YourFatherJonesy, it seems the ADS was defunded. No official reason was given, and haven’t heard any. Now its VDS and towed arrays on 2 USVs and 2 UUVs, with bistatic capabilites.
YourFatherKinda of think they’ve missed the point with the Multi-mission thing. Surely the design was based around the need of a light combatant with the ability to take-on specialised modules as required.
That’s true, but that was the USN requirement and not the Israeli requirement. They wanted a more conventional frigate with more robust self-defense capabilities.
YourFather@ 1: A borderline crazy decision for the reasons I layed out above. ESSM is not a self-defense system.
They’ll do harbor defense and speedboats with a 50cal? Not even a manned 25mm KBA like on the carriers? On a mount where the gunner stands naked, without even a shield against AK-47 bullets?
Or use the single-target capable and limited coverage 5″ to fire at swarming speedboats? What if they get so close they can’t lower the barrel? And don’t tell me about cooperative engagement – no captain will use his 5″ to shot at RHIBs that are 50 yards or so close to ship that is, say, 2000 yards away.
Or use a 700.000 USD ESSM? Does that thing even do anti-surface?If it were not for the not-invented-here virus, they should put two Millenniums up there.
Btw, the same with the 50cal on the LCS. I mean there are pirat speedboats out there with better close-in armarment! I think it’s not too much to demand that a 3500 tons vessel has more punch than a 10 tons dhingy.
57mm is there to handle the speedboats and FACs. I cannot confirm whether the ESSM has gotten the considered anti-surface upgrade. All I know is they did consider doing so.
@ 2: To turn your argument on its head: If RAM is so wonderful – why isn’t it on the IIa Burkes? Or Ticonderogas?
Because ESSM was also a very successful weapon. With ESSM in addition to the rest of the armament, AAW defense capabilities were deemed to be adequate back then.
however, it seems a study is to be conducted soon to determine CIWS requirements again. We shall see, I guess.
YourFatherRIM-162’s passive seeker make it unsuitable for a defensive system.
Low saturation threshold, poor survivability (illuminator damage).
Despite the fact that many countries chose it as their final missile layer, and the USN found it to be good enough to not need Phalanxes on Flight IIA Burkes?
RIM-116’s mechanically steered launcher box is also sub-optimal for survivability and coverage, even though it probably is not a bad missile (esp the upcomming Block II).
95% success in more than 160 tests with 90% of those seeing skin-to-skin contact kills show that RAM is an excellent defense system. Mechanical steering isn’t a problem. Goalkeeper, Phalanx and other CIWS are all mechanically steered. Coverage is also less a problem with the missile’s 15 degree ‘shoot round the corner’ ability.
YourFatherThe 57mm seems slightly more tilted towards AAW in ability than the 76mm. Considering how lacking the LCS is in terms of hard kill defenses against ASMs, having the 57mm add contribute 1 more layer to the SeaRAM seems like a good idea. And against the FAC/speedboat threat, the 57mm gun is perfectly fine.
What the LCS desperately needs is a bank of ESSMs (min 16, preferably 32)and associated FCRs.
YourFatherAnybody who quotes absolute ranges for radars obsessively don’t quite understand them. Radar ranges given are but meaningless values without information on what conditions they are derived. What is the target RCS? The probability at which the target can be detected at that range? Change these variables and range goes up or down.
Anti-air UCAV? Hahaha. Anybody can put out a UAV model and term it a anti-air UCAV model. The computational power and software just isn’t available to do it yet. That’s why the US is concentrating on the automation needed for UCAVs to do autonomous Air-to-ground attacks, and Boeing is at the leading edge in this area now. China may satisfy its ignorant internet warriors with some mock-up UAV termed a anti-air UCAV, but experience has shown that even putting a air-to-air missile on a functioning UAV does not a anti-air UCAV make.
China give US a run for its money? At the rate America has been going, America can stop all R&D (which will effectively stop most of China’s R&D, if you know what I mean), not buy anything and China will still be behind 10 years later.
YourFatherweren’t you the guy that kept on using that against 054A? That if they don’t explicitly state it, that it doesn’t exist? Funny how you are going the other way now.
