crobatoFor a Lightning, having a round inlet nose seriously limits the size of the radar and avionics that can fit inside the nose cone, although I think an APG-66/67 caliber radar can still fit inside it.
Like the modernized J-8II, the modernized Lightning would not be ideal for dogfighting, but quick hack and slash attacks, then use its speed to get away. Even when used with elderly but upgraded aircraft, this tactic seriously works against more modern fighters.
crobatomore generic spiel. speak to the niip people before making such comments please. your stuff from “what should be” has nothing to do with “what was”. there is a good reason why the chinese started putting their own radars in the j-11s even if not cutting edge, its far better than the junk (per todays standards) russia sold them. a decade back, it was reasonable stuff, today it isnt.
That has nothing to do with your N001 vs. N001 comparison here. Nice try, buddy. Even what the Su-27SM has (updated N001V) is badly outdated in comparison to any planar radar. Maybe you have not figured out regardless of what they do, all that apparatus that makes up a twist cassegrain design is right in front and on the way of the receiving antenna.
what an absolutely predictable response.
right, listening to your screeds against yellowfather et al on the other threads makes it clear who is the # 1 poster. not to mention your “who is the bigger expert” comparisons with star49 (wow)
Of course, given your tirade. Hypocrite.
coming to nationality again- at least i hold an indian passport and have never hidden it. you otoh, are some chinese origin fellow in the us who starts ranting each time china is mentioned. hoo boy.
a polite post to tphuang hurt you so much that off you came with your bilious rants. thats the difference between you and him, irrespective of how much we disagree, i can anticipate he’ll come back with a polite measured reply, you otoh …
take this kindergarten stuff elsewhere pls. i am not interested in the fact that you are chinese, just try to leave your anger at my point of view out of the discussion and respond rationally.
Oh boy, time to bring the passports out. I don’t give a rat what your passport is.
The crux of the matter is I find your hypocrisy intolerable when you question sources that has proven on record to be reliable, when your own sources (yourself claiming to be on the know) has proven on record not to be reliable.
the point made was that the combination of rws and vs is used by pilots for situational updates. and here you are restating the same as a great discovery!
Oh boy. You seem to be the one going out as if RWS is the latest thing in radar equipment.
and there is no evidence that chinese rwrs have range on bearing tech.
let me know when you even spend some time discussing basic tactics with experienced users of combat eqpt in the plaaf.
BS. Its not hard to RWRs to determine range. The ones in the Phantom back in the sixties can give rough range. Just comparing waveforms received from differently located RWRs can give you rough range, as if you think it would take a genius to figure that out.
And let me know when you actually talk with the PLAAF to figure out why they don’t have any range finding abilities on their RWRs, despite that they have been showing SEAD capabilities with ARMs, and you would need rangefinding on your RWR for that.
i can actually make out here that you have absolutely no clue about what is on the chinese sukhois of original russian origin.
And you do? You talked as if you think the Chinese J-11s don’t have RWS. I got an Su-27SK manual in my hard drive that tells you otherwise.
Let me know when you actually talk to a PLAAF officer why their Su-27s don’t have RWS.
just because some obsolete chinese fighters had it doesnt mean that the russian ones provided to china did, as a separate mode by itself for long range search. the chinese n001s according to niip themselves have tws based original mode and thats it. get used to it. you can brag about how good the chinese flankers are, when china replaces them with its own radars- if, when whatever. dont give a damn really, but if it makes you happy, go for it.
The Su-27SK manual shows you otherwise on the RWS. China being the only official user of the SK.
For them to fire R-77s (two engaged) that would mean a new TWS engagement mode. It is a fact that the J-11s do have additional equipment, once that can be verified in photography.
whats even more amusing is how you dismiss it as manufacturer trickery earlier. the russian af got these modes as a special upgrade, including raid assessment and nctr, among others. just because china didnt, you are upset and spinning things. i dont even know why. heck, even so, the radars on the chinese flankers are still better than most of its rivals, even if not modern by todays standards.
NCTR should be more of a function with the plane’s EW countermeasures than the radar. One of the best assesement of threat is to read the other emitter’s waveform.
can you read? i said the rvv-ae doesnt provide functionality in other modes. the basic rvv-ae capabilility is all the computational modifications provide. so dont tilt at windmills.
