French and British Sonar

[XabbaRus]

Hmmm funny how Red Storm Rising I think was more Larry Bond than Tom Clancy. Compare how Red Storm Rising reads with his other works and then read Larry Bonds Vortex, you'll see how much of RSR is Clancy's

But guys lets not feed the troll eh...

I hope you're not referring to me as a troll?

No...Red Storm Rising is TOM CLANCY's book. If it was Larry Bond's, his name would be on the front, and not Tom's. Futhermore, the only time Larry Bond is mentioned, is in the introduction by Tom himself. Otherwise you wouldn't even know he was involved with the book. Futhermore, it says clearly that Tom had a falling out with Larry about writing the book, probably because Tom wanted to become a writer at the time, and Larry was fiddling with other things. So Tom wanted output, Larry wanted to play board games. Tom did the book, Larry was playing with plastic ships.

In other words...IT'S CLANCY'S BOOK. Legally and officially.

So get it out of your system...!!

Answering Henson:

Tom doesn't specialise in subs. He handles every aspect of the military, including ground-pounders. So as the saying goes: Jack of all trade, master of none. Saying that, he did write a book about when he was invited to spend a week on a nuclear sub. He is also friends with admirals, captains etc. So I think your statement is just utter tripe. He doesn't know "jack **** about subs..." based on what? Swearing and uninformed opinions. The traits of a naughty child.

Answering FerdeBoer:

As I said before, Red Storm Rising wasn't WRITTEN with another guy. Tom wanted to write a "what if" book since coming out of college with a Masters in Literature (another common myth: Tom was just an Insurance Salesman) ...a "what if" we had a non-nuclear 3rd world war. He met Larry and they bounced ideas off each other. Then Tom, looking to sell his insurance business and become a writer (his lifetime ambition) asked Larry if he would help him with the novel. It seems Larry was not productive enough for Tom, so they had a falling out and Larry lumped Tom with the actual WRITING of the novel. Though the fact that Red Storm Rising came out AFTER Hunt For Red October, even though it was started BEFORE (RSR is actually Tom's first novel) suggests how frustrated Tom was with Larry in stalling this flipping novel.

No, the United States never had doctrine to win a first-strike non-conventional (or nuclear) war. You are just making this up and are far off the mark. Apart from the political aspect, which would go against the constitution etc, the Americans called it MAD (Mutual Assured Destrustion) and always aimed for detent...NEVER an advantage over the Soviets and thus NEVER a scenario for a first strike. Hence why the US put nukes on subs.

The Soviets on the other hand did have scenarios for winning a nuclear war...hence the Cuban Missile Crisis etc..

I can't honestly say I ever read much about Spain in any of Tom's books? When was Spain mentioned and why does he treat your people/nation unfairly? The only one I can think of is in Rainbow 6 (the book) when the terrorists take those people hostage in the amusement park? Can't remember saying anything bad about Spain though.

Vini, Vidi, Vici means we came, we saw, we conquered. That has little to do with Iraq to be honest where it was more like we came, we conquered and then all hell broke loose.

The Cold War was a war...any way you put it. There were wars by proxy...Korea (Russian planes v US planes), Vietnam (Russian and Chinese supplied SAMs taking down US planes), Aghanistan (wasn't it US supplied Stingers taking down Soviet choppers?) etc. etc.
Just like any other war hundreds of thousands died...the Soviets lost. Amen.

In answer to Orm:

Do you know the difference between WAR and INSURGENCY? The Iraqi WAR lasted 3 weeks where the US forces obliterated Iraqi forces and occupied Iraq. The INSURGENCY is still ongoing.

And to all the rest:

As soon as I mentioned I'm a Clancy fan, I see all the negative posts cropped up. Knew this would happen...some people just like to argue.

p.s. Tom may not know Jack about this and that (or so you claim), but he's the one with friends in the Pentagon, sells millions of books and has a yacht moored in Costa Blanca.

[XabbaRus]

Time to feed I think,

Well Tom might have done the writing, but the whole style and layout bares a lot more resemblance to a Larry Bond novel then any other Clancy novels.

Hmmm, lets see, a fair few current and past submariners who frequent or used to frequent this board have commented at varying length on the inaccuracies that Clancy has in his book. Henson I think is one submariner.

As for the US not having a doctrine to win and survive a first strike nuclear war could you provide your sources?

