Figures

Just stay out of the water and you'll be fine lard ass.

FF 101!

Why should national security be overriden by environmentalist's concern for some damn whales.

Didn't you see Star Trek IV?

Jeez.

"Didn't you see Star Trek IV?"

No one is suggesting that all whales should be killed off, but the Navy needs to do their excercises without interference from envirowackos.

I was being facetious.

It's not a warm and fuzzy ruling, but I don't know how anyone could have expected otherwise.

Yeah, excercises like this...

The Navy does not depend on active sonar like they used to. Passive acoustic technology is so much more advanced than it was than even just 10 years ago.

I was a sonarman stationed on two different Knox class frigates whose sole purpose was ASW (anti submarine warfare) When our hull mounted sonar pinged, it shook the entire ship. Other ships, miles away, pinging would wake us up. The AN SQS 26 sonar put out 240,000 watts of accoustic energy! That's a lot. I can understand if that sonar distubed humans so much, it must really fuck up marine mammals who depend on low frequency sound for navigation, long range communication, and in the case of porpoises, the higher frequency for echo-location.

Active sonar can be reduced to a single ping for acquiring range in a firing solution. I don't think this ruling will affect the Navy much but will instead be a great benefit to the marine mammals.

This may sound strange coming from an ex-sonarman in the Navy, but that's the nature of active sonar.

The enviro-talibans lost on this one.

What's the difference in between pinging and passive acoustical sonar?

My boat's radar is like 2KW....I know we are talking sonar not radar but..... 240,000KW sounds like a huge blast!

Pinging, or active sonar, sends a pulse of sound (if you can call 240 kwatts a pulse!) and listens for the echo return. Passive sonar does not ping. There are several versions. A LAMPS helicopter can drop sonobouys in an area and get a bearing of underwater sound sources. These bearings can be triangulated to determine the exact position of the sub.

Also passive sonar is very sophisticated in analyzing sound patterns. Each submarine has its own acoustic signature. E.G., one sub might have a shaft bearing that is slightly off and that sound is picked up. Or a water pump may take up water at a slightly different rate and that sound can be determined.

When I got out of the Navy in 1981, we were able to determine with 99% accuracy the class of sub, and with 80% accuracy the exact vessel. I would imagine now, over 25 years later that the technology is near perfect.

Still, though, at least one ping is required to get an exact range and bearing to a target for a firing solution when using a torpedo or ASROC (Anti Submarine ROCket -- rocket thrown torpedo or depth charge) against it.

240,000KW sounds like a huge blast!

It is. Consider a 100 watt home stereo system. Those can rattle your ears if you are in the same room with it and it is cranked up. Now multiply that by 2,400 and think of it.

If we were passively cruising, then went active, it was not uncommon to see fish suddenly float to the surface, stunned or maybe dead. I can only imagine what that did to a creature with a more complex aural system as mammals have. That is why I disagree with the ruling. (I got confused on what I said upthread -- I thought the court ruled against the Navy for some reason)

These bearings can be triangulated to determine the exact position of the sub.

Yeah, I remember during exercises the XO calling the surface ASW on the underwater phones telling them when we were transiting. Back and forth, HERE WE COME. LOL

The fact is subs can hear surface craft long before the opposite occurs. Cavitation can be heard for thousands of miles under the water.

Fact: There are only two types of vessels on the high seas - Submarines and targets.

What's most scary about this, is that the Supreme court only upheld this by a 5 to 4 vote. One more lib on the court and annoying a whale trumps national defense.

I remember during ASW exercises on my old Adams Class Destroyer (steam driven - so we were loud in the water) we were chasing the Bonefish which I believe was an old clunky Diesel/Battery Sub and we could not for the life of us find that damn sub. It had to surface every couple of hours so we could get a visual just to start the chase again. So I do agree with Ozark that their are only two types of vessel on the high seas and we were the later.

But if we found you... BAMM!!!!

Our Weps were very accurate.

There go the right to life right wingers saying it's ok to harm and kill anything that isn't human!! Fucking hypocritical idiots. Eventually we will kill off something that will probably lead to our demise. I vote that it will be bees.

LM

The fact is subs can hear surface craft long before the opposite occurs. Cavitation can be heard for thousands of miles under the water.

That is true if the assumption that listening is done from the respective vessels. Helos and sonobuoys put the surface ship at an acoustic advantage, however.

I agree with Goat.

I was also a Sonar Tech. I spent 4 years stationed aboard the USS O'BANNON (DD-987), a Spruance class Destroyer primarily used as an ASW platform.

I think I can count on two hands alone the number of times we went active (pinging the water) when we weren't on the training range. As for being on the range, well, we did put a lot of noise into the water, but a well trained Navy is a strong Navy.

99% of the time were we passive (listening) using either the bow mounted sonar (AN-SQS 53c) or our towed array sensor that streamed out roughly a mile behind the ship and, given the right conditions, we could hear targets hundreds of miles away. Active sonar is primarily used for verifying range to target. On average, we'd have only six pings in the water before we had a weapon in the water.

I remember during ASW exercises on my old Adas Class Destroyer (steam driven - so we were loud in the water) we were chasing the Bonefish which I believe was an old clunky Diesel/Battery Sub and we could not for the life of us find that damn sub.

Diesel boats are more quiet than nukes, that's why. They run on electric motors when submerged and those make far less noise than a nuclear reactor.

Fact: There are only two types of vessels on the high seas - Submarines and targets.

#14 | Posted by OzarkAggie at 2008-11-12 07:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not true.

My ship was picked for war games with a US attack sub (VERY QUIET) on the AUTEC range near Puerto Rico. The exercises started at 6am and I remember taking the watch @ 6:45 am. After faint activity on the passive broadband, I asked the Sonar Sup for permission to go active. Less than 10 pings later we had a firing solution and the range supervisors determined we had made the first kill.

We were later told that we were supposed to be nothing but a training target for the Sub, but we decided to play our way and ended up with a 80% kill rate over the sub.

I guess it had never been done because when we pulled back into Rosie Rhoads (a base in PR) for liberty, the Captain bought his Sonar team a round, as did the Commodore of the Destroyer Squadron.

Diesel boats are more quiet than nukes, that's why. They run on electric motors when submerged and those make far less noise than a nuclear reactor.

#20 | Posted by goatman at 2008-11-12 10:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Goat, remember the magical '50 hz' we were always looking for?

Goat, remember the magical '50 hz' we were always looking for?

I was an AN/SQS 35 VDS tech, an active sonar. We had a passive sonar, I believe the SQS 17, but I did not operate or use it. But I do know what you are talking about.

My boat's radar is like 2KW....I know we are talking sonar not radar but..... 240,000KW sounds like a huge blast!

#11 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2008-11-12 06:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is.

We were supposed to de-energize and tag-out (tag switches with warnings) whenever there was a diver in the water due to the dangers of an accidental ping.

It's also the first line of defense if suspected enemy divers are in the water. It may not kill the divers, but it will definitely mess them up enough that they have to surface.

Goat, remember the magical '50 hz' we were always looking for?

50hz is the frequency of the note at the beginning of Also Sprach Zarathustra - otherwise known as the them from "2001 - A Space Oddyssey".

Shoulda made a tape loop from the album back then LOL

theme

and Odyssey ... Oops

50hz is the frequency of the note at the beginning of Also Sprach Zarathustra

That is almost the B above middle C. It is also the frequency of alternating current in the whole world except the Western hemisphere. We of course use 60 hz.

That is almost the B above middle C. It is also the frequency of alternating current in the whole world except the Western hemisphere. We of course use 60 hz.

#28 | Posted by goatman at 2008-11-12 11:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

BINGO! The man still got skills!

That is almost the B above middle C. It is also the frequency of alternating current in the whole world except the Western hemisphere. We of course use 60 hz.

GOAT

Here's a chart of a piano keyboard

The reason 'it' isn't exactly on the pitch ...

We of course use 60 hz.

I can't even count the number of times I was mixing a track and someone had a 60 hz buzz on their track.

Luckliy, today's software allows you to pinpoint a frequency and roll it off. With analog recording consoles that wasn't possible.

Ah, the wonders of technology.

Oh, and 50 hz is what you add a little of in hip hop or rap tracks on the kick drum.

AU: Here is the chart I was looking at. But I made a mistake and was looking at 500 hz instead of 50 when I said the B above middle C thing. Mea culpa.

60 cycle hum on equipment can be the result of poor electrical grounding. I see it all the time.