I don’t care what the FK you said. Simply said RVV-AE capability would REQUIRED that you have an additional firing mode for the RVV itself, and you don’t use the STT mode for the R-27. That firing mode, like in all radars fitted for ARH BVRAAM would be a special TWS mode that will enable you to track, lock and engage a target within that mode.
dozens actually, but i am not interested in blowing my trumpet.
i dont need to read trade mags to get my info and thats the difference.
i know my information from first hand, and all the above are the usual stuff which has gone on between india and russia for ages, till we come to an agreement and move on.
the only real sticking point has been the gorshkov and even that will be renegotiated and done.face it, if india had no interest in moving further, it wouldnt have the t-50 agreement or the brahmos-2.
Does not change the fact that expectations are not _constantly_ met, there are constant delays and price escalations beyond the plans. That fundamentally represents less than satisfactory execution.
crobatospare me your ranting about bovine parts please. mfds by themselves dont mean any extra modes in a2a. the chinese n001 v variants use dsp for a2g functions, while the same is not available for additional signal processing in air to air. the air to air filtering is done via analogue filtering banks as in the original n001 series. the rvv-ae function is enabled by an entirely different set up which doesnt add much to the overall functionality of the radar.
Don’t give that rant. If you have a simple idea how radars would be designed is that the digital signal amplifiers would be attached to the reception of the array itself, and the DSPs would be processing right behind that. This is the most efficient and effective way because you want to minimize or remove the middle layers between the recieving array and the processing. Thus they would be processing both A2A and A2G signals without any discrimination between the two.
i could post more, but it depends on whether you can even have a sane discussion without bringing in national pride into it.
Listen to this. You are the number one poster in this board who puts national pride and spin on top of things.
speak to a fighter pilot about how and where the vs is used, and how useful it is for a quick scan of prioritising threats and you’ll say it differently. vs and rws both have their own utility and especially in the manner in which they are integrated into the flanker. not only do the russian radars now have vs, they also have rws and several other modes only available in the latest (and more expensive) russian/ western radars. the chinese n001’s on the other hand, run in the old usual tws equivalent mode.
Then figure out how VS can actually be useful. Proper threat evaluation requires range data. Heck even a RWR can give you a range approximate.
The way you talk you sure don’t know the basics of radars. RWS is the most basic function of all the radars, and it can be found going back into the sixties. The Chinese N001s will surely have it as much as you can guarantee that a MiG-23 or an F-4 Phantom will have it. And that’s according to the Su-27SK manual to boot.
TWS is much more newer, and limited TWS with engagement, sometimes called the “bugged” mode, is newer because the latter is used in the use of BVRAAMs against two or more multiple targets.
Now if you figured this out, this goes entirely against what you said about the RVVAE function not adding anything valuable to the radar. You are trying to provide high quality locking information against two targets at least, not one, and without lighting them up like a flashlight, and that’s going to require significant more processing resources than the STT mode used for the R-27.
you can find it as funny as you want- these diversions will get you nowhere.
your so called chinese sources which you remark- if they have evidence, lets see it. fact is that irbis is but in recent tests, and china itself has had no access to time travel technology to see the radar. my personal track record, as if it matters- and loose lips sink ships. what i know about indian procurement, stays with me until it becomes public.
Just how many things that you said or predicted really come true, hm?
last, whether or not indias procurement is a major mess is irrelevant, we are talking of china here.
second, fact is that apart from bought out items, the codevelopment, significant license production programs w/ russia have all been successful and appreciated by the indian military and r&d establishment. so much so, they are even willing to go the extra mile in negotiating for more of the same, whether it be the t-50 or brahmos follow on, or some other items which will become public in due course.
Appreciated really? Maybe you have not been reading about the sudden escalation of costs for the carrier, the MKIs and the failure of testing on the Klubs.
crobatoif thats what you want to believe, go ahead but it aint the reality. fact is that the russians recieved long range vsearch which is quite useful for situational awareness, and specific enhancements which werent provided to china and this was done at the express request of the russian govt. ask niip themselves if you want to confirm it. in fact, russians got raid assessment since their n001 has a digital receiver and dsp for a2a, unlike the chinese n001s which only got analog filtering banks and neither do they have long range modes, raid assessment etc etc let alone the more fancy stuff like nctr.
That’s a whole lot of bull, if I may say so. The Chinese N001VE and VEP does have DSPs. Funny that Chinese N001s even support R-77s while the original Russian systems don’t. They also feature an additional MFD for additional modes (on the original N001); the MFD itself is visually and photographically confirmed and this is something you don’t see in the canopies of Russian Su-27s.
Velocity Search , which by the way, is also used in Western fighter radars (it was invented there), is not a very useful situational awareness tool since it cannot give range. It only gives velocity and heading, but you always run to RWS and later TWS for some real useful information. VS is a “cheat” mode meant to give the radar a better looking spec and can be added to a radar with little cost. The fact that there is no boost on RWS and TWS capabilities—where it really all counts—shows there is no substantial improvement at all.
