Home  ›  Deep Sea Fishing St George Island Updated

Deep Sea Fishing St George Island Updated

Written By Wednesday, April 20, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Deep Sea Fishing St George Island

Cold war passive, fixed array undersea surveillance system.

The Sound Surveillance Organization (SOSUS) was a passive sonar system adult by the United States Navy to rails Soviet submarines. The organization'due south truthful nature was classified with the name and acronym SOSUS themselves classified. The unclassified name Project Caesar was used to embrace the installation of the organization and a cover story developed regarding the shore stations, identified only equally a Naval Facility (NAVFAC), being for oceanographic research. In 1985, equally the fixed lesser arrays were supplemented by the mobile Surveillance Towed Assortment Sensor Organization (SURTASS) and other new systems were coming on line, the name itself changed to Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS). The commands and personnel were covered past the "oceanographic" term until 1991 when the mission was declassified. As a result, the commands, Oceanographic Organisation Atlantic and Oceanographic Arrangement Pacific became Undersea Surveillance Atlantic and Undersea Surveillance Pacific, and personnel were able to wear insignia reflecting the mission.

The system was capable of oceanic surveillance with the long ranges made possible by exploiting the deep sound channel, or SOFAR channel. An indication of ranges is the beginning detection, recognition and reporting of a Soviet nuclear submarine coming into the Atlantic through the Greenland-Republic of iceland-Britain (GIUK) gap past an array terminating at NAVFAC Barbados on six July 1962. The linear arrays with hydrophones placed on slopes inside the audio channel enabled beamforming processing at the shore facilities to grade azimuthal beams. When 2 or more arrays held a contact, triangulation provided approximate positions for air or surface avails to localize. [note i]

SOSUS grew out of tasking in 1949 to scientists and engineers to study the problem of antisubmarine warfare. Information technology was implemented as a chain of underwater hydrophone arrays linked by cable, based on commercial telephone technology, to shore stations located effectually the western Atlantic Ocean from Nova Scotia to Barbados. The first experimental array was a six-element exam assortment laid at Eleuthera in the Bahama islands in 1951, followed, afterward successful experiments with a target submarine, in 1952 by a fully-functional one,000 ft (304.8 m), 40-hydrophone array. At that fourth dimension the order for stations was increased from 6 to nine. The then-secret 1960 Navy moving picture Watch in the Ocean describes the production arrays as being 1,800 ft (548.half-dozen chiliad) long. In 1954, the order was increased by three more Atlantic stations and an extension into the Pacific, with half-dozen stations on the West Coast and one in Hawaii.

In September 1954, Naval Facility Ramey was commissioned in Puerto Rico. Others of the first Atlantic phase followed, and in 1957 the original operational array at Eleuthera got an operational shore facility as the final of the first phase of Atlantic systems. The same year, the Pacific systems began to be installed and activated. Over the side by side 3 decades, more systems were added; NAVFAC Keflavik, Republic of iceland in 1966 and NAVFAC Guam in 1968 being examples of expansion beyond the western Atlantic and eastern Pacific. Shore upgrades and new cable applied science immune arrangement consolidation until past 1980 that process had resulted in many closures of the NAVFACs with centralized processing at a new blazon facility, Naval Ocean Processing Facility (NOPF), that past 1981 saw one for each sea and mass closing of the NAVFACs.

As the new mobile systems came on line, SOSUS arrays themselves were deactivated and some turned over for scientific research. The surveillance aspect continues with new systems under Commander, Undersea Surveillance.

History [ edit ]

SOSUS history began in 1949 when the Us Navy approached the Committee for Undersea Warfare, an academic advisory group formed in 1946 under the National Academy of Sciences, to inquiry antisubmarine warfare. [1] [2] Every bit a result, the Navy formed a written report group designated Project Hartwell, named for the University of Pennsylvania's Dr. G.P. Hartwell who was the Deputy Chairman of the Committee for Undersea Warfare, [annotation 2] under at Massachusetts Institute of Applied science (MIT) leadership. The Hartwell panel recommended spending of US$x,000,000 (equivalent to $113,890,000 in 2021) annually to develop systems to counter the Soviet submarine threat consisting primarily of a big fleet of diesel fuel submarines. [3] [4]

That grouping likewise recommended a system to monitor low-frequency sound in the SOFAR channel using multiple listening sites equipped with hydrophones and a processing facility that could calculate submarine positions over hundreds of miles. [i] [iii] [5] [note iii]

Research [ edit ]

