Navy Agrees to Sonar System Restriction
Jack Linthicum
August 13, 2008
Navy Agrees to Sonar System Restriction
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The Navy agreed in a settlement approved Tuesday
to limit where it operates certain sonar systems criticized by
environmentalists as a threat to whales and other marine mammals.
The settlement approved by a federal judge in San Francisco restricts
the Navy’s use of low-frequency sonar to specific military training
areas near Hawaii and in the western Pacific Ocean.
“Today’s agreement maintains the Navy’s ability to test and train
while shielding whales and other vulnerable species from harmful
underwater noise,” said Michael Jasny, a policy analyst with the
Natural Resources Defense Council, which was the lead plaintiff in the
case.
In February, Magistrate Elizabeth Laporte found that low-frequency
sonar blasted beneath the ocean’s surface to detect submarines
threatened the animals’ ability to find food and avoid predators.
In a separate case, the Navy is asking the Supreme Court to reconsider
a federal appeals court ruling limiting the use of mid-frequency sonar
in training exercises off the Southern California coast.
The Navy argues that the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals in San Francisco threatens the readiness of sailors and
marines while providing limited environmental benefit.
Tiger
>
>
> August 13, 2008
> Navy Agrees to Sonar System Restriction
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The Navy agreed in a settlement approved Tuesday
> to limit where it operates certain sonar systems criticized by
> environmentalists as a threat to whales and other marine mammals.
>
Can't we just buy flipper some ear muffs?
Jack Linthicum
I think there are more whales in the Hawaii area than almost any we
could have selected.
Dennis
> August 13, 2008
> Navy Agrees to Sonar System Restriction
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The Navy agreed in a settlement approved Tuesday
> to limit where it operates certain sonar systems criticized by
> environmentalists as a threat to whales and other marine mammals.
<snip>
> In a separate case, the Navy is asking the Supreme Court to reconsider
> a federal appeals court ruling limiting the use of mid-frequency sonar
> in training exercises off the Southern California coast.
Just how much trouble is this going to be for the Navy? That's never
been clear to me. Have they been making an argument simply on principle?
Dennis
Matt Wiser
>
TBD; the issue is whether or not the Navy can use MF sonar in ASW training in areas where
whales are encountered. The whale-huggers say the whales are more important than sailors'
lives, but we'll have to see when SCOTUS rules on the SoCal sonar case. The sonar can
allegedly disorient whales and either kill them or drive them aground. And this is the main
ASW tool used to detect quiet diesel subs like the Kilo-class SSKs Iran uses. What good is
having the sonar if sailors can't train with it in peacetime? Hell of thing to do with OJT when
you're deploying to a war zone and had only simulator training.
Jack Linthicum
I wonder then whether the sonar should then be used in areas where the
Iranian Kilos are, like alongside a dock or twelve miles off shore in
the Persian Gulf.. Hitting a target off Southern California is about
the only place this problem seems to confront the Navy. However, we
may have reignited the Russians and we will soon be visited again by
the rusty remnants of the former "real peer", rather than the dud Navy
of Iran, the "near peer".
Dennis
I fully agree that sailors have got to have good training on active
sonar! I just wondered: do they really have to do it where the whales are?
Is there another place where they could avoid the whales? If so, how much
trouble is it? That seems like a reasonable question, and something I
haven't heard anything on.
Dennis
Dennis
> I wonder then whether the sonar should then be used in areas where the
> Iranian Kilos are, like alongside a dock or twelve miles off shore in
> the Persian Gulf.. Hitting a target off Southern California is about
> the only place this problem seems to confront the Navy. However, we
> may have reignited the Russians and we will soon be visited again by
> the rusty remnants of the former "real peer", rather than the dud Navy
> of Iran, the "near peer".
Not to mention the Straits of Taiwan.
Dennis
Matt Wiser
>
The main reason for sonar training in the Hawaiian OpArea is that conditions there are very
similar to those found at the Straits of Hormuz, where hunting Kilo-class boats may become
very necessary down the road. It also happens that there's a large whale population there.
It's a crap-shoot with no real winners-the whale huggers argue if the sonar's used in the
OpArea, whales may die. The Navy argues that if they can't train with sonar in that OpArea,
sailors may die if things with Iran escalate to a shooting war down the road. What's more
important-two or three whales killed by sonar, or two or three hundred sailors killed or
wounded by a sub if their destroyer or frigate eats a pair of torpedoes from a Kilo? I've never
seen any of the whale-huggers concerned about the national-security implications of their
actions, they're more worried about the whales. The Navy would like to follow NOAA and the
Fish and Wildlife Service's reccommendations, rather than what some judge (who may have
bias) dictates. SCOTUS will settle this for good.
