| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hachiman
Joined: 25 Dec 2001
Posts: 722
Location: Edinburgh Jockland
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 6:51 am Post subject: Can you Triangulate using Bow and Towed Arrays? |
 |
|
Is it safe to say you can triangulate the position of a target(At least fairly close ones ) using your Bow and Towed Arrays?
Seems to work fairly accurately for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bellman
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 1724
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Yep - combined in TMA = master contact = Truth.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kapitan
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 5385
Location: essex england also st petersburg russia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Just got to know how to do it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bellman
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 1724
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well its not rocket science just a question of making well judged turns particularly with LwAmis increased SA baffles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kapitan
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 5385
Location: essex england also st petersburg russia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The main array you want in a sub is towed array god help you if you loose it, that thing can pick up a camel sneezing 300km away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 4866
Location: Rochester, New York
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Too bad the last nuc to mount a PUFFS like array for rapid triangulation was the Tullibee SSN-597... well until the Seawolf and its WAA came along. I guess Rickover didn’t want any technology that originated on diesel boats.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sonar732
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 1358
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If you combine 30 degree turns and changes in speed, you'll have awesome TMA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goldorak
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 393
Location: Milano,Italy
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TLAM Strike wrote: | | Too bad the last nuc to mount a PUFFS like array for rapid triangulation was the Tullibee SSN-597... well until the Seawolf and its WAA came along. I guess Rickover didn’t want any technology that originated on diesel boats. |
It seems that in the us navy the term "diesel submarine" is taboo.
I think its bad strategy to concentrate only on nuclear submarines, even moreso in a post cold war world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultraboy
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 152
Location: The Mysterious Canadas
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| goldorak wrote: | It seems that in the us navy the term "diesel submarine" is taboo.
I think its bad strategy to concentrate only on nuclear submarines, even moreso in a post cold war world. |
I'm sure if the US Navy's primary submarine mission was coastal defense, they'd be singing a different tune.
But before I go off on a tangent, just check out this article:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,95378,00.html
On a semi-related note to the original topic, does DW+LWAMI represent the different lengths between TB-16 and TB-23? (And TB-29 I guess)
Also, while I'm asking, are the different sensitivities between towed-arrays taken into account?
I ask specifically regarding the 688i because that's what I normally use but any info on this would be appreciated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 4866
Location: Rochester, New York
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ultraboy wrote: | | goldorak wrote: | It seems that in the us navy the term "diesel submarine" is taboo.
I think its bad strategy to concentrate only on nuclear submarines, even moreso in a post cold war world. |
I'm sure if the US Navy's primary submarine mission was coastal defense, they'd be singing a different tune. |
Grrrr the Diesel boat doesn’t have to be a costal defense weapon.  The one legacy I kinda wish John Holland didn't leave the US Navy. Open ocean diesels have been around a long time. How soon we forget the Fleet Type Boats and GUPPEs, The Porpoise, Oberons and Upholders/Victorias, the Zulus, Foxtrots and Tangos. :know: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goldorak
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 393
Location: Milano,Italy
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TLAM Strike wrote: |
Grrrr the Diesel boat doesn’t have to be a costal defense weapon. The one legacy I kinda wish John Holland didn't leave the US Navy. Open ocean diesels have been around a long time. How soon we forget the Fleet Type Boats and GUPPEs, The Porpoise, Oberons and Upholders/Victorias, the Zulus, Foxtrots and Tangos. :know: |
Yes, even in the book "cold war submarines" an example is made of how an old fashion diesel submarine can pose a very serious threat to a stationary (or near stationary) surface fleet.
They were discussing the falkland war and how an argentine submarine just stayed in the zone of operations of the british fleet. The sub fired several torpedos at targets but didn't sink any of them (because of a failure of the torpedo) while the british had one hell of a time trying to sink the argentine sub and in the end they had to give up.