As a consequence of the Hartwell group's recommendations, the Office of Naval Inquiry (ONR) contracted with American Phone and Telegraph Company (AT&T), with its Bell Laboratories research and Western Electric manufacturing elements, to develop a long range, passive detection arrangement, based on bottom arrays of hydrophones. The system, using equipment termed Low Frequency Analyzer and Recorder and a process termed Depression Frequency Analysis and Recording, both with the acronym LOFAR, was to be based on AT&T's sound spectrograph, adult for speech communication analysis and modified to clarify depression-frequency underwater sounds. This research and evolution effort was given the name Project Jezebel. [1] [3] [half-dozen] The origin of the project name was explained by Dr. Robert Frosch to Senator Stennis during a 1968 hearing. It was considering of the low frequencies, "about the A below middle C on the piano" (near 100-150 cycles) and "Jezebel" existence chosen considering "she was of low character." [7]

Jezebel and LOFAR branched into the localization of submarines with the AN/SSQ-28 passive omnidirectional Jezebel-LOFAR sonobuoy introduced in 1956 for use by the air antisubmarine forces. That sonobuoy gave the aircraft cued by SOSUS access to the same depression frequency and LOFAR adequacy as SOSUS. Bell Telephone Laboratories time delay correlation was used to set target position with ii or more than sonobuoys in a technique named COrrelation Detection And Ranging (CODAR). This, and later specialized, sonobuoys equipped with a pocket-sized explosive accuse could be used in an agile mode to discover the echo off the target. The active mode was named by engineers developing the technique "Julie" afterwards a burlesque dancer whose "performance could turn passive buoys active." [8]

Related research, based at Columbia University's Hudson Laboratory, was designated Project Michael. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography were also tasked to develop an understanding of long-range audio transmission under Projection Michael. [1] [3] The need to better empathize the acoustic environment drove much of the oceanographic inquiry by both the Navy and institutions with Navy funding for oceanography. A major, long-term research programme spanning over 25 years, the Long Range Acoustic Propagation Program (LRAPP), made pregnant progress in such understanding and influenced decisions in SOSUS, significantly the SOSUS expansion into the eastern Atlantic. [9] [note 4]

Development and installation [ edit ]

The hardware technology was largely that of the commercial telephone organization and oil exploration. Cable laying was a capability AT&T and other entities had developed for decades for commercial communications cables. The agreement of the bounding main acoustic surround made the organisation possible rather than development of new technology. SOSUS was a case of new understanding of the environment and then awarding of largely existing technology and even equipment to the trouble. [10]

The xl hydrophones spaced on the array provided the discontinuity for signal processing to form horizontal azimuthal beams of two to five degrees wide, each axle with a LOFAR analyzer and adequacy to exercise narrow-ring frequency assay to discriminate signal from ocean noise and to identify specific frequencies associated with rotating machinery. The NAVFAC watch floor had banks of displays using electrostatic paper, similar to that used for echograms in depth finders.

LOFARgram writers on NAVFAC lookout floor.

The product of these displays was the LOFARgram which graphically represented acoustic energy and frequency against time. Those were examined by the personnel trained to identify submarine signatures. [1] [ten] When 2 or more arrays held a target the bearings from each array gave an estimated target position past triangulation. [1] The system could provide cuing information on the presence of the submarines and an approximate location for air or surface antisubmarine warfare assets to localize the target. [11] The first Atlantic stations, ranging from Nova Scotia to Barbados, formed a long line semicircle looking into the Western Atlantic basin with geographic separation for contact correlation and triangulation. [ane]

Security [ edit ]

The combination of research and engineering under Jezebel and Michael into an actual broad area surveillance system as seen by Project Hartwell's Frederick Five. Hunt became the Sound Surveillance System with the acronym SOSUS. Both the full name and acronym were classified. In that location were occasional slips. A contractor for the Office of Naval Research, Fleet Analysis and Support Division published an unclassified report with "SOSUS" in association with the arrangement acronym "SOSS", defined as "Sound Search Station," and a adequacy to display information from sonobuoys next on either aircraft or SOSS displays in contact nomenclature every bit either friendly or unfriendly targets. [12] The unclassified proper noun Project Caesar was given to cover development and installation of the resulting system. [ane] [iii]