Don’t try to twist the situation around. It certainly wasn’t like that. You were the one who insisted then that something existed despite you having no proof that it did. My stand then was always that we didn’t know if it existed, and so we could not make claims that it did and base performance on that basis. Just because the parts are available doesn’t mean it is operationally deployed. I have made mo such claim that the idea I’m talking about in this thread was deployed. Again, you are like Crobato, resorting to accusing others of making claims they never did, and attacking them based on that.
In this thread, I have stated CLEARLY many times that I don’t know if such a system exists or if it is even under research, simply because I have no access to what programs are being funded. Crobato first thought that there was no black badget and that he knew everything about the US military. When I pointed out that there was a black budget he tried misdirection and gave a lame ‘so what?’. :diablo:
Next he tried to question the feasibility of the system, and tried subtly to make it sound as if I had claimed that such a system existed. That was a claim I never made. All I ever claimed was that such a system was feasible. That’s because the major components needed for such a system to be feasible already does exist. Crobato however insists that an idea can only be proved to be feasible if it exists. If it doesn’t exist, it isn’t feasible. Anybody with half a brain can see what’s wrong with that line of logic. Can you?
YourFatherThat’s an inherently incorrect and that is what I learned with debating with an intel analyst. Its a fallacy to assume if you have the infrastructure, you have the tool. Whether or not it actually exists is independent from it. Either you have it, or you don’t. Simple as that.
You were asking me about the feasibility of this notional system, bot about whther it existed. i already said all the major components needed for such a system to work already exists. Finding out that I have already given all the proof I need, you now try misdirection and insist that I must prove it exists for it to be feasible. Again, pathetic. 😀
And besides, not all the parts are available. How many AWACS out there are capable of providing the level of TWS needed for missile guidance (there are different levels of TWS). To handle many targets and to provide fast enough updates, you are going to need electronic scanning at least, and not with a mechanical rotodome. You are looking at replacing the current fleet with the next generation of AWACs, and the SM-6 missile itself is not yet in service.
The E-2D uses electronic scanning on a mechanical rotodome. Yes, it is designed to provide mid course guidance for the SM-6.
Show me proof that the existance of a black budget means that your imaginary sub should exist.
Show me where did I say it definitely exist just because of the existence of a black budget? You were the one who insisted that such a program couldn’t have existed since programs needed “to be brought to the Congress and the Senate. And it has to find supporters.
” :rolleyes: What I said was that you don’t know if it exists since not every program is open to public scrutiny. Don’t think that I will let you get away with trying to turn the situation around like that.
And do you? Do you actually know what is the difference between COTS and MILSPEC? Do you know which particular MILSPEC standard you are talking about because there are certainly many, and some of it apply to thing that don’t relate with weapons systems.
Do you actually know what is the difference between a commercial and military processor?
Here is another question for you. What is there in a commercial processor that you cannot use to do the signal processing needed for military applications?
At least I do understand that non-COTS technology does not definitely mean using vacuum tubes. :diablo: You must have done quite a bit of last minute reading up to get so cocky. Good for you. Next time try to do that before you shoot your mouth off.
BS. You have people fooled here in this board about your “competence”.
In fact, the more you talk the more it is obvious you are covering up a major failure and ignorance in your part.
“Natural Circulation” is a term that is never in use and applied to anything diesel electric. It is a term made by the nuclear industry, in fact it is not even a submarine term and it is there only to describe a method of cooling totally exclusive with nuclear reactors. Natural circulation has nothing to as a term with whatever liquids or gas circuits being used in the Ohio class, such as the ventilation.
So don’t act arrogantly thinking you got some advantage here. Your counter reply is even more laughable.
So the Gotland is not “natural circulation” because the engine runs a pump to cool the engine? By golly, the coolant pump is the last thing you will ever hear in a piston engine. What do you call an air cooled engine then?
What makes you even more of a dufus is that a sub like the Gotland when it is in silent mode, it won’t be running any engine at all underwater.It will rely mainly on its electric motor and batteries. Where is the circulation in an electric motor then? Why don’t you just call that “No Circulation” then. No Circulation beats Natural Circulation any time.
