Beating the Indian Navy without going broke

[Ultima Thule]

You only have big mouth,no balls
Pakistan is our brother, India is just a large bunch of poor idiots

No @randomradio is right because he lives always in his fairy tales/fantasy world @royalharris

 

[YeBeWarned]

I think its unfair to not mention some American members ... @gambit @F-22Raptor @jhungary i didn't know you guys have a outdated navy , ships and missiles ... @randomradio

 

[randomradio]

I think its unfair to not mention some American members ... @gambit @F-22Raptor @jhungary i didn't know you guys have a outdated navy , ships and missiles ... @randomradio

Sure. Anybody would agree that active seeker + dual thrust/ramjet + lower weight + AESA is way better than semi-active seeker + single thrust + higher weight + PESA. It's not even an argument.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Sure. Anybody would agree that active seeker + dual thrust/ramjet + lower weight + AESA is way better than semi-active seeker + single thrust + higher weight + PESA. It's not even an argument.

all US SAMs has dual thrust motor, active/IR seeker, so why India is using S-300 SAM they are heavy uses semi active and with conventional roket motor @randomradio and why you will buying S-400 with conventional rocket motors @randomradio

Sure. Anybody would agree that active seeker + dual thrust/ramjet + lower weight + AESA is way better than semi-active seeker + single thrust + higher weight + PESA. It's not even an argument.

And tell me how many SAMs are using RAMJET propulsions @randomradio the anwer is BIG NO @randomradio

 

[Arsalan]

So you will be able to provide terminal guidance to an ASBM using Sonar? Please do explain how you will convert the multiple source originated narrowband grams into GPS terminal guidance data for the the asbm?

So you still think the Sonars CANNOT triangulate the position of a ship? THAT WAS WHAT I WAS COMMENTING ON if you care to see the old posts. It was a ridiculous statement really.

 

[MilSpec]

So you still think the Sonars CANNOT triangulate the position of a ship? THAT WAS WHAT I WAS COMMENTING ON if you care to see the old posts. It was a ridiculous statement really.

Look up a Fourier transform based waterfall chart for tracking bearing for target and explain how you will convert that to active feedback GPS coordinates. A sailor on raft close enough can look at a/c carrier and with a compass tell you the bearing over radio, that doesn't mean he will be able to guide an asbm with the info.

 

[Arsalan]

Look up a Fourier transform based waterfall chart for tracking bearing for target and explain how you will convert that to active feedback GPS coordinates. A sailor on raft close enough can look at a/c carrier and with a compass tell you the bearing over radio, that doesn't mean he will be able to guide an asbm with the info.

BUT it can triangulate yes? The statement that they can ONLY give bearing was always incorrect. This is the ONLY thing i have pointed out.

 

[war&peace]

What you need is satellite surveillance if you want to detect a carrier from 1500Km away. And for real time information, you need lots and lots of satellites.

Oh another expert from our neighbourhood..BTW how would you calculate the number of those lots of lots of satellites?

And no, the Chinese won't give it to you either.

Oh I see, do did Chinese ask for your permission or did Mr Xi personally called you to share this valuable information..

 

[MilSpec]

BUT it can triangulate yes? The statement that they can ONLY give bearing was always incorrect. This is the ONLY thing i have pointed out.

omg, this is what you wanted to hear. Every Sonar passive or active will provide bearing.
If you have two sources and one target you will be able triangulate and measure relative error, that is what the word "triangulate" literally means. If your Target is moving you will have other error issues, but in now way or form you will be able to provide accurate GPS targeting coordinates for active feedback for Asbm.

 

[randomradio]

Oh another expert from our neighbourhood..BTW how would you calculate the number of those lots of lots of satellites?

It's easy. Minimum 10 satellites. Up to 20 satellites.

Oh I see, do did Chinese ask for your permission or did Mr Xi personally called you to share this valuable information..

Yes, I have a hotline straight to Xi's house.

 

[Arsalan]

omg, this is what you wanted to hear. Every Sonar passive or active will provide bearing.
If you have two sources and one target you will be able triangulate and measure relative error, that is what the word "triangulate" literally means. If your Target is moving you will have other error issues, but in now way or form you will be able to provide accurate GPS targeting coordinates for active feedback for Asbm.

Not what i WANTED to hear, only what i wanted to SAY!! As some people were ridiculing some people on this one point. Glad that you understand this and hopefully those some people would hear you even if they do not hear us.

 

[MilSpec]

Not what i WANTED to hear, only what i wanted to SAY!! As some people were ridiculing some people on this one point. Glad that you understand this and hopefully those some people would hear you even if they do not hear us.