A encompass story was developed to explain the visible shore installations, the Naval Facilities, and the commands nether which they fell. The embrace explained that information gathered past oceanographic and acoustic surveys with ships could at times be collected "more than expeditiously and more economically past means of shore stations. These are the U. S. Naval Facilities." [xiii] The cover extended to the names of the commands and preparation of personnel with overall commands designated Ocean Systems Atlantic and Bounding main Systems Pacific, and terms such as Sea Technician [OT] and Oceanographic Research Watch Officer given to Naval Facility personnel. [ten] [fourteen] Despite being qualified for a warfare specialty and its symbols, the Navy personnel in the small SOSUS community could not practise so for the sake of secrecy until the mission became public in 1991. The Ocean System commands, COMOCEANSYSLANT (COSL) and COMOCEANSYSPAC (COSP), then began to reflect their truthful nature as Undersea Surveillance commands COMUNDERSEASURVLANT (CUSL) and COMUNDERSEASURVPAC (CUSP) under the Integrated Undersea Surveillance Arrangement (IUSS) proper noun that had come up into upshot in 1985 as systems other than fixed emerged. [iii] [x]

SOSUS was closely held on a strict need-to-know basis that was close to Sensitive Compartmented Information even though it was classified at the Undercover level. Fifty-fifty the Fleet had lilliputian noesis of the organization or its function. Contact data reaching the fleet was in a strictly formatted message designated RAINFORM, hiding the source, that the fleet oftentimes did not understand without reference to publications to understand the course'southward fields and codes. Equally a effect, people in the armada frequently did not know of the arrangement'south dedicated antisubmarine mission. Even when they knew they oft did not know of its actual operation or exact role. This later had implications as the Cold War concluded and budgets became an result. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the system was opened to tactical use and the fleet began to see the contact data in other formats readily understandable by armada antisubmarine forces. [xv] In 1997 the RAINFORM was abased and replaced. [iii]

For much of the organisation's functioning, direct action based on SOSUS contacts was avoided. An example was subject to a box piece in the January 5, 1981 result of Newsweek titled "A Soviet State of war of Fretfulness" concerning an incident from August 1978. An alert to Atlantic Armada, Strategic Air Command (SAC) and the Pentagon came from "underwater listening devices at several hush-hush Navy installations" that ii Yankee class nuclear-armed submarines had left their usual patrol areas 1,200 miles out in the Atlantic and were getting dangerously close. That approach raised the threat level to several SAC bases forth the coast. Rather than prosecute the contacts and reveal how closely the system could runway the submarines, the SAC bases put more bombers on ready alert assuming the Soviets would notice. The submarines did non withdraw so SAC dispersed the bombers to bases as far abroad every bit Texas. Though in that location is no positive proof that action was the cause, the Yankees moved back to their usual areas and had not moved shut to the U.S. coast again at the fourth dimension of the piece. [sixteen]

NAVFAC Nantucket showing Terminal edifice equally internal security area.

The original Naval Facilities and later on, consolidated, processing centers were loftier security installations characterized by an outer security fence and gate checkpoint. The terminal buildings within were double fenced with separate entry security. Not all personnel assigned to the facility had access to the operational part of the installations. The early organisation can be seen in the vertical photograph of Naval Facility Nantucket and later in the photo of Naval Facility Brawdy below. Equipment in the terminal buildings was installed by especially cleared Western Electric Company personnel. [17]

Initial installations [ edit ]

Western Electric and ONR representatives met on 29 October 1950 to draft a contract that was signed every bit a letter contract on 13 November to build a demonstration organization. The contract was managed by Agency of Ships (BuShips) with and so Ensign Joseph P. Kelly, later Helm and termed "Father of SOSUS," assigned. An experimental half-dozen-element hydrophone assortment was installed on the isle of Eleuthera in the Bahamas during 1951. Meanwhile, Projection Jezebel and Projection Michael focused on studying long range acoustics in the body of water. [1] [three] [eighteen]

From 2–nineteen Jan 1952 the British cable layer Alert installed the first total sized, 1,000 ft (304.eight grand) long, 40 transducer element operational assortment in 240 fathoms (1,440.0 ft; 438.9 m) off Eleuthera in the Bahamas. [annotation five] Successful tests with a target submarine resulted in the social club to install a total of 9 arrays along the coast of the Western North Atlantic. The 1960 clandestine, limited distribution Navy film Watch in the Sea, contains a segment at almost 9:22 minutes into the film concerning the search for a suitable array location and laying the array. It describes the operational arrays as being 1,800 ft (548.6 one thousand) long. [nineteen] [twenty] In 1954 ten additional arrays were ordered with iii more in the Atlantic, half-dozen on the Pacific coast and i in Hawaii. [1] [3]

Neptune (ARC-2), first cablevision repair ship formally assigned to Project Caesar.

