy, just tire of his narrow view of things.

Have you ever read Tom Clancy's SSN? What a pile of tripe. The infallible USS Cheyenne, I fell asleep after chapter 2.

[Kurushio]

And this sums up you dont understand posts written in English. Systems, as in "sonar systems". Apparent by my other posts which told people not to go off topic because this thread is about SONAR.

Narrow view? And what makes you so much of an expert? I suppose you also spent a week with Force Recon, spent some time on a nuclear aircraft carrier etc etc. You also rub shoulders with members of the CIA? Ex-presidents? You spend time in the Pentagon, do you? Advise in National Security matters? Appear in countless documentaries?

Yeah right....get over yourself. :roll:

[Kurushio]

I like Tom Clancy too. I have read all of his books and believe him to be an outstanding storyteller.

I also realize that his books are fiction, and that he is a writer of fiction. His job is not to KNOW things, it is to make them up. All of the 'information' in his books is just that: made up.

I stand by my original statement. That is no smear on Mr Clancy or his books (which are outstanding); it is simply the truth. The man knows less about submarines than my father (who spent 24 years in naval aviation). A week on board a VIP tour does not a submariner make, or every member of congress and the mayor of Jefferson City all know just as much about submarines as Captain Zumbar, my current CO. The claim that Mr Clancy is an expert at anything aside from storytelling (a claim that he himself has never made btw) is preposterous.

My intention here is not to create a pissing contest. I only intend to bring the discussion (which I thought was about the realtive differences in modern CCS/Sonar suites...my bad) away from fantasy and into reality.

I have learned through other military forums that there is a certain type of military enthusiast who will always refuse to listen to the voice of actual experience no matter what the topic. Those people are best dealt with as bluntly as possible, because only extremely blunt dialogue has a hope of jarring them from their fantasy world where everything they say is true. After all, why would a rational person of knowledge waste words on an ignorant self-appointed expert when there is finite time in the day?

It is for the above reason that I post bluntly. Blame the colorful language and the artful throw of the referee's yellow 'bull****" flag on my years of service in the Navy. Well, first off you are wrong. Clancy also writes factual, non-fiction books. So no...he isn't only a "..writer of fiction".

Secondly, and this is one thing which passed way over your and a lot of people's heads. Clancy's books. Jack Ryan...yes? Clancy, like numerous authors (he is a student of literature, remember?), has made his main character auto-biographical.

Jack Ryan was a businessman with a passion for teaching history and a Masters in History.
Tom Clancy was an insurance salesman (with his own business) with a passion for writing books and a Masters in Literature.

Ryan started off dealing in the stock exchange when he left college.
Clancy started in insurance.

Ryan later became a professor of history.
Clancy became a writer.

Ryan begins advising the government/sercret service as an analyst.
Clancy advises the US Government on national security issues in the form of an analyst/expert.

I thought this was all blatantly obvious.

:roll:

p.s. I am ex-military.

edit: I just remembered Ryan had a doctorate in history (Dr. Ryan)...though doesn't change much...just for clarity I thought I'd add it.

[Henson]

Clancy's non-fiction titles are, for all useful purposes, fiction. I have lived on board submarines. I have read his books (SSN, Submarine, whatever the title is this week). Reality is that his books are nothing more than a regurgitation from a nice tour that we give the Navy League and the Cub Scouts. They are as true as a magazine article about submarining. Just as I do not claim to understand my brother's life (he is a Soldier) or my mother's life (she was a Marine), Mr. Clancy cannot, should not, and does not claim to truly understand undersea warfare.

This argument has lost the original point however. I refer you to my original post on the subject, on page one posted on 22 June. American sonar processing and CCS are superior when it comes to tracking submarines, but are probably quite a bit behind when it comes to the littorals, where modern naval warfare is waged. It would not surprise me at all if other nations have a far better grasp of the environment than the current crop of midlevel US submarine officers. It is also obvious to me, having some background in the subject of combat control systems, that the US has been struggling with high contact density environments for a long time, and are considerably behind some allies in that regard (The german CCS is really excellent in those situations). That is why when you read in the newspapers that a submarine has collided with another vessel it is nearly always a US submarine, and not a danish, french, german or indian submarine.

We are improving...but make no mistake: while our expertise at tracking other submarines is unsurpassed, in other aspects of USW we are playing catch-up. Nowhere is that more evident than it is at the training command where I work. I see crap here in my trainers that would curl your toes. :damn:

[northfromhere]

I doubt that the US is lagging behind in littoral waters physics. The US navy Hydrographic institude spends alot of its time and money on foreign partners, underwater mapping, lease of technology and conducting its own reasearch in foreign-allied waters in close cooperation with its friends.

In my wiew the sole difference is in the nature of what the US navy was designed to fight, more specificly its submarine force. It is certainly not the plan to put nuclear powered subs in shallow waters against small electric subs.

Those who have been on nuclear attack subs know why that is not a good tactic.

[Willhclark@mac.com]

One major diffirence are the sound processing methods employed. The United States uses LINEAR (SAWS) processing which basically uses computer sofrware to filter what the operator see's/hears while the U.S. also uses DIMUS, most foreign nations use DIMUS almost exclusively.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Tom Clancy is an author who has toured military units. He has given lectures, but I'll bet his biography plays this up quite a bit. Unless anybody knows he has a security clearance (which I doubt), I wouldn't say he as any more knowledge than anyone on this forum when it comes to military matters. As someone mentioned before, Boy Scouts take short cruises on SSBNs. That doesn't make them military experts. All the stuff Tom Clancy uses is public domain and ancedotal. Nonclassified stuff.

PD

[JamesT73J]

This argument has lost the original point however. I refer you to my original post on the subject, on page one posted on 22 June. American sonar processing and CCS are superior when it comes to tracking submarines, but are probably quite a bit behind when it comes to the littorals, where modern naval warfare is waged. It would not surprise me at all if other nations have a far better grasp of the environment than the current crop of midlevel US submarine officers. It is also obvious to me, having some background in the subject of combat control systems, that the US has been struggling with high contact density environments for a long time, and are considerably behind some allies in that regard (The german CCS is really excellent in those situations). That is why when you read in the newspapers that a submarine has collided with another vessel it is nearly always a US submarine, and not a danish, french, german or indian submarine.

We are improving...but make no mistake: while our expertise at tracking other submarines is unsurpassed, in other aspects of USW we are playing catch-up. Nowhere is that more evident than it is at the training command where I work. I see crap here in my trainers that would curl your toes. :damn:

That's an extremely healthy attitude. Is that representative?

[Henson]

That's an extremely healthy attitude. Is that representative?

Probably not. Our midlevel officers (LT, LTCDR) for a large part don't know what they don't know about USW tactics. My current job is to help rectify that. I overstate the case because I see this stuff every day, but our officers are nucs first, submariners second. I think recent events (read: groundings and collisions) have proven the danger in that.

The US Submarine Force is the best community in our Navy, and the best sub force int he world, but even we have weak points. Right now that is learning to operate in new environments. We are improving our tactics, weapons, and methods at a very strong pace, and the great thing about nucs is they learn fast. We're still better at operating in ANY waters than any short-term enemy is, and at this point that is what is important. The new BYG-1/BQQ-10(ARCI) system is probably the technical side of answering our problems there, and the methods, tactics, and training to deal with high contact densitites are already in place.

[Kurushio]

Tom Clancy is an author who has toured military units. He has given lectures, but I'll bet his biography plays this up quite a bit. Unless anybody knows he has a security clearance (which I doubt), I wouldn't say he as any more knowledge than anyone on this forum when it comes to military matters. As someone mentioned before, Boy Scouts take short cruises on SSBNs. That doesn't make them military experts. All the stuff Tom Clancy uses is public domain and ancedotal. Nonclassified stuff.

PD

At least this thread has gotten back on topic...which is good to see. :up:

I wont answer anymore Clancy stuff, except...Clancy in one book writes (in the acknowledgments part) thanks to...."Fred and his pals at USSS (United States Secret Service)...so yes, of course. He knows just as much as you and me. Do you know any Freds at the Secret Service? :roll:

[FERdeBOER]

Just finishing this becasuse is completly off-topic and I'm sorry for that.

stic ships.
No, the United States never had doctrine to win a first-strike non-conventional (or nuclear) war.
Almost every war plan on any area on any country is based on "attack first". And in modern combat is specially important because the power of the weapons.
That's because Israel is still a country. THey knew the enemy (Egypt, Jordania...) was preparing to attack and they attacked first.

The Soviets on the other hand did have scenarios for winning a nuclear war...hence the Cuban Missile Crisis etc..:up:
The Americans placed nuclear missiles on Turkey first. :dead:

I can't honestly say I ever read much about Spain in any of Tom's books? When was Spain mentioned and why does he treat your people/nation unfairly? The only one I can think of is in Rainbow 6 (the book) when the terrorists take those people hostage in the amusement park? Can't remember saying anything bad about Spain though.
"OP- Center Balance of Power" (with the colaboration of Steve Pieczenik) is all about Spain. And is completly wrong about the Spanish organization about military and civil corps. (Guardia Civil specially in the book).
No, he doesn't say anithyng bad about Spain or Spanish (in overall), but he sais a lot of wrong statements. Don't believe anything he says about Spanish terrorists because the real ones are completely diffrent. :nope:

Vini, Vidi, Vici means we came, we saw, we conquered. That has little to do with Iraq to be honest where it was more like we came, we conquered and then all hell broke loose.
I was just joking :lol:

Returning to the original topic, Spanish Navy (called Armada), has a lot of agreements with United States about naval suplies. We have Perry's, missiles, recently AEGIS system... but almost all our submarines and part of surface ships are equiped with a mixture of French (and little Netherland and German) and self-made technollogy. Why? because our tactical scenario is about litoral waters. Our submarine weapon is mainly designed for protecting our coast, not attack. And in that area, the Spanish Defense Ministery thinks that French technollogy is better. In deep waters... US rules. In litoral ones...