Jim Watt
<MattWi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The main reason for sonar training in the Hawaiian OpArea is that conditions there are very
>similar to those found at the Straits of Hormuz
Planning more illegal wars in the middle east?
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
Jack Linthicum
If the Chinese can get that far.
Jack Linthicum
Hawaiian waters deep, Hormuz shallow, Hawaii waters ocean, Hormuz
waters near shore. We train in Hawaii because that is where the base
is.
Fred J. McCall
:
: I fully agree that sailors have got to have good training on active
:Is there another place where they could avoid the whales? If so, how much
:trouble is it? That seems like a reasonable question, and something I
:haven't heard anything on.
Unless you want to make a major deployment out of it, there are going
to be whales around.
Just where do you propose they go? There are whales pretty much
everywhere.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Dennis
>> > I wonder then whether the sonar should then be used in areas where the
>> > Iranian Kilos are, like alongside a dock or twelve miles off shore in
>> > the Persian Gulf.. Hitting a target off Southern California is about
>> > the only place this problem seems to confront the Navy. However, we
>> > may have reignited the Russians and we will soon be visited again by
>> > the rusty remnants of the former "real peer", rather than the dud Navy
>> > of Iran, the "near peer".
>>
>> Not to mention the Straits of Taiwan.
>
> If the Chinese can get that far.
??? They're on one side of it. What would keep them from putting
submarines there?
The scenario I've always heard is that sonar conditions in the
Straits of Taiwan are excellent for diesel subs, and that diesel subs could
keep other naval forces out of the Straits during an invasion. That was
the premise of Patrick Robinson's *Kilo Class*. And I recall hearing that
China is in fact buying Russian Kilos.
Dennis
Dennis
> Hawaiian waters deep, Hormuz shallow, Hawaii waters ocean, Hormuz
> waters near shore. We train in Hawaii because that is where the base
> is.
So SoCal would be the place to train?
Dennis
Jack Linthicum
How many Chinese submarines have left their moorings, except to turn
around, in the past year?
Jack Linthicum
Southern California is deep water too. Panama might be enough like
China.
Dennis
>> >> Not to mention the Straits of Taiwan.
>>
>> > If the Chinese can get that far.
>>
>> ??? They're on one side of it. What would keep them from
>> putting
>> submarines there?
>>
>
> How many Chinese submarines have left their moorings, except to turn
> around, in the past year?
Ah, I gather that Chinese submarines aren't very reliable. Makes
sense; they resemble Russian ones in that regard.
Not to mention the experience they'd need to make proper use of
something like a functioning Russian Kilo.
That last one applies with a lot more force to Iran!
Dennis
Dennis
>> > Hawaiian waters deep, Hormuz shallow, Hawaii waters ocean, Hormuz
>> > waters near shore. We train in Hawaii because that is where the base
>> > is.
>>
>> So SoCal would be the place to train?
>
> Southern California is deep water too. Panama might be enough like
> China.
We do have a lot of naval forces in or near the Persian Gulf. Could
they get on-the-job training there? Or would we give too much away to the
Iranians?
Dennis
Jack Linthicum
Probably screw up all those nice bases that have been established in
CONUS for such training. And I would assume Hawaii too. You have to
have the wives and kiddies with first class accommodations (Yo CDR
Hines) and none of those native peoples, unless they do all the house
work and cook for fifty cents a day.
Matt Wiser
>
>Planning more illegal wars in the middle east?
>--
use tankers as targets. Then an ASW extermination campaign will be necessary. To assume
they won't use their subs in any confrontation is naive folly.
Fred J. McCall
:
Forces in a war zone generally have real work to do. When they don't,
they do indeed train. Eliminating training near home reduces training
(and readiness).
scott s.
news:Xns9AFBB737DEA33ts...@130.133.1.4:
> We do have a lot of naval forces in or near the Persian
> Gulf. Could
> they get on-the-job training there? Or would we give too much away
> to the Iranians?
>
scott s.
.
Richard Casady
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The settlement approved by a federal judge in San Francisco restricts
>the Navy’s use of low-frequency sonar to specific military training
>areas near Hawaii and in the western Pacific Ocean.
