Question on the SOSUS. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message


tjhkkr -> Question on the SOSUS. (9/30/2015 8:26:52 PM)

On the SOSUS station 1970s vintage. The actual 'sensor' covers one thousand miles.
What I am looking at here with this? Is it suppose to be on a land Mass and a bombable target, or underwater?

I am guessing it is an abstraction of the SOSUS net.
Any recommendations on how to use it such that is 'historical'?

Thank you,
TJH




Rory Noonan -> RE: Question on the SOSUS. (10/1/2015 11:33:08 AM)

I assume you mean #1897 Bottom Fixed Array (SOSUS)--I had a play with it in a blank scenario, using an Alfa running at flank (fastest, noisiest sub I could think of). I placed the SOSUS array facility in the GIUK gap. It picked up the Alfa at max range so long as there was no land in between the SOSUS array and the sub.

This makes me think that a single unit is meant to be placed to represent an established area monitored by the SOSUS network. A single unit placement removes the tedious placement and networking of many individual bottom arrays, and I imagine, significantly reduces CPU workload while maintaining the same end effect for detection of submarines.

Specifically to answer your questions: It appears to be intended to be placed underwater; It does indeed look like an abstraction; and I would recommend using it as a single facility placed in areas to be monitored (very effectively!) by SOSUS.




SeaQueen -> RE: Question on the SOSUS. (10/1/2015 2:17:19 PM)

The array would be underwater which would be connected by a cable to a station on shore where they would process the information (e.g. NAVFAC Bermuda, NAVFAC Adak). In addition to the bottom arrays, in the 1970s they were planning and preparing for what are essentially mobile SOSUS arrays, the SURTASS ships, the first of which arrived in the 1980s. Additionally, technology was improving which allowed for them to consolidate shore facilities, so that one shore station could monitor multiple arrays.

A good scenario might be an attack on a SOSUS shore facility or a SURTASS ship with it's protection.




FlyingBear -> RE: Question on the SOSUS. (10/2/2015 3:42:24 PM)

As I understand it the original SOSUS were fixed arrays located close to the shore on the continental shelf. Its arrays did not span the ocean floor, they were "large" but not hundreds of miles large.

FDS and SURTASS were distributed, but they came in the 1980s when Soviet submarine noise reduction efforts meant that you could no longer hotwire an entire ocean by placing sensor arrays along the coast lines.

I made an export from a setup I use in a test scenario, this is how I believed it looked like at the height of the Cold War (although the import is for the 1979 to 1990 range since that happened to be when my test scenario played out). Does it look reasonable?

To simulate an attack on the SOSUS network I would script it such that destroying the NAVFAC building also destroys or disables the sensor.




tjhkkr -> RE: Question on the SOSUS. (10/5/2015 9:25:34 PM)

Thank you very much. I will have to test this out.




tjhkkr -> RE: Question on the SOSUS. (10/5/2015 9:28:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen
The array would be underwater which would be connected by a cable to a station on shore where they would process the information (e.g. NAVFAC Bermuda, NAVFAC Adak). In addition to the bottom arrays, in the 1970s they were planning and preparing for what are essentially mobile SOSUS arrays, the SURTASS ships, the first of which arrived in the 1980s. Additionally, technology was improving which allowed for them to consolidate shore facilities, so that one shore station could monitor multiple arrays.

A good scenario might be an attack on a SOSUS shore facility or a SURTASS ship with it's protection.


I agree, but are there even enough ships out there to provide an adequate escort for such a ship. In a modern submarine surge, I think a SURTASS ship would be Backfire/Bear G/Hong 6 bait.




freeboy -> RE: Question on the SOSUS. (10/5/2015 9:35:41 PM)

as an aside, its problematic to have a shore facility... unless super hardened in the event of a shooting war... where in ship based systems can be seemingly more easily replaced as needed... granted if your shore facility is in Chicago it again is presumably less vulnerable to attack than say Iceland..

sorry way off topic




thewood1 -> RE: Question on the SOSUS. (10/5/2015 10:20:47 PM)

I would think a ship would be pretty obvious also. It would be especially vulnerable with a wire running to the SOSUS installation...until wireless comms had become more reliable.




freeboy -> RE: Question on the SOSUS. (10/5/2015 11:05:50 PM)

well, there is ships and there are ships.. really we are talking imo a ship relay.. something to gather a signal and relay it to cac inshore.. so we are not talking large.. fishing trawler size or smaller and VERY hid-able.. unless it must stay in one place which is what you want to avoid...
And from a ww3 perspective we are talking soviet asset deployment.... is it really unthinkable to believe that if hostilities where imminent the red fleet would not attempt to pre position defeating in part the utility of a sosus barrier...

So way way off topic but interesting....





SeaQueen -> RE: Question on the SOSUS. (10/6/2015 5:04:48 PM)

It all depends on what assumptions you make.


quote:


I agree, but are there even enough ships out there to provide an adequate escort for such a ship. In a modern submarine surge, I think a SURTASS ship would be Backfire/Bear G/Hong 6 bait.




SeaQueen -> RE: Question on the SOSUS. (10/6/2015 5:07:14 PM)

SURTASS ships don't have a wire leading to a shore station. They have a bunch of sonar technicians on board. They are sonar array+processing station all in one. These days, obviously communication is much better than it once was.


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I would think a ship would be pretty obvious also. It would be especially vulnerable with a wire running to the SOSUS installation...until wireless comms had become more reliable.





Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.054688E-02