[Orm]

[quote=XabbaRus
Have you ever read Tom Clancy's SSN? What a pile of tripe. The infallible USS Cheyenne, I fell asleep after chapter 2.[/quote]

Sorry, I had to come back to this discussion, it is so funny now. :rock:

Yes, about this book, I thought I beginning to be crazy. It was unbelievable how infallible this sub was. Honestly, I cannot understand that Clancy did not see by himself when writing the novel that a book lacking total suspense cannot be read till the end. I was myself falling asleep.

About the other books, I think Clancy was quite good at the beginning, but after “The sum of all the fears”, the quality went downward. Take the “Bear and the Dragon”, I counted that while the Russians and the Chinese were losing thousands of men on the battlefield during combats in Siberia, the American, which I recall, had quite a lot of troops on the same ground and were also engaged in combats, lost a jeep with two or three men for all the action. That’s Clancy logic. :rotfl:

[Kurushio]

FerdeBoer: The Op-Centre books were not written by Clancy.

Orm: SSN was a book written as a game tie-in. Was supposed to tie in with the game, you know? Games are different from real life? :roll:

...and as for laughing at all the Chinese and Russians dying in Siberia in the book The Bear and the Dragon...didn't Finland kill an enourmous amount of Russians even though they were out numbered? You should know...shame on you.

What about the Spartans...? 200 killed something like 30,000... ;)

[Orm]

FerdeBoer: The Op-Centre books were not written by Clancy.

Orm: SSN was a book written as a game tie-in. Was supposed to tie in with the game, you know? Games are different from real life? :roll:

...and as for laughing at all the Chinese and Russians dying in Siberia in the book The Bear and the Dragon...didn't Finland kill an enourmous amount of Russians even though they were out numbered? You should know...shame on you.

What about the Spartans...? 200 killed something like 30,000... ;)

Sorry, but if my location is Finland, usually, my location is sometimes Paris, France. So, I am not Finnish but a good old French or froggy, proud to be one. :p I thought that you would have guess it with my mails.
At least, I must admit that I admire you toughness in you ideas. :up:

[gmuno]

@Kurushio
200 killed 30.000? Maybe, but the location was a little bit different at the Thermophylles.
Even in the night-battle against the chinese infantry the troops should have had more casualities.

[FERdeBOER]

FerdeBoer: The Op-Centre books were not written by Clancy.

My book says clearly with capital letters: TOM CLANCY.
And then in small letters: with the colaboration of Steve Piezczenik.
In the "note for the Spanish edition" allways mention Clancy as the author of the book and doesn't says anything against.

If you don't want to count that book is no problem, Rainbow Six (named Operation Rainbow in Spain), also is wrong in many of the satements about Spain. No bad things, but wrong.

[Kurushio]

Tom Clancy did not write any of the Op-Centre books, the Splinter Cell books or the NetForce books. In fact Tom semi-retired from writing books, but is "forced" to occassionaly write one due to fan/publisher pressure.

Read this to see who wrote the NetForce series:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_Op-Center

As I mentioned before, in Rainbow 6, Spain is hardly mentioned except at the amusement park where the terrorists take those people hostage. Don't see where he could've gone wrong...at the top of my head...he does mention Stuka dive bombers were used during the Spanish Civil War. And as far as I know, he's correct. So what did he say about Spain which is so wrong? I think he also mentions Spain is crap at football...is this what you mean? :lol: Though judging by the Spanish team's performance against France...:hmm:

(joking)

Edit: I just remembered in Rainbow 6 (the game) one of the best operators is a Spaniard. Seeing Clancy created the game as well as the book, I think you owe him an apology. Oh yeah...and what about in Clear and Present Danger when they form a Spanish speaking, latino squad of special forces to deal with the Colombians. And Ding Chavez is latino too....so please, let's not even start saying Tom has anything against Spanish/Latinos. ;)

[FERdeBOER]

I repeat, I never said Clancy says bad things about Spanish, but wrong ones... I haven't to apollogice to him.
And yes, Arnavisca is my favourite team menber in Rainbow Six game :up:

Unfortunatelly, the Spanish civil war was the field of training of the German army... and the Legion Condor and the bombing of Guernica is one of the worst pages in our history...
The famous Picasso picture "el Guernica" is a tribute to that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_(painting)


Well, that example about the Stukas is a great mistake: he invented the Park (the real is no in Barcelona, but in Tarragona, a city close), and he invented the atraction. There isn't any atraction in any Park in Spain about Stukas... so, Clancy invented the atraction and then he critics the Spanish for having bad memory and create an atraction about Stukas... :nope:

Rainbow Six begins with Spanish terrorists kidnaping an American 777!
That is one thing that Spanish terrorists never did. In fact, they have been allways very carefull about attacking foreign citizens in order to mantain the international opinion away.
And never kidnaped a plane. But is a novel, is not much important despite is suposed to be as acurate as possible to reality...

But then is when they say that the terrorist will be in a jail in America, and John Clark thinks that they (the terrorists) should consider themselves lucky because in Spain the thing would be worst!! :nope: Spanish jails are not famous precisely for being dangerous and the Spanish police is very carefull when dealing with terrorists because they use any sign of abuse of force to denounce torture...

And I will finish with this point because is completely off-topic and I'm sure many people is boring with this.

And yes, Spain lives with football. Is called here "el deporte Rey" (the King sport). I don't understand why, because we are world champions in handball, indoor-soccer, waterpolo, medallist in basket; F1, motoGP and Rallie and tennis champions... but the entire country paralizes when we play football!! :doh:
I do love football and i practice it. (well soccer for the Americans)
About the world cup... we decided to get Zidane his last oportunity... :yep:
(joking), I don't know why, but we allways go to World cups and Eurocups as one of the favourites... and allways go home after the first round... :damn:

[Kurushio]

FerdeBoer...I don't remember the beginning of Rainbow 6 and the "kidnapping" (I think you mean HIKACKING:up:) of the 777. Though ETA are a real pain in the arse...and their cause is stupid (my opinion).
And yes, of course there is no theme-park in Barcelona. Clancy makes things up sometimes and remember the book had to tie-in with the game, because in the game the theme park is included also. So the Stuka bit was made up too...obviously.

By the way, how do you figure Spain is "world-champion" on MotoGP? I thought it was Rossi...an Italian? And Rally...isn't it Loeb a Frenchman? And tennis...surely tennis is a Swiss, Federer??? I'll give you F1 though...Alonso (in a French car...tihi). :yep:

[FERdeBOER]

Thanks for the correction and sorry for my English. :know:

Alex Criville was 500cc Champion. Carlos Sainz was two times Rallie world champion, Rafael Nadal has won Federer all the matches this year... the point is that we are much better in a lot of sports before football (or soccer), but we still preffer football! :damn:

And Alonso drives a French car, but French is "only" the motor, the home of the Team is in England and the chasis also. And the most important... the hands are Spanish :rock:
Not to mention cyclists... because these are not good days for them... :dead:

And in my last atempt to returning the original topic... Does the Alonso's Reanult have best sonar than Schumacher ones? :hmm:

:rotfl: :rotfl:

[Linton]

May I ask what all of this has got to do with sonar?

[Kurushio]

...what has all this to do with Sonar? Fernando Alonso used to be a submariner and sonar operator...that's what. :stare:

Now..back on topic...ah yes, Sainz, yes very good rally driver he was...and I thought Nadal was Argentinian...oh well...yes Creville...you also have a few others who are quite good: Gibernau and Cecca (sp?)...got me on the driver, Alonso is pretty good...and the luckiest ever? (j/k) :lol:

[Linton]

Fernando alonso was a submariner and sonar operator-perhaps you would like to provide this forum with his bio?Could he then make a qualative comparison?I shall email itv/f1 and the renault team and ask them?
Please see my How Many topic in the General area about how sensible discussions fall easily off topic

[Kurushio]

It didn't "fall" off topic, it just swayed...slightly...off topic. That's the beauty of not too serious discussions....come on..lighten up. Most topics get back on track (no pun intended :D) by themselves...or with a little push.

Well anyway...we all know it's all fantasy thinking anyone has better sonar then the Americans. Yes, fantasy and you know it. Because the Americans spend more then any other nation on R&D by far...the more you put in, the more you get out. So I think it's unrealistic thinking anyone has better systems.

For example...the Ferrari in F1 sepnds more then anyone else (well, has done for years) and has broken all the records in terms of F1 championships and constructors titles. That's not "luck"...same thing with the US.

