French and British Sonar

[OKO]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

So genius, either translate or shutup.

There is no need of translation at all, there is a need to improve your military knowledge.
I will help you, because you are asking, and asking and reading is a the best way to get out of myths =>

RWR => radar warning receiver
hardware used to detect ennemy radars when your plane receive their beams
There is different levels :
- receiving a beam (the pilot hear a slow sound and see a small light on the RWR with the type of ennemy radar, so the type of ennemy plane)
- beeing locked by an ennemy radar (sound and light accelerating on RWR)
- and beeing fired at (stressful alarm and flashing light)

With this hardware, a pilot know when he detect a radar around, what kind of radar it is, and what the radar is doing to him (just searching, locking or even firing at him) because according to the action of the radar, the beam change in time frequency (of reception by RWR) and intensity (beam strenght).
But, OF COURSE, to identify a plane with his radar, your RWR need to be programmed to recognize the specific band and identify it for the pilot.
If you want to have some quite nice modelisation of a RWR, try Falcon4 or FA18/E of Jane's.

So, to "translate" the sentence above =>

During an exercice named red flag, where USA invited french, Mirages 2000 (M2000) could lock and fire at F16 without waking up their RWR.
This mean F16 were shooted down without any warning.
During a real fight, this just mean : suddenly your plane expode in the air, and you don't know why.

Why ? just because M2000 were using a radar mode indetectable to F16 RWR.
The Track While Search mode is a specific radar mode.
There is some different radar modes =>

- VS : velocity search, used to see if there is something moving fast at very long distance (the best detecting range of aerial embarqued radars, but no identification with that, just contact speed revelant)

- RWS : range while scan => the typical combat mode : the radar reduce the scan area, so, scan the same place more often (talking about mechanical radar antenna, for older plane like M2000 but not for Rafale with electronic antenna).
This mode show you all contact in the scanned area, 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.
2 main shortcomings :
1) this is the mode that makes the emitter the more detectable
2) once radar is locked on a contact, you don't see anything else on your radar than the locked contact.

- TWS : track while search
A more discreet radar mode.
In TWS, not only your radar could be more stealth, but you could track different targets at the same time, and still see all contacts in your radar screen.

When you read that you will ask why using RWS when TWS is better for everything ?
This is exactly what is going to happen in future.
As long as fighters carried semi active missiles, they were needed to lock the bandit until impact of the missile.
That's why RWS was made for => he lock the target in a stronger way than with TWS (it's more difficult to break a RWS lock than a TWS lock) and concentrate all the radar beam on this target.
This way, the semi active missile, receiving the beam return from the contact, had a very strong return and could easily reach the target.

But with the apparition of new active missiles (with their own emitters), TWS became a much more interesting radar mode :
Instead to receive information about the target ... from the target, the missile receive it from the firing plane => the pilot that fired the missile send information from HIS plane to the missile until this missile become autonomous, and use his own little radar to finish the job (at 3 to 4 miles from the target).

And the other great change is the possibility, with TWS, to engage simultaneously 2 or more aerial targets (2 for FA18/E, 6 for the rafale), and to STILL have a global radar picture (the beam is not concentrate only on one plane).

So, I hope this explanation (and not translation ..that was all in english ...yes my english ... ) is more clear now.

[OKO]

Originally Posted by Phullbrick

so true !

so stay away from forums and ride your ship, it s a far better way to spend time imo

So, excuse us to talk on a forum ... next time we will only listen carefully to her majesty ... if she have something interesting to say of course ...
This mean ... not really like this post.

[OKO]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Right...he opens with the line:

...and I'm supposed to be all civilised. Give me a break...if you can't take it...don;t dish it out...simple.

For your information, this is what a great grec poet wrote after the battle of Thermopylae, where 200 spartans were killed after holding the pass near 2 days.
THIS IS about the spartan sacrifice you were talking about, trying to tell me I didn't knew anything about it, when I spent dozen of hours reading about this fascinating subject :rotfl:
So, you right, give you a break watching foxTV, and start to understand what your are talking about.

