French and British Sonar

[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.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

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.

I can buy the general concept of someone's equipment being better than the US, but the idea that a small frigate sonar would be better than SURTASS is admittedly hard to chew down. It is hard to believe the frigate sonar would have the physical aperture and the like necessary to beat the TB-29, let alone the even longer and unwieldy SURTASS, even if we assume somewhat better signal processing.

I wont accept anyones sonar being better then the Americans. Because technology isn't acquired out of thin air. It takes experience and it's a process of learning...i.e the technology tree and how much capital you pump into R&D. Yes, China can make a jet fighter...and a good one...but one to match an F-22? The US has been playing with Sonar against the Soviets in real combat situations (i.e. not a lab or sim) for nigh on half a decade. Now, historically nuetral Sweden has better Sonar technology then the Americans? Maybe made by Ikea to boot.

[Amizaur]

Yes, China can make a jet fighter...and a good one...but one to match an F-22?

We don't talk here about China. Or even Russia. We are talking about european united consorties, something like Airbus vs Boeing.

The US has been playing with Sonar against the Soviets in real combat situations (i.e. not a lab or sim) for nigh on half a decade.

Again, we don't compare here to Russians. And don't talk about blue water, which is 95% of Us experience and cash invested.

Now, historically nuetral Sweden has better Sonar technology then the Americans? Maybe made by Ikea to boot.

We don't talk about Sweden sonars again but european. Sweden was given as example for radars. In fact I have no idea how good sweden sonars are, but I wouldn't expect them to be worse than let's say german. ESPECIALLY in Baltic - like, shallow water conditions. Here they are probably better. Whose was that sub US leased and tried to counter for a year in shallow, and opts for another year ? I have no doubt that the sub itself made dosens of simulated attack on searching ships itself. Historically common result in such excercises - blue navy vs small diesels in shallow waters that they know better.

And the last - if you had bet in let's say 70's or 80's that Sweden radars can't be as good as American ones... you could have nasty surprise maybe... For example radar and avionics of Saab J-37 Viggen fighter were said to be in many aspects (not sheer power maybe, just like Viggen was not top-end airframe) better than those on US F-15As and later F-15Cs... Just like Gripen radar, avionics and datalinks are better than all F-16C versions with exception of Block 60. Even Block 52+ with newest APG-68(V)7 or 9 are maybe equally (overall) good radars, but still worse avionics (especially situational awarnes - related and datalinks - both critical to A2A performance). Of course Gripen was and still is specialised A2A fighter with some attack capabilites integrated, so in A2G role is less modern and capable than late F-16s blocks...

Of course you can say, and you'd be right, that today US has AESA radars, JSFs and F-22s. You are right. Sweden dropped from technology race some time ago - for top-end systems at least. But in 70s and 80's there were no better US radars than APG-63... and FWIK Sweden radar was shorter ranged, but very comparable in counter-counter measures and capabilites, and the overal Vigggen avionics (not to mention datalinks!) were better on Viggen than on F-15s.
Best european for sure. Better than Tornado's F3 systems too, with exeption for radar range also.

[Doc Savage]

Thanks for the replies. I was hunting for info by googling around but they mostly lead to the usual suspects - Naval-tech.com, fas, Global security etc.
About the Americans, there's some pretty good stuff available on the direction they are going.
This site
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content.php?P=04REVIEW177
seems to suggest thst they're working on using Fiber Optic hydrophones in their next generation systems. That was already implemented on the WAA on the Virginia class subs and the newer TB-33 Towed array will use the same kind of hydrophones. (I believe the existing sonars around the world use PeizoElectric hydrophones. Just getting a basic grasp of what that meant-had to relearn some of my high school Physics)
Another good site - http://www.navlog.org/TB29.html talking about the TB-29A - basically a lower cost version of the TB-29 because it uses COTS technology. I keep hearing the term ARCI which I'm assuming has something to do with COTS.

I have a question about the Combat Control systems on submarines - BSY-1 and 2, SUBTICS, the new system on the Astutes... What exactly do they do? Are they just really advanced data processors for the sonars or do they do more (target localization/TMA and weapons guidance)?

