Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Share
    avatar
    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1624
    Points : 1652
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:08 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:Russian pacific fleet can cover the whole japan island even from the home port with rockets.

    Additionaly quite big part of the sea around japan covred by the russian air defense , os not so much chance for a maritime patrol aircraft.

    Russian Air defense is barely enough for their islands in the south of Kurilles. Realistically speaking the Russian fleet is too small in the region and other forces are just to weak to offensively threat a country of the size and strength like Japan, at conventional level. In fact Japan is a greater threat to those islands if they choose to shift their doctrine to more than self-defense.

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3826
    Points : 3881
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  JohninMK on Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:17 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:Russian pacific fleet can cover the whole japan island even from the home port with rockets.

    Additionaly quite big part of the sea around japan covred by the russian air defense , os not so much chance for a maritime patrol aircraft.

    Russian Air defense is barely enough for their islands in the south of Kurilles. Realistically speaking the Russian fleet is too small in the region and other forces are just to weak to offensively threat a country of the size and strength like Japan, at conventional level. In fact Japan is a greater threat to those islands if they choose to shift their doctrine to more than self-defense.

    Maybe someone in Moscow is doing some risk analysis on where they spend scarce resources.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 297
    Points : 299
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:35 pm

    Militarov wrote:

    That actually depends how thick is the ice, i belive IEER can work on ice too if its not extremly thick which is rarely on open ocean.

    When its about MAD i belive Indian and UK P-8s will have it, while USN opted aganist it seems partially because they want to introduce new type of sonobouys called MAC which pulse for prolonged period of time till onboard battery runs off. And seems they want to keep MAD sensors on ASW helicopters and future ASW UAV-s rather than P-8s, looks that idea is that UAVs should do low altitude search and P-8s high altitude search, however 12km altitude sounds abit too high for me, i belive average altitude from which it will be operated is more like 6-8km.

    As I see the IEER actually the data collection system from the sonabouys.

    Means if there is ice then you need heavy, rugged (and expensive) sonabouy to crack the ice.


    And above certain thickness it is not possible at all.

    And even if you crack the ice the emitter will stuck under the ice, blocking the UHF transmitter.

    So, no, you won't be able to use it on ice.

    The P-8 fly 12 km high to observe bigger area, and to have longer loiter time.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 297
    Points : 299
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:41 pm




    Just for reference, this is a heavy, maximum ice condition on the Russian EEZ.

    Patrol aircraft can be used only a very small area.

    Means it is impossible to detect submarines with aircraft, they need seabed sonars.
    avatar
    Isos
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 530
    Points : 534
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Isos on Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:05 pm

    They can still go for cheaper civilian jet converted for patroling like Dassault falcon jet. No need for an expensive aircraft that will be shot down if it goes near a destroyer or if intercepted by a fighter. Their role is not that important in my opinion. Maybe a big simple drone widely produce can be better.

    The space between Japan and Russia can be covered by 4 Su-35's radars and all ships will be detected with the option of defending themeselves and the ability of attacking with a variety of different missiles.
    avatar
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 940
    Points : 965
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  eehnie on Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:21 pm

    JohninMK wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:Russian pacific fleet can cover the whole japan island even from the home port with rockets.

    Additionaly quite big part of the sea around japan covred by the russian air defense , os not so much chance for a maritime patrol aircraft.

    Russian Air defense is barely enough for their islands in the south of Kurilles. Realistically speaking the Russian fleet is too small in the region and other forces are just to weak to offensively threat a country of the size and strength like Japan, at conventional level. In fact Japan is a greater threat to those islands if they choose to shift their doctrine to more than self-defense.

    Maybe someone in Moscow is doing some risk analysis on where they spend scarce resources.

    Clearly the new defense doctrine of Russia in the Pacific includes the alliance with China. Russia is getting more focused in the Arctic and in the Atlantic, while China is getting more focused in the Pacific (and India in the Indian Ocean).
    avatar
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 940
    Points : 965
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  eehnie on Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:39 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:I do not think Russia will follow the philosophy of the US on Maritime Patrol. The age of the manned Maritime Patrol aircrafts is near the end. Manned aircrafts for Maritime Patrol have shorter future than the lifetime of a new aircraft produced today.

