Its difficult to know when everything is classified and most specifically, in all the secrecy surrounding sub based SIGINT, but one can also be very sure that LOTS of dollars were invested in those specific equipments, so I wouldnt be surprise to discover that it was possible to produce an accurate TMA with it, even in the early '70s.

No amount of dollars can defy the laws of physics. After all, the size of an antenna plays an essential part in measuring bearing to an emitter source. A problem when you have small sized mast.

I wouldn't know anything about that......just sayin'

Sorry for the late reply - been busy. Without going into things I can't, let me refine my original answer.

In terms of today's subs, it's possible. In terms of CW era subs, possible, but difficult. It could be done, but passive sonar would be a far better tool to make use of.

Also, in reply to the comment about Signal Strength being an indicator of range, I know a few people who have been involved in collisions who would argue against that.

If you say so, I have no reason no reason to doubt.
How about with the WLR-9 acoustic receiver. Although its not linked to the Bsy-1, as its said, can you get accurate bearings for a TMA?

Imma step in here before someone else does. The WLR-9 is still used in US warships, and it's capabilities and design remain classified. For now, you're gonna have to just wonder.

Thanks and then, well, please...

...don't laugh of us folks who don't know nothing; everything is classified.

If I may, I'd especulate that the WLR-9 is capable of providing data for accurate TMA. I'm not sure if it can receive data from all the sensors in the boat, but for example, if it could merge data from both the towed array and the bow sonar, than, theorically, it could be possible to triangulate the emitter position after a single ping and have a weapon on it straight after. If not, I wouldnt doubt either that by knowing the emitter frequency, one could generate a good range estimate via doppler shift, which would help explain the need for so much SIGINT in peace time sub operations. Other than that, I'm pretty sure that if there's someone assigned to handling the WLR-9 console, he could at least, with paper and pen, create a basic but accurate geographical/time bearing rate plot, or at least yell the bearings to someone else in the control room to do it.

Only if the bearing accuracy of the ESM is sufficient. Try to triangulate with a bearing error of 5% and you get pretty serious error that inflate over range, even if you triangulate it with a very accurate sonar bearing.

Don't take that out of context. That was in reference to the TMA instructions of Fast Attack, IIRC, and had nothing to do with this discussion. The laughter involved there was in how badly those instructions were written, and how far off the mark they would be if taken as written, not at any player of this game or frequenters of this forum.

I appreciate your position, but let's not compare apples to oranges in this way, hmmm?

WLR-9 active intercept bearings and ESM mast bearings would be put on the paper plot to aid in the analysis. We don't have a paper plot visible, so just assume those smart worker bees are using it in a good way.

Would ESM bearings give a workable solution? Who knows, no one in the fleet would leave an ESM mast up long enough to find out, so no one would care.

That's what they do ATM if you have another source for contact.
The problem is, they don't do that if active intercept is the only source of target's bearing.

I'm a former USAF ECM troop and can confirm the bit about accurate bearings from RWR and I'm sure the RX mode on a sub or sea based ESM mast uses the same method of operation. Bearing info is highly accurate, it has to be as the operator needs to inform the vehicle commander threat direction for evasion.

Using single strength for range info is very dicey. As a general rule the processors can estimate range, but even on our TSF display (tactical situation format, B-1 version of RWR) there's only three rings: close, mid, and far. But they really mean low, mid, and high signal strength as it's mainly for threat prioritization.

Does that make sense? I talk a of jargon

I guess the problem is that a sub is using a single antenna. Am I right in saying that an aircraft have multiple RWR antennas scattered in different places and so it is easier to get an accurate bearing?

Those antennas are actually rather small. I don't know this for a fact (and I'm sure of the Navy vets here could confirm, though probably unable to) you could easily place those types of antennas on a mast. In fact as an ECM guy the near perfect 360 degree search area you get from that is pretty much.

BTW. I hope I'm not stepping on any toes as a newbie here. I've been lurking here for a long time because I love sub stuff and have dabbled with subsims. Though honestly most have been a tad over my head besides RSR. And I don't have the game yet but it seems more up my alley. So yeah, hello!

Newer planes, sure. Older systems could only tell you the quadrant.