When I'm EQ-ing a track that chart is really helpful to me. For instance, a guitar playing a rhythm has one note that sticks out on a certain chord more loudly than it should.

Knowing the frequency of that particular note enables an engineer to narrow in on the frequency, set the bandwidth (how many hz above and below that note it affects at descending DB's the further away) and dip it however many DB it needs so it doesn't stick out anymore. Harmonics are involved at times too so you have to dip the frequencies in that 'harmonic series' slightly in some cases. Mostly that happens on a piano as a solo instrument, but orchestras also respond as a single instrument in that way. This is one reason chord structures are set up the way they are in the 12 tone Western scale.

As an experiment, next time you're near a piano hold down a C an octave below middle C, and without using the damper pedal (sustain) hit middle C quickly. You'll hear a whole series of other notes ring too. Every note is related to other notes in a 'harmonic series'. Dissonance (a white key and black key next to it at the same time) is interesting. If I have a bass or cello string sample up I can do one hell of a great impression of a WW2 bomber holding dissonant notes 2 octaves below middle C, and by using the pitch wheel make it gain elevation or lose elevation. Fun. I used to crack up the other guys when I was a studio musician by doing that and launching into a monologue as though I'm doing a voiceover on a MovieTone reel from WW2.

When Dan Rather asked what 'The Frequency' is, I was tempted to write and suggest 50 hz

50 hz is a nice low frequency for bass. when I used to build speaker cabinets I would tune the cabinets to somewhere between 38-50 hz

Cool TRON

I've never been adventurous enough (or good enough with cabinetry) to build speaker cabinets.

I finally found a pair of speakers I can mix on at low volume and hear everything - Mackie HR-828's. Wide 'sweet spot' too, so you don't have to sit right in the middle all the time. Clean bi-amped sound.

Very nice. I just enjoy listening to good music and have found klipsch to make a good speaker that isn't too expensive

Ya, Klipsch make great speakers.

I have to use high end reference speakers in my studio. Mackie HR-828's are the standard now in studios all over the place, so it's good to mix on them - especially when working with other producers in other cities as is so common these days. If a mix sounds good on them it'll usually sound good anywhere on anything.

Of course, the old boombox is usually the best test of all for a final mix.

As an experiment, next time you're near a piano hold down a C an octave below middle C, and without using the damper pedal (sustain) hit middle C quickly. You'll hear a whole series of other notes ring too. Every note is related to other notes in a 'harmonic series'

I'm very familiar with harmonics. In the navy, they it was important to recognize them in passive and active modes. In electronics, harmonics well above the audio range can screw up equipment, especially in the RF bands.

I'm very familiar with harmonics

I don't know anything about sonar beyond what I've seen in movies, documentaries, and books. Fascinating stuff. I read a book a couple of years ago by a retired U.S. Cold War era sub Captain. His stories of pinging Soviet subs who evidently didn't know they were there until too late was funny. They'd hide in a thermal layer or trench, sneak up on 'em, turn their sonar way up, and blast the Soviets out of their bunks.

On my digital piano computer patches they programmed the harmonic series into the program, most notable when you have the sustain pedal pushed down. Until recent times digital piano samples were every 4 or 5 semitones and stretched to make the adjacent keys work. Now, every note is sampled 18 times at different velocities. Amazingly real.

We used to do the same with our sonars, but we also did it to our own guys. I've been told that if close enough, it will rattle plates.

Funny thing: The toilets in the head obviously used sea water for flushing. The sound would travel up through the pipes and the toilets would be like speakers of this 3.1 kHz sound. Funny stuff.

The electrical power required to generate this sound was so great the the ship's generators could not supply it without causing a brown-out. So we had a motor-generator called LAPS (Louis Allis Power Supply). It was a one ton flywheel that spun at 13,000 RPM (if I remember right). It took several minutes to get up to speed. When we pinged, the mechanical energey from the inertia of the flywheel ran a generator that supplied the power for the transducer. During the dwell time (the time waiting for the echo return) the ship's service generator would bring the flywheel back up to speed.

Have you ever read, "The Philadelphia Experiment"?

The generator description reminded me of it.

True story of an experiment to bend light and render ships invisible.

Active sonar can be reduced to a single ping for acquiring range in a firing solution. I don't think this ruling will affect the Navy much but will instead be a great benefit to the marine mammals.

This may sound strange coming from an ex-sonarman in the Navy, but that's the nature of active sonar.

#8 | Posted by goatman at 2008-11

so you must be the expert........

two questions.....would not using the sonar in these areas put the crew in danger

and also..........how long did you stay under the longest?

"would not using the sonar in these areas put the crew in danger"

In danger of what fucktard? Having the submarine raped by a blue whale?

If there was a war and it was necessary to use active sonar they wouldn't hesitate.

BLT you really are an idiot.

Uh huh, and in the mean time how do you train new recruits on it?

STFU on military matters, you're never even in the ballpark.

"Uh huh, and in the mean time how do you train new recruits on it?

STFU on military matters, you're never even in the ballpark."

Ever hear of simulators, douche?

Another great moment in military strategy brought to us by 101 Gomer Pyle.

Who hasn't heard of simulators retard. Now tell the rest of the class, why do pilots fly real planes if there are simulators available?

Why does anyone do the real deal if there are simulators available?

Again, you're too stupid to comment on these matters, so why bother?

In fact stupid, why don't you share with us the number of simulators you've used while serving and then tell us how they translated once you actually used the real deal...

Or you could simply admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

"Who hasn't heard of simulators retard. Now tell the rest of the class, why do pilots fly real planes if there are simulators available?"

Oh please ChairBitch you lost the argument. If they can simulate nuclear explosions they can simulate "ping". R&D needs are something entirely different.

Shit how often do you see US subs launching nukes? Most costly exercises are completely simulated.

They even have complex simulators for surgery.

This is not necessary.

And as we know when ChairBitch gets his little mind on something he never gives up until it is obvious to everyone on the forum that he is totally fucking ignorant of the subject at hand.

And as we know when ChairBitch gets his little mind on something he never gives up until it is obvious to everyone on the forum that he is totally fucking ignorant of the subject at hand.

#51 | Posted by furio at 2008-11-13 02:10 PM | Reply

Translation: I have never used a military simulator and have no idea what I'm talking about.

"
In fact stupid, why don't you share with us the number of simulators you've used while serving and then tell us how they translated once you actually used the real deal...

Or you could simply admit you have no idea what you're talking about."

Here we go its ChairBitch saying he is an expert because he spent a few years as a grunt in the Army in the early 90s. Big fucking deal. It is so fucking easy to simulate wave functions on the computers that process signals from the sensor equipment. Oh, I forgot, ChairBitch doesn't know about wave functions. shit, for university I had to write software for ray tracing thorugh various mediums and lenses. Not very complicated. and light waves are very similar to sound waves.

Sonar is all about computer processing. You don't need to send the actual active sonar ping to do live practice on the sensor equipment.

Asshole I know far more about physics and computers than you will ever. Which is what this is all about.

Furryhole,
You have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps you could google what thoise that have been there and done that say?
Nah, continue to wave your dummy flag and tell those of us that have used militarty simulation equipment all about how good it is...

In fact stupid, why not start by counting how many experts say "there is no substitute for the real thing".
Then tell me why we'd want anything but the real deal when talking about 1,000's of lives and billions of dollars in equipment.

You're a frigging stooge.

"You have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps you could google what thoise that have been there and done that say?
Nah, continue to wave your dummy flag and tell those of us that have used militarty simulation equipment all about how good it is..."

And fuckmeat you have no idea about testing computer systems. You also have never seen modern simulators. How else can you replicate various scenarios?

You really are fucking ignorant ChairBitch and youlove to revelin it as well.

Explain to the class why the Navy would rather do the real deal than use these simulators then dummy...

Explain why I see fighter jets in the air if simulators are cheaper?
Why are their bombing ranges and missile targets if simulators work just as good?

How about you just STFU and realize you're wrong?

How else can you replicate various scenarios?

#55 | Posted by furio at 2008-11-13 02:33 PM | Reply

One last thing stupid...

Do you think they've experienced every scenario?
In order to be relpicated by your simulator it would have had to have been experienced in the real world under real conditions.

Face it stupid, your idea of simply training in simulators until a time of war is the dumbest fucking idea going. No surprise you are attempting to forward it.

"
Explain to the class why the Navy would rather do the real deal than use these simulators then dummy...

Explain why I see fighter jets in the air if simulators are cheaper?"