The cable ships Neptune and Albert J. Myer were acquired to support Project Caesar with later addition of the cablevision ships Aeolus and Thor . Other ships were added for acoustic and bathymetric surveys and cable back up. [iii]

Operational systems [ edit ]

SOSUS systems consisted of bottom-mounted hydrophone arrays connected by underwater cables to facilities ashore. The private arrays were installed primarily on continental slopes and seamounts at the axis of the deep sound aqueduct and normal to the direction in which they were to cover. The combination of location within the ocean and the sensitivity of arrays immune the system to detect acoustic power of less than a unmarried watt at ranges of several hundred kilometres. SOSUS shore terminal processing stations were designated with the vague, generic proper name of Naval Facility (NAVFAC). [one] [21] By the 1980s improved communications technology immune the array information in one case processed in individual Naval Facilities to be sent to central processing centers (Naval Sea Processing Facility (NOPF)) for centralized processing of multiple fixed and mobile assortment data. [22] [23]

The first systems were limited by the commercial telephone cable engineering science for the application requiring a shore facility inside about 150 nmi (170 mi; 280 km) from the array and thus inside that distance from the continental shelf locations suitable for the array. [one] The cable of the time consisted of multi-pair wire connected to the forty hydrophones of the array. New coaxial multiplexed commercial phone organisation cable, designated SB, using a single wire for all hydrophones allowed major changes with the prototype installed in 1962 at Eleuthera. [note half-dozen] The upgrades fabricated possible by the multiplexed coaxial cable were designated Caesar Stage III. Caesar Phase IV was associated with major upgrades in shore processing with Digital Spectrum Analysis (DSA) backfits at the stations replacing original equipment during the late 1960s. In September 1972 a third generation coaxial cable, once again based on commercial developments at Bong Labs and designated SD-C, was installed for the system terminating at Naval Facility Centerville Beach, California. [24] The SD-C cable was the basis for a 4th generation of sonar sets with installation of the Lightweight Undersea Components (LUSC) involving new shore equipment in 1984. In June 1994 an entirely new cable organisation was introduced with cobweb optic cablevision. [22]

P-3B of Patrol Squadron half-dozen (VP-vi).

Cablevision technology and signal processing improved and upgrades were fabricated to the original installations. Cable engineering made information technology possible to site arrays further from shore into the ocean basins. New indicate processing capabilities allowed for innovations such every bit the divide assortment in which a single line array was divided into segments, each separately processed, then electronically recombined to grade narrower beams for better bearing and cross fixes between arrays. Augmenting these local improvements was the increased key processing in centers that eventually became the Naval Oceanographic Processing Facilities. In that location the contacts of multiple arrays were correlated with other intelligence sources in order to cue and provide the search area for air and surface antisubmarine avails to localize and prosecute. [1] [eight]

The system was considered a strategic, non tactical, organisation at the fourth dimension and part of continental defense. In armed services construction hearings during 1964 earlier the Senate Commission on Armed Services the request for funding of recreational and other back up buildings for the Naval Facility Cape Hatteras the Navy noted information technology was part of a program supporting continental air and missile defense force forces without mention of its role in tracking Soviet missile submarines. [25]

Chronology [ edit ]

1950s [ edit ]

In 1954 the Fleet Sonar School at Primal West established a Sound Search Course for training personnel. The highly classified program was behind the "Green Door" which became a name for the programme itself as well equally being seen as a term for the secrecy. [3] [26]

NAVFAC Greatcoat May (1955-1962) Last Building on WW II Coast Artillery bunker before storm damage forced movement to Fort Miles in Delaware where it became NAVFAC Lewes.

In 1954 3 full systems to include a NAVFAC terminus were installed with arrays terminating at NAVFACs at Ramey Air Forcefulness Base of operations, Puerto Rico in September, Grand Turk in October, and San Salvador in December. [note 7] Systems terminating at Naval Facility Bermuda, Canadian Forces Station (CFS) Shelburne, Nova Scotia, Nantucket, and Cape May were installed during 1955. Systems terminating at Naval Facility Greatcoat Hatteras and Naval Facility Antigua and ii Evaluation Centers, forerunners of NOPFs, were established in New York and Norfolk during 1956. The initial assortment at Eleuthera got a fully functioning NAVFAC with an additional system for the Atlantic at Barbados and the commencement of the Pacific systems at San Nicolas Island came in 1957. During 1958 the remainder of the Pacific stations at Naval Facility Signal Sur and Centerville Beach in California and Pacific Embankment, Washington, and Coos Head near Coos Bay, Oregon were installed. [3]

Six Pacific coast systems had been planned but only five Naval Facilities were constructed. The northernmost organization off Vancouver Island was to terminate in Canada but a change in government there precluded a facility in Canada at the time. The sixth array, requiring redesign of the cablevision and repeater system, was thus terminated at Naval Facility Pacific Embankment, making it a dual array facility. [17]