>
>“Today’s agreement maintains the Navy’s ability to test and train
>while shielding whales and other vulnerable species from harmful
>underwater noise,” said Michael Jasny, a policy analyst with the
>Natural Resources Defense Council, which was the lead plaintiff in the
>case.
Why couldn't the sub ramp up the power slowly so that the whales would
have a chance to split before it got really loud?
Casady
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 03:30:21 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
Why not experiment? I mean we have no enemies with the sort of
submarine capabilities we have ourselves, just whack the big blubber
pots and learn directly what knocks them out. Especially when its an
experimental sonar, no idea what it can do in the actual detection
business. Hit a few whales and sell them to the Japanese. Two-way
street.
How are you going to measure the effect on the whales? How do you get
close enough to determine what physical effects, let alone mental
effects, your buzz box puts out. Please note the area of interest
seems to be shallow water, neither Hawaii or Southern California are
contiguous to shallow water.
http://ftp.fas.org/irp/program/collect/lfa.htm
Or find a place where the whales aren't. I notice from this chart that
the Med and the Red seas are pretty whale-clear. And they have the
water and bottom characteristics of the Hormuz area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cetacea_range_map_Humpback_Whale.png
La N
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:17a8cfb4-8547-46a2...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 16, 10:55 am, richardcas...@earthlink.net (Richard Casady)
wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 03:30:21 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
> <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >The settlement approved by a federal judge in San Francisco restricts
> >the Navy's use of low-frequency sonar to specific military training
> >areas near Hawaii and in the western Pacific Ocean.
>
> >"Today's agreement maintains the Navy's ability to test and train
> >while shielding whales and other vulnerable species from harmful
> >underwater noise," said Michael Jasny, a policy analyst with the
> >Natural Resources Defense Council, which was the lead plaintiff in the
> >case.
>
> Why couldn't the sub ramp up the power slowly so that the whales would
> have a chance to split before it got really loud?
>
> Casady
Why not experiment? I mean we have no enemies with the sort of
submarine capabilities we have ourselves, just whack the big blubber
pots and learn directly what knocks them out. Especially when its an
experimental sonar, no idea what it can do in the actual detection
business. Hit a few whales and sell them to the Japanese. Two-way
street.
************************************************
Speaking of experiments, Jack, I'm surprised you haven't scooped us on
*this*news:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080815/koddities/oddity_mind_war
Guess what? Military funds mind-reading science
Module body
LOS ANGELES - Here's a mind-bending idea: The U.S. military is paying
scientists to study ways to read people's thoughts.
The hope is that the research could someday lead to a gadget capable of
translating the thoughts of soldiers who suffered brain injuries in combat
or even stroke patients in hospitals. But the research also raises concerns
that such mind-reading technology could be used to interrogate the enemy.
Armed with a $4 million grant from the Army, scientists are studying brain
signals to try to decipher what a person is thinking and to whom the person
wants to direct the message.
The project is a collaboration among researchers at the University of
California, Irvine; Carnegie Mellon University; and the University of
Maryland.
The scientists use brain wave-reading technology known as
electroencephalography, or EEG, which measures the brain's electrical
activity through electrodes placed on the scalp.
It works like this: Volunteers wear an electrode cap and are asked to think
of a word chosen by the researchers, who then analyze the brain activity.
In the future, scientists hope to develop thought-recognition software that
would allow a computer to speak or type out a person's thought.
"To have a person think in a free manner and then figure out what that is,
we're years away from that," said lead researcher Michael D'Zmura, who heads
UC Irvine's cognitive sciences department.
D'Zmura said such a system would require extensive training by people trying
to send a message and dismisses the notion that thoughts can be forced out.
"This will never be used in a way without somebody's real, active
cooperation," he said.
John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Virginia-based defence research
firm, said the technology is still too nascent to be of practical use for
the military.
"They're still in the proof of principle stage," Pike said.
A message left with the Army was not immediately returned Friday.
Jack Linthicum
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
It would seem that the military has a bunch of heavy weights searching
through all of the abandoned CIA projects, from the time before
Church, presumably looking at improved devices to make up for
absolutely no results from the 1960s and early 70s.
La N
Yeah, it's too bad about the teleportation idea they had. It would have
been real cool for that one to work out. Can you imagine, Jack. You could
one minute be in Florida, 2 seconds later in Ossetia? Or, at the very
least, amaze your friends at parties by bending spoons with your mind.
