PLAN ASW Capability

manqiangrexue · Jul 16, 2018

SamuraiBlue said:
Go ahead believe what you want to believe, it's your life.
Do what you want to do.
Ignorance is bliss ain't it.

You should know; you start quoting cartoon characters when you lose arguments and accuse other people of technical mumbo jumbo when they go deeper than what you found on Wikipedia (while pretending that the info is from your memory) LOL

Iron Man · Jul 17, 2018

A SQUID with a "6 km" detection range is about as useful as a missile with a 6 km flying range. That is to say, useless. Except as a platform for further research, which is exactly what the current SQUID is. A feasibility study for a future prototype for a future deployable system, many years down the road.

As for loitering ASW missiles, it is about as silly an idea as pykrete carriers.... "plausible, but ludicrous". There is no guarantee a loitering ASW missile is anywhere closer to a target than a coastal ASW missile launcher when it is located. And whereas coastal missiles are launch on-demand, a loitering missile is a pre-expended weapon with a low chance of success and a high chance of wastage.

AndrewS · Jul 18, 2018

Iron Man said:
A SQUID with a "6 km" detection range is about as useful as a missile with a 6 km flying range. That is to say, useless. Except as a platform for further research, which is exactly what the current SQUID is. A feasibility study for a future prototype for a future deployable system, many years down the road.

As for loitering ASW missiles, it is about as silly an idea as pykrete carriers.... "plausible, but ludicrous". There is no guarantee a loitering ASW missile is anywhere closer to a target than a coastal ASW missile launcher when it is located. And whereas coastal missiles are launch on-demand, a loitering missile is a pre-expended weapon with a low chance of success and a high chance of wastage.

I agree with the second part of that statement, as there are better ways of delivering an ASW torpedo.
But the first part is just plain wrong.

We've seen the P-3 Orion and the Y-9 MPA aircraft sport short-range MAD detectors. And a SQUID with a 6km detection range is just a longer-ranged version of that MAD detector.

So if an MPA flies at Mach 0.8 during a 8hour patrol, it travels 8000km. With a detection swathe of say 10km, that translates to 80,000 km2 of ocean that is scanned.

AndrewS · Jul 18, 2018

SamuraiBlue said:
Go ahead believe what you want to believe, it's your life.
Do what you want to do.
Ignorance is bliss ain't it.

Here's something to correct your own ignorance.

Earlier this year in 2018, the National Science Foundation reported to Congress that it expects Chinese R&D spending to exceed that of the USA, in the Year 2019

So it is now perfectly plausible to expect China to come up with technological breakthroughs.
And going forward, that should become the default assumption given China's higher R&D spending, which is also growing much faster.

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

plawolf · Jul 18, 2018

AndrewS said:
Here's something to correct your own ignorance.

Earlier this year in 2018, the National Science Foundation reported to Congress that it expects Chinese R&D spending to exceed that of the USA, in the Year 2019

So it is now perfectly plausible to expect China to come up with technological breakthroughs.
And going forward, that should become the default assumption given China's higher R&D spending, which is also growing much faster.

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

I would be a bit cautious with such predictions. R&D is much like military spending in that it is largest cumulative.

It can takes years or decades worth of R&D investment to allow the next big breakthrough.

Just because China is projected to spend more on R&D next year does not automatically mean China will suddenly gain the technological upperhand over night.

Also, it is a little simplistic to directly link R&D spending with advancements and breakthroughs. While there is indeed a strong correlation, it’s a hugely variable correlation where investments does not always yield fruits.

Also, in the context of weapons development, it is very rare for a single breakthrough to bring about revolutionary new weapons. Usually you need a vast number of breakthroughs in diverse fields to all be ready before you can bring something to market. One breakthrough may end up waiting ‘on the shelf’ for years or decades before another breakthrough allows it to be used.

This ties back to the earlier point about R&D being cumulative.

Iron Man · Jul 18, 2018

AndrewS said:
I agree with the second part of that statement, as there are better ways of delivering an ASW torpedo.
But the first part is just plain wrong.

We've seen the P-3 Orion and the Y-9 MPA aircraft sport short-range MAD detectors. And a SQUID with a 6km detection range is just a longer-ranged version of that MAD detector.

So if an MPA flies at Mach 0.8 during a 8hour patrol, it travels 8000km. With a detection swathe of say 10km, that translates to 80,000 km2 of ocean that is scanned.

While a SQUID in its current form may be useful in the tail of a maritime ASW aircraft, we have been talking about SQUID in the past on SDF in terms of being deployed undersea as part of a SOSUS-type sensor network. In which case a static non-moving detector with a range of 6km is most definitely not practical.

AndrewS · Jul 19, 2018

plawolf said:
I would be a bit cautious with such predictions. R&D is much like military spending in that it is largest cumulative.

It can takes years or decades worth of R&D investment to allow the next big breakthrough.

Just because China is projected to spend more on R&D next year does not automatically mean China will suddenly gain the technological upperhand over night.

Also, it is a little simplistic to directly link R&D spending with advancements and breakthroughs. While there is indeed a strong correlation, it’s a hugely variable correlation where investments does not always yield fruits.

Also, in the context of weapons development, it is very rare for a single breakthrough to bring about revolutionary new weapons. Usually you need a vast number of breakthroughs in diverse fields to all be ready before you can bring something to market. One breakthrough may end up waiting ‘on the shelf’ for years or decades before another breakthrough allows it to be used.

This ties back to the earlier point about R&D being cumulative.

Yes, R&D is cumulative, but we've seen numerous examples of countries catching up by piggybacking off on existing technology in existence elsewhere.

And in the medium-run over a large and diversified research base (which China has), we will certainly see a very strong correlation between R&D investment and R&D output

AndrewS · Jul 19, 2018

Iron Man said:
While a SQUID in its current form may be useful in the tail of a maritime ASW aircraft, we have been talking about SQUID in the past on SDF in terms of being deployed undersea as part of a SOSUS-type sensor network. In which case a static non-moving detector with a range of 6km is most definitely not practical.

SQUID sensors (if practical) would be small electronic sensors, and should become really cheap to deploy. Then they could be deployed in a static oceanic network.

But in any case, airborne vehicles are better, as it means they can cover a lot of ocean very quickly.

Iron Man · Jul 19, 2018

AndrewS said:
SQUID sensors (if practical) would be small electronic sensors, and should become really cheap to deploy. Then they could be deployed in a static oceanic network.

They would have to improve their detection range by more than a order of magnitude first.

AndrewS · Jul 19, 2018

Iron Man said:
They would have to improve their detection range by more than a order of magnitude first.

I can see numerous civilian applications for SQUIDs which will drive up volumes. So the SQUID electronics could shrink to the size and cost of a smartphone.

Then it would definitely be cheap enough to create a huge array or tripwire of SQUID sensors.

PLAN ASW Capability

manqiangrexue

Brigadier

Iron Man

Major

AndrewS

Brigadier

AndrewS

Brigadier

plawolf

Lieutenant General

Iron Man

Major

AndrewS

Brigadier

AndrewS

Brigadier

Iron Man

Major

AndrewS

Brigadier