Betoken Sur Lightstation and in background NAVFAC Bespeak Sur (1969)

From 1958 to 1960 Project Caesar avails began work installing the Missile Impact Location System (MILS), based on engineering science and installation methods similar to those for SOSUS, in support of Air Strength ICBM tests. The survey and installation focus in that flow was on installation of MILS in the Atlantic and Pacific exam ranges. [3] [notation 8] Arrays of hydrophones placed around the target area located the missile warhead by means of measuring arrival times of the explosion at the various hydrophones of a SOFAR charge in the test warhead. [27] During that menstruation an singular SOSUS system was installed in 1959 at Argentia, Newfoundland to provide surveillance for approaches to Hudson Bay. It was a shallow water, curved array with ten eight-element arrays installed on two cables with each cablevision having the capacity for the usual twoscore elements. [3]

1960s [ edit ]

In 1962 a new system was installed terminating at Naval Facility Adak in the Aleutians. The arrangement terminating at Greatcoat May was rerouted to a new Naval Facility Lewes, Delaware, with upgraded processing, after the NAVFAC Greatcoat May had been destroyed in the "Ash Midweek" Storm. [note 9] [iii] [28]

NAVFAC Argentia got a 2X20 element array in 1963. A 1965 decision to deploy systems to the Norwegian Ocean was followed in 1966 with a system terminating at Keflavik, Republic of iceland with the first 3X16 array system while Western Electric installed information links by country line to OCEANSYSLANT and OCEANSYSPAC. New systems were installed during 1968 at Midway Isle and Guam. COMOCEANSYSPAC relocated to Ford Island, Hawaii from Treasure Island, California. The shallow water arrangement at Argentia was deactivated. [3]

In 1965 Flyer was acquired as a bathymetric survey ship. [29] The satellite communications ship Kingsport joined the project in 1967 for acoustic and bathymetric piece of work. [thirty] [31]

1970s [ edit ]

The first NAVFAC decommissioning took place with the isolated duty station at NAVFAC San Salvador, Commonwealth of the bahamas shut down on 31 Jan 1970. [3] [32] The old station is now home of the Gerace Research Center. [33] NAVFAC Barbers Point is commissioned. A system broad modernization began in 1972. Argentia became a joint Canadian Forces and U.Due south. Navy facility. NAVFAC Ramey becomes NAVFAC Punta Borinquen in 1974. Farther NAVFACs close down in 1976 with NAVFACs Punta Borinquen and Nantucket decommissioned. NAVFAC Barbados was decommissioned in 1979. [3]

Naval Facility Brawdy, Wales, the first "super NAVFAC" to exist established.

In 1974 Naval Facility Brawdy, Wales was established as the terminus of new arrays covering the eastern Atlantic. NAVFAC Brawdy became the first "super NAVFAC" with some four hundred U.S. and United kingdom military and civilian personnel assigned. [3] [34] [notation 10] The facility ( 51°52′xv.3″Northward 005°08′xiii.8″West  /  51.870917°N 5.137167°W  / 51.870917; -5.137167 ) was adjacent to the Royal Air Force Station Brawdy which had returned to RAF control during February 1974 after closure in 1971. [35]

In 1975 Mizar left Naval Research Laboratory service and joined Project Caesar. In April 1974 the send was reported as already being funded past Naval Electronics Systems Command (NAVELEX), where the project programme management resided, and no longer funded equally an oceanographic transport. [36] Past 1979 it was the most recently built send of the v project ships that and so included cablevision repair ships Albert J. Myer and Neptune due for modernization and the larger repair send Aeolus that was uneconomical to repair and marginal as a cable send. [note 11] Kingsport was nonetheless with the project. The Navy was requesting four fully functional cable ships, the modernized Albert J. Myer and Neptune and two large new ships. The 2 new ships were to be designed every bit modern cable ships, fully capable of cable and survey piece of work. [xxx]

1980s [ edit ]

In 1980 consolidation and elimination of expensive private facilities was made possible by the Wideband Acoustic Data Relay (WADR) showtime installed at Midway Isle in January 1982 and so that the 2 Midway arrays could eventually be remoted straight to NOPF Ford Island. This first generation WADR was used to consolidate array data from the California facilities at San Nicolas Island and Point Sur in 1984. Those were followed by remoting Hawaii's Barber'south Point in 1985, the Pacific Northwest arrays at Pacific Beach and Coos Head in 1987, and Bermuda in the Atlantic in 1992. A second generation WADR immune the consolidation of the Aleutian station at Adak in 1993, the North Atlantic's Argentia in 1995, and those termed "Special Projects" in 1997 and 1998. [22]