I also find it very funny how you talk about track record with tphuang. The Chinese sources do have a proven track record right to the tee in predicting things long before Western sources can confirm them. Do you personally have a good track record in saying what should come and whatever did? You have been all gaga about this Russian cooperation thing, and now India is in a major mess with its arms programs with the Russians. So you have a better track record? Who is here more on “faith”?
crobatoThat’s some pretty nice work.
crobato1. YF-12A (yes, the fighter version of the SR-71).
2. YF-23
3. YF-17 (I don’t mean the Hornet mutation, I meant in its original lightweight without the junk and still lean Cobra configuration).
4. F-20 Tigershark
5. F-16XL
crobatoand lastly, they did reach their ambitious goals with the n001…in russian service. including adding long range search modes which werent exported to china.
Yeah. Radar manufacturers have a way of pulling legs of their customers by introducing modes e.g. Velocity Search, that extend the range of detection further but at the expense of providing quality information about the target. I mean like giving only the speed information, but not the range information.
crobatoOh look, quick reply seems to work now.
Anyway, I’ve just seen the online edition of Jane’s Missiles & Rockets, the article I mentioned referencing my discovery of the first KS-1A site in Google Earth imagery (the significance being that it offers the first proof of the system entering service outside of any identified test ranges) will be published in the February issue. Check it out, Doug Richardson did a very good job covering both the site layout and the discovery as well as a summary of the KS-1 and KS-1A. I thought it was going to be “this guy found this, now here’s what it is and what it’s about”, but it actually featured far more of my work and a bunch of quotations than I had expected.
My congratulations on your work.
There is more GE updates on China now, and there now appears to be a new sub base near Xizhou, close to an existing base where there are Kilos. There are seven subs that can be seen in that base, seems to be mostly Song-Yuan.
crobatoI already said that all the parts needed for such a system are available. What more do you need?
That’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.
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.
First you show your ignorance about the existence of black budgets, citing the lack of as proof that every program is visible to public scrutiby. Now you say ‘so what’? Pathetic. 😀
Show me proof that the existance of a black budget means that your imaginary sub should exist.
Again you illustrate so clearly you don’t know what the hell is the difference between COTS and MILSPEC standards. Yet you shot your mouth off insisting that PLAN SSKs were using COTS equipment. Sferrin was right about you. 😀
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?
Actually, I do know. All you say corroborates with what I said. It’s your English that’s failing you. What part of “Natural circulation makes for no pump noises, which is the main cited noise maker in comparison to the Gotland. ” do you not understand? That means that the Ohio can rely on natural circulation, which means no pumps need to be working, and pumps are the main noise makers in comparison to SSKs like the Gotland. Comprehende? :rolleyes:
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.
Who are you trying to impress? 😀 :rolleyes: What you don’t seem to understand is that the Ohio will be moving at low speeds most of the time, thus it can rely on natural circulation.
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.
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.
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).
Where did I say the Ohio is as quiet as a Gotland? Neither you nor I has the clearance to know that. It may be quieter, it may not be. There are many noise generating components to a submarine and pump noises are just one of them. We also don’t know the level of silencing technologies and how effective they are that has gone into either of them. Just because the Gotland was rented to play aggressor does not necessarily mean it must be quieter. SSBNs and SSGNs and most SSNs have to play operational roles and cannot be diverted for purely aggressor roles.
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.
As for the last sentence in that quote, you made it up as you go along, didn’t you?
Amazing that you actually believe specialised algorithms are open sourced and shared. Shows much about the level of your ignorance. 😀 Wonder why UK was looking at a French adaptive beam-forming algorithm and had to wait for clearance for its transfer if they are open sourced?
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.
:rolleyes: Your logic would apply to CEC as well. I’m sure that if CEC didn’t exist and a CEC like scheme was proposed you would spill the same BS logic. 😀 You do realise that the scheme being discussed now is not too far different from what the CEC is already doing, with the only difference being the launching units are currently surface units instead?
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.
crobatoDoes Tu-22M3 and Oscar II still have what it takes or Aegis will prevail?
The whole SU concept was to go nuclear. Those big and heavy Granits were meant to be nuclear tipped, plus a bunch of other missiles like the Sunburn. So are torpedoes.
If you can intercept the missiles and they’re carrying conventionals, the ones that will get through may probably damage some ships, even mission kill them, but it won’t take out a CVBG.
But 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.
So the question is whether you want to be nuclear or conventional.
