![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Machinist's Mate
![]() Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 127
Downloads: 3
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Why exactly is the hull array only available in narrowband for the 688(I)? I mean, what are the technical reasons that narrowband frequencies can't be correlated into broadband contacts?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | ||
Naval Royalty
![]() Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,185
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
XO
![]() Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 434
Downloads: 25
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Does it mean real L.A. 688 class subs don't have broadband hull array either or only in Dangerous Waters?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Admiral
![]() Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,320
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
The latter, as SeaQueen said its because SCS said so. So learn to live with it. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
The Old Man
![]() Join Date: May 2005
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 1,458
Downloads: 6
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Planesman
![]() Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Olympus Mons, Mars
Posts: 184
Downloads: 115
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
now youre getting into some possibly classified stuff. Some sources i've seen give the 688i class a hull/flank array of some kind. (I cant quote them im at work) the 688i is known to carry the MIDAS HF under-ice imaging sonar. pretty much every submarine which operates under the ice needs some form of remote-sensing/imaging. this usually comes in the form of an HF sonar. Theres some speculation about Russian boats like Victor and Akula class (and probably delta, typhoon and borei as well) which may have HF sonar or some sort of LLTV (low light television) or both.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Naval Royalty
![]() Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,185
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
Actually the treatment of the flank arrays on both the Seawolf and the 688(i) has always bothered me. They should be more similar to one another, including the capability of passive ranging. That's the whole point of being "wide aperture." It allows one to resolve bearings very finely and have lots of beamformers. From that you can triangulate range. I feel like in the absence of being able to reveal any detailed specific technical information, they were searching for ways t differentiate the various US platforms in the game. Just making one quieter, deeper diving, and faster than the other one wouldn't be enough. Bare in mind even the maximum speeds of the platforms is classified. What's published in opened sources are just estimates. As a result, they did things like put external countermeasures on one, but not the other, etc. I think they did it just to make them more different. There's plenty of opened source information about what sorts of equipment these warships have, just not specific engineering information. Sometimes it actually surprises me how much stuff is unclassified. Like I found some things on the EPA's website once about acoustic countermeasures in an environmental impact statement that really floored me. When I thought about it, nothing there really told you about how the countermeasures really worked, but it did tell you a lot about how they were ejected. I guess nobody cares about whether you can learn how build a countermeasures ejector if you're not sure the countermeasures you're ejecting really work. :-) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Commander
![]() Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 462
Downloads: 62
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Ok I'm no expert on this stuff but I thought WAA technology was first introduced in the Seawolf class . . . so does that mean that for the 688i's that go in for refueling are retrofitted with WAA gear?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|