DouchBorne, everything now a days is run by computers. how do you think computer systems are tested? By banging on a keyboard (or active arrray for that matter)? No they have various suites of test scenarios digitally recorded and repeatedly run. Your little sonar dude sits in front of a computer. All you do is rerun scenarios previously recorded. no fucking difference. except the simulated training is far better than reality.

As for fighters (you really are stupid) there is more and more simulation training than ever before due to the expense of flying and the wear and tear on the airframes. Shit, all commercialpilots do their recertification on trainers. Of course they need to fly due to the nature of their delivery.

Now you obviously need to calibrate sonar equipment and to test it and this needs to be done with the actual equipment.

"Do you think they've experienced every scenario?
In order to be relpicated by your simulator it would have had to have been experienced in the real world under real conditions."

Yeah fuckmeat they do. Every sensor computer is logging real life scenarios and saving them. They are then later collected and sorted for training purposes just like when you are told your phone call is being recorded everytime you try to buy schiesse porn over the phone.

So in other words without continual real life use, the simulator training alone wouldn't be sufficient.
(Not to mention everybody but you realizes there is no substitute for the real thing).

Did you really need for this to go on this long before realizing your idea of just using simulators until a time of war was a fucking retarded idea?

Go clean yourself up.

"So in other words without continual real life use, the simulator training alone wouldn't be sufficient.
(Not to mention everybody but you realizes there is no substitute for the real thing)."

Now DoucheBorne is trying to claim victory by taking things out of context. Predictable mouth breather. Guess what unlike your involvement some of the military actually has live engagements not training orsimulations. Additionally you need to do R&D, test and callibrate equipment. This is far different than training purposes. Guess you wouldn't know the difference from your experience or lack of.

Guess you wouldn't know the difference from your experience or lack of.

#61 | Posted by furio at 2008-11-13 03:00 PM | Reply

One of us has used military simulators, and one of us hasn't...

So dummy, your claim of using simulators until a time of war is laughable, and I've proven as much.
You can whine on and on about how simulators save money, or how they are good, but you can't explain why we do live fire excersizes or actually drive subs, tanks, fighter planes, etc even though simulation equipment is available for all of them...

The answer is simple, and so are you. Have you googled "there is no substitute for the real thing"?

Again, you should have just admitted what was apparent from the beginning...You got caught talking out of your ass and were too dumb to bail out.

"yawn" DoucheBorne declaring mission accomplished once again.

Sorry Furryhole, it's the Supreme Court that declared it, not me.

Maybe you could contact the Navy and tell them that simulators are all that is needed?
Let me know how that goes stupid.

DoucheBorne just because you sucked a lot of Navy cock doesn't make you an expert on all Navy equipment. I can understand now why you prefer "live fire" experiences rather simulators.

just because you sucked a lot of Navy cock

I would have assumed RCADE to give you his liberal pass on "fuckmeat" but probably not that one.

DoucheBorne just because you sucked a lot of Navy cock doesn't make you an expert on all Navy equipment. I can understand now why you prefer "live fire" experiences rather simulators.

#65 | Posted by furio at 2008-11-13 03:39 PM | Reply

Translation: I am mortified that I even tried to defend my ridiculous argument that simulators are as good as the real thing. Now I'll talk about something I really know about!

No DoucheBorne it means I've stated my case. If you are too ignorant to recognize the logic why repeat myself?

"I would have assumed RCADE to give you his liberal pass on "fuckmeat" but probably not that one."

Nah, everyone here knows DoucheBorne loves his cockmeat sandwiches.

The Navy and every other simulator company agrees with me. There is no substitute for the real thing.
Who agrees with you again?

Hahahahahaha! I love kicking sand in the faces of the jerk offs on the retort.

two questions.....would not using the sonar in these areas put the crew in danger

No danger, it was just very annoying.

and also..........how long did you stay under the longest?

I was surface Navy, not subs. But I know that the boomers (the ones that can destroy with world) stay under 3 months at a time

Goatman's a former sailor, perhaps you could tell him all about those simulators Furryhole?

Ever hear of simulators, douche?

Another great moment in military strategy brought to us by 101 Gomer Pyle.

LOL. I is you who is the Gomer, furryhole.

Would you want to trust a pilot flying your plane who had only ever had experience on a simulator? At war, there is one chance. I'd hate to be doing it having only been on a simulator.

Also, I can tell you having been in both simulators and real water searches for the subs that simululators, in spite of what their name implies, do not simulate the real world

You are very naive, furryhole, when it comes to military hardware and training.

"
The Navy and every other simulator company agrees with me. There is no substitute for the real thing.
Who agrees with you again?

Hahahahahaha! I love kicking sand in the faces of the jerk offs on the retort."

DoucheBorne, I'm glad that the Navy has finally come around to your point of view. Let me know when you get out of the terrible twos and finally develop a super-ego.

BTW, you must have really sucked a lot of Navy cock to get that type of consensus so quickly.

Goatman,

Why don't you answer the question in particular regards to active sonar rather than simulators in general? I wasn't referring to all simulators in my argument.

Please, by all means, tell us all about how great simulators are while never having used one...

Man, you really are a dumbass for not just slinking away.

Did you use google yet to try and find somebody to support your position?

"Did you use google yet to try and find somebody to support your position?"

Like you just did previously DoucheBorne?

The Navy and every other simulator company agrees with me. There is no substitute for the real thing.

Simulators.......not vibrators.

I wasn't referring to all simulators in my argument.

#75 | Posted by furio at 2008-11-13 04:04 PM | Reply

Well that's odd. You didn't make that claim when I asked you about flight simulators, sub simulators, tank simulators, or simulators in general...

Retreat! Retreat!

Stay off the beach pipsqueak.

Oh please ChairBitch you lost the argument. If they can simulate nuclear explosions they can simulate "ping".

They can simulate a ping, but they can't accurately simuate the myriad propertis of water (salinity, thermal conditions, marine life, aeration due to waves and/or cavitation, currents, sea bottom conditions, underwater structures such as mountains, thermal etc.) that affect the return echo.

Asshole I know far more about physics and computers than you will ever. Which is what this is all about.

Sonar is all about computer processing. You don't need to send the actual active sonar ping to do live practice on the sensor equipment.

You are wrong, furryhole. Very wrong. You might knoow about computers and physicsk, but you don't understand sonar. I was a sonarman in the USN for 6 years and constantly trained. I think I know a bit more about sonar simulators and real conditions than you do.

You are an idiot, furryhole

Like you just did previously DoucheBorne?

#77 | Posted by furio at 2008-11-13 04:09 PM | Reply

I don't need google to know that simulators aren't a substitute for the real thing.
I also didn't need google to tell me the Navy agreed with me as well. So no, I didn't use the google to look for people to agree with me because only a fucking retard wouldn't in this case.

You, for example.

Wait Goatman I'm confused first you say active sonar is unnecessary during training now you are implying there is no other substitute for it? Which is it now?

"I was a sonarman in the USN for 6 years and constantly trained. I think I know a bit more about sonar simulators and real conditions than you do."

How long ago was that?

ps sorry for the typos. I've a new laptop and I'm not used to this new keyboard. I have to press much harder on the keys

"Nice try to deflect from your ignorant and arrogant posture on this, furryhole"

Goatman as usual you are the one deflecting and not answering questions directly.

"As far as simulators in general, I agree except for the simplest scenarios, the cannot simulate real life conditions accurately"

And when did you last use simulators?

Also while I wasn't talking sonars directly to you (so no need to get upset) it is very simple to understand computers process signals coming in from sonar arrays and present that to the sonar operator.

Wait Goatman I'm confused first you say active sonar is unnecessary during training now you are implying there is no other substitute for it?

???

I never said active sonar was unnecessary. I said the Navy is not as dependent on it as they used to be because of advances in passive technology.

In fact, I even stated that at least one ping is necessary to develope the firing solution.

Find a better way to defend your argument than by putting words in my mouth, please.

And when did you last use simulators?

Sonar simulators or siulators in general (since you said this is what you are talking about? LOL)

Last time I used a sonar simulator was in 1981. Why do you ask? When was the last time you used one?

When was the last time you used one?

#87 | Posted by goatman at 2008-11-13 04:29 PM | Reply | Fla

The 5th. The 5th of never.
-Furryhole

"In fact, I even stated that at least one ping is necessary to develope the firing solution."

Must be so complicated it can't be simulated for training purposes. Far more complicated than simulating a nuclear explosion or a result from the Hadron collider? Correct?

it is very simple to understand computers process signals coming in from sonar arrays and present that to the sonar operator.