- nil
Mark Borgerson
@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net says...
> On Aug 16, 10:55 am, richardcas...@earthlink.net (Richard Casady)
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 03:30:21 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> >
> > <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >The settlement approved by a federal judge in San Francisco restricts
> > >areas near Hawaii and in the western Pacific Ocean.
> >
> > >while shielding whales and other vulnerable species from harmful
> > >Natural Resources Defense Council, which was the lead plaintiff in the
> > >case.
> >
> > Why couldn't the sub ramp up the power slowly so that the whales would
> > have a chance to split before it got really loud?
> >
> > Casady
>
> Why not experiment? I mean we have no enemies with the sort of
> submarine capabilities we have ourselves, just whack the big blubber
> pots and learn directly what knocks them out. Especially when its an
> experimental sonar, no idea what it can do in the actual detection
> business. Hit a few whales and sell them to the Japanese. Two-way
> street.
>
> How are you going to measure the effect on the whales? How do you get
> close enough to determine what physical effects, let alone mental
> effects, your buzz box puts out. Please note the area of interest
> seems to be shallow water, neither Hawaii or Southern California are
> contiguous to shallow water.
> http://ftp.fas.org/irp/program/collect/lfa.htm
>
> Or find a place where the whales aren't. I notice from this chart that
> the Med and the Red seas are pretty whale-clear. And they have the
> water and bottom characteristics of the Hormuz area.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cetacea_range_map_Humpback_Whale.png
>
each coast. Given that subs will hear them coming at many times
their 100-mile detection range and that the ships move at 3 knots, how
well can these ships cover several thousand miles of US coastline?
If the LFA vessels are going to be deployed to places like the Persian
Gulf, they're going have real problems. The array is supposed to be
deployed at a depth of 100m. That 's going to be a problem in the
Persian gulf which ranges between 30 and 60 meters depth in
most spots.
If this system is going to be deployed within 100miles of other people's
coastlines, it's going to have to watch out for fishing nets---which
might be the easiest and most deniable way to disrupt its operation.
The Navy apparently recognizes this problem: See page 4 of the
description and budget at
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2008/Navy/0204311N.pdf
I wonder how the LFA system will handle decoys: An empty shell
towed 100m behind and 30m below a large fishing vessel might
be a reasonably effective decoy.
Mark Borgerson
Jack Linthicum
> In article <17a8cfb4-8547-46a2-9c63-9d1f2b840a56
You miss the point of the project, it's to use up certain funds that
cannot be spent on other things. The capabilities are only on paper.
But you can't reneg on a project, too many Congress people depend on
it. I would even guess this is another one of those earmark projects
with no requirement from the Navy.
Oddly enough this things seems to have originated as a university
sound project.
On 25 June 1997, Cornell University submitted an application to NOAA’s
National Marine Fisheries Service for a Scientific Research permit for
the Low Frequency Sound Scientific Research Program under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)
But the Navy has used Woods Hole as cover for their work.
http://www.whales.org.au/news/tyack.html
Raytheon has a seemingly wiser program of an airborne version.
Dennis
>> It would seem that the military has a bunch of heavy weights
>> searching through all of the abandoned CIA projects, from the time
>> before Church, presumably looking at improved devices to make up for
>> absolutely no results from the 1960s and early 70s.
Great! So long as it's not innovative torture methods (see below).
> Yeah, it's too bad about the teleportation idea they had. It would
> have been real cool for that one to work out. Can you imagine, Jack.
> You could one minute be in Florida, 2 seconds later in Ossetia? Or,
> at the very least, amaze your friends at parties by bending spoons
> with your mind.
I never heard about that one.
I read the book "The Men Who Stare at Goats". Kill goats by staring
at them and concentrating; supposedly a few could do it. Much more likely
was eliciting a panic response by a synchronized flashing light and sounds.
I've read stories about this sort of thing being used to torture terror
suspects.
Dennis
Jim Watt
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Or find a place where the whales aren't. I notice from this chart that
>the Med and the Red seas are pretty whale-clear. And they have the
>water and bottom characteristics of the Hormuz area.
Speaking for this bit of the med, there are plenty
of whales.
American ships are an endangered species though.
Recently spotted a US coastguard ship as the USN
is short of vessels and is using them overseas.
Jack Linthicum
I think the closest they got to teleportation was when the budget
people arrived everyone headed for the coffee bar.