    Seems US is planning of having high altitude maritime patrol and ASW performed by manned aircraft like P-8 (and alike?, since i doubt they will completely discard turboprops mby something on C-130J platform appears in future) and low altitude one by means of UAVs.

    They have a young model like the P-8 and they have to deal with it. But they know this is not the future. Russia has not an aircraft like this, it is better, because they can move earlier to the unmanned platforms for maritime patrol. In 20-25 years the P-8 will be still a young aircraft but will be severely outdated.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 297
    Points : 299
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:53 pm

    eehnie wrote:

    They have a young model like the P-8 and they have to deal with it. But they know this is not the future. Russia has not an aircraft like this, it is better, because they can move earlier to the unmanned platforms for maritime patrol. In 20-25 years the P-8 will be still a young aircraft but will be severely outdated.

    No one learnt here game theory?

    You can't use aircraft o hunt submarines best part of the year, means you need something (passive sonar system) anyway,and after that the airplanes has no function .

    Russia needs seabed sonar systems , not maritime patrol aircrafts.
    avatar
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 940
    Points : 965
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  eehnie on Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:09 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    eehnie wrote:

    They have a young model like the P-8 and they have to deal with it. But they know this is not the future. Russia has not an aircraft like this, it is better, because they can move earlier to the unmanned platforms for maritime patrol. In 20-25 years the P-8 will be still a young aircraft but will be severely outdated.

    No one learnt here game theory?

    You can't use aircraft o hunt submarines best part of the year, means you need something (passive sonar system) anyway,and after that the airplanes has no function .

    Russia needs seabed sonar systems , not maritime patrol aircrafts.

    I was talking in overall terms, not about a concrete area. I was not entering in the discussion about the iced areas. I tend to think the future of the maritime patrol from air will be solved with shipborne unmanned aircrafts. It means somethings:

    - The aircraft must be light, then no tripulation and few to zero weapons.
    - The warship will have the information from the aircraft/s and also from their other systems. They will combine them.
    - Like a warship can have unmanned aircarfs can have small unmanned submarines with technologies for detection.
    - Armament based in the warship can be used to answer to the detected threats.
    - Also armament carried by external platforms can be used (strategic bombers, other ships, other submarines,...).

    Maybe it helps to give you a better idea of what I think about.


    Last edited by eehnie on Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 297
    Points : 299
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:51 pm

    Isos wrote:They can still go for cheaper civilian jet converted for patroling like Dassault falcon jet. No need for an expensive aircraft that will be shot down if it goes near a destroyer or if intercepted by a fighter. Their role is not that important in my opinion. Maybe a big simple drone widely produce can be better.

    The space between Japan and Russia can be covered by 4 Su-35's radars and all ships will be detected with the option of defending themeselves and the ability of attacking with a variety of different missiles.


    The big aircrafts last for 100000 hours, the fighter jets last for 8000 hours.

    Seabed sonar array last for half million hours Smile
    avatar
    Isos
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 530
    Points : 534
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Isos on Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:08 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:They can still go for cheaper civilian jet converted for patroling like Dassault falcon jet. No need for an expensive aircraft that will be shot down if it goes near a destroyer or if intercepted by a fighter. Their role is not that important in my opinion. Maybe a big simple drone widely produce can be better.

    The space between Japan and Russia can be covered by 4 Su-35's radars and all ships will be detected with the option of defending themeselves and the ability of attacking with a variety of different missiles.


    The big aircrafts last for 100000 hours, the fighter  jets last for 8000 hours.

    Seabed sonar array last for half million hours Smile

    But the difference is that with an Aircraft your radar and sonars are not fixed. You can change your position.

    SOSUS was ineffective when two akula class went near US shores for 1 month. When you know where the sonars are, you can adapt you Attack. I'm not saying it's useless but it can't be an offensive tool. And special forces can just cut them before a war.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 297
    Points : 299
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Jan 13, 2017 7:34 pm

    Isos wrote:

    But the difference is that with an Aircraft your radar and sonars are not fixed. You can change your position.