Yes, it is very easy to process the signals coming in to the arrays the arrays as you say, but it is very difficult to simulate what those signals will be after having passed through different thermal layers, salinity levels, etc. I explained this upthread.

What is your experience with sonar simulators that makes you such an expert?

Must be so complicated it can't be simulated for training purposes. Far more complicated than simulating a nuclear explosion or a result from the Hadron collider? Correct?

Could be -- I don't know. I have had no eperience with particle colliders, so I won't pretend (like you) that I have any knowledge of them. I can speak from experience about sonar simulators and hunting subs in real life, though.

"Last time I used a sonar simulator was in 1981. Why do you ask? When was the last time you used one?"

You never answered my questio, furryhole:

When did you ever use a sonar simulator and what is your experience with them that makes you such an expert on the state of their technolotgy.

You are clueless about what is the capability of computer technology today.

You gotta love it when a complete stranger who knows nothing about you comes up and tells you what you know and don't know.

The oil rigs today have the most advanced (short of the military, probably) computer and electronic systmes running them. I a an ET on an oil rig. I maintain them. I know a bit about current electronice an computer technologies, furryhole. How fuckiing arrogant of you to tell me otherwise.

But still -- what is your experience with sonar simulators, past or present?

"What is your experience with sonar simulators that makes you such an expert?"

well goatman I am vaguely familiar with light waves and how to model them in software. I would then say very familiar with modern software/hardware. I also know there have been major advances and focus on simulators over the past 10 years as the processing power allows realistic training. So I can guestimate people would easily come up with realistic sonar simulators.

It kind of comes with being in the software industry being able to envision what's possible and what's not.

You are basically an end user in your line of work, right? So I can understand why you can only deal with what'sin front of you at the moment.

It's about time the Supreme Court got something right. U.S. National Security should never be sacrificed to save the whales.

So I can guestimate people would easily come up with realistic sonar simulators.

#94 | Posted by furio at 2008-11-13 04:42 PM | Reply

You got caught talking out of your ass and were too dumb to bail out.

#62 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-11-13 03:20 PM | Reply

" I a an ET on an oil rig. I maintain them. I know a bit about current electronice an computer technologies, furryhole. How fuckiing arrogant of you to tell me otherwise."

Goatfuck, I think I would go to you to determine the eletrical load I would require for a server farm for example and how to properly setup my UPS and make sure my current is clean. But do you know anything about creating software for example?

Just imagine. If only furryhole would google simulators, look at what the companies that make them have to say (such as "Experts agree there is no substitute for the real thing"), and then STFU, this savaging he's recieving could have ended hours ago.

Or, could you imagine if a little common sense was applied?

The referee should step in and stop this!

well goatman I am vaguely familiar with light waves and how to model them in software.

LOL You pretend that the properties of light propogation are the same as sound propogation in a marine environment? You crack me up!

I guess I have to ask again.

What is your experience with sonar simulators that makes you such an expert?"

Since you don't have the balls to answer, I'll do it for you. You have no exprience.

I do have experience, and despite whatever stupid little levels of knowledge of current electronics technology you want to assign to me, I fully understand what they are capbably of.

You are basically an end user in your line of work, right?

Nope. I work for the end user keeping their shit running.

I'm through with you furryhole. You are an idiot poser. I've been there in the real world of sonar -- you haven't. I know at least as much about current computer technologies as you. I suspect much more, from reading this thread and other threads you've posed on in the past.

If 101 wants to pick up batting you around like a crippled mouse again, he can. I'm not going to waste any more of my time with a poser telling me about something I'm experienced on and that he's only seen on McHale's Navy reruns

"Last time I used a sonar simulator was in 1981. Why do you ask? When was the last time you used one?"

I'll go back to this point Goatfuck. Both you and I have the same relevant knowledge of sonar simulators today. that is nothing. It's like some VIC20 expert coming from back in time and calling me an idiot for saying I can guess an Intel based quad cpu server can vastly outperform his piece of shit.

But do you know anything about creating software for example?

LOL. Yes.

Do you know anything about sonar and sound propagation in a marine envionmnet? No, you don't.

Bye, bye, poser

Goatfuck, I think I would go to you to determine the eletrical load I

Well, you would be going to the wrong person. The electricians handle the power generation, transformation, and distribution on the rig. (big wire). The ETs handle the electronics. (little wire)

I see now you are going to pretend you know how oil rigs run, too. LOL

What a poser

The referee should step in and stop this!

#99 | Posted by wisgod

Wow

Tend to agree with Wis. This has the feel of one of those things that started with a teeny tiny offhand comment and went ballistic immediately.

Kinda like most serious conversations with my wife.

Kinda like most serious conversations with my wife.

#104 | Posted by TedBaxter

I kicked my wifes ass last time we talked sonar. She usally wins when debating laundry detergent.

VERY good, Wis

"What a poser"

Seriously goatman what was I posing as? An expert? Not at all. Just making a guesstimation. Exactly as I stated previously. And admitted I had only a bit of knowledge of light wave knowledge. We all know 101 knows jack shit about this. Then you come in with a bloated up ego as the Back to the Future expert.

What do you know about military simulators nowadays? You are 28 years out of date.

I said was throught with you Poser, but I want to leave you with a question. No need to answer.

If there as a submarine with a missle aimed at your pointed little head in Romania (or whatever the fuck third world country you said you live in) would you want the operator of he sonar that was going to deliver the firing solution to destroy it be one who had trained only on simulators, or one who had trained in a real world environment, too?

I thought so.

I kicked my wifes ass last time we talked sonar. She usally wins when debating laundry detergent.

LOL and ff

Professor,

Guess we should also be testing nukes above ground as well? (just to make sure)

What do you know about military simulators nowadays?

Seeing as to how I've had experience on them (no matter how long ago) and you've had none, it would be a safe bet by a reasonable person that I know more about current ones than you.

I've got a 2007 Lowrance Model 240-W fish locator. That means I'm the fucking expert.

It's over a year old, Wis.

Better upgrade.

It's over a year old, Wis.

Better upgrade.

#113 | Posted by TedBaxter

Furryhole, with your wealth of Sonaring experience, what would you recommend?

Guess we should also be testing nukes above ground as well?

As with particle colliders, I known nothing about nuke simulators. I've never dealt with them, so i am not going to pretend that I know anything about them. I do understand sonar and sound propagation in a marine envrinoment, though.

(I thought I made that clear upthread?)

Or should I just get a simulator?

"Seeing as to how I've had experience on them (no matter how long ago) and you've had none, it would be a safe bet by a reasonable person that I know more about current ones than you."

Shit Professor are you saying you can guess exactly how accurate military simulators are today based upon your experience 28 years ago? Because of 28 year old practical sonar knowledge?

Let's use your analogy would an F-4 pilot know shit about an F-22 simulator and it's capabilities?

Wis Wis Wis

You're not helping.

Shit Professor are you saying you can guess exactly how accurate military simulators are today based upon your experience 28 years ago?

Probably not as well as someone who is there now, but without a doubt I could guess better than someone who has never been there -- professor. LOL

"Furryhole, with your wealth of Sonaring experience, what would you recommend?"

WisBang,

You still trying to do self-prostate examinations?

You still trying to do self-prostate examinations?

#120 | Posted by furio

It would be be on par with your debate on sonar simulation. Have a good evening, Mr. Limpet

Oh please ChairBitch you lost the argument. If they can simulate nuclear explosions they can simulate "ping". R&D needs are something entirely different.

#51 | Posted by furio at 2008-11-13 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

We did use a Sonar simulator quite often, especially when the ship was to be in-port for any length of time, but actually putting sound into the water still is necessary for routine calibration and maintenance as well as practicing in real world environments known to be sub patrol areas.

Wait Goatman I'm confused first you say active sonar is unnecessary during training now you are implying there is no other substitute for it? Which is it now?

"I was a sonarman in the USN for 6 years and constantly trained. I think I know a bit more about sonar simulators and real conditions than you do."

How long ago was that?

#82 | Posted by furio at 2008-11-13 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag

Goat and myself did the same job. Him during the late 70's and myself during the mid 90's.

He's right. While active sonar isn't 'necessary', it sure does make for a more realistic training exercise.

Remember, the training simulators are run by fellow Sonar Techs, the real subs we practiced against are run by real sub captains who are going to know MUCH more about making themselves quiet (or just plain vanishing) than my fellow ST's. Plus, we learn a lot about their tactics when we start chasing the real thing.

Must be so complicated it can't be simulated for training purposes. Far more complicated than simulating a nuclear explosion or a result from the Hadron collider? Correct?

