Well lets put it this way, everything concerning submarine specs is classified.
Give me an example of declassified document describing submarine sonar, speed etc.. performance.
Short of having hard facts, we should concentrate on the relative performance between the different units in the game.
Now given that the seawolf is the latest and most costly submarine ever to be designed we can "assume" that its sonar performance will be better than the akula II and 688i.
I said better but we don't know how "much" better it is. No one knows outside of submariners etc.... and they surely aren't giving the information out.
So its all speculation, for american and soviets subs.
Some books give rough estimates for top speed of the different subs, but as always its just a guess.
No hard fact. So either we go with route that the "american" technology is always superior to soviet technology and we make the units reflect this in all aspects or we take a more gradual approach consisting of published info and we recognise that soviet technology wasn't always inferior to american technology and take that into account in the game.
Try reading "Cold War Submarines" just to see how much the american establishment underestimated soviet naval technology.
True the soviets were playing catch up on the sonar level, but they had devised other methods for tracking american submarines which arent' even modelled in the game.
Methods which the americans didn't even considered researching during the cold war.
As to the weapons issue, its not my fault that americans only rely on torpedos as the weapon of choice for submarines.
Is that a good thing or bad thing ? It has nothing to do with technology.
Guess that the soviets are just more fancy when it comes to weapons design.
|