Major breakthrough on naval reactor + propulsion system

[Screambowl]

Submarine game: How China is using undersea vessels to project power in India's neighbourhood : Special Report - India Today

According to india today we are already beaing suspected of having a base for submarine communication.

It says, Pakistan will have , it does not say you have. If you have it will be known. And editor lacks basic info on VLF and ELF.

VLF is more prone to be heard. ELF 80% less prone.

 

[TheFlyingPretzel]

Do you have a base with ELF capability?

14 vessels is the modus operadi of blue water navy , US, India, England , and now China .. all operate in 14 vessel why?
because one of the immediate tasks delineated by the Navy in "From the Sea" is to continue the full integration of SSNs into expeditionary task forces. To be effective units of a Naval Task Group within a joint, Tailored Forward Element (TFE), submarines must be fully interoperable with both Naval and Joint communication systems. Submarines must be capable of tailoring on-board capabilities to optimize their support for the Joint Task Force (JTF) and Naval Component Commanders.

Coordination between multiple assets such as aircraft, surface ships, and submarines is critical to an effective ASW campaign. Integration of submarines into an overall ASW effort, arguably the most effective platform for wide area search and tracking, has traditionally been hampered by lack of or minimal communications to the submarine while deep.

I can tell, as many of my peers here can too, that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. By way of example your post has been plagiarized from an online copy of the Submarine Communications Master Plan, 1995, specifically section 2. The SCMP is an internal document of the US Navy and designed to serve as a platform for planning and co-coordinating electronic transmissions.

Let me help you by putting it into context:

"One of the immediate tasks delineated by the Navy in �From the Sea� is to continue the full integration of SSNs into expeditionary task forces. To be effective units of a Naval Task Group within a joint, Tailored Forward Element (TFE), submarines must be fully interoperable with both Naval and Joint communication systems. Submarines must be capable of tailoring on-board capabilities to optimize their support for the Joint Task Force (JTF) and Naval Component Commanders. The SCSS strategy is to provide a radio room architecture with open system features that will provide a much improved level of communications flexibility and interoperability for submarines.


SCSS requirements are evolving and will continue to evolve over time with the Navy�s CSS requirements and as a subset of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) �C 4 I for the Warrior� and the Navy�s Copernicus communication architectures. The Submarine CSS program will implement an open system, multimedia, circuit sharing architecture which: (1) allows users to share all communication circuits available; (2) permits easy, cost effective expansion to accommodate new capabilities; (3) reduces development, production, and support costs by using common hardware and reusable software; and (4) will be fully interoperable with Navy JMCIS."​

The question marks identify the excerpts which are absent from the electronic copy available at http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/scmp/part02.htm. In effect to save you the embarrassment of your arbitrary '10-year and 14 vessel claim' being proven wrong you resorted to copy-pasting nonsense from the first hit that Google could return you on submarine communications and proceeded to use it in such a manner so as to make you appear more knowledgeable than you actually are.

If anything you ought to get a negative rating for that.

 

[Screambowl]

I can tell, as many of my peers here can too, that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. By way of example your entire post has been plagiarized from an online copy of the Submarine Communications Master Plan, 1995, specifically section 2. which is an internal document of the US Navy and designed to serve as a platform for planning and co-coordinating electronic transmissions.

Let me help you be putting it into context:

"One of the immediate tasks delineated by the Navy in �From the Sea� is to continue the full integration of SSNs into expeditionary task forces. To be effective units of a Naval Task Group within a joint, Tailored Forward Element (TFE), submarines must be fully interoperable with both Naval and Joint communication systems. Submarines must be capable of tailoring on-board capabilities to optimize their support for the Joint Task Force (JTF) and Naval Component Commanders. The SCSS strategy is to provide a radio room architecture with open system features that will provide a much improved level of communications flexibility and interoperability for submarines.


SCSS requirements are evolving and will continue to evolve over time with the Navy�s CSS requirements and as a subset of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) �C 4 I for the Warrior� and the Navy�s Copernicus communication architectures. The Submarine CSS program will implement an open system, multimedia, circuit sharing architecture which: (1) allows users to share all communication circuits available; (2) permits easy, cost effective expansion to accommodate new capabilities; (3) reduces development, production, and support costs by using common hardware and reusable software; and (4) will be fully interoperable with Navy JMCIS."

The question marks identify the excerpts which are absent from the electronic copy available at http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/scmp/part02.htm. In effect to save you the embarrassment of being proven wrong you resorted to copy-pasting nonsense from the first hit that Google could return you on submarine communications and proceeded to use it in such a manner so as to make you appear more knowledgeable than you actually are.

If anything you ought to get a negative rating for that.

One can easily find such articles on net, thanks for posting the link.
Atleast you proved me correct.

 

[TheFlyingPretzel]

One can easily find such articles on net, thanks for posting the link.
Atleast you proved me correct.

....and you're also shameless. My job here is done.

 

[Screambowl]

....and you're also shameless. My job here is done.

i can edit my post and add the link, but I am not shameless like you that you come up with some off topic post and derail the thread. That's your basic job. Trolling. Get a life.. and come up with debatable info. More over, how did you get the nuclear bomb, can I question the plagiarism on that? hahaha

 

[TheFlyingPretzel]

i can edit my post and add the link, but I am not shameless like you that you come up with some off topic post and derail the thread. That's your basic job. Trolling. Get a life..

