F-16 Source Code

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
link.net...
That's a bit over a thousand dollars each (earlier contracts were similar,
in the range of $900 to $1300, usually). But the SSQ-62E is a directional
active (DICASS) buoy, about the most sophisticated type available.

Actually, that's incorrect. The US uses DICASS, but the UK CAMBS VI digital
sonobuoy is much better. (I wrote the test range software for CAMBS 6 last
year.)

Si

"Glenfiddich" wrote in message
...
Directional sonobuoys are more like helo dunking heads.
They need both a 'compass' and a directional sensor array - and
an active also needs a pinger.
That'll add a fair bit to the cost of a simple listening buoy.

Directional buoys do it by having hydrophones out of phase with each other,
i.e. a DIFAR type buoy, whereas LOFAR was just a single omni-directional
sensor. Directional buoys have a compass in their upper (floating) units.

Yes, as a rule of thumb, active buoys are more expensive, but new large
array passive buoys like Barra use 25 digitally samples hydrophones and cost
a great deal more than DICASS or CAMBS active buoys.

Si

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
news
More correctly you mean 'above the cost' of a simple listening
buoy I assume, and of course you're right.

Active buoys certainly would be very much more expensive. As I
pointed out, simple buoys are, well, simple.

It's not as simple as that. Modern passive buoys *can* be very expensive,
more so that the best active buoys. Barra for example has five carbon fibre
arms which extend for several metres upon which hydrophones are hung to
create a very high fidelity array.

The simplest buoys, like LOFAR are as you say very simple, but there's not
much call for them these days. Passive tracking is getting more difficult
all the time. Despite their shrinking fleet, the Russians can certainly
teach us a thing or two about stealth when it comes to submarines. These
days the whole ASW approach is shifting towards multi-static localisation
rather than the old localise by cross-reference passive contacts and then
localise for attack with active.

Si

Simon Robbins wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
link.net...

But the SSQ-62E
is a directional active (DICASS) buoy, about the most sophisticated
type available.

Actually, that's incorrect. The US uses DICASS, but the UK
CAMBS VI digital sonobuoy is much better. (I wrote the test
range software for CAMBS 6 last year.)

I didn't mean to say that SSQ-26 was the best buoy available, but that
directional active is the most complex general category of buoy. Sorry for
any confusion.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I didn't mean to say that SSQ-26 was the best buoy available, but that
directional active is the most complex general category of buoy. Sorry
for
any confusion.

Oh, I'm with you now. Yes, that's correct. Remember of course that an active
buoy also needs an RF downlink to receive ping commands, as well as the
regular RF telemetry uplink. So technologically, they are more complicated.
Essentially they're used to compliment a passive field. Traditionally, a
passive buoy field is used to find and classify a target (since you can get
signature information from the acoustics) and then active buoys are dropped
to localise for attack.

Si

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 04:54:25 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

"Thomas Schoene" wrote:

Simon Robbins wrote:
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
...
I've just always wondered.
What does a sonobouy cost. It seems one could use lots of them
quicky, and there is no recovery mechanism. How expensive is all
this?

Not sure that I would be allowed to divulge costs, but they're pretty
cheap, i.e. hundreds of pounds, rather than thousands. As a rule of
thumb, active buoys tend to cost more than passive, and generally
speaking the greater the number of hydrophones, the more expensive
they are. But the greater cost is I'm sure fielding the aircraft to
drop and monitor them.

In the US, you can find the contract award with numebrs and total contract
costs as public information. For example:

Sparton Defense Electronics, DeLeon Springs, Fla., is being awarded a
$7,136,416 firm-fixed-price contract for 6,303 AN/SSQ-62E sonobuoys and
associated data.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2..._ct075-03.html

That's a bit over a thousand dollars each (earlier contracts were similar,
in the range of $900 to $1300, usually). But the SSQ-62E is a directional
active (DICASS) buoy, about the most sophisticated type available.

Still, the cost has always been a concern and the Navy has made many efforts
to field cheaper buoys for initial searches. While it's attractive to
imagine laying patterns of buoys every hour or so in front of a convoy, the
sheer inventory needed for this is daunting. NATO could have run out very
fast in a notional WW3 Battle of the Atlantic.