And let's face it...French weapons are nearly never combat tested...

OMG ... you are really SO ignorant, Kurushio ...
The last time french planes were used at large scale during a war, was the 6 days war.
for 1 Mirage III downed, more than 25 arabs planes were destroyed (at ground and in the air)
No american planes even appraoch this performance at ANY time in ANY war.
Wether you like it or not, it's a french plane that have the best fighting ratio of all wars : the Mirage III, in Israelian hands.
You military culture is just a succession of HUGE hole of knowledge, dude ....
Ask to Israelians what they think about french plane hehehe, they developped their own planes FROM the french, and not the US, design, after we refused to sold them anymore weapons (following libanian occupation in 1982)

Only problem was...monkeys were flying the other planes. Listen, the Mirage 2000 is equivalent to a Eurofighter (if you're lucky). Nothing more. The F16...yeah right, OK. How about the F22? How about the SU-35?

When are you going to stop to say stupid things ??
When ?? Just tell me please !!!
Compare the RAFALE to the eurofighter, not the M2000, 20 years older !!
About the F22, it's a fighter only, VERY poor at loadout compared to a FA18/E and Rafale (the 2 best fighters/bombers at this time)
Eurofighter is a waste : It was designed to be interceptor only, and during the development, received new specification that changed LOTS of his original design.
This give a bad hybrid, not as good at air fight as he was supposed, and VERY far from the Rafale about ground attack.
It's just a failure, far from rafale in every aspect except A2A fight where they are at the same (good) level.

The best interceptor at this time is, of course, the F22.
But he is limited at this fonction : air domination, and will not beeing used at something else, because it cost 6 or 8 time the price of FA18, much more capable in every other aspects than A2A.

SU-35 ?
there is one ... this is a prototype and will stay
russians don't have enought money for this.

To resume

Actually the best interceptor (completly useless fonction now) :
F22, followed by MiG31 (which was the best interceptor for 20 years), then Sue (27 -> 33)
As there is no more fast bomber threat, this fonction is obsolete

best fighter (A2A)
1) F22
2) eurofighter / rafale (both using stealth tech and rafale inculde the best threat detector available at this time + best CM system ever embarked on a fighter)
3) Sues (powerfull but not enought sophisticated radars, absolutly not a stealth plane) They have better missiles than 2), but are sooo detectable they will be engaged far before they know there is something around.
I have to admit this "best fighter" classification is subject to looooooong talks

the best multirole fighter :
1) Rafale
2) FA18/E, rest of plane far behind
no discution about it, even if FA18/E is quite close to the Rafale (and even a little behind in one aspect => the loadout size)

Is that more clear for you know, Kurushio ?
Did you understood all, this time ?
No need for another translation ?

[micky1up]

Originally Posted by penaratahiti

Sorry micky1up but I don't think, I know. Of course, compared to 688 and Trafalgar... not Seawolf. but they are designed for coastal patrols, due to their size, and can carry less weapons than UK and US SSNs. Thay are better just from an acoustic point of view.

well i know more as a serving tactical systems submariner with 19 years in experience ive been in many subtac exercises against many subs with one common factor the all the uk submarines which i served on got the first kill every time in in this buisness the first kill is all you need the list of units operated agaisnt goes like this US dutch french german the most capable unit operated against are the US subs but because their command officers are engineers before tactical they lack the cutting edge of a specifically trained tactical officer .like i said alot of the technology is similar and about on par but the quality on the men operating the equipment is what makes the difference even the god TOM CLANCY has said the royal navy submarines are the most formidable not becuase of the equipment but because of the people and thier training methods. at the moment i work in teh simulator trainer called THRASHER ( SSN TRAINER) and i have trained US GERMAN FRENCH CANADIAN IRAINIAN DUTCH FRENCH ISRAELI AND CHILEAN officers and when ASTUTE comes out the gap will only widen

[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?

