|
FrozenVent posted:ELINT's not gonna do you much good at 1200 feets. Why is that so? If the beacon is really deep, wouldn't it be a good idea to listen well below the main thermocline layer?
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
Sir Cornelius posted:Why is that so? If the beacon is really deep, wouldn't it be a good idea to listen well below the main thermocline layer? Electromagnetic signals don't propagate well, if at all, underwater. You're thinking of sonar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Electromagnetic signals don't propagate well, if at all, underwater. You're thinking of sonar. Hehe, of course. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
ELINT is for picking up (basically) high-frequency radio waves and you do that more or less at the surface. If you're listening for some sort of pinger you're doing it with passive sonar, including the towed array. A surface ship's towed sonar array can sink below the thermocline layers that a sub can get under, rather specifically because they're made to find subs in the first place. At high speeds, the flow noise of the ship moving / dragging the array becomes too great for the array to pick up anything delicate like a plane's beacon, which means any searching ship is crawling around much more slowly. And you'd never run around in a sub at max speed -and- max depth anyway, for reasons not worth getting into. Also, the bottom of the South Pacific is very irregular; you have extremely deep valleys and tall mountain ranges (which is why you have island chains everywhere.) In the deep parts, 400 meters is barely a scratch and in the shallow parts there's tons of natural noise. It is a much better place to hide than it is to be found.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
The beacon attached to the flight recorders is sound, not EM.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:ELINT is for picking up (basically) high-frequency radio waves and you do that more or less at the surface. Thanks. I really should read more Tom Clancy 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
China don't need no submarinesquote:Chinese patrol ship Haixun 01, searching for the missing Malaysian passenger jet MH370, detected a pulse signal with a frequency of 37.5kHz per second in southern Indian Ocean waters Saturday. Will probably turn out to be more trash.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
fknlo posted:
 37.5 kHz is the frequency these beacons work at according to Wikipedia so hey, could be they found the plane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:
Or it's some crabs banging in a plastic jug.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:There's not really any reason to be sneaky about it unless you think one of the other search parties is surreptitiously collecting tonals, which given the size of the search area would be pretty ineffective. It's all international waters. The problems are that the subs, while having more endurance than a surface vessel, aren't really significantly faster (to the degree a search plane is), especially while actually listening for something quiet, and that zooming around the South Pacific willy-nilly at high speed gives you better odds at finding an uncharted underwater sea mountain than it does a downed plane. Can I just go on record at this point and say that if some of the search aircraft were flying boats, they would have been able to land on the water and actually investigate those objects seen from Orions and Il-76s that were subsequently never found? See also: SAR airships would have been a big help  Non-silly airship post*: The British Airship company bought the surplus LEMV for $300,000 and intends for it to be a prototype for a commercial airship Which is pretty cool! A airship for a mortgage. SCOTLAND posted:As for why they are trying to get rid of them, I guess there is the general upgauging they are doing fleet-wide and industry-wide. Management mentions reducing aircraft types in the fleet to reduce training footprint, which does make sense. It's also probably the most uneconomical aircraft in the fleet CASM wide due to seat arrangements and our wages, and CASM is target #1. If we do lose the embraer 190 level flying, I think that would mean we have the worst scope of any North American major. What is CASM? vv e: Thanks. Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Apr 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:What is CASM Cost per Available Seat Mile
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Obviously Hz per second is a measurement of how quickly the frequency oscillates.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Also: Canada is incapable of buying a simple aircraft for SAR work. Decisions made by the government have thrown out 'years' of work on Canada's fixed-wing SAR replacement (probably a good six months worth of work by normal standards.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Can I just go on record at this point and say that if some of the search aircraft were flying boats, they would have been able to land on the water and actually investigate those objects seen from Orions and Il-76s that were subsequently never found? You'd think, but none of the active flying boats have the range, so you'd need a tender to refuel them somewhere. China's SH-5s come closest, and it's a surprise they've not thought of using them, but they only have 4 and they're all configured as ELINT or fire fighting these days I think, and given that China's naval focus isn't deep ocean, perhaps they never configured a tender for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Can I just go on record at this point and say that if some of the search aircraft were flying boats, they would have been able to land on the water and actually investigate those objects seen from Orions and Il-76s that were subsequently never found? Flying boats, Russian crazy ground effect jets aside, are usually very slow. Catalinas cruise at like 110 knots or something along those lines. Good for dropping off a life raft and then landing and rescuing people but not so good with larger search areas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Flying boats, Russian crazy ground effect jets aside, are usually very slow. Catalinas cruise at like 110 knots or something along those lines. Good for dropping off a life raft and then landing and rescuing people but not so good with larger search areas. The SH-5 cruises at about the same speed as a P-3, the Be-12 is a little slower, but still reasonable, the Be-200 is up there with the P-8 in terms of cruise speed (but has poo poo range). The problem is that most flying boats aren't designed with airbourne refueling in mind, and so don't have the range to get ~2500km from australia, loiter a bit, and come back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Obviously Hz per second is a measurement of how quickly the frequency oscillates. Glad I wasn't the only one that found that redundant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