Originally Posted by Amizaur

We don't talk here about China. Or even Russia. We are talking about european united consorties, something like Airbus vs Boeing.

Again, we don't compare here to Russians. And don't talk about blue water, which is 95% of Us experience and cash invested.

We don't talk about Sweden sonars again but european. Sweden was given as example for radars. In fact I have no idea how good sweden sonars are, but I wouldn't expect them to be worse than let's say german. ESPECIALLY in Baltic - like, shallow water conditions. Here they are probably better. Whose was that sub US leased and tried to counter for a year in shallow, and opts for another year ? I have no doubt that the sub itself made dosens of simulated attack on searching ships itself. Historically common result in such excercises - blue navy vs small diesels in shallow waters that they know better.

And the last - if you had bet in let's say 70's or 80's that Sweden radars can't be as good as American ones... you could have nasty surprise maybe... For example radar and avionics of Saab J-37 Viggen fighter were said to be in many aspects (not sheer power maybe, just like Viggen was not top-end airframe) better than those on US F-15As and later F-15Cs... Just like Gripen radar, avionics and datalinks are better than all F-16C versions with exception of Block 60. Even Block 52+ with newest APG-68(V)7 or 9 are maybe equally (overall) good radars, but still worse avionics (especially situational awarnes - related and datalinks - both critical to A2A performance). Of course Gripen was and still is specialised A2A fighter with some attack capabilites integrated, so in A2G role is less modern and capable than late F-16s blocks...

Of course you can say, and you'd be right, that today US has AESA radars, JSFs and F-22s. You are right. Sweden dropped from technology race some time ago - for top-end systems at least. But in 70s and 80's there were no better US radars than APG-63... and FWIK Sweden radar was shorter ranged, but very comparable in counter-counter measures and capabilites, and the overal Vigggen avionics (not to mention datalinks!) were better on Viggen than on F-15s.
Best european for sure. Better than Tornado's F3 systems too, with exeption for radar range also.

Please tell me your whole post is a joke? You say "we don't take about Russia here...we don't talk about Sweden here..." and then you go on about RADAR when the whole bloody discussion is about SONAR!!!

...and then...you mention Sweden and Russia in your post before mine and you harp on about a Swedish plane in the rest of your post...oh but "we don't talk about Sweden"!!!!


...by the way Amizaur, weren't you the one who said a US Carrier could only do 30 knots?

[Amizaur]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

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.

Yeah, think so still... if it's so good, then no need to design better systems... ;-))) waste of money... ;-)))

"I can't accept" - it sometimes becomes a bad habit of declining reality... ;-) Some thing ARE better in friends of even enemy. It's better to recognise that, accept and work to get ahead, than decline...

Maybe I don't remembed the details, as I mentioned, it's not as good as SURTASS or maybe even TB-29 in deep water, but was demostrated to detect and track quiet (not quietest, but quiet enaugh to give US hard time in excersices) conventional subs from - IIRC - few dosens of kilometers in not so deep water. Something around ten times better than previous generation of such systems. It's not aimed at deep water performance, although should work well, but I suppose it to be better in shallow water scenarios, which are conditions at which european sonars always had to work, and have much more experience in that matter. US admits clearly to be still only learning how to use it's blue water systems in shallow waters. And try to develop new, shallow water systems, often - I have to admit - looking perspectively and relaxing further developing of more advanced passive systems, to go for something like low probability of detection variable depth towed low frecuency active sonar designed to work in shallow waters - completly new class of sonar system. But years and years can pass become it becomes operational, and currently all sub commanders can do is using creative tactics and upgrading theirs software...
Second example - previous generation of european (non-british) active torpedo seekers had acquire range of about 2000m. The best US system, on board of ADCAP, is reporded to have around 5000m max range, maybe bit longer in ideal conditions and large (Typhhon) targets. The new Black Shark european torpedo has a seeker with TYPICAL range in good conditions around 7000m. And they don't target Typhoons... smaller things.
So it is better in range and I can bet better in other areas (signal processing, counter-countermeasures). Because it's newer, and today's evolution of computer power and signal processing is very fast, and because the ADCAP has known (details classifield) problems with detection small targets in shallow water "in some types of scenarios" and it's still not fixed today AFAIK. New BlackShark seeker was developed with just that conditions in mond - shallow waters, small targets - because those are european conditions and most wanted export capabilities. Yes, if ADCAP seeker was projected not years ago, but in same time as Black Shark seeker, it would be most probably as good if not better. But it was not, it's older tech, and currently, I believe, in fact worse. In most if not all areas. Just as APG-63V1, even though great radar, is not as good as EF Typhoons Captor. Of course in radars situation is different - there ARE more modern Us radars, APG-77/79/80 familiy. But there are not more modern torpedo seekers or certain types of sonars. Torps and subs have to use older ones. Name it out of phase generation change if you like...