The western Atlantic system consolidation was centered on the establishment of the Naval Bounding main Processing Facility (NOPF) at Dam Neck, Virginia beginning with closure of NAVFACs Eleuthera and Grand Turk. During 1981 Naval Ocean Processing Facility (NOPF), Ford Island became operational and the decommissioning of NAVFAC Midway with that system'due south data routed to NAVFAC Barbers Point was completed. NAVFAC Lewes, Delaware closed that yr. [3] NAVFAC Cape Hatteras closed in 1982 and in 1983 Midway acoustic data was rerouted directly to Naval Body of water Processing Facility, Ford Island. [iii] [22]

In 1984 the get-go SURTASS vessel, USNSStalwart(T-AGOS-one) arrives at Little Creek, Virginia. USNSZeus(T-ARC-7) , the one new cable send of the requested two, enters the "Caesar fleet" for operations. Atlantic NAVFAC Antigua and Pacific NAVFACs at San Nicolas Island and Point Sur in California closed. Point Sur audio-visual data was routed to NAVFAC Centerville. Consolidation and new systems brought farther change in 1985. NAVFAC Barbers Point closes with acoustic data directed to NOPF, Ford Island. The Stock-still Distributed System (FDS) exam assortment, a new type of fixed bottom system, terminus was fabricated at NAVFAC Brawdy, Wales. Stalwart makes beginning SURTASS operational patrol and arrangement name is changed from SOSUS to Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS). Consolidation continued in 1987 with NAVFAC Whidbey Island, Washington, established with NAVFAC Pacific Beach's acoustic data routed to that facility. During 1991 NAVFAC Guam, Mariana Islands closed. [3]

1990s [ edit ]

USNS Stalwart and USNSWorthy(T-AGOS-xiv) monohull SURTASS ships were withdrawn with SWATH hull USNSVictorious(T-AGOS-19) accepted by the Navy during 1992. That year the system got Chief of Naval Operations tasking to report whale detections. [three]

More original NAVFACs closed during 1993 with NAVFACs Centerville Embankment, California and Adak, Alaska closing with their acoustic information routed to NAVFAC Whidbey Island. The facility at Whidbey, with multiple systems terminating in that location became Naval Bounding main Processing Facility (NOPF) Whidbey. During 1994 Canadian Forces Shelburne, Nova Scotia closes as does NAVFAC Argentia with HMCS Trinity established at Halifax Nova Scotia with functioning as Canadian Forces IUSS Eye (CFIC). NAVFAC Bermuda data is routed to Naval Sea Processing Facility (NOPF) at Dam Cervix. The new Advanced Deployable System enters every bit a role of IUSS and NAVFAC Brawdy, Wales closes with equipment and operation transferred to Joint Maritime Facility St Mawgan during 1995. During 1996 NAVFAC Keflavik Iceland closes and the new Fixed Distributed System Initial Operational Capability is accomplished. [iii] In 1997 the Adak system reverts to "wet storage." [3]

2000 to 2010 [ edit ]

Impeccable, a SWATH blueprint, for SURTASS/LFA operations.

USNSImpeccable(T-AGOS-23) is deputed every bit the first SURTASS/Low Frequency Agile (LFA) surveillance ship in 2000. In 2003 the new Advanced Deployable System (ADS) completes dual array testing. All-encompassing changes both with shore and sea assets take place over the following years as post Common cold State of war missions change and systems are practical in new ways. Further consolidation takes place such equally in 2009 when Joint Maritime Facility, St. Mawgan in the U.K. has information remoted directly to NOPF Dam Neck and is decommissioned. British and US Forces then begin joint, combined operations at NOPF Dam Cervix. [3]

Direction and commands [ edit ]

Projection Caesar, from initial bathymetric and acoustical surveys through cablevision installation and turnover to operations, was managed by Bureau of Ships (BuShips) from 1951 until 1964. All the directly back up through contracts with Western Electric, Bell Labs and ship schedules was under this management. In 1964 the project was placed under Industrial Manager, Potomac River Command and then Naval District Washington in 1965. In 1966 the project came under Naval Electronics Systems Control (NAVELEX PME-124) where it remained through the name modify in 1986 to Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWARSYSCOM PMW 180) [note 12] and a motility from Arlington to San Diego in 1997. [iii]

The Navy operational side, taking over when the systems were accepted and turned over for operation, came under Commander, Oceanographic System Atlantic (COMOCEANSYSLANT) in 1954. Commander, Oceanographic System Pacific (COMOCEANSYSPAC) was established for the Pacific systems in 1964. Within the Role of Chief of Naval Operations the Director ASW Programs OP-95 was established in 1964. In 1970 COMOCEANSYSLANT and COMOCEANSYSPAC were designated as major commands past the Chief of Naval Operations. [3]

Officer and enlisted IUSS insignia.