:p

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Well anyway...we all know it's all fantasy thinking anyone has better sonar then the Americans. Yes, fantasy and you know it. Because the Americans spend more then any other nation on R&D by far...the more you put in, the more you get out. So I think it's unrealistic thinking anyone has better systems.

Actually, it is not very hard to believe. The United States spends more overall yes, but...

1) All increasing R/D does is increase the probability you'd be on top - it gives you more rolls of the dice so you are more likely to be successful, but there is no guarantee someone that rolls once won't get a 6 and get ahead.
2) The American effort is also more diverse (and thus dispersed) than anyone elses.
3) Sometimes, all that is needed to get ahead is that you had the right [b]idea[b] before the other guy does, and ideas don't cost that much. A good example of that is the R-73. The Russians bumped into the idea about HMS and off-boresight missiles faster and created it. The Israelis created their Python 4 and 5 weapons. The Americans waited till the AIM-9X. Now, of course the AIM-9X incorporates more advanced technology and is almost certainly superior in everything except raw range, but for about 15 years between the introduction of the R-73 and the introduction of the -X, the Russians and then even the Israelis had that superiority, which is admitted even in America's own sims.
4) Sometimes, you can compensate for inefficiency due to your backward technology with something else that is much more basic. Russian systems often do this - the Su-27 compensates for its cassegraine (rather than slot) antennae and digital-analogue processing with sheer antenna size (the thing's bigger than the AWG-9's antenna). The loss in performance is then compensated for with 2 - by concentrating on aerodynamic work.

There was a time, which lasted from about Grade 8 to Grade 10, when my military information was as dominated by Clancy as yours. Then I learned about other sources and basic analysis.

[OKO]

What about the Spartans...? 200 killed something like 30,000... ;)

Looks like you are as badly informed on history as you are about real overall military warfare performance ...
You always mix the real thing with myths ...
Real world is much different than what you dream about, dude.
But to know and understand that, you should stop watching foxTV, start reading serious stuff, ... and using your brain.

[LoBlo]

Actually, it is not very hard to believe. The United States spends more overall yes, but...

1) All increasing R/D does is increase the probability you'd be on top - it gives you more rolls of the dice so you are more likely to be successful, but there is no guarantee someone that rolls once won't get a 6 and get ahead.
2) The American effort is also more diverse (and thus dispersed) than anyone elses.

*shudders*
Errr...:shifty: . This is simplistic thinking to say the least. Probability of being on top? :nope:

[Kurushio]

What about the Spartans...? 200 killed something like 30,000... ;)
Looks like you are as badly informed on history as you are about real overall military warfare performance ...
You always mix the real thing with myths ...
Real world is much different than what you dream about, dude.
But to know and understand that, you should stop watching foxTV, start reading serious stuff, ... and using your brain.

And you should stop getting personal and get a life. :up: By the way, apart from Clancy, my other favourite author is Dostoevsky...you wouldn't consider that serious stuff? :hmm: Actually, I've read lots of classics, from Thomas Moore, to Cervantes. So don't patronise me... :stare:

And how ignorant are you to say the Spartans were a "myth"? The Spartans were real, maybe you should read up on them. They were the ultimate warring tribe/society. Babies born with a defect or on the small side were dumped on a hillside, discarded from society. Only the strongest males would become Spartan warriors, that's why they were so formidable. And it's not Troy you know, which is pretty much a myth. The Spartans are part of documented history.

Now...you. STOP GETTING PERSONAL...FFS. GROW UP! Attack the subject not the person.

...learn some manners. :stare:

[Kurushio]

from Wikipedia:

Sparta Attic: Σπάρτη) is a city in southern Greece. In antiquity it was a militarist state, whose territory included all Laconia and Messenia, and was the most powerful state in Peloponnesus. During Classical times Sparta had reached the status of a world power, calling itself "the natural protector of Greece". The modern town is situated some kilometres away from the ancient site. (Technically, Sparta was the name of the ancient town; Lacedaemon, Greek Λακεδαιμων, was the city-state. Sparta is now normally used for both.) The Spartans were believed to be children and descendants of Heracles.

The significance of the Thespians' refusal should not be passed over. The Spartans, brave as their sacrifice indubitably was, were professional soldiers, trained from birth to be ready to give their lives in combat as Spartan law dictated. Conversely, the Thespians were citizen-soldiers (Demophilus, for example, made his living as an architect) who elected to add whatever they could to the fight, rather than allow the Spartans to be annihilated alone. Furthermore, the Spartan royal bodyguard had to stay because of their king's order. No one forced the Thespians to do so; it was their free will.

Some myth...:roll:

[swimsalot]

Just as I do not claim to understand my brother's life (he is a Soldier) or my mother's life (she was a Marine), Mr. Clancy cannot, should not, and does not claim to truly understand undersea warfare.
Just reading along here, but may I ask a question?

Are you saying that only a person with hands-on tactical knowledge of a particular subject (ie undersea warfare) can understand it?
Might there be noted authors, scientists and analysts that would disagree with you?
A few examples easily found online:
Ronald O'Rourke, Congressional Research Service testified multiple times for Congress, recently about CVN-21 FY2006
Lincoln P Bloomfied, Center For Strategic and International Studies Naval War College Library, "Us Overseas Presence in the 21st Century
J Michael Gilmore, Assistant Director for National Security, testified multiple times for Ciongress, recently in regards to the DDX program, FY2005
Henry M Kissinger, Secretary of State, 1973-1977, respected authorority on nuclear forces.
Note that none of these individuals have ever served in the military.

While having an understanding of the "nuts and bolts" about day to day operations on a sub is nice, it in no way impacts an individual's ability to comprehend the intricacies of undersea warfare. When discussing strategic level concepts, or even theater-level tactical ones, having the knowledge of what color the upholstry is on the seats of a sub, airplane, or tank becomes rather meaningless.

I respect your obvious knowledge and expertise, but I believe that wether or not an individual has actually served on a submarine is not an indicator of his ability to understand undersea warfare.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Errr...:shifty: . This is simplistic thinking to say the least. Probability of being on top? :nope:

I probably oversimplified it, but it is better than a model that says "effort always brings results". One thing I neglected to mention is that when you have a huge research budget, you are more inclined to play around with expensive, uncertain ideas while people with less money tend to stay on firmer ground. That gives them a chance of getting out ahead.

[Kurushio]

I'll give you another example then.

Baseball: The Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Mets etc...all have a better chance at winning the World Series, then say the Royals, Pirates, Padres or Marlins. The difference? The first groups spend enourmous amounts of money on player wages compared to the second. So yes, every now and then you will get a team like the Marlins winning the World Series, but throughout history the big teams nearly always win. Yankees don't have 26 titles for nothing.

This example can be applied to every sport and in fact to basically just about everything. :up:

[micky1up]

typical from a yank i cant believe anyone has better sonar that us well you keep thinking that way and you will keep gettting surprised its like that crazy notion you once had saying terroism would never affect main land usa and we all know where that led


and dont say i dont know what im talking about im a serving royal navy submariner

tactical system's supervisor radar and electronic warfare supervisor and a weapons guider also do a bit of navigation aswell talk about multi tasking(unfortunatley typing wasnt one of those skills i learned)

[Kurushio]

I'm from blighty...:lol:

For you then: Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea all have a better chance at winning the Premier League then say Bolton, Charlton Athletic, Millwall and Fulham. The differnce? The first group spend enourmous amounts of money on player wages compared to the second. So yes, every now and then you will get a team like Leeds winning the Premier League, but throughout history the big teams nearly always win.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I'm from blighty...:lol:

For you then: Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea all have a better chance at winning the Premier League then say Bolton, Charlton Athletic, Millwall and Fulham. The differnce? The first group spend enourmous amounts of money on player wages compared to the second. So yes, every now and then you will get a team like Leeds winning the Premier League, but throughout history the big teams nearly always win.

OK, now imagine if Arsenal (my soccer knowledge is so poor that Arsenal and Manchester United is about all I know) tries to pay for 10 times more players than anyone else (thus ensuring the average wage is 1/10th). Think that might allow someone with less money to get ahead? That's the American research effort (diverse and dispersed).

[micky1up]

im afrqid you over simplify the equation theres more to it than money although that duz help im certain the russians had far less cash at the beguining of the space race yet they leaped ahead on several occasions

[Kurushio]

What, strapping a dog to a rocket...? Nasa came about BECAUSE the Russians were ahead in the space race. And that's a perfect example...NASA (multi-billion dollar space agency) v the Soviet space program (cash strapped, unprofessional, vodka swigging adventurers. On one hand, man on the moon and a re-useable space vehicle - on the other: junk space stations falling to earth and dogs in space.

:D

[micky1up]

What, strapping a dog to a rocket...? Nasa came about BECAUSE the Russians were ahead in the space race. And that's a perfect example...NASA (multi-billion dollar space agency) v the Soviet space program (cash strapped, unprofessional, vodka swigging adventurers. On one hand, man on the moon and a re-useable space vehicle - on the other: junk space stations falling to earth and dogs in space.

:D


thats if you believe they did land on the moon ? and what did spending billions get the space shuttle into dissater as i say i takes more than just money

[OKO]

And how ignorant are you to say the Spartans were a "myth"? The Spartans were real, maybe you should read up on them.

