Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Feld
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaQueen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
According to most publications, RL detection range is far shorter than in DW now. So, NO.
You know... back in the day, much was said about how sonar could detect things at ranges of hundreds or sometimes even thousands of miles. That's still true. The thing is, it all depends on the target and the acoustic conditions at the time. People don't like to believe that the really is that much variability but there is. In the '80s they were worried about hordes of NOVEMBER class submarines forcing their way through chokepoints in the northern latitudes, now they're worried about smaller numbers of KILO class submarines in tropical and subtropical latitudes. It's not that the sonars have changed, is that the environment and the targets have.
Amen!
I want range & frequency dependent propagation loss !
@ SeaQueen : are there tabulated solutions to the wave equations? Dr. Sid might be able to use a lookup table?
-feld
|
The DW acoustic model already has those.
The problem were up against as modders is that the acoustic model is outside of our reach. Unfortunately, we can only play with source levels and sensor sensitivity. So we have to choose a range of ranges within a fixed subset of what could occur in RL. I think they way things are now we've set the bracket on the high side of what might be the median, based upon publications and upon comments of submariners posted here. I'd be absolutely shocked if LWAMI ever acted shift that bracket higher (by "enhanc[ing] passive sonar capabilities").