    SOSUS was ineffective when two akula class went near US shores for 1 month. When you know where the sonars are, you can adapt you Attack. I'm not saying it's useless but it can't be an offensive tool. And special forces can just cut them before a war.

    SOSU was there as a gatekeeper.

    The russian system is there to cover the whole area, and give real time information about the movement of any ship.

    I think it is quite interesting to see that the Russians preferring the 24/7 radars instead of the airborne units.


    A 24/7 sonar system covering the Russian EEZ and beyond give more than few sonar buoy and maritime radar on an aircraft.

    Starting with that a modern, 200 m long seabed sonar can detect anything in 50 km area. If not then all that you have to do is to increase the sonar length to 1000 m.

    See?

    The maritime aircraft / nuclear submarine needed to cover the area if the sonar failed.


    The US system designed to cover any ocean around the world except the ice covered one.

    The Russian is to cover the home shores, and make impossible for any adversary to operate in attack distance.
    avatar
    Isos
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 530
    Points : 534
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Isos on Fri Jan 13, 2017 7:51 pm

    Yes for peace period it's the best choice. But in case of war these 200m sonar wires will be cut.

    I think it is quite interesting to see that the Russians preferring the 24/7 radars instead of the airborne units.

    If they really had the choice between A-50U/100 and ground radars they would chose A-50. They can't because of the cost. Idem for satelit early warning radar and ground base early warning radar.

    I agree that they need seabed sonars but not just it without a second capability with patrol Aircraft.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 297
    Points : 299
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:20 pm

    Isos wrote:Yes for peace period it's the best choice. But in case of war these 200m sonar wires will be cut.


    If they really had the choice between A-50U/100 and ground radars they would chose A-50. They can't because of the cost. Idem for satelit early warning radar and ground base early warning radar.

    I agree that they need seabed sonars but not just it without a second capability with patrol Aircraft.


    It is next to impossible to get close to a 200m sonar wire with anything.


    and the cutting of it is a quite important information, means war drill immediately.


    The early warning aircraft has limited size. Example it hasn't got enought power, and too small for a long wavelenght early warning radar.

    Like the sonabuoys rs of the P-8 Poseidon - compared to a seabed wire sonar the floating sonar is lame and very insensitive.

    I think everyone forget that the airborne application has geometrical advantage, but very bad power ,weight and size disadvantage.

    And the airborne posts are quite easy to destroy, and hard to protect.

    And from one AWACS you can buy 3-4 radar : )
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Militarov on Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:41 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    But the difference is that with an Aircraft your radar and sonars are not fixed. You can change your position.

    SOSUS was ineffective when two akula class went near US shores for 1 month. When you know where the sonars are, you can adapt you Attack. I'm not saying it's useless but it can't be an offensive tool. And special forces can just cut them before a war.

    SOSU was there as a gatekeeper.

    The russian system is there to cover the whole area, and give real time information about the movement of any ship.

    I think it is quite interesting to see that the Russians preferring the 24/7 radars instead of the airborne units.


    A 24/7 sonar system covering the Russian EEZ and beyond give more than few sonar buoy and maritime radar on an aircraft.

    Starting with that a modern, 200 m long seabed sonar can detect anything in 50 km area. If not then all that you have to do is to increase the sonar length to 1000 m.

    See?

    The maritime aircraft / nuclear submarine needed to cover the area if the sonar failed.


    The US system designed to cover any ocean around the world except the ice covered one.

    The Russian is to cover the home shores, and make impossible for any adversary to operate in attack distance.

    Fixed radar sites in times of war have lifespan of pack of cigarets in whorehouse. US has dozens of fixed radar installations too so?

    If Russians had to choose whey would have same number if not more maritime aviation borts than US or Japan, but there is not enough money, easy as that.

    Also please stop taking sonar detection as granted, it is not granted, not even by a long shot.
    avatar
    Isos
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 530
    Points : 534
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Isos on Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:52 am


    Fixed radar sites in times of war have lifespan of pack of cigarets in whorehouse. US has dozens of fixed radar installations too so?

    If Russians had to choose whey would have same number if not more maritime aviation borts than US or Japan, but there is not enough money, easy as that.

    Also please stop taking sonar detection as granted, it is not granted, not even by a long shot.

