French and British Sonar

[Doc Savage]

I was wondering. There is so much literature available on the Net (and on this forum) about American and Russian sonar and their relative capabilities. But there doesn't seem to be much info about the French and British sonar systems. Even the Japanese, German, Chinese etc. stuff.
How do their sonar systems stack up as compared to the Russian and American stuff? Do any of them have high sensitivity sonars or is it pretty much No.1 USA, No. 2 Russia and everybody else far behind?

[LuftWolf]

The United States and the UK have an open door agreement for military technology, so its safe to assume that the capabilities of all UK equipment is comparable to that of the United States.

Germany has the third largest economy in the world, and is a major exporter of high technology goods, as well as military hardware.

France is major exporter of military equipment as well, and we are all familiar with the technological capabilities of the Japanese.

In general, I'd probably have to go US, UK/Commonwealth, Germany/Japan, France, the rest of the EU and THEN (probably by a fairly wide margin) Russia and China, but that's strictly an amateur appraisal.

You forgot to mention the UK is a number one weapons technology producer as well. You know, Marconi? etc. So I doubt they're good thanks only to the "open-door" policy.

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

You forgot to mention the UK is a number one weapons technology producer as well. You know, Marconi? etc. So I doubt they're good thanks only to the "open-door" policy.

Well, I assumed that this was implied.

[Amizaur]

They were at least very good - french, german and swedish sonars (swedish radars foer long time equal to US and GB). Sonars in most cases better than russian, the Russians sometimes copied them if managed to get documentation. Currently the new most modern sonars produced by euro-consorties (joined british, german, french and italic partners) are probably on par or in some cases better than US systems (for example torpedo seekers for Black Shark, low frequency sonars for Type-212 and new euro-frigates that are said to have det range up to 10 times better than previous generations and already demostrated impressive detection and tracking ranges against quiet submarines... can't remeber details, maybe I'll find them later but I remember i was very impreessed... something like SURTASS pefrormance on small frigate and shallow water :-) or at least TB-29...

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.

[DAB]

Originally Posted by Doc Savage

I was wondering. There is so much literature available on the Net (and on this forum) about American and Russian sonar and their relative capabilities. But there doesn't seem to be much info about the French and British sonar systems. Even the Japanese, German, Chinese etc. stuff.
How do their sonar systems stack up as compared to the Russian and American stuff? Do any of them have high sensitivity sonars or is it pretty much No.1 USA, No. 2 Russia and everybody else far behind?

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

The United States and the UK have an open door agreement for military technology, so its safe to assume that the capabilities of all UK equipment is comparable to that of the United States.

Germany has the third largest economy in the world, and is a major exporter of high technology goods, as well as military hardware.

France is major exporter of military equipment as well, and we are all familiar with the technological capabilities of the Japanese.

In general, I'd probably have to go US, UK/Commonwealth, Germany/Japan, France, the rest of the EU and THEN (probably by a fairly wide margin) Russia and China, but that's strictly an amateur appraisal.

I suspect the people worldwide that can answer this authoratively can be counted on one hand...

The question is further complicated by the question of combat doctine. A British Nuclear attack boat designed in 1990 was expected to do far more littoral water ops then its American equivilant - and it is generally presumed that British designs are generally superior to their US counterparts in that regard. On the other hand, American Subs were generally ahead when it came to networking the various Sonar systems - as US combat doctrine places more emphasis on accurate TMA Firing Solutions then the British did.

Anouther example (but slightly off topic) is Electonic capabilities and espionage. The US generally equips a dedicated boat to forfill this role, whilst, in the UK, such a capability is generally fitted out at least on the Trafalgar Class.

And then we go onto the French, whose independent approach makes it practically impossible to figure out whats going on there.

One final thing though, Commonwealth navy's such as Canada and Australlia tend to use US equipment on their boats. This may have something to do with US capabilities, or the combat doctrines of those countries (or the fact that US companies can undercut UK counterparts). But you can't put the commonwealth in the same catagory as the UK.

To be frank, i'm going to decline to rank the nations. But I think you can say that the US, UK, Australlia and Canadian navies are close enough in capability, that when you consider the vast variences in local conditions that may be encountered, advantage comes from training rather then technological edge. The French I will also tentitvely guess are on a par with those navys.

[Henson]

I know the germans, for one, have one hell of a combat control system, especially suited for littoral ops.

One thing that is hard to grasp is that a Combat Control System (CCS) is not as one-size-fits-all as we would like it to be. After a couple of semi-failed experiments with fully integrated CCS (BSY-1 and 2) the US and Australia moved towards CCS Mk2 Block 1C, which is a deep-water traditional american system paired with the new COTS sonar system (BQQ-10). That combo is awesome for tracking submarines; however, while it is a step-up for the US as far as operating in high contact density waters, it still leaves something to be desired in that regard. The new BYG-1 with BQQ-10 (ARCI) is an improvement on that, and the great thing about it is the rapid upgrades that are now possible because of the use of commercially available computer technology.

Some of the european vendors, on the other hand, have been working on systems that were specifically designed for littorals with high-contact densities for decades now. Those are really good at that, but are not as good at tracking submarines. There is currently no perfect middle ground, so the americans go their way and the rest go theirs. We have different missions and different focus, and our CCS/sonar systems reflect that. An ASUW mission has substantially different requirements than an ASW mission or an ISR.

[UglyMowgli]

Originally Posted by Doc Savage

I was wondering. There is so much literature available on the Net (and on this forum) about American and Russian sonar and their relative capabilities. But there doesn't seem to be much info about the French and British sonar systems. Even the Japanese, German, Chinese etc. stuff.
How do their sonar systems stack up as compared to the Russian and American stuff? Do any of them have high sensitivity sonars or is it pretty much No.1 USA, No. 2 Russia and everybody else far behind?

To return to the topic.

English have good sensors, french a just little beyond (just because french sub arev ery small compare to other), but the sonar are not all, if the submarine is noisy you can have the better sonar system, you are disavantged, the cew ability is also to account.

I will speak only for French nuclear attack submarine they are compact (better against active sonar) and a little bit noisy (all the machinery are not well isolated from the hull) but they can change speed in a very short time and have a very high turn rate. The sonar specialists are very well trained.

So a comparison between sonar is not very easy, you should consider the whole : the sonar, the sub, the crew, ... and the capitain.

[micky1up]

all im saying is that if your subs and crew are better why have i spent a good portion of 19 years training your officers surely it would be the other way round