Jack Linthicum
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 08:07:30 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
> >Or find a place where the whales aren't. I notice from this chart that
> >the Med and the Red seas are pretty whale-clear. And they have the
> >water and bottom characteristics of the Hormuz area.
>
> Speaking for this bit of the med, there are plenty
> of whales.
>
> American ships are an endangered species though.
>
> Recently spotted a US coastguard ship as the USN
> is short of vessels and is using them overseas.
> --
> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
But those aren't the "cute" whales that sing and jump out of the water
for tourists.
La N
Heheh. Well, we Canadians are sure glad y'all stopped experimenting with
LSD on us .. :)
- nil
Jack Linthicum
Who sez?
Dennis
>> Speaking for this bit of the med, there are plenty
>> of whales.
>>
>> American ships are an endangered species though.
>>
>> Recently spotted a US coastguard ship as the USN
>> is short of vessels and is using them overseas.
*That's* what we're sending to help out Georgia? We're really in a
bad way! (Not saying that the LCS is a great, cost-effective idea...)
> But those aren't the "cute" whales that sing and jump out of the water
> for tourists.
It's not so cute when pirates capture a cruise ship full of tourists
because we don't control the seas.
Dennis
Jim Watt
>
> It's not so cute when pirates capture a cruise ship full of tourists
>because we don't control the seas.
Not sure why they would want to do that apart from in
a film script, nor why active sonar would help.
Whales on the surface in the strait for the
benefit of Jack.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=scCQd2ABT6E
Jack Linthicum
> On 18 Aug 2008 19:35:56 GMT, Dennis <tsalagiNOS...@asus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It's not so cute when pirates capture a cruise ship full of tourists
> >because we don't control the seas.
>
> Not sure why they would want to do that apart from in
> a film script, nor why active sonar would help.
>
> Whales on the surface in the strait for the
> benefit of Jack.
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=scCQd2ABT6E
>
> --
> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
Note, those are "Killer Whales", "Orcas", the largest of the dolphin
family. Ergo not "whales", as in cetaceans.. Actually the Orcas are
part of the tourist industry in North America and from time to time
the wild and captive ones will take a human being as a change of diet.
La N
A little segue here, Jack. Is Hurricane Fay coming to get you? Are you
hunkered down?
- nil
Jack Linthicum
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Semi-hunkered, my wife does a half day at the local library today and
she is there. Basically some rain, a little rain, and a belief it will
tomorrow before we can expect anything more than that. That may be
several inches of rain, that is what Palm Beach county has gotten and
they are about 100 miles south.
Dennis
>> It's not so cute when pirates capture a cruise ship full of
>> tourists
>>because we don't control the seas.
>
> Not sure why they would want to do that apart from in
> a film script, nor why active sonar would help.
It did in fact happen recently, or nearly did as I recall. I believe
that was the case where they drove them off with a sonic weapon, not the
same as active sonar. "Cruise ship" wasn't the right idea, either. There
was a recent hostage taking of a civilian non-cargo vessel as I recall. I
agree, active sonar wouldn't help. I just wanted to say something a bit
snide, as is my wont. :-)
Dennis
Rich Johnson
t them and concentrating; supposedly a few could do it. Much more
> likely was eliciting a panic response by a synchronized flashing light
> and sounds. I've read stories about this sort of thing being used to
> torture terror suspects.
>
> Dennis
Disco?
--
Rich
Enfield NS
Canada
Dennis
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 01:29:08 +0000, Dennis wrote:
> t them and concentrating; supposedly a few could do it. Much more
>> likely was eliciting a panic response by a synchronized flashing light
>> and sounds. I've read stories about this sort of thing being used to
>> torture terror suspects.
>
> Disco?
The book had a story of "The Barney Song" being played to prisoners
in Iraq, along with flashing lights, and, of course, people said that any
parent of a preschooler would agree that's torture.
However, the idea is something like a malevolent mind machine. The
mind machines you can buy use synchronized lights and sounds to produce
states similar to meditation, but here the idea was to induce prolonged
states of panic. The book shows a picture of an Iraqi prisoner screaming
so loud that it looks like he's laughing.
Dennis
Dennis
>> I think the closest they got to teleportation was when the budget
>> people arrived everyone headed for the coffee bar.
>
> Heheh. Well, we Canadians are sure glad y'all stopped experimenting
> with LSD on us .. :)
No more unaided human flight experiments, right?
Dennis