However I am beginning to think you are Tom Clancy himself maybe with the absolute belief in the total never ending superiority of US equipment over anyone else. You should go to Strategypage.com It is the perfect place for you.

As far as I know you could be making everything up.

The only troll is you Xabbabut....we are having a normal discussion and you have to get personal. That, to me is a troll. So please do us all a favour and either get with the program and join in the discussion without getting personal...or shut the *$@! up.

No, I am a big Clancy fan...I wish I was him though. But I'm not. The simple fact remains, if it was Bond's novel, HIS NAME would be on the front.

Now, I'm going to show you why your statement is so stupid, to say the least. Red Storm Rising was written prior to 1984 (because that's when HforRO came out and we know Tom started writing RsR before that, even though it was published after.) Bond's first novel was published in 1990, nearly a full decade later. Tom has a Masters in Literature. Larry doesn't. Though just the timescale is absurd. Write a book today, then a next one ten years down the line.

And not only that...you're saying it must be Larry's book because it's in a similar style to the one he wrote about ten years later? Don't you think maybe he was influenced by Tom's writing style? Remember that Tom has given Larry a push in the literary world by giving him some great reviews and comments...because Tom is a nice guy. Though what you say is absurd....Tom is a writer, Larry isn't. End of.

And no...the US would never have doctrine for a first strike, ecexpt for a pre-emptive (which is launching just before an IMMINENT Soviet strike) aimed at Soviet silos and laucnhers. This is common knowledge. You must remember that the US was and still is a democracy. There is no place in a democracy for the anihilation of your enemies. Unlike Soviet-Stalinist Russia which was more akin to a despotic, dictatorial regime inspired by a mass-murderer in the Hitler mould (Stalin).

[aaken]

Coming back to european sensors, I know of several istances of american nukes being detected by IPD70 passive sonar (italian Sauro class SSK) or the Thomson TA without counterdetection. Even the obsolete IPD64 (italian Toti class SSK) has scored a few detections (that I know of) of american SSN's, always without counterdetection (given the not good performances of the latter hydrophone, the detections were mostly at not-so-far range). I don't know about the new Atlas sensors but they are supposed to be much better than the IPD family.

[XabbaRus]

So I am the troll...Hm I'm not the one calling names though.

No what I have issue with is your complete refusal to even acknowledge that there are areas where the US can be or has been bettered and that it is possible.

As pointed out you live in the Tom Clancy fantasy world that the US reigns supreme over everyone in respect to military technology.

Having seen some of your replies to other people in other threads who have issue with your comments I am not surprised by you.

You seem very similar to a strategypage.com forum poster in style and attitude.

And no...the US would never have doctrine for a first strike, ecexpt for a pre-emptive (which is launching just before an IMMINENT Soviet strike) aimed at Soviet silos and laucnhers. This is common knowledge.

This is in opposition to your previous statement that the US had no "first strike" doctrine. And before you post that you wrote they had no doctrine to win a first strike, you qualified it further down that MAD wasn't a scenario for a first strike.

As everyone knows the US had a first strike doctrine...

[Henson]

My posts here are based on my own personal knowlege of real-world submarine capabilities, tactics, and employment. Since I have read a few NWP's that I am absolutely certain Mr. Clancy has not, I will defer to my own expertise over a fictional novel. Since I have deployed on an SSN and actually performed the mission the people on this forum pretend to, I will defer to my own experience over the experiences of a middle-aged author without dolphins.

I will also refrain from calling you any names. I suggest you do the same.

Signed: "A highly informed active duty US Submariner."

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

So I am the troll...Hm I'm not the one calling names though.

No what I have issue with is your complete refusal to even acknowledge that there are areas where the US can be or has been bettered and that it is possible.

As pointed out you live in the Tom Clancy fantasy world that the US reigns supreme over everyone in respect to military technology.

Having seen some of your replies to other people in other threads who have issue with your comments I am not surprised by you.

You seem very similar to a strategypage.com forum poster in style and attitude.

This is in opposition to your previous statement that the US had no "first strike" doctrine. And before you post that you wrote they had no doctrine to win a first strike, you qualified it further down that MAD wasn't a scenario for a first strike.

As everyone knows the US had a first strike doctrine...

