What are the covert sensors that ID and track the target?

Did you even read the example that you quoted? Why would you even be asking this question if you did?!

ESM/Passive acoustic?…they’ll give you a signature covertly sure, but, not at great resolution so no tracking and neither are invulnerable to deception or simple signature masking. So not 100% reliable to track/ID by themselves and are utilised to cue a platform with greater sensor resolution for that reason.

No form of ESM or passive acoustic sensors can provide tracking information? No further comment on that as “it’s not worthy of my ridicule.”

Prairie Masker has pros and cons, one of the biggest cons being that the resulting acoustics are a red-flag indicating the presence of a military vessel.

Surface wave radar is about the best bet for reliable range/resolution – its good for about 400km range top end and about a 4km by 2-3 degrees of arc accuracy. Not hard to track in on surface wave and its emitters are not really so mobile…first target on the list for a saturation TLAM strike in support of theatre entry you might think? You seem to be hellishly fired up about the defenders variance from peacetime to war state…you do seem to have overlooked that the same applies the other way too.

TLAM wasn’t in service in 1982. At least you’ve finally acknowledged the difference between peacetime and wartime, and the threat from OTH sensors. That’s something I suppose.

Anyway bottom line is that you cant, no matter how much you’d like to pretend otherwise, shorten or bypass the kill-chain. Your ‘events’ are meaningless as it doesnt matter what percentage of ‘Force A’ deploys…what matters is whether they know what they are deploying out to meet. You are still making the same mistake of assuming that your ‘Force B’ knows its flying out to a carrier because you know that it IS a carrier.

In reality, with no track or ID, Force B doesnt know that until that information is developed.

The fact that you just confused Force A with Force B twice indicates to me that you didn’t even properly read the example.

Force A does not need to id a carrier in order to fly out to it. Force A only needs to detect a contact. At that point if the detecting sensor is unable to do so, other sensors/platforms are employed to ID, and if necessary, engage the contact.

You are contending that covert sensors can deliver that data but you also highlight the only platform that can actually manage the task….

You clearly did not read, or understand, the example. At all.

That, or you are trying to pretend that it is something that it isn’t because it dismisses your silly “maskirovka is impossible without 100% id of carrier” claim. Which is what the example was for in the first place.

Peacetime or wartime submarines, like any ship, have to refit and repair and, at start of war, there will be units unavailable. Thats just a fact of life…expediting hulls to sea would happen, but, then so would losses and combat damage.

So again, wartime is different than peacetime, and depending on the nature of the crisis/conflict/threat the number of platforms deployed can vary significantly.

You would note that I said 35-40 hulls at sea earlier…which isnt 40% of 60 is it? I was already including hulls on transit and accelerating through workups, that may have combat capability, without being on-station as to discount them would be an inaccuracy.

You had said “40% at sea on station” as if those were the only ones that mattered, hence my reply referring to 40%.

Its still, in PacFlt 82 terms, not a huge number of effective boats spread across that fleets rather large OpArea…

Why would they have to be spread out across the entire Pacific and Indian Oceans? The problem is that you have not defined what the nature of the conflict is (there was none.) Hence, making statements about the size of the “operational area” is meaningless. Deployments would differ dramatically in the event of say, a Korean-war crisis versus regular peacetime activities.

Point 1 Dont be ignorant…I’ve already explained that by saying ‘against the best’ I meant against the most comprehensive capability that has deployed against a carrier.

That capability was never deployed. And you’re calling me ignorant!

Point 2 I’ve answered it several times to you and Leon. You just dont understand the answer. The important part in the kill-chain doesnt depend on a peacetime or war time footing. In fact the value of the detect-ID-track part of the kill-chain is as valuable in peacetime as it is in wartime as it allows for the efficient management of your maritime environment and lowers dependence on costly to run, and numbers-limited, patrol vessels.

No, you haven’t answered it and certainly not several times. If you had a viable answer to it, you would easily be able to counter my list of points which I’ve posted repeatedly. Yet you haven’t. Instead, you’ve now descended to basically claiming that this was the equivalent of a wartime test because the Soviets wanted “to lower dependence on costly to run patrol vessels.” As far as I’m concerned, that topic is finished as I’ve no desire to even quote any more of that sort of nonsense.

Hit another ship that wasnt decoying you mean…after RN soft-kill had defeated the inbound missile in the first place?

“Defeated”? If the missile was properly defeated it would not have continued on to sink another ship.

RN soft-kill that was anticipated to be successful in defeating MM38/AM39 as we had MM38 in the fleet, as GWS50, and had stalwart assistance from the Aeronavale on transit?.

Funny that you didn’t say anything about that when you were singing the praises of the soft-kill measures, which happened to be one line prior to you lecturing me about failing “to take onboard the rather large advantage” of having your enemies’ weapons. What a HYPOCRITE.

In your rush to be very clever and score points there Wilk you do seem to have argued yourself in a circle!.

YOU posted one of the most blatant examples of double standards I’ve ever seen on this forum. You even managed to do it in two consecutive sentences. The fact that I pointed it out is “scoring points” and being “clever” to you? Whatever.