So you not only have problems with English, but with your logical thinking as well. Where did I ever say that SSKs propulsion ever involved Natural Circulation. :rolleyes: 😀
Which is a screaming contradiction to what you said about what is needed for interception right? If its moving slowly, then a diesel boat can intercept it.
You cannot read? I already said “I was just pointing out the dynamics of the situation where a SSK was actually trying to chase down a SSGN. ” The SSGN doesn’t have to be zipping around at full speed. It could, upon detection of a SSK trying to catch it, escape from the SSK with its superior speed, so long as the SSK wasn’t within torpedo range yet.
Moving slowly defeats the purpose of being a nuclear boat isn’t it? It also defeats the whole purpose of being an AD ship, which is to be in the right place and in the right time, and that means speeding up to it.
Showing your ignorance again. SSBNs do not go running around at high speed, which is counterproductive to their need to maintain discreetness. SSGNs have the same mission profile and will be creeping along slowly too. Neither does it need to ‘run’ to an area, although it can do so with its ~25knt speed. Why do so? Ships and subs never catch up with jet planes. All it has to do is get to an opportune area near the expected flight path of enemy fighters and stay there before the action starts.
Now lets deal with some other things you said in your previous post. Yes, a nuclear sub has more power to deal with sensors—if those sensors are active. For passive sensors you don’t need that much electricity. Furthermore modern microcircuitry have also greatly reduced the amount of energy such equipment needs, and this is further met by advances in battery technology (aluminum or lithium cells).
Are you trying to drown us with your ignorance. 😀 First, even assuming that your misconception was correct, SSKs don’t need active sensors? :rolleyes: More importantly, active sensors alone are not the only major consumers of power. Processing and even passive systems use a lot of power themselves. The Seawolf only has one major active sonar, but its computing and sensor power requirements alone came up to 570kW. Francois will probably be better placed to elaborate on this.
Wow, you are backtracking.
There aer many noise generating components in any submarine but a nuclear sub has much more of them than an electric sub.
LOL, where am I backtracking? A nuclear submarine has more noise making components, but it also has more space for silencing technologies.
As for the last sentence in that quote, you made it up as you go along, didn’t you?
Another weak pathetic attempt of a retort for an argument you know you have lost? 😀
Wow you are so idiotic. By far the most important algorhythm of all are forms of Fourier Analysis such as Fourier Transforms, needed for noise filtering. It is not on the sending out end that is important but on the receiving. Beam forming—which is in fact, more of a controlling application rather than an analysis—does not even come close to the complexities and the sheer processing power to do Fourier Analysis. The use of Fourier in fact, is the biggest ever development for signal processing, whether its radar, sonar or communications, and to have it done in real time by modern microprocessors and DSPs is one true major revolution for radars, sonars and communications in the nineties. It is important even for EW/ECM and SIGINT.
Lots of blabber in an attempt to offuscate the blatant fact that you have crap on your face? Good try, might work on some. 😉
Let me tell you again. Even if its possible like five years from now, is not proof that it exists now. The burden is on you.
All these arguments sizes you up like Sferin, all mouth, but don’t really understand what is going on.
I’m asking you again. Prove where did I insist that a system like that exists, when I clearly mentioned “I will be the first to admit I do not know whether such a system is under testing. “. Clearly you must be getting desperate to find a way to discredit me so much so that you are now trying to accuse me of making a claim I never did. Smashing you is so easy I almost feel guilty. 😮 Like clubbing a retarded seal. :diablo:
YourFatherBut if they’re nuclear all it takes is one to get through and be within proximity blast, and you can kiss the whole group of ships bye bye.
Ships were dispresed precisely to prevent a single nuclear initiation from taking out the whole CVBG. That was the reason behind Link 11 using HF radio.
YourFatherPointing to a black budget does not make it exist.
Point out where did I say that a black budget means it exists? I was responding to your ignorant assumption that just because there is congressional oversight means the public gets to know of everything in the US military. I will be the first to admit I do not know whether such a system is under testing. Besides, you asked why such a system wasn’t fielded. Naturally so, since the components needed to make such a system viable was only just fielded.