Seems the us strategists didn't learn this modern lesson of asw. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultraboy
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 152
Location: The Mysterious Canadas
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TLAM Strike wrote: | | Grrrr the Diesel boat doesn’t have to be a costal defense weapon. The one legacy I kinda wish John Holland didn't leave the US Navy. Open ocean diesels have been around a long time. How soon we forget the Fleet Type Boats and GUPPEs, The Porpoise, Oberons and Upholders/Victorias, the Zulus, Foxtrots and Tangos. :know: |
Sure, they don't have to be for coastal defense only, that's not what I'm saying.
I believe the argument is that coastal defense/littoral operations are the only areas where the diesels are actually superior to the nucs.
Now, while littoral ops may be more prominent in the near future for the US, I think the main question is is it worth a whole new class of boat?
I believe the economics of that argument will be/have been the deciding factor for the US Navy, more so than the perceived prejudice against diesels.
Of course I don't consider myself an expert, I'm just giving my opinion. But I haven't forgotten about all the open-ocean boats past or present TLAM.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Linton
Joined: 05 Dec 2003
Posts: 344
Location: Tunbridge wells,UK
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A diesel boat is a barrier weapon,a nuc is a fleet weapon.The upholders cold war task was to sit ina box as a barrier waiting for the bad guys to come |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SeaQueen
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ultraboy wrote: |
Sure, they don't have to be for coastal defense only, that's not what I'm saying.
I believe the argument is that coastal defense/littoral operations are the only areas where the diesels are actually superior to the nucs.
Now, while littoral ops may be more prominent in the near future for the US, I think the main question is is it worth a whole new class of boat?
I believe the economics of that argument will be/have been the deciding factor for the US Navy, more so than the perceived prejudice against diesels.
Of course I don't consider myself an expert, I'm just giving my opinion. But I haven't forgotten about all the open-ocean boats past or present TLAM. |
There's also a lot of politics to the submarine industry and there always has been. Anti-Soviet fervor was Adm. Rickover's way of getting Congress to appropriate money for more submarines than frequently even the Chief of Naval Operations wanted. Now a days, people try to play the same game, only they've crossed out "USSR" and replaced it with "PRC" in all their slides. There's also the fact that Electric Boat has what amounts to a government sanctioned monopoly on the submarine business. It's the sacred cow of Connecticut, and predictably, every Congressman from Connecticut says that a submarine is THE ultimate weapon at sea. It's the ONLY thing that can save us from rapid submarine proliferation throughout the developing world.
The truth is, it's not that simple.
Thankfully, the complete lack of fiscal restraint demonstrated by the Republican party in spite of their ideology has managed to put a damper on a lot of this sort of talk, simply because no matter how much you exploit scare tactics to create anti-Chinese paranoia, the money for the submarines you want to build simply isn't there. So... right now... this doesn't fly far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultraboy
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 152
Location: The Mysterious Canadas
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SeaQueen wrote: | There's also a lot of politics to the submarine industry and there always has been. Anti-Soviet fervor was Adm. Rickover's way of getting Congress to appropriate money for more submarines than frequently even the Chief of Naval Operations wanted. Now a days, people try to play the same game, only they've crossed out "USSR" and replaced it with "PRC" in all their slides. There's also the fact that Electric Boat has what amounts to a government sanctioned monopoly on the submarine business. It's the sacred cow of Connecticut, and predictably, every Congressman from Connecticut says that a submarine is THE ultimate weapon at sea. It's the ONLY thing that can save us from rapid submarine proliferation throughout the developing world.
The truth is, it's not that simple.
Thankfully, the complete lack of fiscal restraint demonstrated by the Republican party in spite of their ideology has managed to put a damper on a lot of this sort of talk, simply because no matter how much you exploit scare tactics to create anti-Chinese paranoia, the money for the submarines you want to build simply isn't there. So... right now... this doesn't fly far. |
It seems, as with most things, that there is a history on this topic that a guy like me (young and stupid) should really study in depth before providing too much commentary.
Of course you're right about the Republicans acting very un-Republican in areas of fiscal responsibility, but I'm not opening that can of worms! 
But seriously, if holding the Commies back isn't top-priority, I don't know what is!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