Again, understand what I am saying. Sonar can provide Bearing. Bearing means horizontal angle between the direction of an object and another object. If you have a compass, then you can you can change your relative bearing to absolute bearing. When you are using bearing data to use for passive targeting, what you are doing is estimating trajectory and firing your munition.

What you are saying is utilization of this mechanism for targeting with multiple sonar source emitters, which is absolutely foolish Idea given a single feedback Fourier transform has significant markup error, multi source waterfall will have an exponential error ratio. Next conversion of that relative data to absolute and calculating relative GPS will just give you inaccurate information and absolutely useless for terminal targeting a high speed Asbm which was the original contention. So yes i do agree with @randomradio that sonar tracking and targeting would be absolutely useless for targeting. What you need is a SAR radar right above the theater of conflict.


The issues with triangulation and relative motion between sonar sources and target is the reason that newer generation fire and forget have sonic homing onboard the device itself, even if you have 10 sonars and with their individual bearing you are not going to get any useful GPS targeting data for hypersonic AsBM.

 

[Arsalan]

Again, understand what I am saying. Sonar can provide Bearing. Bearing means horizontal angle between the direction of an object and another object. If you have a compass, then you can you can change your relative bearing to absolute bearing. When you are using bearing data to use for passive targeting, what you are doing is estimating trajectory and firing your munition.

What you are saying is utilization of this mechanism for targeting with multiple sonar source emitters, which is absolutely foolish Idea given a single feedback Fourier transform has significant markup error, multi source waterfall will have an exponential error ratio. Next conversion of that relative data to absolute and calculating relative GPS will just give you inaccurate information and absolutely useless for terminal targeting a high speed Asbm which was the original contention. So yes i do agree with @randomradio that sonar tracking and targeting would be absolutely useless for targeting. What you need is a SAR radar right above the theater of conflict.


The issues with triangulation and relative motion between sonar sources and target is the reason that newer generation fire and forget have sonic homing onboard the device itself, even if you have 10 sonars and with their individual bearing you are not going to get any useful GPS targeting data for hypersonic AsBM.

Very educated post indeed but how you still fail to see what the argument was about? My reaction to it was only because your friend here was trying to ridicule someone based on a stupid and wrong assumption that the Sonars can and will ONLY give bearing.
Saying that only usable data from a Sonar will be bearing and using these to triangulate a target wont be a wise choice is different than making fun of someone claiming that Sonars ONLY give bearing and can NOT be used to triangulate an enemy ship!!

Again, cant see why you fail to see this simple point, or do you really dont WANT to see it

 

[MilSpec]

Very educated post indeed but how you still fail to see what the argument was about? My reaction to it was only because your friend here was trying to ridicule someone based on a stupid and wrong assumption that the Sonars can and will ONLY give bearing.
Saying that only usable data from a Sonar will be bearing and using these to triangulate a target wont be a wise choice is different than making fun of someone claiming that Sonars ONLY give bearing and can NOT be used to triangulate an enemy ship!!

Again, cant see why you fail to see this simple point, or do you really dont WANT to see it

Lets address a couple of things here. Sonar will give you bearing. That is a fact. Two sets of signals spread apart will give you base of triangle with target forming the apex. That makes it a triangle, thus called triangulation. That is common sense.

Next is this

Yes, Bearing is worthless to target a carrier from far away, even with triangulation, you cannot provide terminal guidance to an Asbm.

You seem to stuck in semantics of @randomradio saying it cannot triangulate, I am saying even if it can triangulate with multiple sources of emitters, that info is worthless for terminal guidance. In essence I am saying the exact same thing.

Now as far as not wanting to see it, If I am wrong, I have no shame in admitting something, it just makes me learn something new. I am sure you have seen that before.

 

[Arsalan]

You seem to stuck in semantics of @randomradio saying it cannot triangulate, I am saying even if it can triangulate with multiple sources of emitters, that info is worthless for terminal guidance. In essence I am saying the exact same thing.

What you are saying is based on fact, and is true!! Usable or valuable information from sonars will be bearing.

What he said was to insult and ridicule another member based on a false statement that Sonars can can ONLY give bearing. Yes i am stuck at it because what could have been a sensible and educated discussion was derailed by some stupid arrogant posts only meant to shame other member, hard luck that the statements were not correct. Anyway, the purpose was always to derail the thread and not allow a positive discussion to take place, i wish we could have discussed this at some other thread where it would have been both informative and interesting.