Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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.  |
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...