Submarines Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
The Whales Strike Back
   Next Article → ARTILLERY: Russians Firing Lots of Old Missiles
December 2, 2007: The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered a lower court to re-write the restrictions it has placed on the Navy's use on active sonar in training missions. This means that the Navy is going to have some more leeway – albeit how much leeway there will be is open to question – in terms of training sailors with their sonar gear.

 

The use of active sonar during these exercises is necessary, not only to train American sonar operators, but also to train American submariners to deal with countries that use active sonar (and which don't have to deal with environmental groups suing the government to ban the use of active sonar). The military lives by the axiom, "you fight like you train." Realistic training gives the United States military its biggest advantage over opponents, much as was the case for the Roman army in ages past (the saying went, "Their drills are bloodless battles, their battles are bloody drills.") and for the U.S. military, too (Comments about Desert Storm often compared the experience to the Air Force's Red Flag exercises or the Army's National Training Center – with the caveat that the Iraqi forces weren't as tough).

 

Recent lawfare against the Navy over this issue started with the experimental SURTASS LFA system. This system was designed to detect submarines further out than conventional sonar systems, not a small consideration when one considers the proliferation of anti-ship missiles like the C-802 (with a range of 120 kilometers), Harpoon (140 kilometers), Yakhont (120 kilometers), or Exocet (the missile made famous in the Falklands, with a range of 65 kilometers). It later expanded to include medium-frequency active sonars like the SQS-53 used on Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and the SQS-56 used on the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates.

 

Even multi-national exercises were not safe – the 2006 RIMPAC exercise dealt with interference due to an injunction that later resulted in a settlement. Those exercises are one of the rare opportunities the Navy has to practice against some of the latest diesel-electric submarines with good crews (Australia, South Korea, and Japan sent such submarines to the latest RIMPAC).

 

Environmental groups, like the Natural Resources Defense Council, have filed multiple suits, and have won injunctions, limiting the use of active sonar in training exercises. The injunctions often granted exemptions for war, but the problem was that war is the wrong time to start learning how to use active sonar.

 

This would be the equivalent of asking Pierce Brosnan (who has narrated a web video for the NRDC on sonar) to make a movie without being able to rehearse the lines or stunts. Brosnan at least gets re-takes if he were to mess up, and the worst he could expect would be a leaked blooper video on YouTube. The appeals court, though, recognized that the U.S. Navy would not get any re-takes in war, nor could it re-float a sunken ship or to bring back dead sailors and Marines. Future attacks on sonar training will not go as well, thanks to the precedent established in the higher court. – Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)

 

Next Article → ARTILLERY: Russians Firing Lots of Old Missiles
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
trenchsol       12/2/2007 8:41:31 AM
I can't understand how can someone care more about some bloody whales more than about lives of their own countrymen in some potential conflict. The same idiots as ones who fight shark nets around beaches because "sharks were here before us".

I'd like to feed those people to the sharks. Far as I can understand they are supposed to be friends, or something, right ?

DG


 
Quote    Reply

blacksmith       12/2/2007 6:40:09 PM
The enviro-nazi movement is very much tainted by anti-american, anti-military, anti-human attitudes.  They don't care if people get killed, the fewer people there are the better in their viewpoint.  They hate the military specifically, so the idea of being able to train does not compute with them and in fact correlates nicely with there desire to see the United States trounced.  They will never protest a foreign government creating an oil slick by sinking US warships.  And it would not surprise me at all if they sued the US for pollution violations by sinking someone elses ship.
 
Quote    Reply

blacksmith       12/2/2007 8:09:46 PM
Of course the proper response, rather than having the courts play with the words, would be for congress to clarify the environmental laws being used.  You know how the Democrats love the military over the enviro-nazis.
 
Quote    Reply

Brolan    Executive order   12/3/2007 1:11:15 PM
Why doesn't Bush just issue an Executive Order (hell it could be just a regular order) to the Navy to ignore restrictions on sonar training.  What could the courts do?
 
Quote    Reply

blacksmith       12/5/2007 8:47:49 PM
Believe it or not, the Bush administration is a law abiding bunch.  That's why so many White House lawyers are vilivied.  Because they were asked for a legal interpretation and gave it and the Bush critics with Bush Derangement Syndrome didn't like it.  Didn't mean it was wrong, they just didn't like it.
 
Executive orders can only be applied to areas within the purvue of the Executive Branch (i.e. departmental personnel policies, providing they don't conflict with existing Civil Service laws or other legislated rules).  The judgement in question is a decision by the Judicial branch (outside the Executive branch) on a law created by the Legislature.  He can either try to get the decision changed (take it to a higher court) or work with the Congress to get the law changed.  But the judgement cannot be ignored.
 
Quote    Reply