These must be quite sophisticated directional buoys Thomas. While
I don't really know much about them I know that the simple
non-directional ones are considerably cheaper than that. If I
remember the type was AN/SSQ 517 and 518. they had (I think) a
selectable life of an hour (or so) or several hours. We turfed
them out at a great rate. A basic pattern was 9 buoys (that was
to get an idea of the targets direction then you extended the
pattern with one buoy then two buoys then one etc. Then when you
had a good reading on his direction you might try localizing him
with 'MAD' (using the 'stinger' on the tail of most ASW a/c) at
very low altitudes (~100 feet). these 'stingers' are part of the
'Magnetic Anomaly Detection' system which detect the changes in
the earth's magnetic field made by a large metal body (the
submarine)

Are those the "DIFAR" buoys?

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote:

These must be quite sophisticated directional buoys Thomas. While
I don't really know much about them I know that the simple
non-directional ones are considerably cheaper than that. If I
remember the type was AN/SSQ 517 and 518. they had (I think) a
selectable life of an hour (or so) or several hours. We turfed
them out at a great rate. A basic pattern was 9 buoys (that was
to get an idea of the targets direction then you extended the
pattern with one buoy then two buoys then one etc. Then when you
had a good reading on his direction you might try localizing him
with 'MAD' (using the 'stinger' on the tail of most ASW a/c) at
very low altitudes (~100 feet). these 'stingers' are part of the
'Magnetic Anomaly Detection' system which detect the changes in
the earth's magnetic field made by a large metal body (the
submarine)

Are those the "DIFAR" buoys?

Al Minyard

No Al...a DIFAR buoy is 'passive directional', more complicated
than these passive non-directional jobbies. These are at the
bottom of the food chain and use the operator's ear to evaluate
the strength of the noise from the target. With a basic 9 buoy
pattern of these and a sharp operator you can fix a sub's
position pretty accurately then by listening to each buoy in
succession (they're all on different frequencies of course) you
can track him pretty well. There's a good URL to explain sono's
at:
http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation.../14030_106.htm

I'm by no means an expert with these things, my job was to help
get them and their operators (the real experts in this field) -
called AESops - (Airborne Electronic System Operators) out to the
area and home again. They taught us (FE's) a few rudimentary
facts so that we wouldn't feel too out of touch!
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

I'm by no means an expert with these things, my job was to help
get them and their operators (the real experts in this field) -
called AESops - (Airborne Electronic System Operators) out to the
area and home again. They taught us (FE's) a few rudimentary
facts so that we wouldn't feel too out of touch!

Oops! it's airborne electronic 'sensor' operators...
--

-Gord.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 01:15:28 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote:

These must be quite sophisticated directional buoys Thomas. While
I don't really know much about them I know that the simple
non-directional ones are considerably cheaper than that. If I
remember the type was AN/SSQ 517 and 518. they had (I think) a
selectable life of an hour (or so) or several hours. We turfed
them out at a great rate. A basic pattern was 9 buoys (that was
to get an idea of the targets direction then you extended the
pattern with one buoy then two buoys then one etc. Then when you
had a good reading on his direction you might try localizing him
with 'MAD' (using the 'stinger' on the tail of most ASW a/c) at
very low altitudes (~100 feet). these 'stingers' are part of the
'Magnetic Anomaly Detection' system which detect the changes in
the earth's magnetic field made by a large metal body (the
submarine)

Are those the "DIFAR" buoys?

Al Minyard

No Al...a DIFAR buoy is 'passive directional', more complicated
than these passive non-directional jobbies. These are at the
bottom of the food chain and use the operator's ear to evaluate
the strength of the noise from the target. With a basic 9 buoy
pattern of these and a sharp operator you can fix a sub's
position pretty accurately then by listening to each buoy in
succession (they're all on different frequencies of course) you
can track him pretty well. There's a good URL to explain sono's
at:
http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation.../14030_106.htm

I'm by no means an expert with these things, my job was to help
get them and their operators (the real experts in this field) -
called AESops - (Airborne Electronic System Operators) out to the
area and home again. They taught us (FE's) a few rudimentary
facts so that we wouldn't feel too out of touch!

Many thanks. I worked on the circuit boards for both in the early
70's, in the Magnavox circuit board engineering lab, but the
details have grown (very) fuzzy.

Al Minyard

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
No Al...a DIFAR buoy is 'passive directional', more complicated
than these passive non-directional jobbies.

FYI, DIFAR has been superceded in the UK inventory by HIDAR, which operates
in "S" mode with an analog telemetry uplink identical to DIFAR (to retain
compatibility) or in "H" mode using digital telemetry. I don't believe LOFAR
is used any longer by the RAF, no idea about the US forces.

Si