If only this were possible, or is it?

[suBB]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

there was the mention of how the sonar guys could hear the clanking of the chains.

sheeesh.. after reading that.. that sent shivers up my spine worse than raking fingernails across a chalk board.

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Now this would be an intermittent noise

Considering the chains as a transmission source, this reminds me of some stuff I worked on long ago along the lines of burst transmitter technology. I agree with the sound file, but I think it should be relative to seastate: higher seastate = more frequent transmissions, lower seastate – less frequent.

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

How would this look on the BB screen?

Good question. On NB I would say that one would experience intermittent contacts due to the transmission type, of course, but on western BB I would imagine it would display random amplitudes(clanking) then nothing or very faint. Eastern BB would be something to monitor for based on NB signature bearing.

On LWAMI 3.02 – A friend of mine on a team dive told me he heard my sub running aground and it showed up on BB then of course went away, so let's imagine what his bb waterfall looked like registering the intermittent noise? Because of that I think it could be tested how it would show up on BB, and if favorable, somehow implement the same mechanism for chains?

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Would it be doable?

on a custom map.. most definitely as the designer can make a group of clanking.wav with varying amplitudes(soft to very loud) tied to multiple doctrines and scripts to check conditions for range between chains and sub/surface:

Off the top of my head:hmm::

As a platform approaches chains:

IF range <= MAX, start clanking_LOW.wav

IF MED < range < MAX = stop clanking_LOW.wav and run clanking_MED.wav,

IF MIN < range < MED = stop clanking_MED.wav and then run clanking_HIGH.wav.. etc

Depth charges would be a nice addition…

The main question I have still is about the BB signature, other than that, this can be done, I’d say…

[Deadeye313]

There's no point in depth charges anymore. Torpedoes are smart enough and cheap enough (compared to any sub) that there's no point in trying to get directly over a sub and drop depth charges.

[XabbaRus]

But real life units do carry them so in respect to realism it would be good.

[Zerogreat]

Thats strange, i would bet that in some subsim, SC or maybe 688(i) H/K the whale sound on waterfall broadband was not consistent, it was there just for a while, appearing and then slowly fading, making a trace on the waterfall looking like... this

[LoBlo]

depth charges are in the game. Some of the Russian ASW aircraft use them. And I'm not sure how to model mine transients... but you could always give mines a faint passive sonar level if you really want to detect them. Perhaps givin the mine a surface positiion right above the maximum sub sonar depth will cause it to bob up and out of the water sometimes making it appear and dissapear in the sonar BB like a intermitant transient...:hmm:

[Nexus7]

I would use the HF sonar anyway to mark the mines, and not acoustic emission. About depth charges, the problem could be the use of them to blind everyones's sonar, like it happens now with explosions

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Zerogreat

Thats strange, i would bet that in some subsim, SC or maybe 688(i) H/K the whale sound on waterfall broadband was not consistent, it was there just for a while, appearing and then slowly fading, making a trace on the waterfall looking like... this

It still is, but when the whale stops howling the spike don't get away with the sound.

[The Bandit]

just an idea but maybe u could set a chain moored mine up like the pumpjet powered pleasure craft (The Yaught or the other one) that the BB line comes and goes intermittantly. just set it as a very weak BB line.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Fish

It still is, but when the whale stops howling the spike don't get away with the sound.

I have not heard the same whale songs or shrimp sounds as i heard in 688i. Where are they?

-S

[Fish]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I have not heard the same whale songs or shrimp sounds as i heard in 688i. Where are they?

-S

Mission Editor>Add>Environmental objects.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Deadeye313

There's no point in depth charges anymore. Torpedoes are smart enough and cheap enough (compared to any sub) that there's no point in trying to get directly over a sub and drop depth charges.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually several times during the Cold War an intruding recon sub had depth charges dropped on it to tell it that it had been caught-submarine "shot across the bow".

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually several times during the Cold War an intruding recon sub had depth charges dropped on it to tell it that it had been caught-submarine "shot across the bow".

________________________________________
Rear Admiral J R Hill,RN, author of "antisubmarine warfare" thinks that the depth charge may actually have been underestimated.

His argument is twofold:

1. torpedos have a notorious history of bugs, depth charges are simpler

2. depth charges can keep a submarine hiding. The nature of a submarine is offensive-if it never attacks it might as well be sunk. the nature of a convoy is defensive-if it is not attacked it has succeeded

Obviously it is no longer a primary weapon. But it can still bust light bulbs and spill the captains coffee on his lap. After awhile the enemy will run out of light bulbs and coffee and all his captains will have scalded knees and ruined trousers. More seriously it scrambles his sonar and the sonarmans ears which are perhaps more important and less easy to repair.
Whether Admiral Hill is right or not I don't know-it was speculation on his part in any case. It is not able that that is the opinion of at least one respected officer. However it may turn out that the demands of a long war are to much for the production of modern weapons and more primative methods will have to be used.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Rear Admiral J R Hill,RN, author of "antisubmarine warfare" thinks that the depth charge may actually have been underestimated.

His argument is twofold..

I'm not sure I buy his argument. Modern submarines are terribly hardened against underwater shocks in an effort to reduce their vulnerability to influence mines and nearby nuclear explosions. That has the side benefit to making depth charges less effective.

I think the real thing that killed the depth charge was the nuclear powered submarine. Hold down tactics like he described don't matter, and the sub's speed means that the AOU surrounding any datum that you're depth charging expands so quickly that your probability of kill falls off too quickly. Depth charging tactics depend on laying a 3D pattern of explosions in an expanding volume of water. If the volume of water expands too quickly, it becomes exceptionally unlikely that a depth charge would hurt anything.

[Linton]

The problem with a depth charge is that the thrower is close to it when it goes off-not very nice if you use a nuke one!i was recently reading a book about ww2 asw and it compared how much explosive was needed to sink/damage a submarine.Towards the end of the war the allies were using ahead throwing weapons rather than depth charges.I think the statistics showed it needed ten times less explosive to damage a submarine using this type of weapon.(I will dig the book out later and get you all the exact figures)

[jason taylor]

Another possibility is to use depth charges to clear mines-they can at least do that. There are a lot of them still around and if there is a war it would be a shame to let them go to waste.
Or they can be used as mines themselves just by giving them an anchoring device(free-floaters are considered dirty pool because they get into neutral traffic-though depth charges are made to sink anyway) and changing the fuse.