[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Amizaur

It's not about improving, it's about realism...

I'm wondering how they figured out (even guestimated) the washout speed. I suppose you can guestimate sensitivity by looking at the array size and making some estimates as to the influence of processing power, but washout speed - beyond the general assumption the US would have a higher one?

Did you know, that in late 80's and early 90's Russians themselves estimated that their best sonars has 3 to 10 times shorter det ranges than US sonars ?

I read something similar, except it was 1/3rd as sensitive, which roughly collaborates with what L/W seems to be shooting (2Nrd difference = 4dB, = 2.5 times difference), but that correlates with a lot less than 3 times, depending on conditions. 10 times might hold true at higher speeds or in wierd hydroacoustic conditions - hard to see it in normality.

And I entirely agree with this general concept, except:
1) Does the mentioned difference (from the sources) take account the Display Influence?
2) "-8" (or =TB-16, 2Nrd less sensitive vs new TB-23) is more than fair for the Improved Akulas, which are rough contemporaries of the 688I and in accordance to the 1/3rd as sensitive guide. But not the Akula-IIs, which are roughly contemporary with SW. Assuming this +2Nrd sonar lag holds, the Pelamida II should have a sensitivity of closer to -10 to compare with the SW's -12 (or was it -14?) - take the higher washout of US arrays into account as well...

And this would be justified by what ? Do you expect very small and not most modern russian electric torpedo that is used in SS-N-27 system to have speed of 55kts ??

OK, maybe not 55, but 50. This is like 10+-year old tech (French NTL-90 came in about '92), so even assuming the usual 10-year gap it is not unreasonable to assume the Russians would have gotten around to it in their newest ASW weapons. Besides, some sources suggest making a 50-knot small torp is not impossible for the Russians.

This is much better proposition. 688 diving depth is often stated as 300m (984ft) with 450m (1476) crush.

Since MaxDepth in DW = Max 100% Safe Depth, I suggest initial calibration can be set for Never Exceed Depth (in the Ak, it is 1804 feet according to GlobalSecurity, which is similar to what's there now).

Fine calibration between that and crush (estimated at about 1970-2160 feet) to aim for a 50% chance, with the condition that Never Exceed Depth should be perfectly safe.

For those without Never Exceed Listed, I suggest starting out halfway and then calibrating within the gap between test (300m for LA) and crush (450m) so that at the real crush, we get roughly a 50% chance of death as possible.