YOU are so ignorant, you don't even know my signature came from
hahaha.
It's about the spartans sacrifice at Thermopylae ...
but this wasn't 200 spartans killing 30.000 persians of the Xerxes army ...
THIS is a myth for young boys :know:

Even if each spartans killed around 20 persians (that give you around 10 time less persians killed than waht you are talking about ..), the MAIN effect wasn't in the Xerxers army attrition BUT in the psychological effect.
But this is not the subject, just another correction to your comments.

Man, your agressivity won't hide your terrible lack of knowledge, neither in military hardware stuff than about history.

You want to speak about the subject ? but you know A THING about this subject ... ?
You probably think french sonars and radars are just old WWII stuff ... :lol:

But If I tell you the only radar on this earth, able to pick up a B2 at long distance (thousand kilometer) with kilometric band, is french, will you believe it ?
If I tell you the most modern embarqued radar on a plane is the latest one of the Rafale, able to track simultaneously multiple air contact, to engage differents ground targets and to autopilot the plane at less than 150 feet over the ground, everything together, will you believe it ? (lets say the latest FA18E/F is quite close to this capabilities)

No you won't, because you don't know A thing out of your dream ...
But what do we have to care about your lack of knowledge, really ?
Some americans (of course not all of them, each peoples have his black sheep, french also of course) thinks american are in gold and rest of the world are just retarded in every matter.
It's a great thing for us, french ->
Last red flag, US F16 didn't even knew when they was fired at by M2000, just because their RWR were not waked up by M2000 radars in Track While Search mode.
Result was 1 M2000 shooted for around 10 F16
I remember the face of the US commander, desembarking from his F16 after near all of his wing was shooted down ... (I saw a private pilot video)
This was 6 or 7 years ago, from that time, french are no more invited to red flags :lol:
And this happend with our older Mirage 2000, not with the more modern Rafale.

The fact some US consider french hardware as "to exotic" to even try to complete their knowlege about it, is a great thing for us.
Because it allow us to have more modern hardware in some areas.

Of course, france will never even approach the US fire power : we are 5 time less people than US, and we spend 3 to 4 times less in defense than US per inhabitant. (french gvnt always had prefered to spend money into social thing, and for free and the world best medicine for all, than to show the size of his balls, spending the money in military warfare when 60 millions peoples are homeless in USA)
But we concentrate on the quality and the autonomy of our war hardware.
As for the Leclerc, the best MBT ever product (... because it's the most recent one also)

see by yourself with some videos =>
http://okofree.free.fr/Vids/Leclerc/
No way an old (even modernised M2A2) Abrams could do that ;)

So, to conclude, it's always amusing me when I read some of the US typical comments about the "unbeatable US technology in every matter", because it always come from quite naive and very bad informed people.

What I could read from you from the day you are on this board, always let me think you are one of these people.

So ... have a good dream, dude ...
But please ... don't talk about a subject you are not informed about, remember it kills your credibility.
Thank you.

[Kurushio]

And how ignorant are you to say the Spartans were a "myth"? The Spartans were real, maybe you should read up on them.
YOU are so ignorant, you don't even know my signature came from
hahaha.
It's about the spartans sacrifice at Thermopylae ...
but this wasn't 200 spartans killing 30.000 persians of the Xerxes army ...
THIS is a myth for young boys :know:

Even if each spartans killed around 20 persians (that give you around 10 time less persians killed than waht you are talking about ..), the MAIN effect wasn't in the Xerxers army attrition BUT in the psychological effect.
But this is not the subject, just another correction to your comments.

Man, your agressivity won't hide your terrible lack of knowledge, neither in military hardware stuff than about history.

You want to speak about the subject ? but you know A THING about this subject ... ?
You probably think french sonars and radars are just old WWII stuff ... :lol:

But If I tell you the only radar on this earth, able to pick up a B2 at long distance (thousand kilometer) with kilometric band, is french, will you believe it ?
If I tell you the most modern embarqued radar on a plane is the latest one of the Rafale, able to track simultaneously multiple air contact, to engage differents ground targets and to autopilot the plane at less than 150 feet over the ground, everything together, will you believe it ? (lets say the latest FA18E/F is quite close to this capabilities)

No you won't, because you don't know A thing out of your dream ...
But what do we have to care about your lack of knowledge, really ?
Some americans (of course not all of them, each peoples have his black sheep, french also of course) thinks american are in gold and rest of the world are just retarded in every matter.
It's a great thing for us, french ->
Last red flag, US F16 didn't even knew when they was fired at by M2000, just because their RWR were not waked up by M2000 radars in Track While Search mode.
Result was 1 M2000 shooted for around 10 F16
I remember the face of the US commander, desembarking from his F16 after near all of his wing was shooted down ... (I saw a private pilot video)
This was 6 or 7 years ago, from that time, french are no more invited to red flags :lol:
And this happend with our older Mirage 2000, not with the more modern Rafale.

The fact some US consider french hardware as "to exotic" to even try to complete their knowlege about it, is a great thing for us.
Because it allow us to have more modern hardware in some areas.

Of course, france will never even approach the US fire power : we are 5 time less people than US, and we spend 3 to 4 times less in defense than US per inhabitant. (french gvnt always had prefered to spend money into social thing, and for free and the world best medicine for all, than to show the size of his balls, spending the money in military warfare when 60 millions peoples are homeless in USA)
But we concentrate on the quality and the autonomy of our war hardware.
As for the Leclerc, the best MBT ever product (... because it's the most recent one also)

see by yourself with some videos =>
http://okofree.free.fr/Vids/Leclerc/
No way an old (even modernised M2A2) Abrams could do that ;)

So, to conclude, it's always amusing me when I read some of the US typical comments about the "unbeatable US technology in every matter", because it always come from quite naive and very bad informed people.

What I could read from you from the day you are on this board, always let me think you are one of these people.

So ... have a good dream, dude ...
But please ... don't talk about a subject you are not informed about, remember it kills your credibility.
Thank you.

In English please... :up:

[Rob86TA]

I think Kurushio should get an award for trolling. Just when I think this thread is ready to be given up on you get:

In English please... :up:
Genius! Pass the popcorn! I guarantee it'll get the reaction he's looking for.

[UglyMowgli]

I love threads like this one, good questions and finally: "who got the bigger":-? it s always the same in every forum. People are not like technology , they didn't improve.

[Kurushio]

I think Kurushio should get an award for trolling. Just when I think this thread is ready to be given up on you get:

In English please... :up:
Genius! Pass the popcorn! I guarantee it'll get the reaction he's looking for.
I'm not trolling. Just not bothered deciphering the mad ramblins of an angry Frenchman. :roll:

This doesn't make sense by any stretch of the imagination:

Last red flag, US F16 didn't even knew when they was fired at by M2000, just because their RWR were not waked up by M2000 radars in Track While Search mode.

So genius, either translate or shutup. ;)

[Phullbrick]

I love threads like this one, good questions and finally: "who got the bigger":-? it s always the same in every forum. People are not like technology , they didn't improve.

so true !

so stay away from forums and ride your ship, it s a far better way to spend time imo ;)

[Subnuts]

So genius, either translate or shutup. ;)

He means that the Radar Warning Receiver on the F-16 couldn't detect the radar emissions of the Mirage 2000 when the Mirage's radar was in Track While Scan mode.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

What, strapping a dog to a rocket...? Nasa came about BECAUSE the Russians were ahead in the space race. And that's a perfect example...NASA (multi-billion dollar space agency) v the Soviet space program (cash strapped, unprofessional, vodka swigging adventurers. On one hand, man on the moon and a re-useable space vehicle - on the other: junk space stations falling to earth and dogs in space.

A re-useable space vehicle, of which two had exploded. Remember, not until too long ago, the Americans were borrowing the services of those "junk space stations falling to Earth".

But If I tell you the only radar on this earth, able to pick up a B2 at long distance (thousand kilometer) with kilometric band, is french, will you believe it ?

That a kilometric band radar might do so is not unlikely, because that's outside the designed range of the B-2 bomber, and any such radar will be quite powerful. The tough part is where would the French put their kilometric band radar, which will be massive to generate the wave, or how would it be able to get the bearing and range anywhere better than "Yes, B-2 out there" (we went to high freq radars for a reason, which no amount of signal processing will fully compensate for).

If I tell you the most modern embarqued radar on a plane is the latest one of the Rafale, able to track simultaneously multiple air contact, to engage differents ground targets and to autopilot the plane at less than 150 feet over the ground, everything together, will you believe it ? (lets say the latest FA18E/F is quite close to this capabilities)

Big deal. This is like standard stuff these days as I understand it, though the Rafale does have an impressive 40-target track count the last time I checked. But the Rafale is really still the previous generation of passive-phased rather than full active-phased.

Last red flag, US F16 didn't even knew when they was fired at by M2000, just because their RWR were not waked up by M2000 radars in Track While Search mode.

More likely, it looked like a search scan, which is what should happen. Ah, more later.

[Kurushio]

What has the Rafalle got to do with sonar? Totally baffling...and why do they always go onto planes to prove a point about technology. The Rafalle would have it's arse handed to it by an F-22... Let's face it, a french jet FIGHTER is a paradox in terms. How many French fighters ever saw action?...very few I would imagine. At least an F-16 is combat proven, the Israelis are doing a fine job blowing up jihadi mobiles with it...the last French weapon to be combat tested was the musket in 1864. :roll:

By the way...no, the Americans were not using the Mir space station...which has since fallen to earth. You are thinking about the international space station.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

What has the Rafalle got to do with sonar? Totally baffling...and why do they always go onto planes to prove a point about technology.

