French and British Sonar

[LoBlo]

I'ld say that all those navies mentioned are probably more or less capable of creating comparable sonar systems. Its probably safe to say that most of their systems are roughly on even par, with minor hedging and optimizations. The actual physics knowledge, mathematical algorithsm, and hardware needed to create those systems possessed by all.

If there are performance differences then they are most likely due to differences in program timelines and development budgets. Countries with smaller fleets have an advantage in that they can oftentimes implement new technology more quickly into their systems simply due to the fact that they have less of a fleet to upgrade. At the same time, altough a larger navy could update its tech, it may choose to hold off on upgrades because of the large number of platforms in service, and may even wait until a new more significant technology improvement has finished development until it fields the systems.

A good example of this is the evolution of Phased Array Radar Technology over the last thirty years: http://www.harpoonhq.com/waypoint/ar...rticle_044.pdf Many of the systems of the next generation european ships are as good or better than the original Aegis system, however, the US will hold off on upgrading its own systems until its ready to deploy its next generation of destroyers currently under development. Each side has temporary moments where its on top of the other.

*IF* a large budget power (i.e. the US) decides that it *MUST* have a superior system then it will bring its large $400+ billion dollar defense budget to bare, fielding the system when its ready. The obvious example of this is the VA and SW sub which has bested most (if not all) of the other subs in the world, but at double and triple the cost (3billion per sub).

All and all, like what has already been said, each side will claim a better system than the other.

[XabbaRus]

Kurushio it is the arrogance to believe point blank that no can be better than you is what leads to the downfall of nations, companies, sports teams etc.

Sure overall the US leads but there are many areas in defence where the US might not have the lead and maybe lagged behind.

During the 80's and early 90's the Soviet Union/Russia was ahead in A2A missile technology. They had an operation ASRAAM equivalent a decade before anyone else.

How about the IRST, have been deployed on Russian aircraft starting I think with the MiG-23. Their missile tech is still good and I'd wager that in terms of microcircuit tech and processors they are up there now since they can get more open access to high end COTs stuff, no need to produce their own.

Torpedoes, take a look at the Spearfish the RN uses, speaking to a couple of guys who know the weapon, they'd take it over an ADCAP.

Sun Tzu would have a few words for you. Never believe that no one can be better that you. It will come back and bite you in the backside. It's the main reason the UK has slipped in standing.

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

It's the main reason the UK has slipped in standing.

Hm...that's interesting. What do you mean? Yes I myself have noticed that it many regards British pride and arrogance is more pronounced and more deeply intrenched than even American arrogance a lot of the tme...:hmm: ... but I never considered it a source of UK "slipping"... unless of course you mean starting back from the American Revolutionary War...

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Figured out who can pee farther yet guys?

PD

Actually, as someone who had family in Poland and Romania before the Nazis and the Stalinists did their best to make sure this wasn't the case, I think Kurushio needs to get his facts straight before he starts insulting people who lived through this personally.

Cheers,
David

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Actually, as someone who had family in Poland and Romania before the Nazis and the Stalinists did their best to make sure this wasn't the case, I think Kurushio needs to get his facts straight before he starts insulting people who lived through this personally.

Cheers,
David

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...t=94484&page=3

2nd to last post...

[LuftWolf]

I read it after I posted this.

Understood.

Cheers,
David

[Orm]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Ok, but we are talking SONAR here. No...what I find annoying is that people from the ex-Soviet states, all they seem to do is try to put down the US military. They are so biased it makes it hard on the eyes...and frankly I'm bored with it. Not just here...but on literally every forum out there including a military forum where this bloke supposedly to do with Sptz would whine and cry about how Russians/Soviets were falsely portrayed as inferior blah blah blah...

...and I'm predictably seeing the same thing here. So a CVN can just about do 30 knots. US sonar is pretty much behind the rest of the world. Well you know what I say to these ex-stalinists who've come out from behind the Iron Curtain? I say: if the US defeated you with such crappy weapons/systems...what does that say about Soviet/Eastern Bloc equipment?

Now please...lets leave the chip off the shoulder.

You are still living in a myth. Wake up and look at the realities.

[Palindromeria]

thanks for reminding me why i havent read these forums lately !

Quite a myth cosidering the Soviets lost the war...

[Orm]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Quite a myth cosidering the Soviets lost the war...

Sorry, but what war? The cold war was mostly political. I doubt that you will ever know, except in you Clancy book, what would be a real confrontation between the Soviet army and the US/NATO. I can only believe that we would have seen more than one guy getting killed (like it is usually with this author). I think the Iraqi exemple is quite clear. At least, Clancy was correct on one thing, on how to destroy a federal building with an airplane.

oooh matron! Obviously someone doesn't like Clancy. May I remind you, Clancy has a Dangerous Waters campaign based on his (and Bond's) book?

Secondly...the Cold War was a war of military technology, also. You have to remember the Soviets were the aggressors, they even had doctrine on how to win a nuclear confrontation. So if NATO couldn't keep ahead of the Soviets technology wise, the Soviets would've expanded over to Western Europe etc.

About the Iraqi example. First off, do you have any military experience? I don;t think so. Iraq took 3 weeks to invade and conquer. The problem, as it always is, is keeping the peace. It is far more difficult to occupy a nation then to conquer it. This goes all the way back to the Roman times. But the US took 3 weeks to destroy the Iraqi military. I don't think that's too shaby, to be honest. Do you?

Fact remains though...the Soviets lost the Cold War. Cry about it as much as you want. Still doesn't change the fact.

[Henson]

Tom Clancy doesn't know jack **** about submarines.

Signed "a submariner"

[OKO]

Originally Posted by Linton

You might want to remember that sonar(originally asdic) and radar were both invented here in Britain

You should read about that, because you wrong.
Neither SONAR nor RADAR were invented by English, sorry ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SONAR

[Orm]

Ok, I thank you for this discussion, but I am out now.

Kurushio said:
About the Iraqi example. First off, do you have any military experience? I don;t think so. Iraq took 3 weeks to invade and conquer. The problem, as it always is, is keeping the peace. It is far more difficult to occupy a nation then to conquer it. This goes all the way back to the Roman times. But the US took 3 weeks to destroy the Iraqi military. I don't think that's too shaby, to be honest. Do you?


BTW, war never end in Iraq, and honestly, I am really surprise that someone think that this conflict is done. Pity for you, because you are going to hurt badly when you will wake up to the reality.

[FERdeBOER]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Obviously someone doesn't like Clancy. May I remind you, Clancy has a Dangerous Waters campaign based on his (and Bond's) book?

Me neither. I love Red Storm Rising and Hunt for Red October (curiously written with another guy... :hmm and I've read other books... Is incredible how a person can be so wrong about other countries.
On my part, Spain, he is wrong in almost all statements he say about us.
But I don't mind, is just books... histories to get a nice time reading.
On Clancy's score I have to say he is a good scenarios creator, despite the other limitations.

Originally Posted by Kurushio

You have to remember the Soviets were the aggressors, they even had doctrine on how to win a nuclear confrontation.

The United States also had doctrine on how to win a nuclear confrontation. And all that doctrines are based on a first strike; the one who can attack first... will die later

Originally Posted by Kurushio

So if NATO couldn't keep ahead of the Soviets technology wise, the Soviets would've expanded over to Western Europe etc.

United States also extended his hands over other countries... almost all South-American!

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Iraq took 3 weeks to invade and conquer.

Vini, vidi, vinci.

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Fact remains though...the Soviets lost the Cold War. Cry about it as much as you want. Still doesn't change the fact.

They lost a LOT more than a military race (not war)