Slashdot Mirror
Navy ELF to Be Scrapped
engywook writes "National Public Radio and The Daily Press of Ashland, Wisconsin (among others, I'm sure) are reporting that the US Navy plans to scrap the Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) system for communication with its fleet of nuclear submarines, both in Wisconsin and Michigan. The report states that the Navy no longer feels that ELF is necessary, and that they will now rely on 12 VLF systems. The system has been in operation since October 1989. The system has been protested nearly the whole time, both as a part of a Weapon of Mass Destruction and as a potential health hazard."
While ELF system is extremely slow, I remember the data rates being described as in the range of bits/minute, I am at a loss to understand how it effects mammalian sea life. The ELF and VLF systems use electromagnetic waves for communication, not acoustic. I think that you are confusing them with the high power active sonars used by the Navy, which I can only imagine as deafening to whales and dolphins.
I don't know much about the particulars of what happened in those war games, but diesel and nuclear subs are very different. When operating, diesel subs are much more noisy than nuclear subs. However, diesel subs can turn off their engine and run completely silent. On the other hand, a nuclear reactor is always on. If you're trying to avoid detection, it's much better to be in a diesel sub.
It is still impressive that two US attack subs were sunk, but this isn't because US technology is behind. It's because an older technology has a single advantage (the ability to run noiseless for short periods of time) that can be exploited in close quarters to great advantage.
A quick reality check here. In 2003, a "noisy" Australian deisel boat sunk two US nuclear attack subs and an aircraft carrier during joint war games. The Dutch have done the same sort of thing.
That doesn't say much all by itself.
What were the rules?
What was the mission of each side?
Were there any handicaps?
Did the US sink any ships? etc etc etc
For all that story tells us, the US might have sunk 30 ships. I'm not trying to insult Australians here, I'm just saying that article is REALLY vague.
Life is too short to proofread.
ELF, 30-3000 Hz VLF, 3-30 kHz Oh I'm sorry did all of you overlook the fact that the /entire/ country of USA, and most of the rest of the world is /dependant/ upon 50, 60 and *enter your countries standard here* hertz frequencies?
They are emitted daily from antennas in your street or above your street, in and around your house completely covering your family like a big fudging faraday cage!!
The earth terminals which save your life /and/ rid the household of static electricity sure as hell look like a mighty fine dipole to me!
Especially when you multiply it by, oh, every house in the world with electricity.
Lets take a look at a rather interesting report:
http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw104732_20040 926.htm/
"
CONTROVERSY: A federal judge in Wisconsin halted construction of the system in 1984, saying more environmental and health studies were needed. A federal appeals court in Chicago overturned that decision. The Navy said it spent more than $25 million to study the impact of ELF's electromagnetic fields, which were described as similar in nature and strength to those produced by power distribution lines.
POLITICS: Within years after ELF was built, Wisconsin politicians, including U.S. Sens. Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold and the congressman who represented the Clam Lake area, Rep. Dave Obey, called for its closure."
As for the story with the CS - I guess I don't see the point of that. If the purpose of the training is to operate without CS, then why blame the soldiers for doing the exercise as they were asked to? Ok, in real-life you don't know whether the other side would use CS, but then in real-life you wouldn't be told it was an exercise without CS. So is that really important?
Looking at the performance of the US military you can't really claim that they don't know how to fight. Quite apparently they are up to the job when it comes to real life. Their main deficits (as I see it) is in policing - they perform well in conquering a place, but poorly in holding it. That's sufficient if the main purpose of your military is defence, but it's a disadvantage if you want to conquer/bring peace/build an empire (pick according to political view).
As I said somewhere else in this thread, I'm really waiting for the results of the first joint NATO naval maneuvers with the Germans and their 214-class AIP boats.
This doesn't sound like you're speaking from maneuver experience. Just how many maneuvers have you attended? What do you think a submarine exercise is about? Do you think each and every joint maneuver is only about the US training the others?
What would be the point of giving away the US unit's position like that - so that the others can practice target shooting? Don't they need target acquisition practice, too?
Of course there's always a general layout for a maneuver that sets up some units in more risky positions, but after that, it isn't really that the US subs are asked to run full throttle all the time so the others can nicely home their torpedoes.
"Frequently" is an exaggeration; experienced commanders need maneuver experience, too. And most other navies do it the same way, so it's not much of an American-only disadvantage.
The attitude of yours is exactly the sort of hubris that is cause #1 for the most catastrophically lost battles. A commander of your attitude will completely fail to account for the enemy. Clausewitz will tell you this as well as Sun Tzu; doesn't your army require you to read anymore? This kind of pattern can be found everywhere: Varus vs. the Germans, Napoleon in Russia, the Germans in Stalingrad, and I guess you can come up with a couple of US examples, too, if you remember your military history hard enough.
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
When we do exercises with foreign nationals, we have to mask our true sound signature
...)
... and then there's reality.
So do they.
So why, may I ask, do you think you can draw any conclusions whatsoever regarding real capabilities of Us vs Them when neither side is showing its true hand?
I'll tell you why: you want to believe that the little guys can stand up to the US with a tiny fraction of our military budget. Cheer for the underdog if you will, but be honest about it.
What would be the point of giving away the US unit's position like that - so that the others can practice target shooting?
No, so the others won't be so easily dominated that they quit participating. Beating the US at a wargame when our best equipment is turned off, left behind, or deliberately degraded proves nothing.
Eliminating our tech advantage levels the playing field, and individual talent can win the game for either side. And we should give credit and honor to the side that wins the game.
But it's a game, and to conclude that the outcome of such a game would have the slightest relevance to a real-world conflict is silly.
The attitude of yours is exactly the sort of hubris
You're probably one of those guys who periodically posts on Slashdot asserting that the EU' combined forces are the US military's equal, too.
It's not hubris. It's confidence based on the knowledge that we have better equipment and better training than anyone else. (And we should, given the enormous gap between US military spending and everyone else.)
We in the military are acutely aware of what we're good at (witness the invasion of Iraq) and what we're bad at (witness the occupation of Iraq). Hubris and self-delusion are not nearly as common in the US military as you seem to think.
(Our leaders, OTOH
I intend no disrespect to you or any nation's military. But there are friendly wargames
A lot has been said about hubris in this thread; well, it's probably hubris to just go into Iraq with a huge army and expect to have the troops home by Christmas (metaphorically speaking), without any clear plan whatsoever what to do once Saddam's army is defeated. If you want do do nation-building and policing and keep the occupied country quiet, having the deadliest army on the block isn't really helpful all by itself. How about some intercultural communication courses, or some basic language training in Arabic for the occupying force, perhaps - just to avoid the image of America that appears to be building up down there? This is clearly a case of failed planning, especially if Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were determined to go into Iraq since the beginning. Note that the Brits have considerably less trouble down in Basra, admittedly partly because the region is predimonantly Shiite, but also because they have a lot more experience as an occupant force through their colonial history.
One might be tempted to say that the US has the most expensive and best equipped army in the world, yet this very army is unable to do its job: win a war.
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)