Naval Sonar
- Thread starter Garibaldi
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
mgri
Guest
Nope, no conflicting agenda here, nothing to see, move along...
good find Braunbehren.
navy85
Contributor
Disclaimer - As you can probably tell from my SB name, I am affiliated with the US Navy - as a Reserve Officer. The statements below are my opinions, with what I believe to be some facts to support them.
Now what about actual use of the system? From my days on a destroyer in the late 80's/early 90's, we seldom went active. A SURTASS ship operates a bit differently, so it will probably be active more. From the website provided by rickg: "The current plan is for two vessels to have LFA, one in the Atlantic, the other in the Pacific. Each vessel would be underway at sea for up to 270 days per year, each moving at only 3 knots, transmitting less than 20 percent of the time.
The EIS covers up to four systems, but even if all four were operational, rarely would more than two be at sea at once. If the Navy were to deploy more than four systems, another EIS process would be required. "
Low frequency is used to detect objects at long ranges. Therefore, I would expect that LFA would be used in deep water, well away from the coast and sensitive areas. Just my opinion, though and not any official position.
Finally, as far as the technology being classified, I again quote from the SURTASS LFA website - "Almost all technical aspects of the SURTASS LFA sonar system have been declassified. The Navy is striving to comply with all environmental laws and make the EIS process as open as possible within the bounds of national security."
Are there risks with LFA? Yes - everything in life has risks (even recreational diving). Can these risks be mitigated? The studies seem to me to say yes, but people are free to disagree, as the NRDC obviously does. I'll look forward to seeing how the trial progresses.
"Mid-frequency sonar" - not LFA. As noted in previous posts, SURTASS LFA has not been used since April 1998 and was not the cause of these beachings.
One diver out of 87 test subjects and 437 tests. Based on these results, there will be a 145 dB limit if used in the presence of known commercial and recreational diving. One problem with this quote - the sound level will be limited to 180 dB, not 235 dB. Also note that these test divers were subjected to a duty cycle over twice that of the actual system operation.
Ah, the smoking gun. I don't think anyone ever said LFA was harmless but that there is minimal risk to survival or reproduction, particularly with the mitigation measures that will be implemented as a result of the studies. In fact, the EIS states that "the potential for injury exists at very high received levels. This risk is confined to a relatively small area very close to the LFA vessel." Could it be that the US Navy is actually trying to balance the environmental impact with national security needs?
Now what about actual use of the system? From my days on a destroyer in the late 80's/early 90's, we seldom went active. A SURTASS ship operates a bit differently, so it will probably be active more. From the website provided by rickg: "The current plan is for two vessels to have LFA, one in the Atlantic, the other in the Pacific. Each vessel would be underway at sea for up to 270 days per year, each moving at only 3 knots, transmitting less than 20 percent of the time.
The EIS covers up to four systems, but even if all four were operational, rarely would more than two be at sea at once. If the Navy were to deploy more than four systems, another EIS process would be required. "
Low frequency is used to detect objects at long ranges. Therefore, I would expect that LFA would be used in deep water, well away from the coast and sensitive areas. Just my opinion, though and not any official position.
Finally, as far as the technology being classified, I again quote from the SURTASS LFA website - "Almost all technical aspects of the SURTASS LFA sonar system have been declassified. The Navy is striving to comply with all environmental laws and make the EIS process as open as possible within the bounds of national security."
Are there risks with LFA? Yes - everything in life has risks (even recreational diving). Can these risks be mitigated? The studies seem to me to say yes, but people are free to disagree, as the NRDC obviously does. I'll look forward to seeing how the trial progresses.
navy85
Contributor
Do you have a link you can provide for this paper? Is it for the LFA sonar or about sonar in general? The NRDC letter (I'd like to use a different word but I'll be diplomatic 
) seemed to confuse LFA with all sonar (blaming LFA for incidents that couldn't have been caused by LFA sinced it wasn't being used at the time!) - my guess is that they would like to completely ban all use of sonar. I'm trying to keep an open mind but would like to see some facts put forth by the opponents rather than emotion. The NRDC letter was mostly emotion and some of the facts were off-target...
) seemed to confuse LFA with all sonar (blaming LFA for incidents that couldn't have been caused by LFA sinced it wasn't being used at the time!) - my guess is that they would like to completely ban all use of sonar. I'm trying to keep an open mind but would like to see some facts put forth by the opponents rather than emotion. The NRDC letter was mostly emotion and some of the facts were off-target...