Even with the F-117, at least they were rumors, and they could not keep that a secret far too long either. That 30 billion you are quoting is an estimate. Who made that estimation?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-08-pentagon-spending_x.htm
In the first place where are they going to tap for components to make their electronic devices? They have to build what is on hand, and there are a lot of fabs in China making modern microcircuits. They have ongoing programs developing their own microprocessors and digital signal processors. EMF and radiation harderning is certainly part of it, you are going to need that in your space programs as well.
Lots of blabber. So are they using COTS or MILSPEC? You don’t seem to know, yet you asserted that COTS equipment were used in PLAN SSKs.
The question is not whether how state of the art these sonar systems are, but if they are enough to find and threaten an Ohio class, which is not exactly the latest ship around. I would probably have more doubts chasing down a Gotland class.
What makes you think a Gotland class is any harder to find than an Ohio? An Ohio has much better sensors allowing it to sense enemies and take evasive actions earlier. It is nuclear powered allowing for unlimited endurance without the need to recharge batteries, unlike the Gotland. Natural circulation makes for no pump noises, which is the main cited noise maker in comparison to the Gotland. The Ohio was a strategic asset, you can bet your farm that as far as possible, every practical technology to reduce its detectability it would have gone in. Besides, with Chinese ASW technology as dismal as it currently is, there isn’t much the SSGN needs to fear.
Second you seem to think that technology development happens to be all serially, that you have to go through each step one after another and you can’t jump these steps.
The rapid technology steps we have seen happen in China show they are jumping and skipping these steps. It does not take a super human to do that. There is already a lot of material in the open source that is showing the way, though you still have to sweat out the implementation, which can be of your own research and with help from others. Most importantly whatever you do now is going to be on the back of others who have already shown the way. Technology has been a lot more migratory and porous than many wish to believe. If a country will start a new plane project, it will not be look like the Wright Brothers. If you start a new sub program, that sub is not going to look like something from WWI either. The technology for the materials and the back end is far better than it was before. You think if you design a sonar or radar now it is forced to use an 8080 microprocessor? Just a CPU from a Nintendo now is far more powerful in orders of magnitude what the US defense industry had in the late seventies.
Quit being master of the obvious. It’s true that some technology is already open sourced, that much China’s researchers can leverage on. But specialised algorithms and design technology are not open sourced, that China’s researchers will have to build experience on. if you think China can get to US/UK/France level of technology in 1 generation, that’s your perogative.
YourFatherStill I wonder why this has not been done.
Because the SSGN, the CEC and the RTOF buoys which are key components of such a notional system are stil relatively new?
And do you have black budgets now? This is no longer the Cold War. You’re not going to hide a 2 billion dollar sub that easily.
You don’t even know that the US has a black budget? That black budget is estimated to be bigger than the defence budgets of many countries. In 2005 it was estimated to be $30 billion.
And you don’t think that China has their own military spec standards?
Are you stupid? That was why I was asking you how you knew that PLAN SSKs were using COTS technology. It seems that you don’t even know the difference between MILSPEC and COTS.
You seem to think that Chinese are idiots, and all these algorhythms escape their mental capacity. Like as if they don’t have research programs, or obtained foreign equipment, or run papers that discuss them in their top colleges? Or like they don’t have homegrown processors that can at least run at 1GHz. Likewise, their radar and communications systems must be designed by dumbasses too.
No, I don’t think they’re idiots. I just don’t think they are quite superhuman where they can gain the expertise and experience in a few years that other specialised defence companies in other nations like the US/UK/France took time and money and muktiple generations of products to build up.
YourFatherNow is that piped under a buoy or into a periscope sensor?
Not mentioned. But with RTOF buoys able to utilise satellite communitions and UAV imagery already being piped through sat channels, there should be no problem even if buoys were used.
LOL, if it needs a budget it won’t be that secretive. It would have to be brought to the Congress and the Senate. And it has to find supporters.
That’s a poor explanation. Do you even realise how big the black budget is? How many people knew about the F-117 before it’s existence was publicly announced?
That assumes if the target itself is running at full speed. Running with surface buoy, getting to launch missiles, means you won’t be traveling that quick. In fact you would be rather slow. You will also have predefined zones where the sub can fire its missiles.
