Search results

The Furunos seem to be sited to cover real or perceived "blind spots" in the nav radar coverage. There would have to be a lot of testing to confirm their actual ability to do that though. They're just mounted on a welded stand....not much clogging going on, and EMI usually isn't too bad. ARPA...

It's the Sea Chicken. The KH just sends raw video, not ARPA though. ARPA messages are just tracks, not video.

Well....the temp radar on a boat only works if the boat is already surfaced. The power cable had to be run into an open (or at least open a couple of inches) hatch...tends to let water in the people tank if the boat is dived at the time.

Most if not all of the ships also have an "extra" basic commercial X-band nav radar fitted. Submarines have one too, but it's on a temporary mount and has to be manually rigged. Those radars rarely get into "Janes Frightening Slips". ARPA/AIS for military systems is normally a JR NCIOP. They...

Out of curiosity, do they use screws or glue?

You were at the main and JR briefings? Somehow I doubt that. The question on dive certs was asked at the JR's briefing specifically because the boats were bought used. There was a general statement given in reply that the boats dive certs expired in the early 2020's. IIRC the reply was given by...

The dive cert is based on a certain definition of SUBSAFE. If that definition changes (ie changing standards for safe operation) the dive cert can be extended. The Upholders original dive cert expires in the early 2020's after 30 years from their original build dates. That dates from the...

Dive certs on those boats should expire over the next 10 years as well.

The reviews Mark described are what most countries do. The US does it every four years with the QDR. Normally and logically it would be a good idea to do it here as well. I think Mark is wrong in that he's trying to apply logic to an illogical situation. The reality is that Canadian governments...

That was also with a design (MEKO) that was specifically made for situations where each building country can specify their own weapons/sensors. You couldn't really expect that with another design.

It's pretty unlikely. Radar horizon vs very low flying aircraft is around 20 nm, and assuming they're flying at 900 knots, they'll cover that distance in 80 seconds. A radar will have a lot of chances to detect the aircraft in that 80 seconds. In any case, at that range it wouldn't matter if the...

With things like anaprop, radar lobes and blind speeds, a "probable" detection is as good as you'll get. There will always be weird things that can happen to work both ways with radar.

It is effective. Flying below the radar horizon will get any type of aircraft fairly close without being detected. When they pop over the ships radar horizon, they'll probably be within detection range regardless of their RCS.

I thought we could supplement whatever the Aurora replacement is with something like a civilian operated Arcturus. That way you could concentrate the Aurora replacements on whatever it is that you do that civilians can't. If that's not going to work then I guess we'll need a lot more Aurora...

Ok thanks. The Mk 32 tubes sometimes get iced up, but I've never heard of any weapons actually fired from them under icing conditions. IIRC ASROC had an anti-icing heater to prevent that sort of thing. What did the Trackers do? Would that sort of thing be valuable, or is it a solution looking...

Alejo, I wouldn't want you to get the wrong idea. I once let a CSEO solder a switch, under close supervision. I was responsible to my CSE chief and the XO for the work being done right though, and it was a somewhat of a nerve-wracking experience. It's not something you would routinely expect.

They're the same fish that a Sea Thing carries, and are in Mk 32 tubes. It gets pretty cold in those tubes, and presumably being strapped to a helo. And the Northern Atlantic/Pacific is normally kinda cold once the fish get dropped in it. Although the TI would have a fit if you treated a Mk 48...

You jumped on Mark as soon as he brought up the Air Force "touting the F-35 as being useful for sneaking up on and identifying ships" as a justification for buying the F-35. The main difference between the F-35 and it's competitors is LO. That's been mentioned many times here. Again, you...

I agree. There is no difference in Canada. Ahhh...I think you might want to check into how radar works. For the specific situation of closing with and identifying a ship, LO won't make a bit of difference. Without getting too technical, EO systems used for visual ID get better at an arithmetic...

More or less. There are other larger issues. Actually, that's how this whole pile-on started. Mark said: and then Ex-Dragoon said: and and even more: Mark clearly indiccated that the F-35's LO abilities were being used as a justification for this and got crapped on. I'd like to hear...