If you go nuclear, you will probably only have subs remaining by the second day (the crews of all surface ships will probably die by fall out and radiation soon enough), and by the end of the month, all civilization on Earth will cease to function.
crobatoMan this is going to be like clubbing a baby seal. :diablo:
Apparently the one-liners are even more than you can handle. Who ever said SSGNs would be TRACKING targets?
Who said they’d be firing blind? Who said IFF wouldn’t be being used? Do you know what “CEC” means beyond the words the acronym stand for?
Explain how firing a missile from underwater is going to keep an AWACS from identifying targets. Oops.
I’d call you something here but it’s much more fun to watch you do it to yourself. 😀
You know what line of sight is for an orbiting AWACS that can move info over a satellite link if it needs to?
Why when you can do that with -688s and helos operating under aircover?
Well you’re just too smart for me. Maybe next you’ll be berating me about how your pinging SSKs are going to detect an Ohio before the Ohio hears the pings now? :diablo:
Nah, it’s easy to have the good stuff when you don’t have to make it yourself.
Don’t need to. The fact is you don’t know enough about it to even come up with a plausible bull$hit answer which is why you refuse to when called on it.
Wow really? A flying aircraft isn’t a static target? Well hell, I guess it’s true, even a blind squirrel gets an acorn once in a while.
Looking forward to your next “lesson” ROFL. :diablo:
You know what is completely idiotic about your answers, is that you yourself don’t know what the hell you are trying to talk about and so you are left trying to make an implication how ‘smart’ you are.
You have a scheme that is absolutely taxing and C3 intensive. Sure your AWACS can do a lot, but it has to do a whole lot of other things, and you are just adding to the burden, just when there are plenty of advocacy now within the US forces to reduce top heavy mission cycles with something more autonomous. Trying to abuse your CEC just because you have CEC isn’t smart. You have not even dealt that there are fixed numbers when it comes to target tracking, that number goes down further if you are tracking with the necessary quality for a missile lock, and limitations to the number of missiles you can guide from an external platform, which also is confronted with other duties. This opens for many potential failure points, ranging from human errors to decoys and ECM affecting your IFF.
I am never an advocate for platforms, Chinese or US or anything that do not have an autonomous detect, track, identify, target, launch, and guide cycle within that platform and that isn’t strategic in purpose. Even in my posts in the CDF and SDF (concerning the 022 that does the same thing for the ships) I do not advocate that.
This is just fantasy material for frustrated armchair neocons. Go to your nearest admiral and suggest that and see if you don’t get laughed at.
crobatoPoint 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.
Its still up to you to prove it, rather than suggest via innuendo that it can.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-08-pentagon-spending_x.htm
So what? That only means it can be a lesson for the Congress and the Senate to be more vigilant. You are not in the Cold War anymore and facing heavy deficits now.
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.
Blah blah blah. Whatever they are using, they have to be using the electronic components that can be made from their fabs. What’s really the diffference between COTS and MILSPEC for chips being used for sonars when you can build microprocessors and DSPs with transistor sizes under 0.18 micron?
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.
You don’t know what the FK natural circulation is do you when you just mentioned it in comparison to the Gotland.
Let me underline what you just said, shows you your basic ignorance about sub technologies.
Natural circulation makes for no pump noises, which is the main cited noise maker in comparison to the Gotland.
The fact is the Gotland does not need natural circulation because it does not have a nuclear reactor. Natural circulation is about the movement of coolant iinto the reactor without using pumps. To some degree, all nuclear reactors do have natural circulation as a backup, and natural circulation is also best used when you have low power settings. When the sub is at full steam, you certainly do need your pumps. For safety reasons, both pump and natural circulation must present—it is impossible even for the Ohio not to have coolant pumps though it does not need to use it at lower speeds.
But even with natural circulation, steam is still running through pipes, and that produce their own noise, which is used to turn a turbine, itself noisy, and these turbines turn on a set of reduction gears (transmission) and that adds noise.
Compare that to the Gotland. Electric motor—that has far less moving parts than a turbine. Electricity running through wires, want to bet that makes a lot less noise than steam running through pipes? An electric motor has much more torque than a turbine, which means you can eliminate the reduction gear box, something the Type 209 has already done. A nuclear reactor cannot be fully stopped, but an electric motor can.
If you think the nuclear sub is that quiet, ask again why do you have to lease the Gotland to play aggressor and not use your own ships? The USN also uses other countries like Peru to serve as aggressors for ASW exercises.
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.