    Agree BUT if you target Russian early warning radar that will be seen as a start for nuk war. So they don't really care if they have enough patrol craft. The tensions between Japan and Russia are about the Kurils. Japan would never be able to exploit them after taking them by destroying pacific fleet. Russia will still be able the destroy all civillian ship exploiting te zone out there.

    The problem for patrol aircraft is that they need some logistic, fuel and airports. In case of a war Russia will probably target fuel tanker all over Japan (and that oulld be a big issue for them). And second they could target their Airports with antirunaway missiles and then destroy P-8 on the ground which can be seen easily with satelites with some cruise missiles. Idem for AWACS.

    Most of the aircrafts of the coalition in 91 were at ranges of Scud D missiles. If you want to win against an opponent which thinks he could win wth an airforce and without true anti air systems to protect them, you just need to destroy it's airfields and Aircraft wih big salvos of missiles and massive land atttacks.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 297
    Points : 299
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:06 pm

    Militarov wrote:

    Fixed radar sites in times of war have lifespan of pack of cigarets in whorehouse. US has dozens of fixed radar installations too so?

    If Russians had to choose whey would have same number if not more maritime aviation borts than US or Japan, but there is not enough money, easy as that.

    Also please stop taking sonar detection as granted, it is not granted, not even by a long shot.

    The experience of the Nato-serb war shown that the radars can survive the enemy attack, and had better survival rate than the aircrafts.

    And you can buy 3-4 radar from the price of 1 awacs, and these radars will be multi spectrum ones, and actually more capable than the awacs with the restricted size and capability.

    You are not so comfortable with the sonar physic, I presume : )

    Wit fixed installation it is simply matter of length to grant the detection of any submarine.

    the sonar less expensive than the cable network that connect it to the shores, so YES, you can take as granted the seabed sonar will pick the noise from any object swimming in the sea.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:33 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Militarov wrote:

    Fixed radar sites in times of war have lifespan of pack of cigarets in whorehouse. US has dozens of fixed radar installations too so?

    If Russians had to choose whey would have same number if not more maritime aviation borts than US or Japan, but there is not enough money, easy as that.

    Also please stop taking sonar detection as granted, it is not granted, not even by a long shot.

    The experience of the Nato-serb war shown that the radars can survive the enemy attack, and had better survival rate than the aircrafts.

    And you can buy 3-4 radar from the price of 1 awacs, and these radars will be multi spectrum ones, and actually more capable than the awacs with the restricted size and capability.

    You are not so comfortable with the sonar physic, I presume : )

    Wit fixed installation it is simply matter of length to grant the detection of any submarine.

    the sonar less expensive than the cable network that connect it to the shores, so YES, you can take as granted the seabed sonar will pick the noise from  any object swimming in the sea.

    Do you know how many fixed-radar sites here survived first week of the war? None. Neva supporting radar instalations? Over 80% destroyed. Only few mobile radar stations survived, suprisingly AN/TPS-70s proved to be exceptional. Those that survived were either not used or used little or were used in very unconventional ways without placing radars by the book without azimuth and elevation set, purely as early warning station then rushing it away upon any detection to prevent destruction.

    Stop pretending you are mathematician and physicist its painfull to watch, even your basic math understanding is questionable, we debunked that weeks ago, and i told you so, when you casually forgot time variable in most basic calculation. So please stop trying to pull that shit on me, i dont care what you pretend to be. Just dont do it on me, go try to impress kvs, Vann or someone else.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:36 pm

    Isos wrote:

    Fixed radar sites in times of war have lifespan of pack of cigarets in whorehouse. US has dozens of fixed radar installations too so?

    If Russians had to choose whey would have same number if not more maritime aviation borts than US or Japan, but there is not enough money, easy as that.

    Also please stop taking sonar detection as granted, it is not granted, not even by a long shot.

    Agree BUT if you target Russian early warning radar that will be seen as a start for nuk war. So they don't really care if they have enough patrol craft. The tensions between Japan and Russia are about the Kurils. Japan would never be able to exploit them after taking them by destroying pacific fleet. Russia will still be able the destroy all civillian ship exploiting te zone out there.