You were the only one calling names (called me a troll) and getting personal. But you know what your problem is? Your poor grasp of the English language. So before you jump to your wrong conclusions, I would recommend you ask someone to translate the post to you. Because it is plainly obvious you don't understand them.

For example, you say I stated that the US is in front of everyone in every field of technology, or words to that effect (in your broken English). Show me the post where I supoosedly stated the US in front of everyone. Please do. Because I was referring to sonar, seeing this thread is ABOUT sonar.

Secondly, you don't seem to know the difference between a first-strike and a pre-emptive strike. That's one for your dictionary. They are two completely different things. And everyone and his dog know the US nuclear arms policy during the cold war was purely defensive, with a view at DETENTE (another one for your dictionary) by MAD (mutually assured destruction). The only time the US would ever launch a nuclear attack would be as a PRE-EMPTIVE (your dictionary again) strike, with an aim at taking out Soviet silos and mobile launchers so the Soviets could not launch an effective nuclear strike. Ever heard of the Minutemen ICBMs? What do you think the "minute" in Minuteman comes from?
This is VERY different from FIRST-STRIKE scenarios the Russians had, which aimed at winning a nuclear war against the US. Why do you think they wanted to put missiles on Cuba? As a threat? You can't threaten a nation, if the nation doesn't know what you are doing. It was only picked up by US spy sattelites. That's why the US knew....

So say what you want, you are offensive and should work on your manners and English.

Over and out.

p.s. The Soviets lost.

Originally Posted by Henson

My posts here are based on my own personal knowlege of real-world submarine capabilities, tactics, and employment. Since I have read a few NWP's that I am absolutely certain Mr. Clancy has not, I will defer to my own expertise over a fictional novel. Since I have deployed on an SSN and actually performed the mission the people on this forum pretend to, I will defer to my own experience over the experiences of a middle-aged author without dolphins.

I will also refrain from calling you any names. I suggest you do the same.

Signed: "A highly informed active duty US Submariner."

Ok, first off, show me where I called you names? Secondly, don't bait me about saying my favourite author and a man I hold great esteem towards knows "...jack **** about sub". You know, you can word it a bit better? If you don't and persist in being so provocative, don't cry about the less then polite answer. Ok? We are all men here (most of us), let's act like one!

Secondly, I'm not doubting you for one minute or your stated expertise. But I would appreciate if you could specify the mistakes Clancy makes. Because if you're referring to the factual book he wrote on a nuclear sub when he was invited to spend a few days at sea, he was limited to writing what he had access to and also limited to not giving away any classified information.
Would you really like to see highly classified info in Clancy's books or novels. What is wrong with you people? So if he writes about classified stuff he goes to prison, if he makes up stuff in order not to write classified stuff, he knows jack ****. Wow, he can't win.

And to sum it all up...I have no idea why people don't like Tom. He's a military enthusiast and is pro-military. He's loved by many who wear dolphins, wings upturned or not etc and his novel HforRO still remains the only non-fiction book ever published by the Naval Institution Press. I believe it's also available in all naval librarys also...

But yes....continue hating him for no reason.

[Henson]

I like Tom Clancy too. I have read all of his books and believe him to be an outstanding storyteller.

I also realize that his books are fiction, and that he is a writer of fiction. His job is not to KNOW things, it is to make them up. All of the 'information' in his books is just that: made up.

I stand by my original statement. That is no smear on Mr Clancy or his books (which are outstanding); it is simply the truth. The man knows less about submarines than my father (who spent 24 years in naval aviation). A week on board a VIP tour does not a submariner make, or every member of congress and the mayor of Jefferson City all know just as much about submarines as Captain Zumbar, my current CO. The claim that Mr Clancy is an expert at anything aside from storytelling (a claim that he himself has never made btw) is preposterous.

My intention here is not to create a pissing contest. I only intend to bring the discussion (which I thought was about the realtive differences in modern CCS/Sonar suites...my bad) away from fantasy and into reality.

I have learned through other military forums that there is a certain type of military enthusiast who will always refuse to listen to the voice of actual experience no matter what the topic. Those people are best dealt with as bluntly as possible, because only extremely blunt dialogue has a hope of jarring them from their fantasy world where everything they say is true. After all, why would a rational person of knowledge waste words on an ignorant self-appointed expert when there is finite time in the day?

It is for the above reason that I post bluntly. Blame the colorful language and the artful throw of the referee's yellow 'bull****" flag on my years of service in the Navy.