Rickg
Contributor
Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story. It only tends to confuse the issue Besides, I'm sure this is a good money raiser for the NRDC.
Rickg
Besides, I'm sure this is a good money raiser for the NRDC.Rickg
mgri
Guest
Just as the dogmatic condemnation of the LFA system is making the NRDC litigators money.
I think, in order to keep an open mind we need to disregard any study conducted by environmentalist scientist as well as by government funded studies.
Unless an independent study is done to weigh the environmental impact against the mission worth of the LFA, I will refrain from jumping blinding into anyone's bandwagon.
a lot of talk about something 99% know nothing about. i read only a few legit comments. Of those it appears the contributers have past direct association of the types of program discussed. as far as politicians being concerned...they know squat beyond the potential votes they will receive by pushing the issue.
as hard facts go i did 20 plus years in the sonar field. i read lots of traffic during that time concerning this preticular program. the save the whalers got the program restrained and no use was allowed. even while not being used it was responsible for just about everything except the assasination of jfk. political sensitivity/lobbiests against the system drove the extablishment of precautionary rules for use to insure the radical groups would not gain fragmented info and shut the program permanately down by creating environmental panic by loose association of events and the use of the sonar. it could be said that the system caused the great floods in the mid west. my systems put out nearly 200kw at full power. those who believe that being hit with a pulse of such magnatude will turn your cells to jelly are those who claim this is a death ray and the cause of the o-zone holes. facts are that existing systems have the same restrictions for use near land/ near surface , in port ect. not because using the systems will blow the end of the pier off if used as some may believe, but rather sea preasure on the transducer faces keep the transducers from damage. the more preasure the less damage. hence you do not use them at full power in less than ie. 100 ft depth. it is a fiscal and equipment preservation decision. a very similar situation would be why you dont run your stereo at full power. the rational person will say if you dont want to torque your neighbors at 2 am,,keep the volume down. the environmentalists will say its damaging the fire ant population and all such stereos should be prohibited or sin taxed. once again some politition who doesnt know what fire ants are will stand up and defend them. next like radars systems they have operational constraints when near to land. i have never seen a bird fly into the path of a radar and fall to the ground cooked mediem well. those sea stories exist also. any one who has been around the military and its op areas can hear thier sonars pinging. even at 5 miles away they are barely louder than you lightly whistling. increase that 10-20 times louder and it is still not very loud. at the source it is loud, but attenuation is high in the water. depth sounders may put out a few kw. uw comms perhaps a couple hundred watts. i think you would have more physiccal damage listing to booming rap music from the car next to you that will rattle your whole car. just like your car the lower the freq the more impact it has. next if hurting whales were a big concern then submarines should never be allowed to go to sea. i have cut more than one whale with a screw. did i ever loose sleep over it . no more than road kill on the highway. lastly this project was started many decades ago when russia was a problem. if the women libbers had any idea how many times they were looked at through foreign periscopes they would be applying for visa's to march in some moscow square. it always seems that the more technology we have to learn about our envoronment the more we ignore that what we just discovered has been going on for thousands of years. those who lack that ability conclude, the new discovery is the root of all new problems. that is not logoical. as far as government release of findings.. only what is forced to be released will be released, and what is not desired to be released will be classified to prevent it's desemination. so you cant trust the gov any more than the seirra club as they both have thier intrests at stake. now as far as power goes most of the power is lost to heat in the electrical to acoustic conversion of energy. it was said by some science group that one volcano eruption was equal to 10,000 years of auto emissions and yet we are to spend several trillion in emmision reduction to save the o-zone. heck stop a couple of eruptions and every one is happy. likewize this sonar is nothing to the power put out by oceanic plate movement aka earth quakes or underwater volcanic activity. on behalf of the enviromentalists now it seams to be a more valid question as to the need for such a system, since the soviets and 3rd world dont have the waters populated as in the cold war erra. but then again they will be out of a job if not approached from an envirimental angle. finally for those who think that the impact needs to be studied, i would say you are right. however you cant study what you are prohibitted to use. if this system would have been conditionally allowed to be used 20 years ago then you would have your legitimate data to quote from. so has the save the whalers use of the system did nothing more than set back any chance of fact finding. i would assume in the absence of facts more scare will be in order. btw.....i personally dont think we need such a sonar. i didnt then and not now, but i dont have the intel available to make such blind demands to any leader and once again i worked in the feild.
