Ok, I'll admit to being a submariner. Let me clear some things up:
1 - Inverse square law applies to sound in water, too, just like common sense (and science) dictates it should. Further, there are also propogation losses due to interaction with surface and bottom as well as with suspended particles or other material in the water. Inverse square prop loss is really an unrealistic best case. Even in a carefully directed ping, the signal is attenuated pretty quick -- the logic that "focusing" a beam somehow makes it go farther works well for lasers because they're completely different than transducers.
2 - LF Active has some theoretical advantages, namely the range. However, there are other disadvantages that make it nearly useless, really.
3 - Submariners detest active. It gives away our position like nothing else. We detest all self-noise. Active sonar is the sort of thing that we use only in extremis, and only to the minimum extent absolutely required by the tactical situation.
4 - Worse even than a simple ping is a super-loud ping. Nobody fires a ping at max intensity. Not only is it unnecessary, it's tactically idiotic.
5 - Worse even than a really loud ping is an omni-directional ping. You may or may not find the guy you're looking for, but not only does he know where you are, so do his 6 buddies floating nearby.


Your Friendly Local Submariner, now leaving communications depth...

See, I told these guys rule. I hope all is well djmcmath...do well in the fleet.

Thanks, Seahawk. Never underestimate the power of a (cued) airborne search, though. ;)

Probably unrelated, but interesting.

Scores of Fish Beach Themselves in N.C.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060226/ap_on_sc/fish_jubilee
Camp Lejeune = Marine Corps' New River air base?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_Base_Camp_Lejeune
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_Air_Station_New_River
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/ii-mef.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Bay_jubilee
Man or nature - you decide.:)

The Jubilee at Mobile Bay has been going on since recorded history of the area, so one could hardly say it's influenced by man.
The bay here is very shallow for the most and can easily be influenced by by bad weather and extended periods of sunlight, which would certainly change the water's ability to retain O2. Other theories have to do with algea content and blooms which would of course be likewise influenced by the CO2 content.

Natural.

Mmmmm...Spotted Owls...taste like chicken.

That's what I was thinking. Else, guys like Seahawk would only have to follow the path of dead floating fish. ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...0-V2132-09.jpg

Just a gratuitous picture of a great man...no reason really.

The prime consideration in this argument is the answer to the question, Does the US Navy need this system? The answer to that is a profound no.

The cold war is over and has been since 1989. This is why the US government military needs a serious reining in, they're still operating as if 2006 is 1956.

Submarines are not relics of the Cold War, Pat. We are a maritime nation...the proliferation of relatively cheap, diesel subs is subject you might want to explore.

I'm aware that more nations are buying these military toys; a very foolish expenditure of capital, but then these are the naval equivalent of privately owned cigarette boats.

So, just how would another nation successfully attack America with one of these subs? Answer, none will because there is no known method.

What will another nation do with these subs? Sink American warships sitting off their coasts deploying agents or intimidating their shipping lanes.

Our government is spending the same as the next 27 countries added together; other nations rightly perceive that as a deadly threat, and the threat has been made real by the Iraq attack, invasion, and partial conquest; and the saber rattling and more against Syria and Iran.

So, again, I state that the US Navy profoundly does not need this equipment.

:rolleyes:

that's it? . . that's all you've got? "no method"

I'm aware that more nations are buying these military toys; a very foolish expenditure of capital, but then these are the naval equivalent of privately owned cigarette boats.

Nope. You confuse cigarette boats with warships. I don't have that option.

just how would another nation successfully attack America with one of these subs? Answer, none will because there is no known method.

Your lack of insight into the weapons carried on these vessels voids your statement.

Our government is spending the same as the next 27 countries added together; other nations rightly perceive that as a deadly threat, and the threat has been made real by the Iraq attack, invasion, and partial conquest; and the saber rattling and more against Syria and Iran.

Doesn't apply...you know better.

So, again, I state that the US Navy profoundly does not need this equipment.

Active sonar is the only way to defeat these vessels. I profoundly think that the small investment is needed.

Er no, it was a relative comparison between military buying fun toys and private individuals buying fun toys. There was no confusion on my part.

Quote:

just how would another nation successfully attack America with one of these subs? Answer, none will because there is no known method. Your lack of insight into the weapons carried on these vessels voids your statement.

In order to successfully attack America, a nation would have to have the capability to attack with thousands of weapons simultaneously, of the few that might approach having this capability none has any reason to do so. No reason for such an attack is expected to develop at any point in the future unless the US government stages yet another cluster fornication against yet another country.

Quote:

Our government is spending the same as the next 27 countries added together; other nations rightly perceive that as a deadly threat, and the threat has been made real by the Iraq attack, invasion, and partial conquest; and the saber rattling and more against Syria and Iran. Doesn't apply...you know better. So, again, I state that the US Navy profoundly does not need this equipment. Active sonar is the only way to defeat these vessels. I profoundly think that the small investment is needed.

I don't agree. Passive detection is significantly better, is less dangerous, and is less an offensive threat.

Now, you want to discuss permanent locations for these devices, and yes I realize the weaknesses of that, then perhaps. But in no case should the US government be issued yet another weapon to deploy outside American waters.

Yeah, Like on 9/11.

What a failure those attacks were.:rolleyes:

Terrorist attacks are not attacks on all of America by submarine. While I'd think that's obvious to almost anyone, perhaps it's obscure.

Further, the attacks of which you speak were directly caused by the most colossal failure of the US government in the history of it's existence.

***** is getting deep in this thread too. I think Red UFO is back.

Some interesting points being made here, and a lot of confusion. Fastpat, I think that your confusion about submarine employment (both by US and ROW forces) is an interesting point in itself. The Submarine Force on the whole is a very quiet bunch by nature. It's the Silent Service, except that we're so silent, nobody knows what we're up to. It's a bit of a quandary facing the Sub Force...

Some unclassified things that may be of interest ... the new diesel boats are very impressive platforms. Some of them are incredibly quiet, and carry extremely modern weaponry -- on par even with the US torpedoes. Like Seahawk says, active sonar is an excellent way to geolocate such a platform. Extremely low frequency active, as I noted above, and which is the original topic of this thread, is pretty silly, however. Even higher freqency active is becoming a less preferred method with the advent of some useful tools to counter it. Currently, the best way to find any submarine is to listen for it -- classic passive sonar. (Well, not quite "classic" passive sonar -- we've come a long ways since WWII...) A lot comes down to the training and experience of the crew, which is generally a reflection of the force as a whole. For example, it is well known that submarines from a certain country routinely make loud noises caused by crewmembers doing stupid things -- we'll say dropping hammers, leaving bits of metal in free-flood areas so they rattle when the boat moves, that sort of thing. Such a submarine is easy to find -- but it takes little more than crew training and attention to detail to transform such a boat from "impossible to miss" to "impossible to find."

Diesel boats present an interesting threat. Such a platform is more than capable of carrying and delivering an arbitrary weapon of choice to anywhere they'd like. While many of the older boats are very limited in speed and range, the newer boats are far more capable. A submarine threat capable of delivering a warhead of choice to anywhere in Europe or Asia has been a longtime reality. Submarines capable of (and interested in) delivering to the US are becoming an increasing likelihood.

The question for you, Pat -- how many nuclear warheads landing on US soil would it take to constitute an "attack?"

Terrorist attacks are one threat. National attacks are another. Remarkably, both of those very disparate defenses are handled by submarines these days.

You clearly don't know what you are "agreeing" with. And for the love of ASW, active sonar is not a weapon.

SOSUS is a joke, BTW, yesterdays news...