This is of course predicated on a sonar conditions where detection ranges are such that the SSN has no decisive advantage in detection over the SSK.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
jua |
Best guess on active sonar range |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 102 (15-May-2008 20:29:51) |
Was wondering if there were any open source guesses on the range of any SSN/SSK active sonar set. The only time in recent memory I've seen an estimate for
any active sonar is a claimed ~10 miles for ALFS, which I found a little hard to believe, but then its a new set at low freq. What I was thinking about was USN
SSN vs SSK. Would there be any situation where it would be practical for an SSN to just hammer the water periodically to detect local SSKs? I know torp ranges
typically well outrange active detection, but then when it comes to evasive action against a fish, a nuke has a ~10 knt speed advantage (suspected anyway) and
Mk48's are publicly listed as faster and longer ranged than the speeds publicly listed for most foreign torps, save the Spearfish. So could one sweep out
an area in front of the sub actively, attack any targets there, and run from any incoming torpedos counter fired down the bearing? The SSN would have an
advantage in active range detection I would imagine for reasons of power and number of hydrophones. I would imagine this could lead to the SSK stuck with a
bearing only attack while the SSN has range data. Whether that would be enough to make regular active sweeps at all practical is my question. I assume IFF
would be an issue in many circumstances. If the active range is too short, then the speeds and distances involved mean at best both subs die or worse the SSK
has a bearing to the SSN.
This is of course predicated on a sonar conditions where detection ranges are such that the SSN has no decisive advantage in detection over the SSK. |
||
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3762 (15-May-2008 23:02:43) |
jua wrote: There isn't an answer to the question: sonar range is dependent on frequency, water conditions (salinity and temperature gradients, ambient noise levels), and details of the target aspect (just like aircraft RCS) and surface (there are sound absorbent coatings, as there are microwave absorbent coatings), and the signal processing of the sonar system. Not being a sonar expert, I would guess about 50 kilometers, tops, under optimum conditions (which only happen with cooperative targets on acoustic ranges).
Active sonars tend to be medium or high frequency, and the higher the frequency, the more rapidly the sonar signal attenuates. It would seem there is little
utility in active sonars with much more range than that, in any case, as the open sources don't give any ASW weapons much more than 50km range (that's
wikipedia, and I'm not too sure I believe that).
|
||
jua |
|||
|
Posts: 104 (15-May-2008 23:39:35) |
I'm aware of the various conditions that effect sonar ranges. The broad question was, does anyone have a guestimate for a range under 'typical'
conditions or does anyone think that active searches are practical for use against target potentially more quiet, but less fast and with less endurance, than
the radiating submarine.
There must be some situations or doctrines that involve the use of active sonar or else SSNs wouldn't carry one, but I get the impression that predominantly they are only used for ranging in situations where the SSN is already under attack or else largely immune from attack due to the fact that active searches can be heard much farther away than their detection range under any conditions. I was wondering if it were at all practical to use an active sonar search as the primary method of detection, doing a sweep every once in a while as the sub advances. A single sweep would give an opponent sub a bearing, but not course or range, so long as there were course changes after every sweep. |
||
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4668 (17-May-2008 02:53:38) |
It depends on the sensitivity of the passive sonar on a unfriendly submarine that is going to hear you pinging away.
|
||
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2935 (17-May-2008 21:09:37) |
Actually, if there are nearby objects that can reflect sound, passive sonar can indeed (through the extensive signal-processing currently afforded by modern
computers) provide range information by comparing the direct & reflected sounds, etc.
|
||
WarshipAdmin |
|||
|
Posts: 1051 (19-May-2008 04:24:19) |
Not answering the question (yet), but when you go active then you face the radar equation.
If the target sub has passive sensors as good as yours then he can hear your pings long before you can see him. If his passive system is only half as good as yours he still hears your pings LONG before you see him. Do you understand the implications of that? Anyway, yes the game 688i had active sonar. I never used it. I suspect it would be in the ballpark. Pretty sure Friedman has enough data for a sensible estimate. Just found a dodgy number on the web that says 30nm Actually if you know your passive sonar's sensitivity, and you know the acoustic power output of the sender, then you can use the radar equation, or a modified version. The maths is on the web somewhere. |
||
jua |
|||
|
Posts: 105 (19-May-2008 21:06:09) |
If the range was really anything like 30nm, couldn't the 688 just blast active all the time and get solutions to opponent subs? 30nm is a longer range than
any ASW torpedo I've seen range guestimates on. Even if the opponent SSK know where you are, does it matter if they can't effectively attack? So long
as you have air superiority anyway.
|
||
Michael Hoddy |
|||
|
Posts: 190 (19-May-2008 22:08:50) |
I'm really out of my league here, so take this with a considerable grain of salt, but I'm pretty sure usable active sonar range is probably more like
9-10 nm, depending on sound conditions, for modern submarine spherical sonar sets. This is based on every source and anecdote I have ever seen. Doing TMA with
towed and/or conformal arrays in addition to the passive section of the bow array is probably not any shorter-ranged even if it takes longer, and doesn't
as easily expose the attacker to a countershot down the line of bearing.
Any submarine-qualified sonar techs certainly can certainly judge the level of my naivete, but they probably are also bound by classification rules from going into any great detail on their own. |
||
WarshipAdmin |
|||
|
Posts: 1052 (20-May-2008 04:44:16) |
"just blast active all the time and get solutions to opponent subs? 30nm is a longer range than any ASW torpedo "
So, my helo, Orion or Nimrod drops one sonobuoy on top of you followed by a torpedo. Game over man. I agree 30 nm seems a lot, but that is presumably a best possible range rather than typical. Bear in mind that a modern active sonar sender has a power output of more than 100 hp, from memory. |
||
jua |
|||
|
Posts: 106 (20-May-2008 19:00:22) |
Anywhere near a CVBG, USN SSNs could expect air superiority and hence a rather permissive environment. In contested air space against an opponent with any kind
of modern ASW a/c, yeah active clearly not that useful.
Also it was pointed out to me on another board that some Soviet and PRC boats have stand off ASW weapons, which though of questionable accuracy and reliability would be a threat at the kind of ranges an active ping could be heard at. It was also mentioned that in some conditions reflections of the active wave off the bottom of the ocean bed could potentially give a range value to a passive listener as well as bearing, so the radiating sub could give away its exact position. New related question: when an active sonar pings, does it direct its energy down a specific bearing or is omni-directional? Or either depending on mode? Another question if you don't mind (and I know no one can truly answer this one), why is it that many torpedos are quoted/estimated with ranges and speeds well below that of the Mk48? For instance, I read somewhere that SAET-60 is something like 15-20 km, where as Mk48 ADCAP is often quoted with ~20nm at 40knts and a second speed setting of 60knts. I could understand such a difference if the Mk48 was of significantly different size like the 650mm Type 65, but that is not the case AFAIK. Are the public estimates just wrong? Is it a difference in propulsion? Otto fuel vs electric? |
||
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3774 (20-May-2008 19:42:53) |
jua wrote: The USN only reports about 8km for the Mk48. Are public estimates wrong? Almost certainly. Vendors are likely to overstate their weapons' performance (never trust marketing reps ;-)) and fleets
may overstate or understate weapon performance based on whatever is in their strategic|operational|tactical interest. I wouldn't just take publicly
available figures with a grain of salt but with several pounds of it.
|
||