@Oscar and @Donatello, this may amuse you.

Confessions of an Indian teenager on how my replies to his on-topic posts are off-topic because he's been caught with his pants down.

Plagiarism 101 on defence.pk.

 

[HRK]

surface vessels
also can be called as CBG

you have posted a link in your post (post # 97 of this thread) without reading it .... that article is arguing about the requirement of 14 submarine vessels for a single nuclear attack capable (edit: add 'nuclear attack capable' wording) submarine in PN fleet with such wording

Experts note that Pakistan will need a submarine fleet comprising 14 vessels in order to keep one nuclear-armed sub on stand-by at all times.

Do you know who is that expert & form where they reached to the magic figure of 14 submarine fleet .... ???

They are quoting an article of 'Mr. USMAN ANSARI' (with the background of commerce if I am not mistaken) published in Defence News; secondly who so ever that expert is he is arguing to keep the nuclear attack sub at standby at all the time (something which India has not achieved till to date, nor going to achieve soon) not about its operationality at the 'specifically required periods'

Excerpt from the original Defence News Article

There is a confirmed requirement for 12 to 14 submarines to meet Navy expansion plans. This would allow for a constant war patrol of at least one deterrent-tasked submarine, leaving other submarines to carry out more traditional tasks.

 

[Screambowl]

@Oscar and @Donatello, this may amuse you.

Confessions of an Indian teenager on how my replies to his on-topic posts are off-topic because he's been caught with his pants down.

Plagiarism 101 on defence.pk.

would you mind telling me if you have any ELF base in Pakistan for sub communication?

you were have posted a link in your post (post # 97 of this thread) without reading it .... that article is arguing about the requirement of 14 submarine vessels for a single nuclear submarine in PN fleet with such wording



Do you know who is that expert & form where they reached to the magic figure of 14 submarine fleet .... ???

They are quoting an article of 'Mr. USMAN ANSARI' (with the background of commerce if I am not mistaken) published in Defence News; secondly who so ever that expert is he is arguing to keep the nuclear sub at standby at all the time (something which India has not achieved till to date, nor going to achieve soon) not about its operationality at the 'specific required periods'

Buddy, there is a one more post where I posted why is it necessary for a SSBN to be in CBG. Or post 107- Go through that. I am sure Indians know more about that than Pakistanis

 

[TheFlyingPretzel]

would you mind telling me if you have any ELF base in Pakistan for sub communication?

You have lost all credibility. It would benefit you to fall silent with what little grace you can manage.

Mark Twain once wrote, "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid, than open it and remove all doubt.”

 

[qamar1990]

as I said, it is not just procuring it. When you have a nuclear submarine you have to pay 1 billion for that and add another 1 billion for keeping it in standby. And it takes 7-8 years just to build facilities even if you buy ready made equipments , and another 5 years for getting trained.

lmao....you just cant bare it eh?

 

[HRK]

Buddy, there is a one more post where I posted why is it necessary for a SSBN to be in CBG. Or post 107- Go through that. I am sure Indians know more about that than Pakistanis

not required as the basic of your argument is 'flawed' (request you to read all three articles to understand Pakistan Navy requirement)

 

[Oruc]

It says, Pakistan will have , it does not say you have. If you have it will be known. And editor lacks basic info on VLF and ELF.

VLF is more prone to be heard. ELF 80% less prone.

Sir ji i thought major advantage of elf is its penetration bcz either elf or vlf messages are always encrypted. But known countries to have elf bases are US Russia and India. France China UK somehow manage without it.

 

[Screambowl]

not required as the basic of your argument is 'flawed' (request you to read all three articles to understand Pakistan Navy requirement)

PN requirement is to some how launch the missile from sea that's all

Sir ji i thought major advantage of elf is its penetration bcz either elf or vlf messages are always encrypted. But known countries to have elf bases are US Russia and India. France China UK somehow manage without it.

vlf can give precise location and easily heard , where as elf can travel longer distances as low frequency and higher wavelenght. c =lambda x f . which is the basic need of an SSBN. Penetration is one reason too as water has higher attenuation property and message may get lost.

France, China do have it. UK has in collaboration with US UKUSA

 

[HRK]

PN requirement is to some how launch the missile from sea that's all

& the quoted articles were also debating about this capability only not about Pakistan's nuclear submarine project.

 

[Oruc]

PN requirement is to some how launch the missile from sea that's all



vlf can give precise location and easily heard , where as elf can travel longer distances as low frequency and higher wavelenght. c =lambda x f . which is the basic need of an SSBN

AFAIK vlf or elf signals has nothing to do with detection. vlf communication requires a submarine to come shallow and slow its speed. that makes submarine vulnerable to detection whereas elf can penetrate to greater depths so it makes detecting a submarine difficult. elf or vlf signals are not direction specific. any submarine can recieve it anywhere within its range. only way you can detect a submarine that if it transmits back anything. on elf it is not possible bcz its just one way com.

Anyway you might know better.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/scmp/part07.htm