He's talking about the Rafale's radar, which isn't as great as he thinks it is, but then he's your counterpart for France.

The Rafalle would have it's arse handed to it by an F-22... Let's face it, a french jet FIGHTER is a paradox in terms. How many French fighters ever saw action?...very few I would imagine. At least an F-16 is combat proven, the Israelis are doing a fine job blowing up jihadi mobiles with it...the last French weapon to be combat tested was the musket in 1864. :roll:

Kurushio escalates into pure insult mode... How about the Mirage III...

By the way...no, the Americans were not using the Mir space station...which has since fallen to earth. You are thinking about the international space station.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mir_visiting_spacecrafts_and_crews

I'm afraid some don't agree with your arrogant assertion. JC, even Tom Clancy can occasionally recognize a Russian accomplishment...

[UglyMowgli]

I love threads like this one, good questions and finally: "who got the bigger":-? it s always the same in every forum. People are not like technology , they didn't improve.
so true !

so stay away from forums and ride your ship, it s a far better way to spend time imo ;)

Yes you re right, lets go and sink some US submarines wtih my old chinese kilo.

[Phullbrick]

What has the Rafalle got to do with sonar? Totally baffling...and why do they always go onto planes to prove a point about technology. The Rafalle would have it's arse handed to it by an F-22... Let's face it, a french jet FIGHTER is a paradox in terms. How many French fighters ever saw action?...very few I would imagine. At least an F-16 is combat proven, the Israelis are doing a fine job blowing up jihadi mobiles with it...the last French weapon to be combat tested was the musket in 1864. :roll:

By the way...no, the Americans were not using the Mir space station...which has since fallen to earth. You are thinking about the international space station.

don't know how old you are or if you ever read history books but you've just proven (to me) you know nothing about history and current world events, but whatever you may *believe* is true do not to insult other people or countries ... :hmm:

[micky1up]

the whole point of the thread was about the capability of sonar and a typical secular answer from the us contingent was that nobodies sonar could match thiers i begged to differ with the 19 years tactical submarine xp that i have my reply was to the fact that if you consider everyone elses equipment inferior to yours it is a dangerous thing to do ( a spear is better than a rock but if the rock is used by and expert with years of experience it to can be deadly) and no matter what cash you have the quality of the people using the equipment with make the difference norman schwazkoff said" if the equipment had been reversed in the first gulf war the allies would still have won" i agree the quality of the iraqi army was at best meduim and worst vv poor and the quality gap between the russian sonars and the wests sonars may not be as large as many people think along with many other items and units pertaining to the submarine and naval world. if you think like that in comabt situations you get surprised and battles and armys dont like surprises neither do submarine captains thats why i would bet every naval commander on whatever unit would treat the enemy as if they were on par or better than themselves that way you can never underestimate their capability

[goldorak]

Wow, micky1up you should really use some . for your sentences.
Reading that single sentence can asphyxiate you.:rotfl:

[JamesT73J]

How many French fighters ever saw action?...very few



Hmm. Have a read, specifically about the Mirage and Super-Etendard. French kit is good, and combat-proven.

Yannick Vallet in the Mirage 2000 at Fairford was a sight to behold last year.

[micky1up]

sorry gold will try better :oops: what did you think about the statement?

[Wim Libaers]

You probably think french sonars and radars are just old WWII stuff ... :lol:

But If I tell you the only radar on this earth, able to pick up a B2 at long distance (thousand kilometer) with kilometric band, is french, will you believe it ?

No.
http://www.harpoonhq.com/waypoint/articles/Article_022.pdf

[Kurushio]

Right...he opens with the line:

YOU are so ignorant, you don't even know my signature came from
hahaha.

...and I'm supposed to be all civilised. Give me a break...if you can't take it...don;t dish it out...simple.

And let's face it...French weapons are nearly never combat tested...except maybe in African civil wars when the Hutus and Tutsis massacre each others villages. But come on...you call a plane a "Mirage" because you never expect to see it in combat, but when you do...it's not really there...it's just a mirage.

j/k :lol:

p.s. Some people need a sense of humour...

[Kurushio]

How many French fighters ever saw action?...very few


Hmm. Have a read, specifically about the Mirage and Super-Etendard. French kit is good, and combat-proven.

Yannick Vallet in the Mirage 2000 at Fairford was a sight to behold last year.

Saw the Mirage 2000 at Farnborough...twice. Nothing special...:down:

[penaratahiti]

French technology is combat proven : U.S.S. Stark was hit by an Iraqi Exocet launched by a Mirage F1. HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet launched by a Super-Etendard during Flaklands war. Israelis Mirage, Vautour and Mystère successfully fought. An Angolan Mig was killed by a SAAF Mirage F1...

but it is not the topic.

in fact, I don't know much on French sonar, but according to my sources, French SSN a quieter than US and UK ones (this comes from a sonar operator involved in international naval exercises). Now that they have been upgraded with pumpjets, they will be even more quiet.

[micky1up]

i dont think the french ssn is quieter maybe as quiet but not better than

[penaratahiti]

Sorry micky1up but I don't think, I know. Of course, compared to 688 and Trafalgar... not Seawolf. but they are designed for coastal patrols, due to their size, and can carry less weapons than UK and US SSNs. Thay are better just from an acoustic point of view.

[Kurushio]

Right, so two exocets were fired (one I may add was fired by an ALLY...you know...USS Stark...so was totally unexpected and NOT in a combat situation) :roll:. And yes...you had the Super-Entertard which had to runaway from the Harriers and would lose on a 1-1. :roll: And yes, the Israeli Mirage...superseded by the F16. ;) And well done for shooting down an Angolan Mig...if the Mirage waited 5 more minutes, it would've probably fallen down on it's own or crashed into a mountain. Angolan Mig.:lol:

What a combat pedigree!:rotfl:

[penaratahiti]

you are right Kurushio. An Angolan Mig kill is not a great pedigree :D .
in simulated air2air combat, 2 Mirage 2000-5 killed 6 fighters (F-16, Tornado) without they knew they were fired on. The final score of this exercise was 40-1 for the Mirage2000...

[Kurushio]

you are right Kurushio. An Angolan Mig kill is not a great pedigree :D .
in simulated air2air combat, 2 Mirage 2000-5 killed 6 fighters (F-16, Tornado) without they knew they were fired on. The final score of this exercise was 40-1 for the Mirage2000...
Only problem was...monkeys were flying the other planes. :roll: Listen, the Mirage 2000 is equivalent to a Eurofighter (if you're lucky). Nothing more. The F16...yeah right, OK. How about the F22? How about the SU-35?

The Mirage 2000 doesn't need to be good, it'll never be combat tested just like all the other "world-beating" French fighters. In my opnion, the Mirage is just a mirage and is in actual fact made of balsa-wood and every photo you see of a Mirage in flight is photoshopped. The Mirage 2000 I saw at Farnborough was in actual fact a disguised SAAB Griffen...

...give it up...nobody takes French fighters seriously...

edit: actually scrap that. The Mirage 2000 is nowhere near as good as the Eurofighter. It's a piece of crap derived from a 1970s plane. Not only could it not beat an F16, I think I could shoot it down with a Cessna 172 and stones flung at it through the windows. Yes...such a good plane it's used by the premier airforces: Egypt, Greece, India, Peru (hey...those Llamas can be dangerous), Qatar and Taiwan.

[penaratahiti]

lol...

maybe it is better not to take them seriously when they will be needed in a crisis...

but Mirage don't have sonars.

[aaken]

Kurushio, you really have issues with your angry self. too much coffee?

[OKO]

Last red flag, US F16 didn't even knew when they was fired at by M2000, just because their RWR were not waked up by M2000 radars in Track While Search mode.

So genius, either translate or shutup. ;)

There is no need of translation at all, there is a need to improve your military knowledge.
I will help you, because you are asking, and asking and reading is a the best way to get out of myths =>

RWR => radar warning receiver
hardware used to detect ennemy radars when your plane receive their beams
There is different levels :
- receiving a beam (the pilot hear a slow sound and see a small light on the RWR with the type of ennemy radar, so the type of ennemy plane)
- beeing locked by an ennemy radar (sound and light accelerating on RWR)
- and beeing fired at (stressful alarm and flashing light)

With this hardware, a pilot know when he detect a radar around, what kind of radar it is, and what the radar is doing to him (just searching, locking or even firing at him) because according to the action of the radar, the beam change in time frequency (of reception by RWR) and intensity (beam strenght).
But, OF COURSE, to identify a plane with his radar, your RWR need to be programmed to recognize the specific band and identify it for the pilot.
If you want to have some quite nice modelisation of a RWR, try Falcon4 or FA18/E of Jane's.

So, to "translate" the sentence above =>

During an exercice named red flag, where USA invited french, Mirages 2000 (M2000) could lock and fire at F16 without waking up their RWR.
This mean F16 were shooted down without any warning.
During a real fight, this just mean : suddenly your plane expode in the air, and you don't know why.