#89 | Posted by furio at 2008-11-13 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag

No, nowhere near as complicated, but then again we don't have Cray Supercomputers aboard our ships.

The training simulators cannot take into account all of the variables for ASW. We had massive cabinet after cabinet of publications for figuring out all the variables. It's mind numbing at times and there's no way that some rinky-dink simulator located aboard a ship is going to have all of the variables......with the biggest unknown being what the Captain of the enemy sub is going to do.

If you want to know what a sub is really going to do, start chasing it for real and find out.

I was hoping you would give your 2c, commonsense, since your experience was much more recent than mine.

Well do you think there were a few advances in computer processing technology since then? Your new laptop is far more powerful than anything that was sitting in the military in 1981. Basically today's computers are a 1000 times more powerful than what you had in 1980. en.wikipedia.org's_law

Actually I wonder if your simulators were based on computers.

You are clueless about what is the capability of computer technology today.

#92 | Posted by furio at 2008-11-13 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think you're missing a very important piece of the equation.

Military computing technology/power used in Soanr systems (and most shipboard systems) is FAR behind the civilian sector.

I entered the Navy in 1993 and got to my ship in late 94. When I got there, the ship was in the Charleston Shipyards and had just finished getting the AN/SQS-53c Sonar Suite. They began designing and developing this system in the early 70's and my ship was one of the first to get it.....TWENTY years later.

YUP, it takes THAT long to design and test a system that can have NO DEFECTS. The hard drives for the system were the gigantic, multi-platter disks that required two people to lift and then still had very little storage. The entire system is comprised over 30 cabinets, each the size of a large refrigerator, and is designed to survive combat, but the computing power behind it is surprisingly underwhelming.

I was hoping you would give your 2c, commonsense, since your experience was much more recent than mine.

#125 | Posted by goatman at 2008-11-13 07:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

It may have been more recent but I think we still used the same piece-of-crap simulator.

Larry, you have consistently demonstrated your lack of imagination...

...30 cabinets, each the size of a large refrigerator...

Damn! And I thought the AN/SQS 26 was a behemoth! It had only 18 or so cabinets of equipment -- not counting LAPS and the stuff in the xducer.

???

I got the wrong C&P on the first line of my previous post. Should've been

AN/SQS-53c Sonar Suite

BTW, good point about the human dynamic in these simulations, commonsense. That is something we are far, far from duplicating in any simulator anywhere.

I've got a 2007 Lowrance Model 240-W fish locator. That means I'm the fucking expert.

I've seen "The Hunt for Red October" 3 fucking times!!!

I've also seen "Up Periscope".

Any my neighbor was a an officer in the Navy.

Damn! And I thought the AN/SQS 26 was a behemoth! It had only 18 or so cabinets of equipment -- not counting LAPS and the stuff in the xducer.

#128 | Posted by goatman at 2008-11-13 07:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not sure if it's the same as when you were in, but Sonar Division (aka Combat Acoustics Div) had the most spaces of ANY division on the ship. TOO MANY SPACES, if you ask me.....somebody had to keep them clean.

Now, for the rest of you wondering what Goat and I are talking about:

AN/SQS-53 Sonar
The Sonar Set AN/SQS-53C is a computer-controlled surface-ship sonar that has both active and passive operating capabilities providing precise information for ASW weapons control and guidance. The AN/SQS-53C is designed to perform direct path ASW search, detection, localization, and tracking from a hull mounted transducer array. The AN/SQS-53C retains the transducer assembly from either the AN/SQS-53A or 53B. The AN/SQS-53C provides greater range and detection capability with only half of the electronics footprint and less weight than earlier versions. The AN/SQS-53C is equipped with high source level, fully stabilized beams, and wide convergence zone annuli coupled with computer-aided detection and automatic contact management. Implemented in standard electronic modules, the AN/SQS-53C is an all digital system with stable performance, on-line reconfiguration in the event of a component failure, and performance monitoring/fault location software to quickly isolate failures. The AN/SQS-53C provides apparent range, bearing, and true bearing of contacts when employing active sonar and provides true bearing of contacts detected by passive means.

The AN/SQS-53 is the most advanced surface ship ASW sonar in the US Navy inventory. It is a high-power, long-range system evolved from the AN/SQS-26CX, used actively and passively to detect and localize submarine contacts. The SQS-53B, located in a large dome at the bow of the ship, will detect, identify, and track multiple underwater targets. With its higher power and improved signal processing equipment, this sonar is the first in the Navy to be linked directly to digital computers, thus ensuring swift, accurate processing of target information. Functions of the system are the detection, tracking, and classification of underwater targets. It can also be used for underwater communications, countermeasures against acoustic underwater weapons, and certain oceanographic recording uses. The analog receivers of the AN/SQS-53A/B hull mounted sonars are being upgraded to digital by the use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) processors, and are redesignated SQS-53D.

This system is the basic sonar watchstanders tool to keep an eye on all traffic; often picking up surface ships at greater range than most radar systems. It can detect, identify and track multiple targets and is the first USN surface ship sonar designed specifically to interface directly with a vessel's digital computers. It has three active modes of operation; Surface duet, Bottom bounce and Convergence zone. The number of Third World countries that can employ wake-homing torpedoes from short ranges (Littoral Warfare) has grown steadily since the end of the Cold War. Sensors such as the AN/SQS-53C/D will be able to detect these platforms before they are able launch these weapons. It is also used to ping off of buoys for own ship location purposes in a foreign port.

37 Cabinets to be exact.

From Janes Figting Ships:

Claimed to be the most advanced surface ship ASW sonar in the US Navy (USN) inventory, the AN/SQS-53 is a hull-mounted, active and passive high-power (190 kW), long-range system cylindrical bow array, evolved from the AN/SQS-26CX. Functions of the system include: the detection, tracking and classification of underwater targets, underwater communications, countermeasures against acoustic underwater weapons and certain oceanographic recording uses. Target data obtained by the sonar are transmitted to the ship's Mk 116 digital underwater fire-control system.The AN/SQS-53 can detect, classify and track multiple targets and is the first USN surface ship sonar designed to interface directly with a vessel's digital computers. The system has a large 1.6 m high by 4.8 m diameter cylindrical array of 576 transducer elements housed in a large bulb dome below the waterline of the ship's bow. Operating frequency is 3 kHz with a peak frequency of 192 kHz. There are 37 cabinets of signal processing, transmitting and display equipment. In the SQS-53B the AN/UYK-20 computer of the SQS-53A is replaced by the UYK-44 military reconfigurable processor.The SQS 53C uses only 15 cabinets of electronics, which the SQS-53D replaces analogue electronics of the B/C variants with digital processing and more modern displays. Passive and active operating modes are possible.There are three active modes:surface duct (range 10 n miles)bottom bounce convergence zone (range up to 34.5 n miles).The surface duct mode depends upon sound energy being transmitted essentially in the horizontal plane. Due to the high level of noise introduced into the return signals

I've seen "The Hunt for Red October" 3 fucking times!!!

I've also seen "Up Periscope".

Any my neighbor was a an officer in the Navy.

#131 | Posted by eberly at 2008-11-13 08:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nice resume. If you also view 'Crimson Tide' & 'Das Boot', you get to be a Sub Captain.

Goat AN/SSQ-47/53 DIFAR/57 LOFAR/62 DICASS/77 VLAD
We dumped tons of them out the AC, were the AW's
in your same compartment or seperate "passive". I
did the P3 ASW stuff aircrew for about 5 years then
went ELINT for 16 flying.

I don't know all your acronyms, but I presume you are talking about sonobuoys.

Ours were strictly passive.

"We did use a Sonar simulator quite often, especially when the ship was to be in-port for any length of time, but actually putting sound into the water still is necessary for routine calibration and maintenance as well as practicing in real world environments known to be sub patrol areas."

I had pretty much stated the same about the need for calibration and maintenance.

"I entered the Navy in 1993 and got to my ship in late 94. When I got there, the ship was in the Charleston Shipyards and had just finished getting the AN/SQS-53c Sonar Suite. They began designing and developing this system in the early 70's and my ship was one of the first to get it.....TWENTY years later."

Yes, so anything from 1980 probably came from 1960. But military spec hardware is also far in advance of civilian.

If the sonar systems are completely digital they can run simulators on the same live equipment used onboard. If they are not they obviously cannot.

From one report I read it seems the problem facing the Navy nowadays is the equipment has not been updated in a long time and neither have the simulators. Also training has been lacking and they are playing catchup with tactics for quiet diesel subs. Basically all advancement stopped when the soviet union collapsed. So they are still using the same equipment that you were introduced to in 1993 most likely. This would be a problem.

furryhole, you back to get beat up some more on a subject you know nothing about?

