Posted on 08/21/2007 6:43:16 PM PDT by SandRat
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The National Marine Fisheries Services issued a final rule Aug. 16 that allows the Navy to continue operating Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) sonar in the western Pacific Ocean for the next five years, subject to a yearly authorization renewal.
SURTASS LFA consists of two separate components. The LFA portion of the system is suspended vertically below the ship and transmits low-frequency sound energy into the water. SURTASS, the passive portion of the system, is towed behind the ship and is made up of a series of underwater microphones that detect natural and man-made sound energy in the water. This allows underwater objects, such as submarines, to be detected.
"SURTASS LFA gives us a solid capability that has been proven at sea," said Rear Adm. Carl V. Mauney, Director, Submarine Warfare. "It allows us to detect and track diesel-electric submarines at long range, enabling action, if necessary, at a time and place of our choosing."
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Environment) Donald R. Schregardus says the ruling "will allow the Navy to continue operations in the western Pacific that are vital to our national defense."
According to Schregardus, the system is vital for use in tracking extremely quiet diesel-electric submarines, which could pose a potential threat to Navy Sailors and ships if they go undetected.
When operating on battery power, these submarines can conduct nearly silent underwater operations. As countries continue to acquire diesel-electric submarines, the Navy makes tracking them a priority.
"SURTASS LFA sonar is the single best system the Navy has to find and track such submarines at long distances. This system helps keep our service members, our ships and our national interests safe," said Schregardus.
He said SURTASS LFA is necessary for national security, and is operated in a manner that is environmentally sound. Past research has facilitated the development of science-based mitigation measures that allow the sonar to operate in harmony with the ocean environment. Sonar operators monitor for the presence of marine mammals prior to, during and after sonar activity and either turn off or delay start-up if marine mammals come too close.
Schregardus said that five years of these sonar operations in the western Pacific produced no evidence of any harm to marine mammals or their populations.
"The Navy's extensive operations experience with this system, in combination with thorough scientific studies on the system's effects on marine mammals and fish, confirms that this sonar can coexist with ocean life," said Schregardus.
Schregardus said claims that SURTASS LFA destroys ocean life and cannot be operated in harmony with the environment are "simply untrue and not supported by scientific fact."
To learn more about SURTASS LFA, visit the Navy's SURTASS site at http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com/.
For more information on the Navy's environmental programs, visit https://secnavportal.donhq.navy.mil/ie/environment/.
>> Schregardus said claims that SURTASS LFA destroys ocean life and cannot be operated in harmony with the environment are “simply untrue and not supported by scientific fact.”
Navy 1, Greenpeace 0
(I presume it was Greenpeace that sued them, or somesuch.)
Good news!
I don’t know what your reason for posting this here is, but the evidence against this type of sonar is pretty damning and well documented. Frying whales brains with sonar is an incredibly sick endeavor.
Imagine that! A court that thinks protecting Americans might just be as important as protecting whales.
Good. Now we need a final final ruling that they can just use it, period. No restrictions. No permits. No expiration dates. Why do we allow peons to dictate national security policy?
3 posted on 08/21/2007 6:48:07 PM PDT by JerseyHighlander
Imagine that. Depth charges and hedgehogs during WWII were also damaging to underwater animals. Well, I'll be damned, they survived WWII, we survived WWII, and the Nazis and Japs didn't.
Thanks for posting, Sandrat. I think that protection of America from foreign intruders is high on my list of priorities. Some foks don’t get it and probabaly never will. Hopefully, we will be able to track diesel submarines in the future.
A retired diesel submariner.
Fried whale brains? You’re making me hungry.
“I don’t know what your reason for posting this here is, but the evidence against this type of sonar is pretty damning and well documented. Frying whales brains with sonar is an incredibly sick endeavor.”
How many lives of American sailors are you will to sacrifice? 10? 100? 1,000? How many?
>> the evidence against this type of sonar is pretty damning and well documented.
Since that is (in your mind) true, I’m sure you won’t have any problem posting links to back up your assertions.
>> Frying whales brains with sonar is an incredibly sick endeavor.
Insinuating that the USN uses sonar for the purpose of “frying whale brains” is an incredibly naive and asinine assertion.
You got that right. Any good cook knows you need a cast iron pan and plenty of lard. ; )
>> need a cast iron pan and plenty of lard.
Lard? Why not blubber?
That's complete hogwash. Didn't you ever notice that these claims are always found on web sites that also have "Bush used explosives on the world trade center", "windmills are wiping out birds" and other moonbat conspiracy theories on them?
Thanks. These new computer inventions are mind boggleing. Who knows? Next thing you know we’ll be talking through wires!
STFU
Silly me. I haven’t made fried whale brains lately. I fry just about everything in lard, so just didn’t think of the blubber. I guess I should step aside and leave the cooking to you. I’ll just bring the collard greens, seasoned with a little ham hock.
>> I’ll just bring the collard greens
Collard greens & ham hock! Now you’re making ME hungry!
(Funny how everything tastes better cooked in real animal fat. There’s no tastier way to make refried beans, as just ONE example...)
1. I would eat fried whale brains
2. Read the amicus brief by the International Whaling Commission in this case. Also read this: http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/sonar_mammal.htm
3. The Navy couldn’t and still hasn’t tried to deny the fact the Low frequency sonar is killing many many whales within range when ever the LFA sonar is pinged.
4. This is different than prior situations because the sonar is radiating outward many nautical miles within certain layers of the ocean, and are affecting the entire population of whales in the area.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.