Why ? just because M2000 were using a radar mode indetectable to F16 RWR.
The Track While Search mode is a specific radar mode.
There is some different radar modes =>

- VS : velocity search, used to see if there is something moving fast at very long distance (the best detecting range of aerial embarqued radars, but no identification with that, just contact speed revelant)

- RWS : range while scan => the typical combat mode : the radar reduce the scan area, so, scan the same place more often (talking about mechanical radar antenna, for older plane like M2000 but not for Rafale with electronic antenna).
This mode show you all contact in the scanned area, but if you lock one contact, all the radar beam will be concentrate on the contact, either to avoid to lost him and to guide missiles accuratly.
2 main shortcomings :
1) this is the mode that makes the emitter the more detectable
2) once radar is locked on a contact, you don't see anything else on your radar than the locked contact.

- TWS : track while search
A more discreet radar mode.
In TWS, not only your radar could be more stealth, but you could track different targets at the same time, and still see all contacts in your radar screen.

When you read that you will ask why using RWS when TWS is better for everything ?
This is exactly what is going to happen in future.
As long as fighters carried semi active missiles, they were needed to lock the bandit until impact of the missile.
That's why RWS was made for => he lock the target in a stronger way than with TWS (it's more difficult to break a RWS lock than a TWS lock) and concentrate all the radar beam on this target.
This way, the semi active missile, receiving the beam return from the contact, had a very strong return and could easily reach the target.

But with the apparition of new active missiles (with their own emitters), TWS became a much more interesting radar mode :
Instead to receive information about the target ... from the target, the missile receive it from the firing plane => the pilot that fired the missile send information from HIS plane to the missile until this missile become autonomous, and use his own little radar to finish the job (at 3 to 4 miles from the target).

And the other great change is the possibility, with TWS, to engage simultaneously 2 or more aerial targets (2 for FA18/E, 6 for the rafale), and to STILL have a global radar picture (the beam is not concentrate only on one plane).

So, I hope this explanation (and not translation ..that was all in english ...yes my english ...:oops: ) is more clear now.

[OKO]

I love threads like this one, good questions and finally: "who got the bigger":-? it s always the same in every forum. People are not like technology , they didn't improve.

so true !

so stay away from forums and ride your ship, it s a far better way to spend time imo ;)

So, excuse us to talk on a forum ... next time we will only listen carefully to her majesty ... if she have something interesting to say of course ...
This mean ... not really like this post.

[OKO]

Right...he opens with the line:

YOU are so ignorant, you don't even know my signature came from
hahaha.

...and I'm supposed to be all civilised. Give me a break...if you can't take it...don;t dish it out...simple.


For your information, this is what a great grec poet wrote after the battle of Thermopylae, where 200 spartans were killed after holding the pass near 2 days.
THIS IS about the spartan sacrifice you were talking about, trying to tell me I didn't knew anything about it, when I spent dozen of hours reading about this fascinating subject :rotfl:
So, you right, give you a break watching foxTV, and start to understand what your are talking about.


And let's face it...French weapons are nearly never combat tested...


OMG ... you are really SO ignorant, Kurushio ...
The last time french planes were used at large scale during a war, was the 6 days war.
for 1 Mirage III downed, more than 25 arabs planes were destroyed (at ground and in the air)
No american planes even appraoch this performance at ANY time in ANY war.
Wether you like it or not, it's a french plane that have the best fighting ratio of all wars : the Mirage III, in Israelian hands.
You military culture is just a succession of HUGE hole of knowledge, dude .... :nope:
Ask to Israelians what they think about french plane hehehe, they developped their own planes FROM the french, and not the US, design, after we refused to sold them anymore weapons (following libanian occupation in 1982)


Only problem was...monkeys were flying the other planes. :roll: Listen, the Mirage 2000 is equivalent to a Eurofighter (if you're lucky). Nothing more. The F16...yeah right, OK. How about the F22? How about the SU-35?



When are you going to stop to say stupid things ??
When ?? Just tell me please !!!
Compare the RAFALE to the eurofighter, not the M2000, 20 years older !!
About the F22, it's a fighter only, VERY poor at loadout compared to a FA18/E and Rafale (the 2 best fighters/bombers at this time)
Eurofighter is a waste : It was designed to be interceptor only, and during the development, received new specification that changed LOTS of his original design.
This give a bad hybrid, not as good at air fight as he was supposed, and VERY far from the Rafale about ground attack.
It's just a failure, far from rafale in every aspect except A2A fight where they are at the same (good) level.

The best interceptor at this time is, of course, the F22.
But he is limited at this fonction : air domination, and will not beeing used at something else, because it cost 6 or 8 time the price of FA18, much more capable in every other aspects than A2A.

SU-35 ?
there is one ... this is a prototype and will stay
russians don't have enought money for this.

To resume

Actually the best interceptor (completly useless fonction now) :
F22, followed by MiG31 (which was the best interceptor for 20 years), then Sue (27 -> 33)
As there is no more fast bomber threat, this fonction is obsolete

best fighter (A2A)
1) F22
2) eurofighter / rafale (both using stealth tech and rafale inculde the best threat detector available at this time + best CM system ever embarked on a fighter)
3) Sues (powerfull but not enought sophisticated radars, absolutly not a stealth plane) They have better missiles than 2), but are sooo detectable they will be engaged far before they know there is something around.
I have to admit this "best fighter" classification is subject to looooooong talks

the best multirole fighter :
1) Rafale
2) FA18/E, rest of plane far behind
no discution about it, even if FA18/E is quite close to the Rafale (and even a little behind in one aspect => the loadout size)

Is that more clear for you know, Kurushio ?
Did you understood all, this time ?
No need for another translation ?

[micky1up]

Sorry micky1up but I don't think, I know. Of course, compared to 688 and Trafalgar... not Seawolf. but they are designed for coastal patrols, due to their size, and can carry less weapons than UK and US SSNs. Thay are better just from an acoustic point of view.


well i know more as a serving tactical systems submariner with 19 years in experience ive been in many subtac exercises against many subs with one common factor the all the uk submarines which i served on got the first kill every time in in this buisness the first kill is all you need the list of units operated agaisnt goes like this US dutch french german the most capable unit operated against are the US subs but because their command officers are engineers before tactical they lack the cutting edge of a specifically trained tactical officer .like i said alot of the technology is similar and about on par but the quality on the men operating the equipment is what makes the difference even the god TOM CLANCY has said the royal navy submarines are the most formidable not becuase of the equipment but because of the people and thier training methods. at the moment i work in teh simulator trainer called THRASHER ( SSN TRAINER) and i have trained US GERMAN FRENCH CANADIAN IRAINIAN DUTCH FRENCH ISRAELI AND CHILEAN officers and when ASTUTE comes out the gap will only widen

[XabbaRus]

I have to disagree OKO about the Eurofighter vs the Rafale. The Rafale in current spec isn't full multi-role and the Eurofighter Tranceh 3 will be full swing role and superior to Rafale. How come Rafale has no export orders?

[Kurushio]

For your information, this is what a great grec poet wrote after the battle of Thermopylae, where 200 spartans were killed after holding the pass near 2 days.
THIS IS about the spartan sacrifice you were talking about, trying to tell me I didn't knew anything about it, when I spent dozen of hours reading about this fascinating subject :rotfl:
So, you right, give you a break watching foxTV, and start to understand what your are talking about.


And let's face it...French weapons are nearly never combat tested...

OMG ... you are really SO ignorant, Kurushio ...
The last time french planes were used at large scale during a war, was the 6 days war.
for 1 Mirage III downed, more than 25 arabs planes were destroyed (at ground and in the air)
No american planes even appraoch this performance at ANY time in ANY war.
I beg to differ. The F-4 over Vietnam (which was a ten year war, not a 6 day war) :lol:...The F86 over Korea (against the Mig 15) and pretty much all the F during the gulf war...then you also forget the P-51 mustang during WW2 and all the other P planes and Fs...ever heard of World War 2? So I think your statement saying the Americans have never approached the performance of Israeli planes during the 6 Day War is ludicrous. :roll:
Wether you like it or not, it's a french plane that have the best fighting ratio of all wars : the Mirage III, in Israelian hands.
All wars? As I said before...WW2...the French don't even come close...not to mention the Vietnam and Korean war.
You military culture is just a succession of HUGE hole of knowledge, dude .... :nope:
Ask to Israelians what they think about french plane hehehe, they developped their own planes FROM the french, and not the US, design, after we refused to sold them anymore weapons (following libanian occupation in 1982)
Right...I'm not the one making stupid statements saying an Israeli mirage shot down more planes then all the American planes in all the wars. World War 2...you know...when France had to be bailed out? Where were the French planes then? :roll:


When are you going to stop to say stupid things ??
When ?? Just tell me please !!!
Compare the RAFALE to the eurofighter, not the M2000, 20 years older !!
About the F22, it's a fighter only, VERY poor at loadout compared to a FA18/E and Rafale (the 2 best fighters/bombers at this time)
Eurofighter is a waste : It was designed to be interceptor only,
Wrong, the Eurofighter is a swing-role aircraft...much like the F/A18 Superhornet. :roll:

and during the development, received new specification that changed LOTS of his original design.
rubbish....it was always designed as a swing-role
This give a bad hybrid, not as good at air fight as he was supposed, and VERY far from the Rafale about ground attack.
They are equivalent...I've seen both at Farnborough..in the air and on the ground. I bet you've only seen them in your comic books. :arrgh!:
It's just a failure, far from rafale in every aspect except A2A fight where they are at the same (good) level.