Originally Posted by OKO

For your information, this is what a great grec poet wrote after the battle of Thermopylae, where 200 spartans were killed after holding the pass near 2 days.
THIS IS about the spartan sacrifice you were talking about, trying to tell me I didn't knew anything about it, when I spent dozen of hours reading about this fascinating subject :rotfl:
So, you right, give you a break watching foxTV, and start to understand what your are talking about.


And let's face it...French weapons are nearly never combat tested...

OMG ... you are really SO ignorant, Kurushio ...
The last time french planes were used at large scale during a war, was the 6 days war.
for 1 Mirage III downed, more than 25 arabs planes were destroyed (at ground and in the air)
No american planes even appraoch this performance at ANY time in ANY war.

I beg to differ. The F-4 over Vietnam (which was a ten year war, not a 6 day war) ...The F86 over Korea (against the Mig 15) and pretty much all the F during the gulf war...then you also forget the P-51 mustang during WW2 and all the other P planes and Fs...ever heard of World War 2? So I think your statement saying the Americans have never approached the performance of Israeli planes during the 6 Day War is ludicrous.

Wether you like it or not, it's a french plane that have the best fighting ratio of all wars : the Mirage III, in Israelian hands.

All wars? As I said before...WW2...the French don't even come close...not to mention the Vietnam and Korean war.

You military culture is just a succession of HUGE hole of knowledge, dude ....
Ask to Israelians what they think about french plane hehehe, they developped their own planes FROM the french, and not the US, design, after we refused to sold them anymore weapons (following libanian occupation in 1982)

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?

When are you going to stop to say stupid things ??
When ?? Just tell me please !!!
Compare the RAFALE to the eurofighter, not the M2000, 20 years older !!
About the F22, it's a fighter only, VERY poor at loadout compared to a FA18/E and Rafale (the 2 best fighters/bombers at this time)
Eurofighter is a waste : It was designed to be interceptor only,

Wrong, the Eurofighter is a swing-role aircraft...much like the F/A18 Superhornet.

and during the development, received new specification that changed LOTS of his original design.

rubbish....it was always designed as a swing-role

This give a bad hybrid, not as good at air fight as he was supposed, and VERY far from the Rafale about ground attack.

They are equivalent...I've seen both at Farnborough..in the air and on the ground. I bet you've only seen them in your comic books.

It's just a failure, far from rafale in every aspect except A2A fight where they are at the same (good) level.

The best interceptor at this time is, of course, the F22.
But he is limited at this fonction : air domination, and will not beeing used at something else, because it cost 6 or 8 time the price of FA18, much more capable in every other aspects than A2A.

SU-35 ?
there is one ... this is a prototype and will stay
russians don't have enought money for this.

Now here is where you really embarass yourself and show to everyone you are a PHONEY, FAKE 'expert'. You know NOTHING. HAHA...stop now and hide yourself, please...

The SU-35 is a prototype? HAHAHAHA! lol...WHAT RUBBISH:

SU35:

This is the protoype you are thinking about, the SU-37:



Who is the ignorant one? Hide yourself..will ya...you know nothing of which you speak...you talk and write RUBBISH.

To resume

Actually the best interceptor (completly useless fonction now) :
F22, followed by MiG31 (which was the best interceptor for 20 years), then Sue (27 -> 33)
As there is no more fast bomber threat, this fonction is obsolete

best fighter (A2A)
1) F22
2) eurofighter / rafale (both using stealth tech and rafale inculde the best threat detector available at this time + best CM system ever embarked on a fighter)
3) Sues (powerfull but not enought sophisticated radars, absolutly not a stealth plane) They have better missiles than 2), but are sooo detectable they will be engaged far before they know there is something around.
I have to admit this "best fighter" classification is subject to looooooong talks

the best multirole fighter :
1) Rafale
2) FA18/E, rest of plane far behind
no discution about it, even if FA18/E is quite close to the Rafale (and even a little behind in one aspect => the loadout size)

Is that more clear for you know, Kurushio ?
Did you understood all, this time ?
No need for another translation ?

bah...SHUT UP...and taking English lessons wouldn't hurt you. Also making sure what you write is correct...SU-35 a protoype...LOL

Originally Posted by OKO

SU-35 ?
there is one ... this is a prototype and will stay
russians don't have enought money for this.

