Author Topic: Saddam Leaving Iraq! Enroute To France! (Read 1912 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #45 on:** March 17, 2003, 11:33:38 PM »

Ive often spoken about croatian attrocvties in WW2 in the apporopriate threads involving ou 1990s civil war. Those guys were nuts and even the SS complained about their brutality. Plus that the ustashe idiots gave half of croatia to italy outright makes me have an incredibly low opionon of them. They did have cool lookin airplane insigna though, i'll give them that...

I dont know why you think i never mentioned it. Guess that makes you more comfortable to think ythat I'mm one sided.

And again we see this "so another guy did it" fallacy used by liberals to excuse inaction. They gotta make that official.

Hortlund · « **Reply #46 on:** March 18, 2003, 02:06:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Heh ... the all knowing judge (lol). So how do you compare the Akula II to the 688i or the Seawolf? The USN lost its edge over the Russians with the advents of the Akula (which was the first Russian sub to loose its USN "tail" due to it's stealth rather than an error on the USN part).

[/b]

Well, see the Soviet/Russian problem has always been Sonar, propeller and Reactor insulation from the hull. While they did achieve a breakthrough in propeller techology back in 80-something with the Toshiba/Kongsberg (?) scandal (Toshiba and a Norwegian company sold the latest computer tech to USSR so they could make better computer models of the propellers (and thus cavitation estimates/calculations) it was not nearly good enough. It was found that when the propellers got quieter, the reactor was making more than enough noise. Something about vibration from the coolant pumps spreading through the hull.

NOW, with the new generation of Soviet subs, they have indeed gotten more quiet, but hey..everything is relative. I'd say the Akula I might be somewhat on pair with the (old) 688, while the Akula II might be somewhat better (between 688 and i688).

However, that is just from a "being quiet perspective" and that is only one half of sub combat. The other half is about detecting the enemy. The USN Subs owns the Russians (and everyone else) in this category. The soviet sonars suck bellybutton while the USN sonars are the best in the world.

Quote

"It is difficult to find the most advanced Russian Akula class submarines when they operate at tactical speed or less," Admiral Jeremy Boorda

"The Akula is the best submarine in the world today.", Anthony Batista, senior staff member of the Armed Forces Committee (1988)

"The $7 billion-per-year Russian program has produced the Akula submarine, which is quieter than Seawolf.", Vice Admiral E.A. Burkhalter (1995)

These quotes are from people seeking more money for the USN. Cant bloody well say "we own their asses" then.

Nilsen · « **Reply #47 on:** March 18, 2003, 02:42:37 AM »

When speaking about subs...

The quietest subs you will find are modern diesel/electric subs(on electric power of course

). Whatever platform you are in they are nearly impossible to find in a littoral enviroment unless the subdriver makes a mistake. There is little doubt that the us and canada has the most sensitive towed-array sonars in the world, but there are other sonars that are effective enough to track other marks well beyond the range of their weapon systems.

Hortlund · « **Reply #48 on:** March 18, 2003, 02:53:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen10
When speaking about subs...

The quietest subs you will find are modern diesel/electric subs(on electric power of course ). Whatever platform you are in they are nearly impossible to find in a littoral enviroment unless the subdriver makes a mistake. There is little doubt that the us and canada has the most sensitive towed-array sonars in the world, but there are other sonars that are effective enough to track other marks well beyond the range of their weapon systems.

Diesel/electric subs are among the most quiet ones in the world. Not when they are at the surcace running the diesels to recharge the batteries though...

I am not only talking about towed array sonars, I am talking about all types of sonars. Except active sonars, because they are as effective as using a flashlight in a desert night to locate your enemy...sure you can find him if you are close enough and point the flashlight on him, but he (and everyone else) will know where you are long before you know where he is.

Please elaborate on these "other sonars that are effective enough to track other marks well beyond the range of their weapon systems" You can start out by saying exactly what you mean with that sentence, because I do not understand it.

Nilsen · « **Reply #49 on:** March 18, 2003, 04:17:01 AM »

Hortlund

Im talking about sonars that can track other surface/subsurface targets well beyond the range of their onboard weapon systems .

There is as i stated very little doubt that when it comes to long range passive detection in bluewater conditions the CANTASS systems and Lockheed Maritin's TB-29 and AN/SQQ systems are the finest in the world. However there are very fine sonar systems coming from manufacurers in europe and worldwide that are highly sophisticated and very capable for their purpouse. Thales systems and STN Atlas Elektronik system comes to mind as they are the systems i have been in most contact with.

Hortlund · « **Reply #50 on:** March 18, 2003, 04:21:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen10

Im talking about sonars that can track other surface/subsurface targets well beyond the range of their onboard weapon systems .

And that is what I'm not understanding what you mean. Even the most rudimentary passive sonar from the 50:s could do that.

Nilsen · « **Reply #51 on:** March 18, 2003, 04:28:38 AM »

yes, but...

surface and subsurface warships have become very much quieter now than 50 years ago and the weapon systems like torpedoes also has alot more range than 50 years ago.

Hortlund · « **Reply #52 on:** March 18, 2003, 12:40:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Hortlund, I'm afraid you digress. You don't need superior sensors to launch a ballistic or cruise missile attack. That's a major reason the Cold War stayed cold. Neither the US nor the Soviets were able to track all of their opponent's SSBN's reliably. The Russian SSN's also rely heavily on other ASW/ASuW platforms for remote targeting data, mainly the Tu-95 Bear Foxtrot and Il-38 May, to fill the "sensor gap".