With the new, mobile systems Towed Array Sensor System (TASS) and the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) entering the system, the SOSUS name was changed in 1984 to Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS) to reflect the change from bottom fixed systems lone. In 1990 officers were authorized to wearable IUSS insignia. Finally, with "undersea surveillance" and so openly displayed, the mission is declassified in 1991 and the commands reflect that with replacement of the "oceanographic systems" with the accurate "under sea surveillance," the commands renamed as Commander, Undersea Surveillance Atlantic and Commander, Undersea Surveillance Pacific. In 1994 the Atlantic and Pacific commands were merged into Commander Undersea Surveillance at Dam Cervix, Virginia. In 1998 that command was placed nether Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Armada. [3]

The LOFARgram representation of acoustics in black, greyness and white with an operator trained and adjusted to interpreting that display was the critical link in the organization. Experienced operators that could detect subtle differences and with exercise could observe faint signatures of targets were vital to detection. Information technology was even establish that color incomprehension could be an advantage. It was soon apparent that the Navy's practice of brusque term tours and transfer out of the arrangement was a problem. Commander Ocean Systems Atlantic launched an endeavor in 1964 to create a rating peculiar to SOSUS and let personnel to remain within the community. Information technology took v years for Bureau of Personnel to create the rating of Body of water Technician [OT]. That bureau did not do the same for officers thus forcing those with experience to either leave for new duties or leave the Navy. Some did and so and remained in the arrangement equally civil service or contractor personnel. [ten]

The first women were assigned to NAVFAC Eleuthera when an officer and x enlisted women were assigned in 1972. [3] Due to the fact that the SOSUS community departed from the usual Navy cultural routine, with echo assignments within the small community, women were able to serve in a warfare specialty without shipboard duty that was still being denied. That opened a new field for women exterior the usual medical, education, or administrative specialties. SOSUS consignment qualified equally important as sea duty on a Common cold War front line. [ten]

Events [ edit ]

In 1961 the system proved its effectiveness when it tracked USSGeorge Washington(SSBN-598) on her first Due north Atlantic transit to the United kingdom. [1] The first detection of a Soviet nuclear submarine occurred on 6 July 1962 when NAVFAC Barbados recognized and reported contact #27103, a Soviet nuclear submarine w of Kingdom of norway coming into the Atlantic through the Greenland-Iceland-United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland (GIUK) gap. [1] [3] When the USSThresher(SSN-593) sank in 1963, SOSUS helped determine its location. In 1968, the start detections of Victor and Charlie class Soviet submarines were made, while in 1974 the first Delta class submarine was observed. In 1968, SOSUS played a key role in locating the wreckage of a US nuclear attack submarine, the USSScorpion(SSN-589) , lost near the Azores in May. Moreover, SOSUS data from March 1968 facilitated the discovery, and undercover retrieval six years later, of parts of a Soviet GOLF Two-class ballistic missile submarine, the One thousand-129, that foundered that month n of Hawaii. [1]

Operational issues [ edit ]

The secrecy of the arrangement meant that it did not have the widespread armada support of successful tactical systems despite its actual success. Information technology was the primary cuing organization which antisubmarine forces used to localize and potentially destroy targets for over forty years merely secrecy largely kept that fact from the fleet. The lack of strong fleet back up was a cistron when budget cuts subsequently the Cold War vicious heavily on the surveillance plan. [fifteen]

The system'southward first station came on line before in that location was any signature library of Soviet submarine acoustic characteristics while submerged. The operators had no data on which to place a hostile submerged submarine'due south unique signature while snorkeling on the LOFARgram. The signatures available were of surfaced submarines from other sources. It was non until the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, when the quarantine reduced other shipping noises, that operators recognized unusual signatures that were confirmed to be Soviet snorkeling submarines when aircraft sighted snorkels and sonobuoys confirmed the unusual acoustics as being from that submarine. Fifty-fifty then, others had doubts until 1963–1964 Norwegian data on submarines deploying or returning nerveless correlated signatures. SOSUS then became the major collector of Soviet submarine signatures and "boot strapped" itself to becoming the primary signature library for itself and becoming the major intelligence source for all other Navy acoustic sensor systems. [37] [38]

