Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Project 885 Yasen vs. NSSN Virginia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by YellowFever
    And dalem, you're absolutley right.
    These smaller AIP boats have the USN really concerned.
    A big mistake the USN made is that they have been paying alot less attention to submarine warfare (In all honesty, due to over confidence).
    Not "Due to overconfidence" but because that wasn't the US Navys primary task during the cold war. No Navy can be the best at everything. So during the cold war the US focused on CBGs while our allies focused on ASW and MCM. The Brits and Canadians are better because that was their focus (control of the GIUK Gap).

    And even today we rely on allies for those missions. We have a smaller Navy that we have had in 100 years, gotta pick your priorities.

    Now these little yahoo boats come along and routinely waxes them in practices. Time for the USN to play a little catch-up.
    Yes we do need some work. But an often mentioned exercise RIMPAC where Australian, Chilian and other boats have taken the periscope pics prove nothing.
    You must look at who comprised the Task forces.

    Take the famous Waller photo. The RimPac exercise in which HMAS Waller sunk 2 carriers, sounds impressive until you discover that it wasn't a force on force US against other participants. Every country with more than 3 ships had participants on both sides.

    And the US carrier that was sunk by the Waller had a JSDF Navy screen. So what does that say about the US ASW abilities? Nothing. Also that carrier was "sunk" many times over, being a member of the "Red" Force.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Gun Grape
      LGMs use different laser codes or different frequencies. For same type weapons on a target, a weapon such as copperhead, each target designator would be assigned a pulsed freq code for his laser that correspondes to the PFC that the cannon crew dials into the weapon. Each weapon looks for its code and ignores the others. Other laser guided munitions are similar. At some point you get washout so the number of targets that you can simo engage in a specific area are limited.
      Gun Grape, may I interject with possibly a newer technology?

      I work with communications, both cell phone network and computer network. The pulse frequency code you described sounds like an older type of analog technology used in the 80s.

      A new way to do things would be to use digital codes. Each round is assaigned a digital code and ignores all other codes. We can cram a huge number of simultaneous laser guided weapons using the same laser. The trick is to let a remote designator find the correct round to guide in the first place. Once that is solved, we can let loose just about all the weapons we can launch simultaneously.

      Usually, an 8-bit code can (theoretically) guild up to 256 weapons. A 12-bit code can guide 4096 weapons; a 16-bit code can guide up to 65000+ weapons. Anything more is probably not needed. Ideally, these codes are not assigned to each individual weapons until the time of launch, so we don't have wasted bandwidth.

      I'm sure the Pentagon is working on this thing, if it's not completed already. If I can think of it, I'm sure the real engineers at Raytheon or GE came up with it long ago.
      Last edited by gunnut; 08 Aug 06,, 01:28.
      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by gunnut
        Gun Grape, may I interject with possibly a newer technology?

        I work with communications, both cell phone network and computer network. The pulse frequency code you described sounds like an older type of analog technology used in the 80s.

        A new way to do things would be to use digital codes. Each round is assaigned a digital code and ignores all other codes. We can cram a huge number of simultaneous laser guided weapons using the same laser. The trick is to let a remote designator find the correct round to guide in the first place. Once that is solved, we can let loose just about all the weapons we can launch simultaneously.

        Usually, an 8-bit code can (theoretically) guild up to 256 weapons. A 12-bit code can guide 4096 weapons; a 16-bit code can guide up to 65000+ weapons. Anything more is probably not needed. Ideally, these codes are not assigned to each individual weapons until the time of launch, so we don't have wasted bandwidth.

        I'm sure the Pentagon is working on this thing, if it's not completed already. If I can think of it, I'm sure the real engineers at Raytheon or GE came up with it long ago.

        I remember talks about it 10 years ago.

        Some of the problems are assigning codes because you neve know what plane with what weapons are avaliable to show up when you call.

        Another being washout. Different lasers have different strengths, and this is a problem with the "old" system also. Start designating with different spotters and the guy with the most powerful laser washes out everyone else.

        Also different seerker heads require a certain strength in the signal before they guide. It keeps them from homing in on backsplatter. It has also caused more than a few to home in on the FO team lasing:(

        Granted these things are overcome through TPPs but it is food for thought.

        The big challenge being tackled now is joint interoperability. Not all lasers can guide all rounds.

        Comment


        • #64
          Seems like Indian Navy will get its hands on Yasen class??
          http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/47980078.cms

          How good is the submarine? Still noisy?

          Comment

          Working...
          X