If the sonar systems are completely digital they can run simulators on the same live equipment used onboard. If they are not they obviously cannot.

You are either incredibly confused or you are being deliberately obtuse. You keep refering to a signal (echo) after it has been picked up by the transducer. Yes, at this point it can be simulated. But what can't be simulated is what happens during the dwell time; i.e. the time from the transmission of the sound pulse until the return of the echo. After the ping, the sound pulse is affected by a myriad of dynamics, a few of which are salinity, thermal conditions, marine life, aeration due to waves and/or cavitation, currents, sea bottom conditions, underwater structures such as mountains, thermocline, pH of the water, evasion devices such as NIXIE or cavitation simulators, etc.

Also, the most hard to simulate variable, as commonsense pointed out, is the human factor. No matter how advance AI is, it isn't 1% of the human brain. No simulator can predict what a good submarine captain can or will do to avoid being discovered. That is why live exercises will always be better than simulators.

Let me ask this question again:

If a submarine had a missle pointed at you, which sonar operator would you rather have defending you?

a) one who had trained only on a simulator
b) one who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions

You are such an idiot

This would be a problem.

The problem is you are clueless, but pretend you know something about sonar when two different people with a total of 12 years sonar experience between them tell you otherwise.

Get a grip, poser

From one report I read ...

LOL, right . . .

citation, please?

Also training has been lacking and they are playing catchup with tactics for quiet diesel subs.

Think about what you just wrote for a minute.

Diesel boats have been around long before nuclear powered ones. Therefore, sonar detection tactics were developed before detection tactics for nuclear boats. Why would they be playing 'catch-up' on something they already know about and had been doing for decades? If any 'catch-up' was necessary, it would be on detection tactics for nuclear boats.

What the hell was this crazy report you claim you read? You really do need to cite it. Personally, I think you are lying. I don't think you read any 'report'.

furryhole continues to get stomped in to a greasy spot.

Hahahahahaha! If only you would have admitted what everyone already knew. You're a pud.

Goat, all bouys, AC info direct data link
to task group CIC's .Lamps helos,S3,P3 ops.
Did a lot of picket line ops for CTG.

"Think about what you just wrote for a minute.

Diesel boats have been around long before nuclear powered ones. Therefore, sonar detection tactics were developed before detection tactics for nuclear boats. Why would they be playing 'catch-up' on something they already know about and had been doing for decades? If any 'catch-up' was necessary, it would be on detection tactics for nuclear boats.

What the hell was this crazy report you claim you read? You really do need to cite it. Personally, I think you are lying. I don't think you read any 'report'."

GoatFuck,

I was waiting for you to tear down your own "Staw Bitch" argument that since you were a sonarman back in 1981 you are automatically right.

You really don't know fuck all about sonar or the science behind it or subs do you? Just how to use the equipment and replace it.

Guess what Professor diesel sub tech has changed tremendously in recent years along with the threat. The US Navy hasn't updated with ASW strategy since 1991. That's what the whole "training" exercise was about for working out a new strategy. tactics, hardware and simulators are way out of date. Just like you Professor.

Google it yourself asshole. ET is what glorified light bulb changer on a oil rig? How does it feel having to follow directions from engineer half your age?

Keep on digging a bigger hole for yourself Mr. Sonarman.

I didn't need "goatfuck" or "commondense" to make you look like the dumbass you've shown yourself to be. I did a fine job of that all on my own. Hell, Wisgod and Tedbaxter would agree.

As far as my age...Obviously old enough to know that simulators are no substitute for the real thing. Obviously old enough and smart enough to use you as a punching bag on the subject. Clearly old enough to know you were talking out of your ass (with your "guestimate").

Seriously pipsqueek, wipe the sand off your face and blanket and go home.

Wow.

I can't believe this argument over simulators is still going on.

If Goat and I still haven't convinced Furio that real-world training is a necessity, we never will. Waste of time.

If Goat and I still haven't convinced Furio that real-world training is a necessity, we never will. Waste of time.

Agreed. If furryhole wants to convince himself (he obviously has convinced no one else) that he has more knowledge of sonar and sonar simulators than people who have actually used them and worked on them --- well, good for him.

But there is nothing sorrier than someone who is so self delusional that he has himself fooled.

PS furryhole. I see you are still afraid to answer this question. I don't blame you. It would blow your argument out of the water (so to speak). But I'll post it again just to prove what a loser you are and what a coward you are for not answering it.

If a submarine had a missle pointed at you, which sonar operator would you rather have defending you?

a) one who had trained only on a simulator
b) one who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions

Go ahead and ignore it again, coward. LOL

Hey Goatfuck,

What is the threat nuclear or diesel subs?

Idiot.

"f a submarine had a missle pointed at you, which sonar operator would you rather have defending you?"

Goatfuck, diesels aren't launching nukes. did you forget your manuals? It's obvious you can't think beyond what was pounded into you

Google it yourself asshole. ET is what glorified light bulb changer on a oil rig?

That's right, furryhole. I get paid a very healthy 6 digits and get great stock options and 401k and other benefits for changing light bulbs. And that couldn't be possible if idiots like you didn't pay so much for gasoline.

Thank you, furryhole for giving this light bulb changer such a good life. LOL

Goatfuck,

Google it bitch.

I see DoucheBorne dumped me.

What a limp penis.

"I get paid a very healthy 6 digits and get great stock options and 401k and other benefits for changing light bulbs. "

And GoatFuck think your contract will continue at the same rate with oil at $50 a barrel?

What is the threat nuclear or diesel subs?

Both. duh

Idiot.

If a submarine had a missle pointed at you, which sonar operator would you rather have defending you?

a) one who had trained only on a simulator
b) one who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions

Goatfuck, diesels aren't launching nukes. did you forget your manuals?

I didn't say "diesel". I said "submarine. Did you forget to read?

Idiot

If a submarine had a missle pointed at you, which sonar operator would you rather have defending you?

a) one who had trained only on a simulator
b) one who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions

GoatFuck,

Google it Bitch. You too much of a fucking pussy to admit you are wrong? Uneducated, ignorant, irrelevant POS.

And GoatFuck think your contract will continue at the same rate with oil at $50 a barrel?

Yep. My rig is under contract until 2013, and is currently in negotiations for another 5 year contract after that.

Thanks for asking

You too much of a fucking pussy to admit you are wrong?

I've had the experience. You haven't. NOthing more needs to be said.

Are you too much of a pussy to answer this question?

If a submarine had a missle pointed at you, which sonar operator would you rather have defending you?

a) one who had trained only on a simulator
b) one who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions

Of course you are

Later loser. When you've had 6 years experience chasing subs in real life and a simulator as I have, get back with me. We'll talk then.

LOL. What a poser

GoatFuck,

You have been caught out Little Professor. Fuck off. You don't know anything you are talking about.

"Yep. My rig is under contract until 2013, and is currently in negotiations for another 5 year contract after that."

Yeah GoatFuck all contracts can be terminated with a 30 day notice. Be prepared to sit on the beach in your wonderful Texas shithole.

Yeah GoatFuck all contracts can be terminated with a 30 day notice.

Now the sonar poser is an oil rig contract poser. LOL

You are wrong, btw. If you were right, our contract would've been canceled when we spent 6 months in the shipyards. Our client was still paying us $480,000/day for half a year and they didn't get a cent in return.

You are a joke, furryhole.

You don't know anything you are talking about

Wrong again. I learned a lot in 6 years.

WHy won't you answer this question?

If a submarine had a missle pointed at you, which sonar operator would you rather have defending you?

a) one who had trained only on a simulator
b) one who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions

Is there anything you aren't an expert on, furryhole? LOL

GoatFuck still trying to play catchup?

(and by the way check with your lawyer. your ass can be on the beach in 30days. get some insurance from AIG while you can)

Is there anything you aren't an expert on, furryhole? LOL

Yeah, how to handle his booze when he's drinking.

Yeah GoatFuck all contracts can be terminated with a 30 day notice. Be prepared to sit on the beach in your wonderful Texas shithole.

More drivel from the idiot. Even if I lost my job in the oil field, I'm still an ET. And a fucking good one at that. I have plied my trade in the telecom and medical field as well as the oil field. I'm not worried about terminated contracts (even if it could be done) I can get a job in any industry that requires an ET. And that's just about any of them except maybe for yours. McDonald's doesn't have much of a demand for my skills.

