LwAmi 2.02 Test 1 Baffles.

[Bellman]

I wont press further on the SA and Hull/Conf issues........at present......But could I raise the subject of TA baffles
for your future consideration. Amizaur showed some interest in this topic in early August ?

Bellman

I would have expected considerable degradation in the TA receptivity around the 180 deg arc

Amizaur

Is TA coverage mearly 360 deg (without ownship sector) like in SC/DW or is it best tp the sides,
mediocre on other angles and worse at 180 deg ?

Rip. Real experience (not sonarman)

There is a small null zone directly forward and aft of the
array, but it is very small.

Amizaur

How big would be this very samall null zone of TA, 5 deg. or something ?

RIP

My experience is 20 years old.......Assuming the array is straight and stabalised, 5 deg. sounds about right 10 at the most. Forwrd 20 deg. or so difficult to make contact in. As I recall the bearing error would be more apparent as you neared wash out speed .

So we have a TA null zone at the stern and 'possibly' a 20 deg (not 60 deg) prow null zone.

I think Fish also raised the point that TA droop could take ownship out of the picture. ( Depending on available depth, speed etc)
Ccould we consider any such TA reality adjustments as a trade-off against the increased rear Hull/Conf stern baffle proposed above ?

[Amizaur]

Personally I would like to add 5deg null zone at the rear of TA . 5 or 10, would have to witness how it looks on display.

[Deathblow]

Originally Posted by Amizaur

Sorry, it's changed indeed, I loaded wrong db into editor while checking

If we are talking about that, the low frequency array mounted around the shpere is SW version of hull array ? Maybe we should change SW hull sonar cone to look to the front too ?
Is this same way in 688I, the hull sonar is really inside the bow around sphere and can look to the front too ?

I've looked at that picture of the SW sonar a thousand times and I just noticed that as well....

.... perhaps the low frequency detection should in fact have a forward arc.... :hmm:

[Bellman]

Thiis is probably 'off the wall' but take a look at the TDC of the USS Nautilus SSN-571 (Timmyg00s photo - vacation trip)

Just a theory but consider that in the high stress pre-torp launch calculation phase the TDC operator must interreact with
sonar and 'steerage.' Grey areas of baffle coverage must be 'no no' so for operational speed and efficiency sonar
will probably be set to predetermined limits.

So could the diagonal markers shown on the main pointer in the photo have some greater
significance than emphasising direction ?

The indicated angles (and arcs) bear more than a passing relationship to sonar baffles.
egs. Prow baffle 30 deg. SA(?) 125 deg. Rear 60 deg.
Could this be more than coincidence and be of real significance ?

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=44465

Possibly just idle musing.............but ? :hmm:

[Bellman]

Direct link:-
http://www.pbase.com/timmyg_00/image/51004857

[Bellman]

Image Shack did'nt deliver :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

That gizzmo is largely beyond me, at least just looking a partial photo... :hmm:

I'd imagine, however, that it'd be hard to directly compare anything on the Nautilius to more modern submarines. For example, the BQQ-10 Integrated Fire Control Suite on the 688i directly integrates the sonar with the modern quivalent of the TDC, which is a WWII era piece of technology, originally used to calculate unguided torpedo intercept points... you probably know more than I do, but I am hesitant to try to glean any information on modern sonars from a TDC on the Nautilus.

[Bellman]

Yep - only looking at a ''passing relationship'' So thats - probably past and **no** relationship. :P
Now I'll concentrate on the ''baffles'' in my brain.

Anyways LW all the very best with the job app. - seeing the great job you do here we are all rooting for you.

[LuftWolf]

Hehe, thanks!