[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I personally wonder at times whether we should just eliminate that bearing ambiguity. With the frigate, the signal will resolve with a tiny, weeny turn and the false signal won't bother you again. With the subs, you might somehow resolve the false contact and squelch it, but the auto crew just plots it again in my experience.

I'm sure the disadvantage can be reduced by upping sensitivity as one sees fit (I've already proceeded to try that privately so Russian sonars progress from -8 to -10).

And there is no point in pretending the Akula is as good as the Seawolf in either silencing or sonar.

Something else one can try is change the torps of those ASW missile dropped torps from Circle to Snake. Overall, it is a more useful setting. Imagine when Seawolf shoots you, and you send off ASW missiles down the bearing line in 5nm increments, all of which start homing...

To forestall stupidities like deploying the missiles every nautical mile with a 14 SS-N-27 launch, try this. Put the new -27 torp on the Stallion (it is just a torp carrier, changing the torp carried shouldn't be outside the realm of possibility), and change that one's homing logic to Snake. Leave the SS-N-27 as is. That gives people a real reason to use it (right now, its slow torpedo and the limited utility of 100km class ASW ranges makes it not too attractive).

Another option, give them the Resolve Bearing thing, but on the -16, and drop sensitivity by two points, justified by:
1) They need contact on both arrays to do this.
2) They probably need more than a minimal signal on the weakest array to do the resolve automatically.

This turns the -16 into a Bearing Resolving sensor, and more people will deploy it.

[Wim Libaers]

[SeaQueen]

[SeaQueen]

[LuftWolf]

Wouldn't any offset do?

So two TA's streamed to different lengths wouldn't produce the same effect or a similar effect to two TA's streamed with some distance between them for their whole length?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

[Bill Nichols]

I found this interesting little tidbit on a site about the Navy's ARCI sonar improvement program:


"Specific software improvements included passive ranging, spatial vernier processing, full spectrum processing, dual towed array concurrent processing, low frequency active interference rejection, passive broadband, passive narrowband and passive detection and tracking processing, track management, on-board training, and port/starboard ambiguity resolution."

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/03/usa-upgrades-submarine-fleet-acoustics-under-arci-program-updated/index.php

[Henson]

[Deathblow]

[SeaQueen]

[MaHuJa]

Running with two towed arrays out would provide you with a potential problem: towed arrays getting tangled in each other. That is not simulated in DW.

Further, you'd need to have the two TAs exactly as far out, and I think preferrably the same depth. (Oops, there went the ability to choose what sort of TA you need, fast or sensitive...)

What Kazushima (:hmm: gotta look that up, I suspect it will translate) said (non-fixed offsets) doesn't apply all that much for bearing resolution, until they swirl too close, into each other, or even switch sides, but when they do... If you stream them far, so as to let them get deep, and far from ownship noise, etc, etc, the swirling around will be greater.

Potentially even switching sides; That's a type of bearing resolution I would not want.


The only way I could see this get done is to give the TAs a small "tail" with two hydrophones and a "ballast" to make sure it doesn't roll, or four hydrophones and a direction sensor, and place them on the end of the TA. The idea is that the exact separation length shouldn't matter, as long as you can determine which side the sound came from. Essentially, this is to transform the TA from a one-dimensional to a two-dimensional sensor.

[SeaQueen]