thanks for reading and i will try to work on my paragraphs.
regards
as hard facts go i did 20 plus years in the sonar field. i read lots of traffic during that time concerning this preticular program. the save the whalers got the program restrained and no use was allowed. even while not being used it was responsible for just about everything except the assasination of jfk. political sensitivity/lobbiests against the system drove the extablishment of precautionary rules for use to insure the radical groups would not gain fragmented info and shut the program permanately down by creating environmental panic by loose association of events and the use of the sonar. it could be said that the system caused the great floods in the mid west. my systems put out nearly 200kw at full power. those who believe that being hit with a pulse of such magnatude will turn your cells to jelly are those who claim this is a death ray and the cause of the o-zone holes. facts are that existing systems have the same restrictions for use near land/ near surface , in port ect. not because using the systems will blow the end of the pier off if used as some may believe, but rather sea preasure on the transducer faces keep the transducers from damage. the more preasure the less damage. hence you do not use them at full power in less than ie. 100 ft depth. it is a fiscal and equipment preservation decision. a very similar situation would be why you dont run your stereo at full power. the rational person will say if you dont want to torque your neighbors at 2 am,,keep the volume down. the environmentalists will say its damaging the fire ant population and all such stereos should be prohibited or sin taxed. once again some politition who doesnt know what fire ants are will stand up and defend them. next like radars systems they have operational constraints when near to land. i have never seen a bird fly into the path of a radar and fall to the ground cooked mediem well. those sea stories exist also. any one who has been around the military and its op areas can hear thier sonars pinging. even at 5 miles away they are barely louder than you lightly whistling. increase that 10-20 times louder and it is still not very loud. at the source it is loud, but attenuation is high in the water. depth sounders may put out a few kw. uw comms perhaps a couple hundred watts. i think you would have more physiccal damage listing to booming rap music from the car next to you that will rattle your whole car. just like your car the lower the freq the more impact it has. next if hurting whales were a big concern then submarines should never be allowed to go to sea. i have cut more than one whale with a screw. did i ever loose sleep over it . no more than road kill on the highway. lastly this project was started many decades ago when russia was a problem. if the women libbers had any idea how many times they were looked at through foreign periscopes they would be applying for visa's to march in some moscow square. it always seems that the more technology we have to learn about our envoronment the more we ignore that what we just discovered has been going on for thousands of years. those who lack that ability conclude, the new discovery is the root of all new problems. that is not logoical. as far as government release of findings.. only what is forced to be released will be released, and what is not desired to be released will be classified to prevent it's desemination. so you cant trust the gov any more than the seirra club as they both have thier intrests at stake. now as far as power goes most of the power is lost to heat in the electrical to acoustic conversion of energy. it was said by some science group that one volcano eruption was equal to 10,000 years of auto emissions and yet we are to spend several trillion in emmision reduction to save the o-zone. heck stop a couple of eruptions and every one is happy. likewize this sonar is nothing to the power put out by oceanic plate movement aka earth quakes or underwater volcanic activity. on behalf of the enviromentalists now it seams to be a more valid question as to the need for such a system, since the soviets and 3rd world dont have the waters populated as in the cold war erra. but then again they will be out of a job if not approached from an envirimental angle. finally for those who think that the impact needs to be studied, i would say you are right. however you cant study what you are prohibitted to use. if this system would have been conditionally allowed to be used 20 years ago then you would have your legitimate data to quote from. so has the save the whalers use of the system did nothing more than set back any chance of fact finding. i would assume in the absence of facts more scare will be in order. btw.....i personally dont think we need such a sonar. i didnt then and not now, but i dont have the intel available to make such blind demands to any leader and once again i worked in the feild.
thanks for reading and i will try to work on my paragraphs.
regards
Rickg
Contributor
Here is a recent posting by the Navy on the Federal Register for those of you that might be interested.
Rickg
[Federal Register: July 28, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 144)]
[Notices]
[Page 44311]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28jy03-52]
[[Page 44311]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Overseas Environmental Impact Statement/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Employment of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar
AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations 40 CFR 1502.9, and pursuant to Executive Order 12114, the Department of the Navy (Navy) is announcing its intent to prepare a Supplemental Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (SOEIS)/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the operational employment of SURTASS LFA sonar.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final Overseas Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS/EIS) for the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar was completed in January 2001. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Environment (DASN[E]) reviewed the SURTASS LFA Sonar OEIS/EIS and, after carefully weighing the operational, scientific, technical, and environmental implications of the alternatives considered, announced the decision to employ two SURTASS
LFA sonar systems with certain geographical restrictions and monitoring mitigation designed to reduce adverse effects on the marine environment. This decision, which pertained to the employment of two SURTASS LFA systems, implemented the preferred alternative,
Alternative 1, identified in the Final OEIS/EIS.
