French and British Sonar

[UglyMowgli]

It s definitevely a TROLL, why waste your time with this guy.
I just send a PM to Neal to close this topic or delete all off topic post.

[micky1up]

Originally Posted by Wim Libaers

I guess very few submarine sonar systems were ever combat tested, unless there were some major sea battles in the last decades that I don't know about. The testing they get is tracking and following other sound sources during their patrols, which should be good enough for most purposes as the sonar is a sensor, not a weapon.

what the hell are you on about the sonars are run continuosly at sea whilst submerged and we track and classify everything as if under war condition
you clearly dont know even the basic about submarines and the practices they use whilst at sea WE RUN AS IF WE ARE AT WAR 100% OF THE TIME

[Wim Libaers]

Originally Posted by micky1up

what the hell are you on about the sonars are run continuosly at sea whilst submerged and we track and classify everything as if under war condition
you clearly dont know even the basic about submarines and the practices they use whilst at sea WE RUN AS IF WE ARE AT WAR 100% OF THE TIME

Yes, that was what I meant: you do not need to be in combat if you want to test something like a sonar that doesn't require you to shoot anything. It was Kurushio who implied that sonars had to be tested in combat to be good.

[Veta]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Right...I'm not the one making stupid statements saying an Israeli mirage shot down more planes then all the American planes in all the wars. World War 2...you know...when France had to be bailed out? Where were the French planes then?

I apologise for chipping in here but Kurushio strikes me as being a complete and utter moron. The Israeli aircraft point was based on a victories:losses ratio, NOT total victories. As for demanding people prove that "French systems are better than British systems", we will never be able to convincingly prove this either way because of the sensitive nature of this subject area.

I'm a lurker who visits this board fairly regularly. Over the last month or so it seems to have been brought down in standard by the shabby postings of Kurushio. I'm sure you're an adult, but you have the maturity of a child. I wish Britain could disown you.

[OKO]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

I have to disagree OKO about the Eurofighter vs the Rafale. The Rafale in current spec isn't full multi-role and the Eurofighter Tranceh 3 will be full swing role and superior to Rafale. How come Rafale has no export orders?

Xab, how come the eurofighter will not reach the initial production of the initial contract ?
It's the same thing, actually, it's worst for eurofighter, as near each year, the initial number of plane planed is lowered by contractors, when rafale number is fixed for years.
The rafale is still not fully deployed, especially the land version (and even the naval one on the CDG)
But if you compare the ground attack capabilities of the 2 planes, well, there is no match about it ... in term of loadout point, avionics and on the variety of their loadout.

But neither rafale nor eurofighter are sold out of their original contracts.
No exportations for them.

Xab, I didn't said eurofighter is a bad plane, I said he was created as interceptor, and slided to multirole during development, while rafale was created from start as multirole.
And because of that, eurofighter is an excellent interceptor
Ok ... you can say a bit behind the rafale as interceptor ABOUT DYNAMIC PERFORMANCES, but so few ... : they should load same missiles, a little bit best dynamic performance for eurofighter (I could saw them both many times at Le Bourget, but you couldn't see that with your eyes of course because they have very close specifications) but best contermeasure suit for rafale (spectra system, with active jammer, missile ignition detector and localiser), best mutirole radar (eurofighter radar is mainly A/A oriented) and best integrated avionics.

I could say, Eurofighter would be a great plane to secure the air corridor for a strike with Rafale.
Together, they should be quite close to what F22 / FA18E/F could do.

But you need to have an airport near the conflict area, of course, as neither F22 nor Eurofighter are navalised .
One of the best advantage of the rafale against the Eurofighter is, of course, the projection capability, aboard the CDG.

You've actually confused what happens here with Single Target Track, something which should not have happened had you actually toyed with Falcon 4.0. RWS transitions to STT.

I didn't confused, I mentionned it =>

but if you lock one contact, all the radar beam will be concentrate on the contact, either to avoid to lost him and to guide missiles accuratly.

I just didn't mentionned the fact to lock a target will switch RWS mode to an under mode named STT.

But I don't agree with you at 100% when you say it's a transition
Because the main mode is STILL RWS
STT is an "under mode" of RWS, not another mode.
TWS also have multi mode, I cant' remember which ones, I didn't flew on F4 for near 4 years now, and everything come from memory.
On the FA18, for example, a mode allow you to fire 1 missile at each target when you locked 2 in TWS, just locking the 2 contacts, and pressing twice the fire button.
Other mode let you choose which one you want to engage, with one or more missiles, etc ...
But this is also "under" mode, and not radar main mode.

Not only do you not get an ID, you also don't get a range

Yes, you only have a closing speed and a bearing.
The higher this speed, the longer is your detection capabilities (signal strength)
This is the best mode when searching at ennemy interceptors.
This way you could see them at ~1.5 to 1.3 times the range you will find them with RWS (which have ~20% best range than TWS in F4)
This VS mode is best used when ATC give you an interception course.
Using it without any informations is quite dangerous.
Even if it's give you the longer detection range you can achieve with your radar, you don't know anything about the range of the threat.
One of the best F16 US instructor of all time said something like that about it :
"I don't know what this mode is really made for, except to give some fun to some engineer." :rotfl:


Let's not forget to mention : you still keep a clear radar picture of the theatre when you lock a target in TWS, on the opposite of the RWS.
Because in RWS STT all the beam is concentrated on the lock, when in TWS the radar continue to scan when you have locked a contact (but only a small array to refresh the locked contact with short period)

Finally, TWS is very common and hardly new, so let's not write anything that implies French superiority just for having it. It is arguably the inattention of the American pilots that got them rather than the merits of the aircraft. Presumably, they were trained mostly against "primitive Soviet" opponents armed with SARH R-27 and R-24s, so they plan to hear beeps before anything happens forgetting even the Russians are going the ARH route and had IR-homing BVR weapons before that...

That was the reason I heard about this red flag.
I didn't said french have TWS and not US, I just said US RWR were not waked up when they were locked by M2000 radar in TWS.
I learned what TWS is on a US plane
And I wasn't there ... I heard that ...
The fact is : F16 were shooted down without any warning, and that's why they had so many casualties compared to M2000.
About the inattention of pilots, I don't believe this could explain how 10 american pilots were shooted down for 1 french.
I know, sometimes later, the score for US vs Israelian was .... 22 to +200 !!!
So I find believable that the RWR system of the US F16 at these red flags were not really updated with appropriate radar band database.

The fact is, when I hear M2000 is a poor plane, that makes me smile.
Because we all know F16 is (now was ... he's old) a fantastic plane, and if this excellent air fighter could be dominate like this by M2000s, even for technical reasons, this prove the 'old' M2000 capabilities.
Even a troll could understand that


thanks for your excellent comments, Kazuaki.
I tried to be easily understandable for karushio, who is far from your knowledge.
Really appreciated, you looks like a real fan of military aerial matter.
... As I was some years ago ... I must admit, I didn't read much about it from this time ...
But I have some some recall about it.
And it's nice to have discussion about interesting things, instead of retarded troll talks from a young boy, that learn history with comic books.

[Linton]

Can we delete the word sonar from this topic title as it is now so far off topic?

[Onkel Neal]

And so, tune in next thread, for the conclusion of "My Sonar is Better Than Yours and I Have the Pings to Prove it".