    The problem for patrol aircraft is that they need some logistic, fuel and airports. In case of a war Russia will probably target fuel tanker all over Japan (and that oulld be a big issue for them). And second they could target their Airports with antirunaway missiles and then destroy P-8 on the ground which can be seen easily with satelites with some cruise missiles. Idem for AWACS.

    Most of the aircrafts of the coalition in 91 were at ranges of Scud D missiles. If you want to win against an opponent which thinks he could win wth an airforce and without true anti air systems to protect them, you just need to destroy it's airfields and Aircraft wih big salvos of missiles and massive land atttacks.

    Dont play on that card of nuclear war, that aint happening. Nuclear war and then what? Nuclear weapons are deterrant, use of them is quite unlikely to happen in our lifetime, probably alot longer than that.

    Its doubtful they would use Japan as main hub for such operations, they have whole Europe, majority of Asia, South Korea, Australia, Pakistan on their disposal. And destroy tankers and AWACS above Japan with what atm?
    avatar
    Isos
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 530
    Points : 534
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Isos on Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:05 pm

    Dont play on that card of nuclear war, that aint happening. Nuclear war and then what? Nuclear weapons are deterrant, use of them is quite unlikely to happen in our lifetime, probably alot longer than that

    It's not like US would try to Attack them. US doesn't care if they have no interest. Gulf war was for fuel, Yougoslavia because EU forced them because there was a genocide, Kosovo was for puting their biggest in Europe... They have no big relations with Russia which is a country that could destroy them, their relation have never and will never change. They live each one on its side and it's OK till no one do stupid stuffs.

    Its doubtful they would use Japan as main hub for such operations

    I was talking about an hypotetic war between Ru and Japan.

    And destroy tankers and AWACS above Japan with what atm?

    I agree on this one. Russia has a defensive strategy which is based on ground anti air system and littoral navy. Egypt lost its war against Israel because of that. The only succes they had was when they attacked during Yom kippour war. Attack is much better than defence. However now they are more and more going for an attacking strategy with all their plateforms having the ability to lunch cruise missiles. They really should built just T-50, destroyers or frigates and cheap but effective cruise missiles, not these small corvettes.

    Look at the F-18, it's not the best Aircraft you can found but they have 60 of them per carrier. It's more than any country could have on its Mainland.

    the sonar less expensive than the cable network that connect it to the shores, so YES, you can take as granted the seabed sonar will pick the noise from  any object swimming in the sea.

    That's bullshit. special forces could easily destroy them. The diesel sub intercepted by the carrier group last month was detected by Ka-27 not ship's sonars, at least they said that.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 297
    Points : 299
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Jan 14, 2017 5:05 pm

    Militarov wrote:

    Do you know how many fixed-radar sites here survived first week of the war? None. Neva supporting radar instalations? Over 80% destroyed. Only few mobile radar stations survived, suprisingly AN/TPS-70s proved to be exceptional. Those that survived were either not used or used little or were used in very unconventional ways without placing radars by the book without azimuth and elevation set, purely as early warning station then rushing it away upon any detection to prevent destruction.

    Stop pretending you are mathematician and physicist its painfull to watch, even your basic math understanding is questionable, we debunked that weeks ago, and i told you so, when you casually forgot time variable in most basic calculation. So please stop trying to pull that shit on me, i dont care what you pretend to be. Just dont do it on me, go try to impress kvs, Vann or someone else.

    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-04.html

    Good afternoon, Mr Troll, how are you ? : )

    I don't care what you think about me, or about that who am I.
    Only the facts and the chain of logics matter.

    So, why the cable type seabed sonar so powerful ,and capable to detect practically anything?

    Or why it is not capable ? : )

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3826
    Points : 3881
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  JohninMK on Sat Jan 14, 2017 5:14 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:

    Good afternoon, Mr Troll, how are you ? : )

    I don't care what you think about me, or about that who am I.
    Only the facts and the chain of logics matter.

    So, why the cable type seabed sonar so powerful ,and capable to detect practically anything?