I was just pointing out the dynamics of the situation where a SSK was actually trying to chase down a SSGN.
A diesel sub does not have to intercept, it can come to the suspected areas and lay in wait. An SSGN is not going to be fast enough to out run a heavy torpedo.
A SSGN would have had PLUSNET equivalent system deployed into the area. Chances of a SSK staying hidden isn’t big.
And what makes you so confident that the PLAN has sensors a generation behind the US? Every sensor being built right now are all using the same level of COTS technology because you work with what is available.
You believe China has sonar equipment with standards comparable with US/UK/Australia/France? Well, you believe what you will. Just because China has access to COTS technology doesn’t mean China has access to algorithms able to exploit them.
Oh yes they do. Why you think they’re working with vacuum tubes?
What makes you think not using vacuum tubes means that COTS technology is automatically used? Ever heard of MILSPEC? :rolleyes:
YourFatherAgainst high speed aircraft, you seriously need high data transfer rates. For high bandwidth, you need high frequency, and that means shorter range between links. If you need to get that from a buoy, you will have serious multipathing issues from the water surface. High frequency and water reflections don’t mix very well.
Streaming video from UAVs has already been piped back to the SSGN under Giant Shadow, I think. Now if that level of bandwidth is not high enough for you, nothing is. Furthermore, once the missile is launched, the missile’s updates can come from offboard sources, no need for the SSGN to provide it.
The fact that the USN isn’t considering this idea, they know that its bizarre, will have its problems, even if its doable, it’s not cost effective.
You know that the USN hasn’t considered this? Do you really think China is the only one who doesn’t tell everybody everything? The USN sub service is among the most secretive of all the services.
And yes, an SSGN does not have enough speed to escape an SSK. The typical maximum speed of an SSGN is about 24kts. The Song is listed with a maximum submerged speed of 22kts
problems with that. If you want to intercept a target, you need, as a rule of the thumb, at least a 50% speed excess. Not only does the SSK not have a speed excess, it also doesn’t have the endurance to run at full speed for more than an hour or so.
does have passive low frequency flank sonars the kind that can help detect another sub from a distance. The SSGN is not going to be fast enough to evade a heavyweight YU-6 torpedo either. And seriously, the PLAN is also building a fleet of SSNs now.
Environmental conditions in the littorals make subs hard to acquire. Did you think such problems affect only the USN and not the PLAN? Especially when the PLAN has sensors that are probably at least a generation behind the US? Worse so is the fact that the Ohio was designed not to be found, and has been upgraded steadily.
Not many people notice it wither, but the Ohio is in some ways the underwater equivalents of the LCS. It will be a seeder of sensors, deploying both UUVs and sensor arrays for broad area underwater surveillance. The chances of SSKs being found long before the SSGN is found is much higher. There are even UUVs with the express mission to find and then tail SSKs already under testing.
And which is not impossible for any sub that has passive low frequency flank sonars, which the Songs, Yuans and Shangs do. I mean really, its still a nuclear sub, and unlike a diesel electric submarine, a reactor cannot be completely shutdown. Even with natural circulation, steam is running in those pipes. And if the sub hunters go into active pinging anyway, you will be detected no matter what, no matter how good your passive noise controls are. In addition to that, subs of that generation (LA class, Ohio class) could never have foreseen and were not designed to counter the advances in sonar detection technology brought about by using COTS.
USN subs are all upgraded steadily throughout their lives. And PLAN SSKs use COTS technology?
YourFatherBut there will almost certainly be a sizeable time delay. Not what you want for an AD asset.
That is if the sub has not yet deployed the RTOF. If it has already deployed it, then it is already in constant contact.
YourFatherIts just a way to get regular updates as opposed to a means of keeping in constant contact.
It allows for constant contact as long as the buoy stays on the surface. When to deploy it will be based on a paging service using other comms equipment like the Deep Siren system.
Very useful for offensive missions, but less then revolutionary for a defensive oriented asset.
The SSGN is a defensive asset? You don’t know what you’re talking about. Communications equipment like these allows for SSGN and other submarine assets access into Forcenet and all the possibilities that Forcenet provides. Even defensive assets gain tremendously from the access to offboard information.
Sign In
