Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Navy seeks sonar range
By BILL SANDIFER, Staff Writer
Land, sea and air -- the military troika -- are abundant on the North Carolina coast. The setting as well as the state's military-friendly attitude has already fostered a potent military presence, among the largest in the country, a presence that could grow even larger.
Despite worries that an imminent Pentagon decision to shed excess military facilities could threaten some state military installations, the Navy has set its sights on locating another installation in -- or near -- the state.
The North Carolina coast is one of three potential sites the Navy is studying to set up an offshore submarine-training facility. The waters off Wallops Island, Va., and Jacksonville, Fla., are the other two sites under study for a sonar range. Sonar is a device that bounces sound waves off underwater objects to locate them, a large fish-finder, of sorts.
Although the Navy announced intentions to build such a facility in 1996, it appears heightened global tensions have spurred the Navy to construct the facility.
"In the global war on terrorism," said Navy spokesman Ted Brown, "effective antisubmarine warfare is critical to ensuring the Navy's ability to defend national interests around the world."
Although the language may ring familiar with those who have followed Navy efforts to establish an outlying landing field in the region, Brown's statement encompasses a much more slippery potential adversary -- stealth submarines.
"Diesel-electric subs," he explained, "are other nations' submarines that our submarines would be trying to detect. These submarines are very quiet."
Diesel-electric technology is nothing new; that machinery propels the common diesel locomotive. Unlike the racket a train makes, however, such subs have what sound engineers call a minimal "acoustic signature." The quiet operation, enhanced by special hull coatings, results in a virtual stealth submarine.
Such subs use "pretty advanced technology," said Brown, adding that "proliferation of very quiet, diesel-electric subs from other nations" is what prompted adding shallow-water training to the Navy's traditional deep-water regimen, established during the Cold War. The Navy, he added, currently has no shallow-water training site.
Noting the relatively low-cost of such subs compared to large, nuclear-powered subs, Brown stopped short of painting a picture what could be done with such a sub in the wrong hands.
But at least one American manufacturer, Kokes Marine Technologies, offers a different approach.
"Our mission is to make the most advanced and efficient sub-sea intervention technologies available," offers its Web site, contending the company's "industrial research submarines -- available for worldwide charter -- are virtually unaffected by surface weather or sea ... conditions."
The small subs can be remotely piloted or accommodate a crew of six, says the company. The subs can be used for industrial applications as well as in military training, mimicking the characteristics of targets the Navy is training to detect.
"The United States has no non-nuclear subs," said Brown. "We don't have any diesel-electric subs."
The technology, however, is a two-edged sword.
A Naval War College publication analyzes the threat: "The diesel-electric submarine's proliferation on the global arms market presents a challenge. ... There is a growing risk that nations hostile to the United States will use their diesel-electric submarines for delaying" and blocking sea access.
On the other hand, says the manufacturer, "undersea tasks can easily be performed on most of the world's continental shelf regions. Additionally, operations do not require large and costly ... support ships, making our autonomous submarines highly cost-effective working platforms."
Since the DEIS has not been finalized, Brown deferred discussing the specifics of training until the document is published, anticipated to be mid- to late April.
Sonar, a coastal toll?
But messing with the coast can prove risky as the Navy has found. A federal judge recently ruled against the Navy in a court challenge that, for the moment, has halted OLF plans.
Similarly, conservationists, coast-watchers and state government officials are raising the periscopes.
"It's certainly something that we're keeping our eye on," said Amy Fulk on Friday. Fulk is spokeswoman for Marc Basnight, state Senate president pro tempore and a Manteo resident.
"I've not heard from anyone in the fishing community about this yet," she said. "I think it's at the point in the process where a lot of people including our office are just now hearing about these plans. But I would suspect as people here more about it, we'll start hearing from them."
Although the proposed North Carolina site is roughly 65 miles offshore, the 660-square-mile box the site encompasses straddles the continental shelf midway between Beaufort and Wilmington, an area where the depth ranges from roughly 75 feet to over 600 feet.
"The acoustics are totally different in shallow water than they are in deep water," explained Brown, "and we need to train in shallow water. That's where these diesel-electric submarines are going to be operating -- and are operating -- and that's why we need a shallow-water training range."
Michelle Duval, a Raleigh-based scientist with the conservation organization Environmental Defense, heard about Navy plans about two months ago.
"Obviously, we're very concerned about any potential impacts to marine mammals," she said Friday. "I think most folks are aware that there are documented impacts to mammals from sonar."
"We are analyzing in the EIS not just marine mammals," said Brown, "but the entire range of environmental issues."
As a zoologist, Duval concedes she's no fish expert, but she is familiar with the way fish perceive sound. The internal organ that senses vibration, she fears, could suffer from the intensity of sonar sound waves.
"If you could put a 747 (airliner) underwater and turn on the engines," she said, "that's what it would be like. And that's pretty loud. I just have strong concerns about how that's going to affect other forms of marine life in the water, and certainly I would imagine that the fishing community would be a bit concerned."
Brown concedes the Navy is still using conventional sonar in defense applications, but adds, "The Navy is developing new technologies to counter the threat of quieter diesel-electric submarines operating in coastal water, but none are currently available; therefore, without realistic training, our sailors are placed in an unacceptable risk."
There's no word yet on when new technology will be introduced or whether it will reduce the effects sonar has on undersea life.
When the DEIS is published, said Brown, the public will be notified.
"We'll put out a press release when it's published."