Really? Are Fourier Transforms no open sourced? Digital Signal Processors. SAW devices? The first thing by far is to detect and amplify signals, and that’s the same common set of technologies with sonars, radars, telephones, modems, celphones, and a whole bunch of stuff. The processing capability of whatever you can get for dollars now exceeds whatever the military computers you have in the eighties in the order of magnitudes.
One way the CIA analyzes capability is to analyze the basic technological components of that capability.
In this case,
Microprocessors
Digital Signal Processors
Amplifiers like SAW devices
Institutions of research and development
Availability of outside sources of information and consultation
A highly developed engineering and programming skillset.
And its yes, yes, yes, yes and hell yes.
crobatoBecause the SSGN, the CEC and the RTOF buoys which are key components of such a notional system are stil relatively new?
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.
Pointing to a black budget does not make it exist. 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
crobatoNot 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.
Still I wonder why this has not been done.
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?
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.
I was just pointing out the dynamics of the situation where a SSK was actually trying to chase down a SSGN.
A SSGN would have had PLUSNET equivalent system deployed into the area. Chances of a SSK staying hidden isn’t big.
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.
What makes you think not using vacuum tubes means that COTS technology is automatically used? Ever heard of MILSPEC? :rolleyes:
And you don’t think that China has their own military spec standards? 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.
crobato???? Is that some lame a$$ attempt at an insult?
Guess what Einstein.
Why?
Seems to me you got nothing left by one liners eh? You have no idea that a target that will move quite fast requires multiple updates. Maybe its big news to you, but those sensors in AD ships are doing very fast data updates when they track missiles and aircraft and so on.
Again- why? Think through the details of the scenario, don’t just come back with a “just because I say so” answer.
Oh really you want to fire blind, without knowing where the position of potential targets and whether they are friend or foe?
Which has nothing to do with the SSGN so why did you bring it up?
Certainly your underwater scheme of firing SAMs has serious IFF issues.
Incorrect. The only info the SSGN needs to transmit to the network is the “channel” each missile launched is listening for which could be as short as a 20-character code if that, and the target it is going after, which again could be a very short code as each target could have it’s own network identifier.
As for what it needs to receive, again, I think you’ve seriously over estimated it. First your not going to waste one of it’s shots on a friggin’ bomb. It’s for aircraft only and preferably HVAs. That cuts down the data right there. Secondly you don’t need to update several times a second. You could have several “channels” that can be listened in on with the “here’s the broad brush list” only updated every five or ten seconds. That’s enough resolution for a shooter to decide if it can engage the target. Once it picks it’s target it feeds the initial coordinates to the missile, fires it, and notifies the network “missile is on it’s way towards target xxx.xx.xxxx.x and is listening for yy.yy.y.yy.yyy” and the sub is done. There would probably need to be a form of confirmation in there once or twice but again, it needn’t be many bytes changing hands.
In the first place, Einstein, how the F you are going to tell if its a bomb or an aircraft? And how would you know if if the aircraft is friendly or not?
Please do, I’d love to hear it.
You mean you want an AEW aircraft tied line of sight from your buoy?
Which won’t be working well at high speed so they’ll have to be going slow and unless you happen to be in shooting range when the SSGN launches you’re probably SOL. And let’s not forget any Seawolfs or Virginias that might be in the neighborhood.
Which is an expensive freaking waste of resources to guard what is essentially a non autonomous SAM launching platform when you can have expensive Seawolfs and Virginias guarding a CVF.
And I suppose your pinging won’t be heard? :rolleyes: Sonar is like radar; it allows the enemy to detect you before you detect him.
Yes, that’s the disadvantage of pinging. The advantage however, nothing escapes from it. Nothing. It will only be a matter of time before detection. So, if you’re in a sub, once you hear the active pinging, will you still conduct business as usual?
You probably think they’re all using gear from 1980 :rolleyes:
And you are probably thinking the PLAN is using gear from 1960.
[quote]
Sounds like you don’t know what the terms “efficient flight profile” and “gravity” means. You might want to educate yourself.
Add “potential energy” to your reading list.
[quote]
Typical response, when you can’t explain the physics yourself. Why don’t you actively define what is efficient flight profile and all that other stuff you read in the ads of Seapower magazine?
Again, go back and think it through. Don’t type. Think. From the time the missile leaves the SSGN to the time it impacts, what’s happening?
A SAM works differently from a cruise missile or ballistic missiles. Its not aimed at a static target. It does not have a proximity blast effect to cover errors in navigation accuracy. It has to deal with multiple fast moving targets in a very fluid situation. You’re proposing at least a 2 billion dollar mobile SAM launcher that is not command and sensor autonomous, and for that money you might as well buy something more useful like an AEGIS destroyer with an E767 tossed in.
Sign In
