Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) with Sonar
- Thread starter killbill2
- Start date
Every builder and operator of submarines claim they are the quietest. Its the silent community, discussions of silent operations is banned. Discussions of any operations is banned.
But there is some common knowledge out in the open. The deeper submarines are the quieter they are. The slower submarines are the quieter they are. Submarines are most vulnerable when on the surface. The submarine community claims they are the hunters and surface ships are targets.
I know this didn't answer your question. There is another question on another thread that won't be answered either, How fast can a ship turn on its CIWS or anti-air missile systems? Secrets are secrets.
But there is some common knowledge out in the open. The deeper submarines are the quieter they are. The slower submarines are the quieter they are. Submarines are most vulnerable when on the surface. The submarine community claims they are the hunters and surface ships are targets.
I know this didn't answer your question. There is another question on another thread that won't be answered either, How fast can a ship turn on its CIWS or anti-air missile systems? Secrets are secrets.
DoC_FouALieR
New Member
Be precise, difficult to detect on active sonar or passive sonar?i'd like to know how difficult it is to detect modern nuke sub like the seawolf class for example.
For the later, it is extremely difficult to catch a modern subs runing low and deep. I spoke with officiers onboard our SSNs, and they said that unless they know exactly what they were seeking and the bakground noise was low (ideal situation for using narrowband frequence analysis), they usually catch modern subs in exercice (for exemple 688) at ~ 2000m, which is at very very short range.
yes, narrowband will be the most obvious known mean of detecting an ultraquiet submarine (especially a conventional ones). but narrowband search are very demanding. for starters, u need to know what are u looking for. to isolate a signals on a broad range of frequencies would've ovewhelmed most of the computers existed today. the signal processors need its search gates to be set to a frequency of which the target are known to produce. it also require the search to be limited on a narrow angle at one time.
If you have ever been into a submarine (even the ones stated as "latest ultra quiet", you would know that quiet has not the same meaning down the sea.
Even in the quietest areas, it is difficult to hear ppl just speaking out load few meter away.
Now all the spectrum doesn't have the same propagation profile.
Even in the quietest areas, it is difficult to hear ppl just speaking out load few meter away.
Now all the spectrum doesn't have the same propagation profile.
There was an article in which a russian military expert was defending the continued use of their SSBNs as a deterrent. Apparently some in their military community felt that their subs were to easy to detect anyway and that for a nuclear deterrent they would be better served by the ICBM leg of the triad.
The author acknowledged that they did have a disadvantage in detection and sub silencing; however the sound conditions in the Barents where their subs operate greatly reduced the edge of their opponents. The west would not be able to simoultaneously take out the russian ssbns in a surprise first strike.
Any comments? I lost the link to the article when my computer crashed though, my apologies.
The author acknowledged that they did have a disadvantage in detection and sub silencing; however the sound conditions in the Barents where their subs operate greatly reduced the edge of their opponents. The west would not be able to simoultaneously take out the russian ssbns in a surprise first strike.
Any comments? I lost the link to the article when my computer crashed though, my apologies.