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

...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:

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

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

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.

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.

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

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:

from Wikipedia:

Some myth...:roll:

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.

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.

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:

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)

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).