[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.

Originally Posted by Henson

I like Tom Clancy too. I have read all of his books and believe him to be an outstanding storyteller.

I also realize that his books are fiction, and that he is a writer of fiction. His job is not to KNOW things, it is to make them up. All of the 'information' in his books is just that: made up.

I stand by my original statement. That is no smear on Mr Clancy or his books (which are outstanding); it is simply the truth. The man knows less about submarines than my father (who spent 24 years in naval aviation). A week on board a VIP tour does not a submariner make, or every member of congress and the mayor of Jefferson City all know just as much about submarines as Captain Zumbar, my current CO. The claim that Mr Clancy is an expert at anything aside from storytelling (a claim that he himself has never made btw) is preposterous.

My intention here is not to create a pissing contest. I only intend to bring the discussion (which I thought was about the realtive differences in modern CCS/Sonar suites...my bad) away from fantasy and into reality.

I have learned through other military forums that there is a certain type of military enthusiast who will always refuse to listen to the voice of actual experience no matter what the topic. Those people are best dealt with as bluntly as possible, because only extremely blunt dialogue has a hope of jarring them from their fantasy world where everything they say is true. After all, why would a rational person of knowledge waste words on an ignorant self-appointed expert when there is finite time in the day?

It is for the above reason that I post bluntly. Blame the colorful language and the artful throw of the referee's yellow 'bull****" flag on my years of service in the Navy.

Well, first off you are wrong. Clancy also writes factual, non-fiction books. So no...he isn't only a "..writer of fiction".

Secondly, and this is one thing which passed way over your and a lot of people's heads. Clancy's books. Jack Ryan...yes? Clancy, like numerous authors (he is a student of literature, remember?), has made his main character auto-biographical.

Jack Ryan was a businessman with a passion for teaching history and a Masters in History.
Tom Clancy was an insurance salesman (with his own business) with a passion for writing books and a Masters in Literature.

Ryan started off dealing in the stock exchange when he left college.
Clancy started in insurance.

Ryan later became a professor of history.
Clancy became a writer.

Ryan begins advising the government/sercret service as an analyst.
Clancy advises the US Government on national security issues in the form of an analyst/expert.

I thought this was all blatantly obvious.



p.s. I am ex-military.

edit: I just remembered Ryan had a doctorate in history (Dr. Ryan)...though doesn't change much...just for clarity I thought I'd add it.

[Henson]

Clancy's non-fiction titles are, for all useful purposes, fiction. I have lived on board submarines. I have read his books (SSN, Submarine, whatever the title is this week). Reality is that his books are nothing more than a regurgitation from a nice tour that we give the Navy League and the Cub Scouts. They are as true as a magazine article about submarining. Just as I do not claim to understand my brother's life (he is a Soldier) or my mother's life (she was a Marine), Mr. Clancy cannot, should not, and does not claim to truly understand undersea warfare.

This argument has lost the original point however. I refer you to my original post on the subject, on page one posted on 22 June. American sonar processing and CCS are superior when it comes to tracking submarines, but are probably quite a bit behind when it comes to the littorals, where modern naval warfare is waged. It would not surprise me at all if other nations have a far better grasp of the environment than the current crop of midlevel US submarine officers. It is also obvious to me, having some background in the subject of combat control systems, that the US has been struggling with high contact density environments for a long time, and are considerably behind some allies in that regard (The german CCS is really excellent in those situations). That is why when you read in the newspapers that a submarine has collided with another vessel it is nearly always a US submarine, and not a danish, french, german or indian submarine.

We are improving...but make no mistake: while our expertise at tracking other submarines is unsurpassed, in other aspects of USW we are playing catch-up. Nowhere is that more evident than it is at the training command where I work. I see crap here in my trainers that would curl your toes.

[northfromhere]

I doubt that the US is lagging behind in littoral waters physics. The US navy Hydrographic institude spends alot of its time and money on foreign partners, underwater mapping, lease of technology and conducting its own reasearch in foreign-allied waters in close cooperation with its friends.

In my wiew the sole difference is in the nature of what the US navy was designed to fight, more specificly its submarine force. It is certainly not the plan to put nuclear powered subs in shallow waters against small electric subs.

Those who have been on nuclear attack subs know why that is not a good tactic.