Here is the one SU-35:



And here it is again, remember there is "only one prototype" according to our expert...so it must be the same plane...they just painted it different:




Yet another pattern..(the same plane)? :rotfl:





Is this the same plane in desert camo? Wow, that plane gets around...the bloke who paints it must be tired.



*yawn*




but...but...could this be???!!! I thought there was only one!!!!



LMAO!

[Ori_b]

This thread just getting worse with every post...

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by OKO

There is no need of translation at all, there is a need to improve your military knowledge.

I entirely agree. However, you may have created a few new misunderstandings in this explanation. I'd attempt to clear them up a bit.

- VS : velocity search, used to see if there is something moving fast at very long distance (the best detecting range of aerial embarqued radars, but no identification with that, just contact speed revelant)

Not only do you not get an ID, you also don't get a range. The extra range is probably because with a Pulse-Doppler radar, velocity is the primary return with the high PRF used. Range is derived from looking at the return, the opposite of a conventional radar.

- RWS : range while scan => the typical combat mode : the radar reduce the scan area, so, scan the same place more often (talking about mechanical radar antenna, for older plane like M2000 but not for Rafale with electronic antenna).
This mode show you all contact in the scanned area, 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.
2 main shortcomings :
1) this is the mode that makes the emitter the more detectable
2) once radar is locked on a contact, you don't see anything else on your radar than the locked contact.

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.

As well as fixing the beam on the target, in STT the CW illuminator that SARH missiles tend to like for SARH guidance comes on (if available). Since basically nobody uses CW except to launch missiles, the system starts screaming.

- TWS : track while search
A more discreet radar mode.
In TWS, not only your radar could be more stealth, but you could track different targets at the same time, and still see all contacts in your radar screen.

When you read that you will ask why using RWS when TWS is better for everything ?

You've almost got it right, except you confused RWS with STT. Another problem that really is TWS vs RWS (which will probably also fade with phased arrays) is the scanning zone. To maintain a track and firing solution requires a higher data update rate. This forces the mechanical radar to scan a narrower zone. In a F-16 (at least in Falcon 4.0) the RWS uses a 4-bar, 120 degree scan that takes 8 seconds to complete. The TWS scan is about 3-bar and 50 degrees, which will take less than 2 seconds to complete.

The nice thing is that the radar is still in search and no CW illuminator comes up, so if you can't tell from the higher sweep rate, you will keep thinking he's in search, until you die.

Also, you can actually use command guidance part of the way even with SARH - just make sure a missile gets the undivided attention of a CW illuminator from about 10 seconds (or so) before impact. This is known as time-sharing. this technique is used in Aegis so 4 illuminators can guide 12-18 (depends on who you read) missiles. I would guess the AA-10 Alamos can also do this to some extent, seeing that they claim the later versions of the N001 and N019 can engage two targets even with R-27s - what presumably happens is that there is a bit of delay, during which the radar services the illumination of one target, then the other.

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...

Those fighters are SU 33, the navalised version of the SU27. The multivector engine of the SU35 looks a bit different.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by gmuno

Those fighters are SU 33, the navalised version of the SU27. The multivector engine of the SU35 looks a bit different.

The Su-35 IIRC is not thrust-vectoring, the Su-37 is. THe forward swept wing plane is the S-37

[Linton]

I don't think we have talked about tanks or topedoes yet.Are they going to be next?If they are I will start searching for photographs of the same tank in different paint schemes.Now back to sonar 2076

Originally Posted by gmuno

Those fighters are SU 33, the navalised version of the SU27. The multivector engine of the SU35 looks a bit different.

Those are all SU-35s.... Yeah OK, naval version...hmm...in desert camo.

[micky1up]

so a naval plane could never be used to fly and fight in desert areas think what you saying

[Orm]

I would be very pleased if this thread could be deleted as we are giving to an unrefined the publicity that he seems to lack in his dreamy little life.