But thanks for worrying about me.

What an idiot.

"Is there anything you aren't an expert on, furryhole? LOL"

GoatFuck, I can claim to be an expert on when you are fucking clueless. I guess that counts for .02 at the prevailing rate.

Google it, Bitch

" I'm still an ET."

Phone home bitch.

Pay no attention, Furio. Goatman is a "bleeding heart liberal" according to his coworkers, allegedly.

GoatFuck still trying to play catchup?

Furryhole still doesn't have the balls to answer this question?

If a submarine had a missle pointed at you, which sonar operator would you rather have defending you?

a) one who had trained only on a simulator
b) one who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions

(and by the way check with your lawyer. your ass can be on the beach in 30days.

Thank you Mr. Oil Rig Contract expert. Please excuse me if I keep on laughing at you. You have never been more wrong. Why would BP keep on paying us $480,000/day for 6 months (about $90 million) without a penny in return if they could have gotten out of the contract in 30 days?

What an idiot

"Thank you Mr. Oil Rig Contract expert. Please excuse me if I keep on laughing at you. You have never been more wrong. Why would BP keep on paying us $480,000/day for 6 months (about $90 million) without a penny in return if they could have gotten out of the contract in 30 days?

What an idiot"

Now GoatFuck is bragging about numbers. Just goes to show how far GoatFuck is in the hole on this one. Bp's profits are down. Platforms are down. GoatFuck is down.

Google it, Bitch

I googled "bitch". "furryhole" keeps coming up.

LOL

No more wasting time with the sonar simulator expert who hasn't been there (but I have) and the oil field expert who hasn't been there (but I have) and pretends to know everything about them.

I've never met a more delusional self-absorbed fool. But as long as you have yourself convinced of your omni-expertise, that's all that matters, right? LOL

Later, poser

Pay no attention, Furio

And of course null sides with the loser/poser.

Man, what a surprise. Birds of a feather and all that. LOL

"'ve never met a more delusional self-absorbed fool. But as long as you have yourself convinced of your omni-expertise, that's all that matters, right? LOL

Later, poser"

Hey GoatFuck, what is the threat diesel or nuclear? Come on Little Professor. Make up your fucking mind.

Google it, Bitch

Now GoatFuck is bragging about numbers.

???

Not bragging. Asking a question that requires numbers in order to answer. Do you ever get anything right?

So,

If a submarine had a missle pointed at you, which sonar operator would you rather have defending you?

a) one who had trained only on a simulator
b) one who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions

I thought so.

google it bitch

answer it bitch

If a submarine had a missle pointed at you, which sonar operator would you rather have defending you?

a) one who had trained only on a simulator
b) one who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions

LOL

I thought you were going to leave Little Professor. Can't make up your uneducated, illiterate mind? Google it or fuck off.

McDonald's doesn't have much of a demand for my skills.

But thanks for worrying about me.

What an idiot.

#167 | Posted by goatman

Actually Goat Mcdonalds doesn't directly but I saw a position from Radiant that required an ET to travel to different mcdonalds and work on the lcd screens in the cash registers.

Hey GoatFuck, what is the threat diesel or nuclear?

I answered that question in post 154, idiot. You don't read too well, to you? Answer is the same. Quid pro quo. Now answer my question:

If a submarine had a missle pointed at you, which sonar operator would you rather have defending you?

a) one who had trained only on a simulator
b) one who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions

Google it or fuck off.

Answer it or fuck off.

If a submarine had a missle pointed at you, which sonar operator would you rather have defending you?

a) one who had trained only on a simulator
b) one who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions

LOL

Your fear of answering is just all that needs to be said.

What a loser

Come on Professor GoatFuck, is it the nuclear threat or the diesel threat? Can't you answer the question Mr. Sonarman Bitch?

Come on Professor GoatFuck, is it the nuclear threat or the diesel threat?

*sigh*

It's unbelievable you keep displaying your stupidity. Again -- answer is in post 154

I answered your question. Why wont' you answer mine? Because you are a coward with not balls, that's why. LOL

If a submarine had a missle pointed at you, which sonar operator would you rather have defending you?

a) one who had trained only on a simulator
b) one who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions

"b) one who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions"

Posted by goatman

In aviation SIMS can be very useful and allow one to practice what, in the real world, would be fatal if any error occurred.

Flight instructors find such real world activities to be career-limiting.

I spent several years flying the Baron SIM at FlightSafety every six months. When we were done, and after a good night's sleep, we'd go practice the non-suicidal stuff in the bird.

Hey GoatFuck. You like to rip into BuffaloBob but all I see is one big Goatfuck who is too much of a limp dick pussy to admit he is fucking wrong. Wooh, wait a minute, not just admit he is wrong but doesn't have a clue about a subject he is supposedly an "EXPERT" in. Come on GoatFuck, fess up, let BuffaloBob know how sorry you are for being such a clueless bitch. If you do that I will go away.

Just say "I, "GoatFuck", am a clueless bitch"

That's all that is required. Then change a lightbulb.

Since the PGUP and scroll up apparently doesn't work and you can't get back up to see post # 154, I'll answer again, idiot:

Both diesel and nuclear boats are a threat.

Don't ask again. I won't answer for a fourth time.

Furio:

You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. It's abundantly clear you are one of those people who think video games and books are adequate training for the infinite variables and foibles that happen in real life.

If they were, the Navy would be using them, because it would be cheaper after the initial outlay.

They aren't. They never will be.

Shut the fuck up.

Please.

Come on GoatFuck Google it, admit you are wrong and apologize to BuffaloBob.

I ask for very little and will give you my utmost consideration in return.

If a submarine had a missle pointed at you, which sonar operator would you rather have defending you?

a) one who had trained only on a simulator

b) one who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions

#181 | Posted by goatman at 2008-11-14 08:50

Correct answer:

b) Goatman, USN, who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions.

lol

Then change a lightbulb.

There. I just did. It's great making this kind of money for changing a light bulb every other day.

Sarcasm, of course. But mr oil rig expert should know that the electricians change the light bulbs, not the ET.

Enlighten some more with your infinite knowledge. But first, answer this question: I really mean, ignore this question again and prove to me again what a coward you are: LOL

If a submarine had a missle pointed at you, which sonar operator would you rather have defending you?

a) one who had trained only on a simulator
b) one who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions

Come on GoatFuck Google and apologize to BuffaloBob. Just do that and the pain will go away.

I ask for very little and will give you my utmost consideration in return.

It's quid pro quo, idiot. It's not a one way street. I asked you a question long before you wanted me to google.

Answer my question and I'll comply with your google request:

If a submarine had a missle pointed at you, which sonar operator would you rather have defending you?

a) one who had trained only on a simulator
b) one who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions

(good. He's gonna prove once again what a coward he is. I love it!)

Hey GoatFuck, I don't have all night to wait for you to find your balls. So I am going to sleep.

You can feel great comfort in having resident losers like CalifChris and soheifox to keep you company. What great and literate pals you have.

Just remember which line goes to ground and you will be okay GoatFuck.

Oh, BTW learn to Google, Bitch!

Hey GoatFuck, I don't have all night to wait for you to find your balls. So I am going to sleep.

Good cop-out. But I do want to thank you for proving to me over and over what a coward you are by not answering that one simple question.

You of course know you would rather have the person trained in a real world situation manning the defense equipment than the one who had only been in a simluator. You know it, but you also know that to truthfully answer that question is to blow your entire stupid argument out of the window.

Thank you for your failure to answer. It validated my postion more than your words ever could.

now grab your teddy bear and go nighty-night.

The SIM there was harder than the actual airplane.
My P Baron: spiderwebnet.net

Alas, in '93 a thunderstorm brought the hangar down on top of it. AIG sent me a bogus repair estimate, a tiny check and said "sue us if you don't like it."

Now they just did the same to all of you, too.

Suckers.

#185 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-11-14 08:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Zat: that reminds me of the time I had my buddy Glenn over to show me how to play the latest Jane's Naval Combat Simulator. Glenn was a Navy pilot who chose to leave after 16 years in rather then re-training on something other then his beloved F-14. He's logged a massive amount of flight, and two actual live-fire situations. He knows those planes better then even most old techs at Grumman.

He played with it for a while, after spending an hour reading the manual. I remember such comments coming from him as "What the fuck? You don't even TOUCH the rudder pedals at these speeds or you'll tear a wing right off!" and "Hey neat, I'm flying above the sea and the lift doesn't change at all!"