jammyozzy posted:Glad I wasn't the only one that found that redundant. It sends out a 37.5 kHz tone once per second. Bzz bzz bzz bzz etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
"The signal reportedly lasted for a minute and a half." http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/report-china-ship-searching-jet-detects-pulse-n72606 So good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:In related news, after years in the industry, I finally saw a BabyBus in the flesh. It's adorable. Do you mean the A318? Flew on one last year with AF into Paris; it's such a cute 'lil plane, but looks utterly silly next to the terminal, literally like a toy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:The SH-5 cruises at about the same speed as a P-3, the Be-12 is a little slower, but still reasonable, the Be-200 is up there with the P-8 in terms of cruise speed (but has poo poo range). Japan still has a flying boat for SAR work as well - though they seem to have about 1/4 less range and speed than a P-3. So, yeah, point taken. The Be-12 is actually a pretty good platform even by today's standards for SAR - but I think its been out of production for decades, and the remaining airframes are on the point of being all used up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Also: Canada is incapable of buying a simple aircraft for SAR work. Decisions made by the government have thrown out 'years' of work on Canada's fixed-wing SAR replacement (probably a good six months worth of work by normal standards.) The best idea to me seems to be DHC-5NG Buffalos from Viking Air. A Canadian design built in Canada that is a modernized version of a proven performer for the last 50 years? Seems like a slam dunk but lol at the gov't procurement idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Viking doesn't have unlimited envelopes of cash, while Lockheed Martin does. One guess who wins the procurement contest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Viking doesn't have unlimited envelopes of cash, while Lockheed Martin does. One guess who wins the procurement contest. I am guessing the reason will be some BS like "oh Viking can't deliver that many aircraft in the required time frame" all while ignoring the helicopter debacle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
priznat posted:The best idea to me seems to be DHC-5NG Buffalos from Viking Air. A Canadian design built in Canada that is a modernized version of a proven performer for the last 50 years? Seems like a slam dunk but lol at the gov't procurement idiocy. I agree totally. We should yell at people in government 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Viking doesn't have unlimited envelopes of cash, while Lockheed Martin does. One guess who wins the procurement contest. F-35 Search and Rescue 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:F-35 Search and Rescue First they'll change-order it to drop the rescue, since surface vessels could easily take over that requirement. Eventually they'll also drop the search, since drones and satellites will work in a reduced capacity. Eventually they'll even drop the aircraft and just funnel money at LockMart for consulting. Why hasn't Airbus jumped into the mix? They could get a foot in the door with a CASA and use that to eventually sell the A440Ms that Germany plans to immediately dump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
I have faith that they'll find justification as needed to make an amphibious turbofan-powered VTOL craft.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:I have faith that they'll find justification as needed to make an amphibious turbofan-powered VTOL craft. A flying hover craft? Sound up LockMart's alley.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:A flying hover craft?  
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
I like how you guys think horrible ideas like giving your frontline fighter VTOL was somehow LockMart's idea
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:I like how you guys think horrible ideas like giving your frontline fighter VTOL was somehow LockMart's idea You watch yourself, before we let them build SSBNx. It'll be the first rail-transportable strategic deterrence submarine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
I don't think I've seen any SSBN(X) mockups but I've seen the proposed Virginia-stretches for when the Ohio SSGNs age out and they're... quite reasonable, actually On the other hand, they also can ascend and descend vertically, and hover in place, wait a minuLOCKMART 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:I don't think I've seen any SSBN(X) mockups but I've seen the proposed Virginia-stretches for when the Ohio SSGNs age out and they're... quite reasonable, actually You don't understand, MEUs need to the operational flexibility that only having a strategic nuclear submarine attached can offer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You don't understand, MEUs need to the operational flexibility that only having a strategic nuclear submarine attached can offer. The Navy's Army has its own airforce, why can't it have its own navy as well?!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
If only the Marines had an SSBN at Guadalcanal...
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Why hasn't Airbus jumped into the mix? They could get a foot in the door with a CASA and use that to eventually sell the A440Ms that Germany plans to immediately dump. This is amusing - why is Germany getting rid of its brand new smallish transports?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:This is amusing - why is Germany getting rid of its brand new smallish transports? A400s ain't exactly small. MGTOW is over 300k lbs. As to why, maybe they realized that airlift is kind of useless if you don't have a military to lift.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:This is amusing - why is Germany getting rid of its brand new smallish transports? Couldn't figure out how to transition the turbines over to solar power
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Couldn't figure out how to transition the turbines over to solar power Sounds like a case for fusion-powered turboprops (with the turbines driven via steam loop like a power station). Solar power!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 01:32
|
|