The best interceptor at this time is, of course, the F22.
But he is limited at this fonction : air domination, and will not beeing used at something else, because it cost 6 or 8 time the price of FA18, much more capable in every other aspects than A2A.

SU-35 ?
there is one ... this is a prototype and will stay
russians don't have enought money for this.


Now here is where you really embarass yourself and show to everyone you are a PHONEY, FAKE 'expert'. You know NOTHING. HAHA...stop now and hide yourself, please...

The SU-35 is a prototype? HAHAHAHA! lol...WHAT RUBBISH:

SU35: http://img276.imageshack.us/img276/8806/mbsu351vl.jpg

This is the protoype you are thinking about, the SU-37:

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/5210/bbsu3714zd.jpg

Who is the ignorant one? Hide yourself..will ya...you know nothing of which you speak...you talk and write RUBBISH. :up:



To resume

Actually the best interceptor (completly useless fonction now) :
F22, followed by MiG31 (which was the best interceptor for 20 years), then Sue (27 -> 33)
As there is no more fast bomber threat, this fonction is obsolete

best fighter (A2A)
1) F22
2) eurofighter / rafale (both using stealth tech and rafale inculde the best threat detector available at this time + best CM system ever embarked on a fighter)
3) Sues (powerfull but not enought sophisticated radars, absolutly not a stealth plane) They have better missiles than 2), but are sooo detectable they will be engaged far before they know there is something around.
I have to admit this "best fighter" classification is subject to looooooong talks

the best multirole fighter :
1) Rafale
2) FA18/E, rest of plane far behind
no discution about it, even if FA18/E is quite close to the Rafale (and even a little behind in one aspect => the loadout size)

Is that more clear for you know, Kurushio ?
Did you understood all, this time ?
No need for another translation ?
bah...SHUT UP...and taking English lessons wouldn't hurt you. Also making sure what you write is correct...SU-35 a protoype...LOL :lol:

[Kurushio]

SU-35 ?
there is one ... this is a prototype and will stay
russians don't have enought money for this.

Here is the one SU-35:

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9864/su3516ws.jpg

And here it is again, remember there is "only one prototype" according to our expert...so it must be the same plane...they just painted it different::roll:


http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/9122/su357du.jpg

Yet another pattern..(the same plane)? :rotfl:

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/6300/su3519tx.jpg



Is this the same plane in desert camo? Wow, that plane gets around...the bloke who paints it must be tired. :D

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/5548/su3517va.jpg

*yawn*

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/415/su354tp.jpg


but...but...could this be???!!! I thought there was only one!!!!

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8683/082di.jpg

LMAO!

[Ori_b]

This thread just getting worse with every post...:down:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

There is no need of translation at all, there is a need to improve your military knowledge.

I entirely agree. However, you may have created a few new misunderstandings in this explanation. I'd attempt to clear them up a bit.

- VS : velocity search, used to see if there is something moving fast at very long distance (the best detecting range of aerial embarqued radars, but no identification with that, just contact speed revelant)

Not only do you not get an ID, you also don't get a range. The extra range is probably because with a Pulse-Doppler radar, velocity is the primary return with the high PRF used. Range is derived from looking at the return, the opposite of a conventional radar.

- RWS : range while scan => the typical combat mode : the radar reduce the scan area, so, scan the same place more often (talking about mechanical radar antenna, for older plane like M2000 but not for Rafale with electronic antenna).
This mode show you all contact in the scanned area, but if you lock one contact, all the radar beam will be concentrate on the contact, either to avoid to lost him and to guide missiles accuratly.
2 main shortcomings :
1) this is the mode that makes the emitter the more detectable
2) once radar is locked on a contact, you don't see anything else on your radar than the locked contact.

You've actually confused what happens here with Single Target Track, something which should not have happened had you actually toyed with Falcon 4.0. RWS transitions to STT.

As well as fixing the beam on the target, in STT the CW illuminator that SARH missiles tend to like for SARH guidance comes on (if available). Since basically nobody uses CW except to launch missiles, the system starts screaming.

- TWS : track while search
A more discreet radar mode.
In TWS, not only your radar could be more stealth, but you could track different targets at the same time, and still see all contacts in your radar screen.

When you read that you will ask why using RWS when TWS is better for everything ?

You've almost got it right, except you confused RWS with STT. Another problem that really is TWS vs RWS (which will probably also fade with phased arrays) is the scanning zone. To maintain a track and firing solution requires a higher data update rate. This forces the mechanical radar to scan a narrower zone. In a F-16 (at least in Falcon 4.0) the RWS uses a 4-bar, 120 degree scan that takes 8 seconds to complete. The TWS scan is about 3-bar and 50 degrees, which will take less than 2 seconds to complete.

The nice thing is that the radar is still in search and no CW illuminator comes up, so if you can't tell from the higher sweep rate, you will keep thinking he's in search, until you die.

Also, you can actually use command guidance part of the way even with SARH - just make sure a missile gets the undivided attention of a CW illuminator from about 10 seconds (or so) before impact. This is known as time-sharing. this technique is used in Aegis so 4 illuminators can guide 12-18 (depends on who you read) missiles. I would guess the AA-10 Alamos can also do this to some extent, seeing that they claim the later versions of the N001 and N019 can engage two targets even with R-27s - what presumably happens is that there is a bit of delay, during which the radar services the illumination of one target, then the other.

Finally, TWS is very common and hardly new, so let's not write anything that implies French superiority just for having it. It is arguably the inattention of the American pilots that got them rather than the merits of the aircraft. Presumably, they were trained mostly against "primitive Soviet" opponents armed with SARH R-27 and R-24s, so they plan to hear beeps before anything happens forgetting even the Russians are going the ARH route and had IR-homing BVR weapons before that...

[gmuno]

Those fighters are SU 33, the navalised version of the SU27. The multivector engine of the SU35 looks a bit different.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Those fighters are SU 33, the navalised version of the SU27. The multivector engine of the SU35 looks a bit different.

The Su-35 IIRC is not thrust-vectoring, the Su-37 is. THe forward swept wing plane is the S-37

[Linton]

I don't think we have talked about tanks or topedoes yet.Are they going to be next?If they are I will start searching for photographs of the same tank in different paint schemes.Now back to sonar 2076

[Kurushio]

Those fighters are SU 33, the navalised version of the SU27. The multivector engine of the SU35 looks a bit different.

Those are all SU-35s....:up: Yeah OK, naval version...hmm...in desert camo. :roll:

[micky1up]

so a naval plane could never be used to fly and fight in desert areas think what you saying

[Orm]

I would be very pleased if this thread could be deleted as we are giving to an unrefined the publicity that he seems to lack in his dreamy little life.

[goldorak]

I would be very pleased if this thread could be deleted as we are giving to an unrefined the publicity that he seems to lack in his dreamy little life.

No, what we need is a basic ignore function. :yep:

[Kurushio]

so a naval plane could never be used to fly and fight in desert areas think what you saying

Yes...highly unsual to repaint naval planes according to theatre of operations...

..and yes...it's an SU-35, Google it. :roll:

[UglyMowgli]

I would be very pleased if this thread could be deleted as we are giving to an unrefined the publicity that he seems to lack in his dreamy little life.

We just need a more active moderation or a "trolll only" sub-forum for off topics threads.

[Linton]

I think somebody should be looking at pprune if he gets excited about aeroplanes,unless SCS are going to add a flyable Sukhoi to DW.The new sonar for Astute has been recently trialled at Autec.

[Henson]

My last fire control computer had a nifty grey color scheme (no camouflage).

http://www.mirageport.com/metal/jpg/minn11.jpg

Incidentally the sonar computers looked the same. 32 channel sweetness (put to shame by modern fiber, but who cares?)

[Kurushio]

Why don't you all just eff off...it wasn't me who made this thread go off topic. Go back and read and get your heads out yer arse. :stare:

[Henson]

All the submariners I know are pretty thick-skinned...they have to be. We're not nice people, and we generally don't open our mouths without pages upon pages of documentation ready to back up what we're saying (comes from dealing with nuc-trained officers).

After 6 weeks at sea, watching nervous breakdowns is considered entertainment. :arrgh!:

[aaken]

Even among non submariners watching a nervous breakdown can be considered entertainment.
It sure is for me. We only miss the brawl. ;)

[UglyMowgli]

I was wondering. There is so much literature available on the Net (and on this forum) about American and Russian sonar and their relative capabilities. But there doesn't seem to be much info about the French and British sonar systems. Even the Japanese, German, Chinese etc. stuff.
How do their sonar systems stack up as compared to the Russian and American stuff? Do any of them have high sensitivity sonars or is it pretty much No.1 USA, No. 2 Russia and everybody else far behind?
To return to the topic.

English have good sensors, french a just little beyond (just because french sub arev ery small compare to other), but the sonar are not all, if the submarine is noisy you can have the better sonar system, you are disavantged, the cew ability is also to account.

I will speak only for French nuclear attack submarine they are compact (better against active sonar) and a little bit noisy (all the machinery are not well isolated from the hull) but they can change speed in a very short time and have a very high turn rate. The sonar specialists are very well trained.