I think this started with the French SSBN's. I doubt very much that anyone know exactly where ALL of them are right now, even the mighty USN.

This entire line of arguing began when you claimed that soviet SSN's were on level with USN subs. I was simply pointing out that there are two aspects that are crucial in submarine warfare, the ability to stay hidden, and the ability to locate your opponent. The russians are not good enough at staying hidden, and they are really bad at finding their opponent...that is a bad combination. The USN subs on the other hand, are masters of staying hidden, and they excel at finding their opponents...that is a good combination.

I would love for you to explain exactly how the Russian SSN's make use of targeting data coming from Tu-95 Bear (which is not really an ASW plane) or Il-38 "May". What is the link of communication between the different platforms, and how well can they support eachother in a tactical encounter?

How many SSBN do you think the French has?

Nilsen · « **Reply #53 on:** March 18, 2003, 01:23:44 PM »

who has told anyone that the US is that far ahead of the russians?

US intelligence?

the movies?

discovery channel doing documentaries from US subs?

Of course the US will say that they are the best and the russians will argue the same.

But how do we know who are the best?

Hortlund · « **Reply #54 on:** March 18, 2003, 03:11:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen10
who has told anyone that the US is that far ahead of the russians?

Books & Articles.

Hortlund · « **Reply #55 on:** March 18, 2003, 03:20:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Notice how I stated "evade" not "on level". I only compare the stealth not the ability to attack other subs (SSBN's don't need that capability).

[/b]
Detect is not the same thing as attack. SSBNs does very much need the capability to detect other subs.

Quote

For someone who stated "I know enough about modern naval combat thankyouverymuch" I find it strange that I have to explain the fundamentals of Russian tactical ASW and ASuW operation, but I will. [SNIP]

[/b]
What you are describing here can be considered wishful thinking at best. (I was confusing the Bear with the elint variant btw.)
Surely you must agree to that? Honestly..do you think Russian ASW assets are able to detect and track USN SSNs? And forget "theoretically possible" do you think it happens? Considering the state of the Russian navy/airforce, the technology gap, crew training/motivation etc?

Quote

The French operate four SSBN's at present; L'Inflexible, L'Indomptable, Le Triomphant, and Le Téméraire with Le Vigilant scheduled for sea-trials this year and commission next year. A sixth unnamed SSBN is under construction.

And how many SSNs does the USN have? (you dont have to answer as long as you acknowledge the fact that the USN could EASILY put a tail on each French SSBN).

Hortlund · « **Reply #56 on:** March 19, 2003, 04:03:39 PM »

[rant]
Been in court with a damn juvenile case today all day, thats why I havent replied yet. Stupid damn 17 yr old kid jumped on the head of a kid who'd been kicked to the ground already. The damn trial took 7 bloody hours.
[/rant]

Well, I would really like to avoid the battle of sources that so often evolves in debates on this BB. How about this. You claim that the Russians have better equipment now than they did back in the 80s/90s sure I'll buy that. I'm still going to maintain however that the best Russian state of the art equipment right now is on par with US mid 80s equipment when it comes to stealth (propulsion, hull design, quietness) and on par with US mid/late 70s when it comes to sonar (both software and hardware). I honestly did not think that the US technological edge was in doubt. Sure the Soviets managed to excell in some very specialized areas, like the speed of the Alfa...but generally those special abilities came with horrible side effects..the Alfa was about as quiet as an exploding freight train when going at speed.

So they have a new torpedo now, first I remain unconvinced about the abilities of that torpedo, second any torpedo is useless if you cant locate and track the intended targets.

When you say the Russians are only a few percentages behind USN...what exactly do you mean by that? Because you simply cannot mean that when it comes to sonar capacity, or stealth for that matter. Even the dirt old Ohios are like a wall of compact silence compared to the latest Russian SSN's...but granted, the Ohios are special.

As for the US ability to track enemy SSBNs and/or SSNs... now you are wandering into detailed tactical encounters and tactics. I mean sure we can go there, but it becomes rather odd because I could just modify the example by saying "Oh but the USN decided it was so important to keep a track on these SSBNs, so they decided to put two i688s on each one, that way if one is driven off the other one can continue." I am noth convinced about the "crazy ivan" tactic you described either for a number of reasons.

But anyway...any 688 captain that chose to go flank speed to keep up with a rushing boomer and got caught by her escort would not be a 688 captain long after that. Much easier to stay hidden, follow the escort instead and/or just wait to detect the boomer again. Rule #1 of sub warfare is never to give up your stealth advantage, or in other words, never compromise your position. That is why your crazy ivan variant sounds rather odd, since doing one of those rushes would broadcast your position to everyone within miles.

BGBMAW · « **Reply #57 on:** March 19, 2003, 04:12:04 PM »

hort..i enoy reading stuff like that..
always interested in reading Military anaylsists(spelling i know)

always love reading sub stuff..but only kno wmuch about ww2 sub stuff..this new toejam is insane,,,

thx and keep it up..

Where is a good place to read New Sub stuff?

Salute
BiGB
xoxo

Hortlund · « **Reply #58 on:** March 19, 2003, 04:21:51 PM »

Thanks BGB

Try this site, it is a really good starting point.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/submarine.htm

Fishu · « **Reply #59 on:** March 20, 2003, 08:39:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
How would you have felt if a Norwegian ship had been bombed by terrorists and 36 of your fellow countrymen killed? Would you have appreciated such a remark about the incident from ME?

..as obvious, terrorists doesn't care about Norway, since they don't tend to stir up problems and then fault the others for it.
US is just begging for more terrorist attacks and then acting innocent when something happens... ignorance rules.