The best part of all? When he yelled at me to give him a cheat code to refill his missiles. I asked him why, and he said, "Because I would have smeared this asshole 4 times already! It's a fucking heatseeking missile, you don't NEED to line it up like a goddamned rocket launcher!" The other guy playing against him was mopping the floor with him repeatedly. Yes. Some silly 12 year old was creaming an actual pilot, because the game was more "realistic" then reality was.

Yeah, sometimes the sims ARE more difficult then real life. Because they exist in a world somewhat different then the real one.

Oh, BTW learn to Google, Bitch!

Oh, BTW, grow some balls and answer the question:

If a submarine had a missle pointed at you, which sonar operator would you rather have defending you?

a) one who had trained only on a simulator
b) one who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions

Thank you for not answering. Your silence is deafening and speaks volumes more than your childish little 'bitch' name calling. LOL

You can feel great comfort in having resident losers like CalifChris and soheifox to keep you company. What great and literate pals you have.

Yeah. I wish I had the real winners on my side like null and bOoB. You lucky devil.

I never play computer games, they are pathetically boring.

The Beechcraft Pressurized Baron can fly away from an engine failure after liftoff but before gear retraction has completed. Few piston twins can boast that ability. My time at FlightSafety was wonderful.

Just remember which line goes to ground and you will be okay GoatFuck.

I thought you knew everything about everything. I wonder how you missed the fact that ground is a much more important concept to an electrician than an ET. The ones and zeros I manipulate really don't care much about ground.

But you knew that, didn't you?

What an idiot. It's just amazing you keep on proving it. Most idiots know to slink silently into the night after their first drubbing. But you? Hell no! You keep coming back and reinforcing your lack of knowledge on anything.

Amazing, really, that you enjoy the masochistic lifestyle that much. Now run off to bed. Bruce is waiting in his leathers and whip in hand to corporeally continue what 101, soheifox, commonsense et al I did to you intellectually.

I never play computer games, they are pathetically boring.

#199 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-11-14 09:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh I enjoy them for what they are: games. I really DO love me some video games. Fantasy scenarios, they're like movies that test my reflexes while watching them. Or in the case of ones like Left 4 Dead, that enable me to totally lose myself in the fantasy to the point where I actually CARE for a split second that I just got hurt in-game.

I just find it amusing how the "shockingly realistic" ones are usually harder then real life... and wrong. In my above example, you MUST do things in the simulator or lose, that would actually get you killed in real life.

Or worse, as videogames get more exciting and prettier, people get some laughable misconceptions from them. Tim (you all remember him, the tool who couldn't be bothered to.. shower or dress well for his sister's wedding?) seems to think that a katana is a good home defense weapon. And also thinks that people fall right down and stay down when shot in the chest. And thinks that a sure way to win any fight is to punch someone in the temple.

Lol. Whereas I freely admit they don't teach me shit. I didn't understand the significance of the second part of your post in the slightest. I'm not a pilot. I have a high IQ, but all it really does is makes me smart enough to realize when I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. The people that annoy me are the ones JUST smart enough to be total dumbasses. You know the ones, who try to bullshit with what tangential knowledge they DO have, with absolutely no related experience.

Oh my gosh--all this blather about pinging and whales.

Glad to see the court went with the Navy.

You have been caught out Little Professor. Fuck off. You don't know anything you are talking about.

#160 | Posted by furio at 2008-11-14 08:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

All bickering and name calling aside, do you TRULY believe that Goat doesn't know what he talking about in this particular instance?

Goat and I rarely agree on politics but having done the exact same job as him in the USN, I can vouch for him on this subject. He's dead-on with his words.

Game over. This is too tiring.

"All bickering and name calling aside, do you TRULY believe that Goat doesn't know what he talking about in this particular instance?"

CommonSense,

actually no, Goatman does not know what he is talking about. He just likes to proclaim "expert" because he was in the navy a long time ago.

The argument about the use of active sonar for training is far more complicated than a simple yes/no answer. It was obvious the exercises of Cali were to develop new tactics and not just for "training". They leased a swedish sub along with its crew for two years. They also had sensors all over the ocean floor to gather data for analysis, modeling and yes, training. Funny thing is these exercises are pretty much over now.

Also when ships are patrolling they are actively pursuing foreign subs and would be using tactics such as active sonar to look for them. That's why Goatman was so ridiculous making his black/white argument about training with active versus armageddon.

Anyway I'm not here to analyze the problem just to point out how ignorant goatman is.

"Also when ships are patrolling they are actively pursuing foreign subs and would be using tactics such as active sonar to look for them."

News flash, Furious...having had a couple of decades of experience in that field, I can tell you that active sonar is SELDOM used in ASW (anti submarine warfare) by surface ships and especially not by submarines. Once a vessel "pings" it is immediately detected and classified. Passive sonar has been the primary means of detection and classification for a long, long time. The three phases of ASW are Detection, Classification and Location/Attack. Active sonar pretty much makes the solution so much more simple. It is only used at the end of of the third phase (if at all) right at the time of the attack to finalize the "Location."
Look up "SOSUS," "Jezebel," "TASS," "LOFAR" and learn a little before you start calling someone "ignorant."

LOL.

Mr. "I know everything about everything" is back.

What a loser/poser

actually no, Goatman does not know what he is talking about.

LOL You are right *snark&. Between commonsense and me we have 12 years experience on this system that you proclaim to know so much about, yet have never seen.

He just likes to proclaim "expert" because he was in the navy a long time ago.

Not just because I was in the Navy, but because I actually worked and trained on this equipment and actually hunted for submarines with real sonar.

You, OTOH, have never been in the Navy and have never even seen a sonar or sonar simulator, yet you claim to know more about them than commonsense and me. What a hoot! What a loser! What a poser!

At least you bring comic relief to the DR. Thank you for that.

Hey, furryhole --

If a submarine had a missle pointed at you, which sonar operator would you rather have defending you?

a) one who had trained only on a simulator
b) one who had trained on a simulator and real world conditions

I thought so.

LOL

Also when ships are patrolling they are actively pursuing foreign subs and would be using tactics such as active sonar to look for them.

LOL! LOL! LOL!

You are joking, right? Anyone who knows anything about ASW knows this is a lie! You really do crack me up, furryhole. Active sonar is the last thing they use. That's like waving a big red flag and shouting at the top of your lungs, "HERE I AM! HERE I AM! Active sonar is ONLY used to acquire a firing solution for an ASROC (I'll bet you don't even know what that is. Google it) or torpedo. Even then it is usually a single ping.

I've never seen anyone so willing to proclaim themself an idiot as you, furryhole.

OOPS. I see jest has already addressed the active sonar thing. Sorry for the redundancy

Hey, remember that part where I said that one of the neat abilities my high IQ has given me is to be able to admit when I don't know much about a subject? Looks like Furio is sitting right in that spot where he's smart enough to be able to canvass subjects by reading about them and working from tangential knowledge and convince himself that he knows more then everyone else, but is too stupid to realize that an informed guess is STILL just that, a guess.

One of those sorts of people who did really good in school, and decided at some point to cement their worldview as one and done. Believing for eternity that they're the best and the brightest, they don't need to learn anymore from other humans. People like this are what the phrase, "too smart for their own good" are actually referring to.

Here's a headsup, Furio: Even if Goatman and Commonsense are the mental equivalent of trained monkeys, they STILL know more about this subject then you will EVER learn just reading books and playing video games. And yes, I consider the military sims to also just be video games, because it's COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for a simulator to predict and emulate all the possible variables and foibles one encounters in the real world. Our technology is 50 years away from it at least.

Hey, if everyone you talk to on a subject is telling you that you're a dumbass... perhaps you might want to consider the possibility that you don't know something, and thank people for correcting you? You know, instead of taking it as an affront to your ego? A true hallmark of intellect is the ability to assess your own weaknesses, then shore them up.

10 years ago I had myself convinced I knew everything about riding a motorcycle, simply because I had ridden a bicycle and have a high IQ, as well as good fundamentals in the study of physics.

Then, when I was going 45 MPH and needed to quickly go left, I turned my handlebars left....

....and found out that I should have talked to some people who actually had done this before I decided that I knew more then them.

Good post and observation, soheifix.

A lot of people go through the same thing, but usually outgrow it by the time they are 25. Maybe after furio gets past that age, he'll realize he's not the great knower of all things that he thinks he is. Give him a few more years and he'll be OK

Man, this was perhaps the most any single poster has ever been kicked around.

Poor furryhole, you'll need a tampon to stop the bleeding from this one.