So a comparison between sonar is not very easy, you should consider the whole : the sonar, the sub, the crew, ... and the capitain.

[micky1up]

all im saying is that if your subs and crew are better why have i spent a good portion of 19 years training your officers surely it would be the other way round

[swimsalot]

Love the pictures, Henson!
Those are definately 2 guys that spend alot of time indoors (underwater?)
:)

[Kurushio]

Well, I'm no expert on sonar, but common sense dictates that a French Sonar system has a one in a million chance of being combat tested. This being the case, it could be made out of camambert and it wouldn't make much difference.

Though I'm a sceptic when someone says "French systems are better than British systems"...yeah, ok....if you say so. How about backing up what you said.

p.s. Stilton is better than Brie :rock:

[goldorak]

Well, I'm no expert on sonar, but common sense dictates that a French Sonar system has a one in a million chance of being combat tested. This being the case, it could be made out of camambert and it wouldn't make much difference.

Though I'm a sceptic when someone says "French systems are better than British systems"...yeah, ok....if you say so. How about backing up what you said.

p.s. Stilton is better than Brie :rock:
There is no sense in having a discussion with you kurushio.
You're the embodiement of the typical obnoxious, self centered, we're the best, the world couldn't go on without us, american attitude.
Just go on living in your nutshell. :down:

[Kurushio]

I'm not American...."scemo". In actual fact, I'm a resident of Salsomaggiore Terme. Ever heard of it? I'm sure you have.

:roll:

[Wim Libaers]

Well, I'm no expert on sonar, but common sense dictates that a French Sonar system has a one in a million chance of being combat tested. This being the case, it could be made out of camambert and it wouldn't make much difference.


I guess very few submarine sonar systems were ever combat tested, unless there were some major sea battles in the last decades that I don't know about. The testing they get is tracking and following other sound sources during their patrols, which should be good enough for most purposes as the sonar is a sensor, not a weapon.

[UglyMowgli]

It s definitevely a TROLL, why waste your time with this guy.
I just send a PM to Neal to close this topic or delete all off topic post.

[micky1up]

Well, I'm no expert on sonar, but common sense dictates that a French Sonar system has a one in a million chance of being combat tested. This being the case, it could be made out of camambert and it wouldn't make much difference.


I guess very few submarine sonar systems were ever combat tested, unless there were some major sea battles in the last decades that I don't know about. The testing they get is tracking and following other sound sources during their patrols, which should be good enough for most purposes as the sonar is a sensor, not a weapon.




what the hell are you on about the sonars are run continuosly at sea whilst submerged and we track and classify everything as if under war condition
you clearly dont know even the basic about submarines and the practices they use whilst at sea WE RUN AS IF WE ARE AT WAR 100% OF THE TIME

[Wim Libaers]

what the hell are you on about the sonars are run continuosly at sea whilst submerged and we track and classify everything as if under war condition
you clearly dont know even the basic about submarines and the practices they use whilst at sea WE RUN AS IF WE ARE AT WAR 100% OF THE TIME

Yes, that was what I meant: you do not need to be in combat if you want to test something like a sonar that doesn't require you to shoot anything. It was Kurushio who implied that sonars had to be tested in combat to be good.

[Veta]

Right...I'm not the one making stupid statements saying an Israeli mirage shot down more planes then all the American planes in all the wars. World War 2...you know...when France had to be bailed out? Where were the French planes then? :roll:I apologise for chipping in here but Kurushio strikes me as being a complete and utter moron. The Israeli aircraft point was based on a victories:losses ratio, NOT total victories. As for demanding people prove that "French systems are better than British systems", we will never be able to convincingly prove this either way because of the sensitive nature of this subject area.

I'm a lurker who visits this board fairly regularly. Over the last month or so it seems to have been brought down in standard by the shabby postings of Kurushio. I'm sure you're an adult, but you have the maturity of a child. I wish Britain could disown you.

[OKO]

I have to disagree OKO about the Eurofighter vs the Rafale. The Rafale in current spec isn't full multi-role and the Eurofighter Tranceh 3 will be full swing role and superior to Rafale. How come Rafale has no export orders?

Xab, how come the eurofighter will not reach the initial production of the initial contract ?
It's the same thing, actually, it's worst for eurofighter, as near each year, the initial number of plane planed is lowered by contractors, when rafale number is fixed for years.
The rafale is still not fully deployed, especially the land version (and even the naval one on the CDG)
But if you compare the ground attack capabilities of the 2 planes, well, there is no match about it ... in term of loadout point, avionics and on the variety of their loadout.

But neither rafale nor eurofighter are sold out of their original contracts.
No exportations for them.

Xab, I didn't said eurofighter is a bad plane, I said he was created as interceptor, and slided to multirole during development, while rafale was created from start as multirole.
And because of that, eurofighter is an excellent interceptor
Ok ... you can say a bit behind the rafale as interceptor ABOUT DYNAMIC PERFORMANCES, but so few ... : they should load same missiles, a little bit best dynamic performance for eurofighter (I could saw them both many times at Le Bourget, but you couldn't see that with your eyes of course because they have very close specifications) but best contermeasure suit for rafale (spectra system, with active jammer, missile ignition detector and localiser), best mutirole radar (eurofighter radar is mainly A/A oriented) and best integrated avionics.

I could say, Eurofighter would be a great plane to secure the air corridor for a strike with Rafale.
Together, they should be quite close to what F22 / FA18E/F could do.

But you need to have an airport near the conflict area, of course, as neither F22 nor Eurofighter are navalised :roll: .
One of the best advantage of the rafale against the Eurofighter is, of course, the projection capability, aboard the CDG.



You've actually confused what happens here with Single Target Track, something which should not have happened had you actually toyed with Falcon 4.0. RWS transitions to STT.



I didn't confused, I mentionned it =>


but if you lock one contact, all the radar beam will be concentrate on the contact, either to avoid to lost him and to guide missiles accuratly.



I just didn't mentionned the fact to lock a target will switch RWS mode to an under mode named STT.

But I don't agree with you at 100% when you say it's a transition
Because the main mode is STILL RWS
STT is an "under mode" of RWS, not another mode.
TWS also have multi mode, I cant' remember which ones, I didn't flew on F4 for near 4 years now, and everything come from memory.
On the FA18, for example, a mode allow you to fire 1 missile at each target when you locked 2 in TWS, just locking the 2 contacts, and pressing twice the fire button.
Other mode let you choose which one you want to engage, with one or more missiles, etc ...
But this is also "under" mode, and not radar main mode.

Not only do you not get an ID, you also don't get a range

Yes, you only have a closing speed and a bearing.
The higher this speed, the longer is your detection capabilities (signal strength)
This is the best mode when searching at ennemy interceptors.
This way you could see them at ~1.5 to 1.3 times the range you will find them with RWS (which have ~20% best range than TWS in F4)
This VS mode is best used when ATC give you an interception course.
Using it without any informations is quite dangerous.
Even if it's give you the longer detection range you can achieve with your radar, you don't know anything about the range of the threat.
One of the best F16 US instructor of all time said something like that about it :
"I don't know what this mode is really made for, except to give some fun to some engineer." :rotfl:


Let's not forget to mention : you still keep a clear radar picture of the theatre when you lock a target in TWS, on the opposite of the RWS.
Because in RWS STT all the beam is concentrated on the lock, when in TWS the radar continue to scan when you have locked a contact (but only a small array to refresh the locked contact with short period)



Finally, TWS is very common and hardly new, so let's not write anything that implies French superiority just for having it. It is arguably the inattention of the American pilots that got them rather than the merits of the aircraft. Presumably, they were trained mostly against "primitive Soviet" opponents armed with SARH R-27 and R-24s, so they plan to hear beeps before anything happens forgetting even the Russians are going the ARH route and had IR-homing BVR weapons before that...

That was the reason I heard about this red flag.
I didn't said french have TWS and not US, I just said US RWR were not waked up when they were locked by M2000 radar in TWS.
I learned what TWS is on a US plane :cool:
And I wasn't there ... I heard that ...
The fact is : F16 were shooted down without any warning, and that's why they had so many casualties compared to M2000.
About the inattention of pilots, I don't believe this could explain how 10 american pilots were shooted down for 1 french.
I know, sometimes later, the score for US vs Israelian was .... 22 to +200 !!!
So I find believable that the RWR system of the US F16 at these red flags were not really updated with appropriate radar band database.

The fact is, when I hear M2000 is a poor plane, that makes me smile.
Because we all know F16 is (now was ... he's old) a fantastic plane, and if this excellent air fighter could be dominate like this by M2000s, even for technical reasons, this prove the 'old' M2000 capabilities.
Even a troll could understand that :lol:


thanks for your excellent comments, Kazuaki.
I tried to be easily understandable for karushio, who is far from your knowledge.
Really appreciated, you looks like a real fan of military aerial matter.
... As I was some years ago ... I must admit, I didn't read much about it from this time ...
But I have some some recall about it.
And it's nice to have discussion about interesting things, instead of retarded troll talks from a young boy, that learn history with comic books.

[Linton]

Can we delete the word sonar from this topic title as it is now so far off topic?

[Onkel Neal]

And so, tune in next thread, for the conclusion of "My Sonar is Better Than Yours and I Have the Pings to Prove it". ;)