DASN(E) found that the analysis in the OEIS/EIS had taken the
requisite ``hard look'' at the environmental consequences of the
decision to employ the SURTASS LFA sonar and issued the Record of Decision (ROD) on 16 July 2002.
However, in recognition of concerns raised in Federal Court over employment of the SURTASS LFA system and to further the Navy's commitment to responsible stewardship of the marine environment, DASN(E) has determined that the purposes of NEPA would be furthered by the preparation of a supplemental analysis related to employment of the system. This analysis will take the form of a SOEIS/SEIS and will provide additional information regarding the environment that could be potentially affected by employment of SURTASS LFA and additional information related to mitigation of the potential impacts of the system, focusing on identifying geographic areas and seasonal periods of high marine mammal abundance in those areas where the Navy intends
to use SURTASS LFA for routine training and testing. The SOEIS/SEIS will consider this information in the context of specific potential operational areas. The SOEIS/SEIS will comply with both NEPA and Executive Order 12114.
Dated: July 16, 2003.
E. F. McDonnell,
Major, U.S. Marine Corps, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 03-19089 Filed 7-25-03; 8:45 am]
Rickg
[Federal Register: July 28, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 144)]
[Notices]
[Page 44311]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28jy03-52]
[[Page 44311]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Overseas Environmental Impact Statement/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Employment of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar
AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations 40 CFR 1502.9, and pursuant to Executive Order 12114, the Department of the Navy (Navy) is announcing its intent to prepare a Supplemental Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (SOEIS)/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the operational employment of SURTASS LFA sonar.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final Overseas Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS/EIS) for the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar was completed in January 2001. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Environment (DASN[E]) reviewed the SURTASS LFA Sonar OEIS/EIS and, after carefully weighing the operational, scientific, technical, and environmental implications of the alternatives considered, announced the decision to employ two SURTASS
LFA sonar systems with certain geographical restrictions and monitoring mitigation designed to reduce adverse effects on the marine environment. This decision, which pertained to the employment of two SURTASS LFA systems, implemented the preferred alternative,
Alternative 1, identified in the Final OEIS/EIS.
DASN(E) found that the analysis in the OEIS/EIS had taken the
requisite ``hard look'' at the environmental consequences of the
decision to employ the SURTASS LFA sonar and issued the Record of Decision (ROD) on 16 July 2002.
However, in recognition of concerns raised in Federal Court over employment of the SURTASS LFA system and to further the Navy's commitment to responsible stewardship of the marine environment, DASN(E) has determined that the purposes of NEPA would be furthered by the preparation of a supplemental analysis related to employment of the system. This analysis will take the form of a SOEIS/SEIS and will provide additional information regarding the environment that could be potentially affected by employment of SURTASS LFA and additional information related to mitigation of the potential impacts of the system, focusing on identifying geographic areas and seasonal periods of high marine mammal abundance in those areas where the Navy intends
to use SURTASS LFA for routine training and testing. The SOEIS/SEIS will consider this information in the context of specific potential operational areas. The SOEIS/SEIS will comply with both NEPA and Executive Order 12114.
Dated: July 16, 2003.
E. F. McDonnell,
Major, U.S. Marine Corps, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 03-19089 Filed 7-25-03; 8:45 am]
JohnCollins
Guest
Actually the energy in a spherical field would decrease as 1/r-squared, even faster than you'd assume.
MGRI is right. The first post was politics, not science. Sad part about this is there's been so much "crying wolf" with regard to anything environmental, I now turn off environmentalists--all of them--immediately. There's so much B.S. floating around about the environment, so much hyperbole, that folks like me who would like to be more concerned or involved, simply give up because of the sheer volume of B.S. out there. Environmental warning stories, to me, are like junk emails.
Delete. Delete. Delete. All junk.
PhotoTJ
Contributor
- Messages
- 3,312
- Reaction score
- 17
- # of dives
- I just don't log dives
Funny, it's been exactly a year, (since the original post), I havn't seen thousands of whales washing up on the beach.
Similar threads