    Or why it is not capable ? : )

    Hi Junior. You have not been here long. Perhaps you ought to cut out the insults.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:01 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Militarov wrote:

    Do you know how many fixed-radar sites here survived first week of the war? None. Neva supporting radar instalations? Over 80% destroyed. Only few mobile radar stations survived, suprisingly AN/TPS-70s proved to be exceptional. Those that survived were either not used or used little or were used in very unconventional ways without placing radars by the book without azimuth and elevation set, purely as early warning station then rushing it away upon any detection to prevent destruction.

    Stop pretending you are mathematician and physicist its painfull to watch, even your basic math understanding is questionable, we debunked that weeks ago, and i told you so, when you casually forgot time variable in most basic calculation. So please stop trying to pull that shit on me, i dont care what you pretend to be. Just dont do it on me, go try to impress kvs, Vann or someone else.

    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-04.html

    Good afternoon, Mr Troll, how are you ? : )

    I don't care what you think about me, or about that who am I.
    Only the facts and the chain of logics matter.

    So, why the cable type seabed sonar so powerful ,and capable to detect practically anything?

    Or why it is not capable ? : )

    Mr. Troll served in 250th Air Defence Missile brigade, 240th Air Defense Self Propelled Missile Battalion. Then you appear and link me www.usaairpower.net to prove me wrong on 1999. war... good one, let me write everything on that link. My exCO will enjoy learning new things about his service.

    I am saying that you are taking sonar detection as granted, and it is not granted, not even by longest shot there is. Sonar is not magic, same as radar is not magic, and nothing is granted. Sry to pierce your bubble on that one. You all make mistake by assuming detection, first thing they tell you is "assume nothing". My point is military always assumes enemy will pass its radar coverage and its sonar coverage.

    I dont care who you are, i am just saying you should stop pretending you know math very well its humiliating, you already posted few times your... "math", quality of which is well i said already... I am saying this as i would tell to my best friend. We are not all engineers, lets stop pretending we are and lower the bar abit to things we know for sure.
    avatar
    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1624
    Points : 1652
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:30 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Militarov wrote:

    Do you know how many fixed-radar sites here survived first week of the war? None. Neva supporting radar instalations? Over 80% destroyed. Only few mobile radar stations survived, suprisingly AN/TPS-70s proved to be exceptional. Those that survived were either not used or used little or were used in very unconventional ways without placing radars by the book without azimuth and elevation set, purely as early warning station then rushing it away upon any detection to prevent destruction.

    Stop pretending you are mathematician and physicist its painfull to watch, even your basic math understanding is questionable, we debunked that weeks ago, and i told you so, when you casually forgot time variable in most basic calculation. So please stop trying to pull that shit on me, i dont care what you pretend to be. Just dont do it on me, go try to impress kvs, Vann or someone else.

    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-04.html

    Good afternoon, Mr Troll, how are you ? : )

    I don't care what you think about me, or about that who am I.
    Only the facts and the chain of logics matter.

    So, why the cable type seabed sonar so powerful ,and capable to detect practically anything?

    Or why it is not capable ? : )

    Mr. Troll served in 250th Air Defence Missile brigade, 240th Air Defense Self Propelled Missile Battalion. Then you appear and link me www.usaairpower.net to prove me wrong on 1999. war... good one, let me write everything on that link. My exCO will enjoy learning new things about his service.

    I am saying that you are taking sonar detection as granted, and it is not granted, not even by longest shot there is. Sonar is not magic, same as radar is not magic, and nothing is granted. Sry to pierce your bubble on that one. You all make mistake by assuming detection, first thing they tell you is "assume nothing". My point is military always assumes enemy will pass its radar coverage and its sonar coverage.

    I dont care who you are, i am just saying you should stop pretending you know math very well its humiliating, you already posted few times your... "math", quality of which is well i said already... I am saying this as i would tell to my best friend. We are not all engineers, lets stop pretending we are and lower the bar abit to things we know for sure.

    I'm an Engineer (and very briefly a foot soldier) and I approve of this message pirat
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Jan 14, 2017 10:10 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:I'm an Engineer (and very briefly a foot soldier) and I approve of this message pirat

    Sometimes due to this forum i wish i went into mechanical engineering like my father instead of IT.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Apr 27, 2017 6:49 pm