Despite worries that an imminent Pentagon decision to shed excess military facilities could threaten some state military installations, the Navy has set its sights on locating another installation in -- or near -- the state.
The North Carolina coast is one of three potential sites the Navy is studying to set up an offshore submarine-training facility. The waters off Wallops Island, Va., and Jacksonville, Fla., are the other two sites under study for a sonar range. Sonar is a device that bounces sound waves off underwater objects to locate them, a large fish-finder, of sorts.
Although the Navy announced intentions to build such a facility in 1996, it appears heightened global tensions have spurred the Navy to construct the facility.
"In the global war on terrorism," said Navy spokesman Ted Brown, "effective antisubmarine warfare is critical to ensuring the Navy's ability to defend national interests around the world."
Although the language may ring familiar with those who have followed Navy efforts to establish an outlying landing field in the region, Brown's statement encompasses a much more slippery potential adversary -- stealth submarines.
"Diesel-electric subs," he explained, "are other nations' submarines that our submarines would be trying to detect. These submarines are very quiet."
Diesel-electric technology is nothing new; that machinery propels the common diesel locomotive. Unlike the racket a train makes, however, such subs have what sound engineers call a minimal "acoustic signature." The quiet operation, enhanced by special hull coatings, results in a virtual stealth submarine.
Such subs use "pretty advanced technology," said Brown, adding that "proliferation of very quiet, diesel-electric subs from other nations" is what prompted adding shallow-water training to the Navy's traditional deep-water regimen, established during the Cold War. The Navy, he added, currently has no shallow-water training site.
Noting the relatively low-cost of such subs compared to large, nuclear-powered subs, Brown stopped short of painting a picture what could be done with such a sub in the wrong hands.
But at least one American manufacturer, Kokes Marine Technologies, offers a different approach.
"Our mission is to make the most advanced and efficient sub-sea intervention technologies available," offers its Web site, contending the company's "industrial research submarines -- available for worldwide charter -- are virtually unaffected by surface weather or sea ... conditions."
The small subs can be remotely piloted or accommodate a crew of six, says the company. The subs can be used for industrial applications as well as in military training, mimicking the characteristics of targets the Navy is training to detect.
"The United States has no non-nuclear subs," said Brown. "We don't have any diesel-electric subs."
The technology, however, is a two-edged sword.
A Naval War College publication analyzes the threat: "The diesel-electric submarine's proliferation on the global arms market presents a challenge. ... There is a growing risk that nations hostile to the United States will use their diesel-electric submarines for delaying" and blocking sea access.
On the other hand, says the manufacturer, "undersea tasks can easily be performed on most of the world's continental shelf regions. Additionally, operations do not require large and costly ... support ships, making our autonomous submarines highly cost-effective working platforms."
Since the DEIS has not been finalized, Brown deferred discussing the specifics of training until the document is published, anticipated to be mid- to late April.
Sonar, a coastal toll?
But messing with the coast can prove risky as the Navy has found. A federal judge recently ruled against the Navy in a court challenge that, for the moment, has halted OLF plans.
Similarly, conservationists, coast-watchers and state government officials are raising the periscopes.
"It's certainly something that we're keeping our eye on," said Amy Fulk on Friday. Fulk is spokeswoman for Marc Basnight, state Senate president pro tempore and a Manteo resident.
"I've not heard from anyone in the fishing community about this yet," she said. "I think it's at the point in the process where a lot of people including our office are just now hearing about these plans. But I would suspect as people here more about it, we'll start hearing from them."
Although the proposed North Carolina site is roughly 65 miles offshore, the 660-square-mile box the site encompasses straddles the continental shelf midway between Beaufort and Wilmington, an area where the depth ranges from roughly 75 feet to over 600 feet.
"The acoustics are totally different in shallow water than they are in deep water," explained Brown, "and we need to train in shallow water. That's where these diesel-electric submarines are going to be operating -- and are operating -- and that's why we need a shallow-water training range."
Michelle Duval, a Raleigh-based scientist with the conservation organization Environmental Defense, heard about Navy plans about two months ago.
"Obviously, we're very concerned about any potential impacts to marine mammals," she said Friday. "I think most folks are aware that there are documented impacts to mammals from sonar."
"We are analyzing in the EIS not just marine mammals," said Brown, "but the entire range of environmental issues."
As a zoologist, Duval concedes she's no fish expert, but she is familiar with the way fish perceive sound. The internal organ that senses vibration, she fears, could suffer from the intensity of sonar sound waves.
"If you could put a 747 (airliner) underwater and turn on the engines," she said, "that's what it would be like. And that's pretty loud. I just have strong concerns about how that's going to affect other forms of marine life in the water, and certainly I would imagine that the fishing community would be a bit concerned."
Brown concedes the Navy is still using conventional sonar in defense applications, but adds, "The Navy is developing new technologies to counter the threat of quieter diesel-electric submarines operating in coastal water, but none are currently available; therefore, without realistic training, our sailors are placed in an unacceptable risk."
There's no word yet on when new technology will be introduced or whether it will reduce the effects sonar has on undersea life.
When the DEIS is published, said Brown, the public will be notified.
"We'll put out a press release when it's published."
 |
||
| Town of Bath has history of pageantry, celebrations |
tunne rat wrote on Jul 6, 2009 8:55 PM:
that is the biggest propganda word that every came out of butterfields and rino jones mouth in the past hundred years .
just 2 water boys for the obama socalist party , and a hand full of red necks that dont have a clue about whast they are talking about . "