[XabbaRus]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

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.

I think that sums it up. Doesn't matter if you were talking about sonar or not. Systems implies a wide range of systems.

Oh BTW people don't hate Tom Clancy, just tire of his narrow view of things.

Have you ever read Tom Clancy's SSN? What a pile of tripe. The infallible USS Cheyenne, I fell asleep after chapter 2.

And this sums up you dont understand posts written in English. Systems, as in "sonar systems". Apparent by my other posts which told people not to go off topic because this thread is about SONAR.

Narrow view? And what makes you so much of an expert? I suppose you also spent a week with Force Recon, spent some time on a nuclear aircraft carrier etc etc. You also rub shoulders with members of the CIA? Ex-presidents? You spend time in the Pentagon, do you? Advise in National Security matters? Appear in countless documentaries?

Yeah right....get over yourself.

[Orm]

[quote=XabbaRus
Have you ever read Tom Clancy's SSN? What a pile of tripe. The infallible USS Cheyenne, I fell asleep after chapter 2.[/quote]

Sorry, I had to come back to this discussion, it is so funny now.

Yes, about this book, I thought I beginning to be crazy. It was unbelievable how infallible this sub was. Honestly, I cannot understand that Clancy did not see by himself when writing the novel that a book lacking total suspense cannot be read till the end. I was myself falling asleep.

About the other books, I think Clancy was quite good at the beginning, but after “The sum of all the fears”, the quality went downward. Take the “Bear and the Dragon”, I counted that while the Russians and the Chinese were losing thousands of men on the battlefield during combats in Siberia, the American, which I recall, had quite a lot of troops on the same ground and were also engaged in combats, lost a jeep with two or three men for all the action. That’s Clancy logic. :rotfl:

FerdeBoer: The Op-Centre books were not written by Clancy.

Orm: SSN was a book written as a game tie-in. Was supposed to tie in with the game, you know? Games are different from real life?

...and as for laughing at all the Chinese and Russians dying in Siberia in the book The Bear and the Dragon...didn't Finland kill an enourmous amount of Russians even though they were out numbered? You should know...shame on you.

What about the Spartans...? 200 killed something like 30,000...

[Orm]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

FerdeBoer: The Op-Centre books were not written by Clancy.

Orm: SSN was a book written as a game tie-in. Was supposed to tie in with the game, you know? Games are different from real life?

...and as for laughing at all the Chinese and Russians dying in Siberia in the book The Bear and the Dragon...didn't Finland kill an enourmous amount of Russians even though they were out numbered? You should know...shame on you.

What about the Spartans...? 200 killed something like 30,000...

Sorry, but if my location is Finland, usually, my location is sometimes Paris, France. So, I am not Finnish but a good old French or froggy, proud to be one. :p I thought that you would have guess it with my mails.
At least, I must admit that I admire you toughness in you ideas.

[FERdeBOER]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

FerdeBoer: The Op-Centre books were not written by Clancy.

My book says clearly with capital letters: TOM CLANCY.
And then in small letters: with the colaboration of Steve Piezczenik.
In the "note for the Spanish edition" allways mention Clancy as the author of the book and doesn't says anything against.

If you don't want to count that book is no problem, Rainbow Six (named Operation Rainbow in Spain), also is wrong in many of the satements about Spain. No bad things, but wrong.