Both undersea surveillance and the operation of U.S. submarines were tightly held secrets within the communities. That secrecy led to misunderstandings and even potential breaches of security. Despite periods of realization both communities barbarous back into assumptions as a consequence of secrecy. On the submarine force side, there was a recurrent thought that SOSUS/IUSS could not detect U.S. submarines despite early SOSUS tracking USS George Washington across the Atlantic in its early days. Realization SOSUS could detect U.S. nuclear submarines led to the Navy's quieting programme for those submarines and the assumption returned. [15]

The contrary occurred when the surveillance community did not take information on U.South. submarine operations, and assumed they held a Soviet or unknown contact. In 1962 and 1973, US submarines conducting covert operations off of the Soviet submarine base at Petropavlovsk were detected by NAVFAC Adak. In 1962, the detections were published at the hole-and-corner level past Commander, Alaskan Bounding main Frontier, and these reports were pushed upwardly the chain of command. Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Armada (COMSUBPAC) recognized the contacts as US submarines engaged in highly classified operations, and immediate changes were ordered for the reporting procedures. In 1973 such contacts were again almost published, but were stopped only when information was identified by a visiting civilian practiced who recognized the acoustic signatures equally that of a U.S. submarine. When that submarine put into Adak for a medical emergency the detection events were matched to the submarine's logs catastrophe the disbelief the "Soviet" contact was actually a U.S. submarine. [15] [38] [39]

"Caesar fleet" [ edit ]

Other ships are mentioned as having "cameo" appearances and the project apparently fabricated utilize of other Navy survey and civilian cable ships on occasion. The core armada appears to be those listed beneath.

Cable ships:

Other:

Espionage [ edit ]

In 1988, Stephen Joseph Ratkai, a Hungarian-Canadian recruited by Soviet Intelligence, was arrested, charged and convicted in St. John's, Newfoundland for attempting to obtain information on the SOSUS site at Naval Station Argentia. John Anthony Walker, a United states of america Navy Main Warrant Officer and communications specialist, divulged SOSUS operational information to the Soviet Union during the Common cold War which compromised its effectiveness. [40]

Post-Common cold State of war [ edit ]

Past 1998 cable engineering science and shore processing allowed consolidation of shore stations to a few cardinal processing facilities. Changes in Soviet operations, few hostile nuclear submarines at body of water and the ending of the Cold War in the 1990s meant the demand to maintain IUSS/SOSUS at full capability decreased. [1] The focus of the U.s. Navy also turned toward a new fixed system, the Fixed Distributed System, and systems deployable on a theater basis such as the Surveillance Towed Assortment Sensor Arrangement and Advanced Deployable System. [3] Although officially declassified in 1991, by that time IUSS and SOSUS had long been an open up undercover.

Civilian scientific discipline applications [ edit ]

Alternate or dual-use partnerships exist with a number of agencies and institutions. The Practical Physics Laboratory, Academy of Washington has used the system for Ocean Acoustic Tomography. [41]

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Vents programme at its Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory was granted access to the system at the Naval Ocean Processing Facility at Whidbey Island in Oct 1990 to combine raw analog data from specific hydrophones with NOAA systems for continuous monitoring of the northeast Pacific Ocean for low-level seismic activity and detection of volcanic activity along the northeast Pacific spreading centers. [42] [43]

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute detected and tracked a lone whale with a unique call over a period of years in the Pacific. [44]

Texas Applied Research Laboratories, [45] and several other organizations have used the arrangement for enquiry.

Associated systems [ edit ]

Colossus [ edit ]

Jezebel research had developed an boosted short range, high frequency, upwards-looking arrangement using agile transducers for directly plotting of ships passing over the array. Colossus was intended to exist installed in narrows and straits. [three]

Artemis [ edit ]

Artemis was an experiment with a large active source. Information technology was not a part of the SOSUS development. The system used very large towers and unwieldy components while SOSUS provided more than acceptable warning and coverage and thus the arrangement did not come up into operation. The discussion Artemis had been used as a code word in the starting time days before Jezebel, Michael and Caesar as an unclassified proper noun. Artemis, goddess of the chase, stood for those cleared for Frederick V. Hunt and his idea of a passive system similar SOSUS in his May 1950 report. That old application of Artemis caused some confusion. [26]

Footnotes [ edit ]

  1. ^ Earlier the nature of the arrays became known, many writers assumed SOSUS was a barrier system, rather than arrays giving surveillance of entire ocean basins. An associated program, Colossus, was such a system intended to be installed across straits.
  2. ^ An alternative story is that it was named for a local bar popular with MIT kinesthesia.
  3. ^ The cited Project HARTWELL report kickoff links arrays with armada blazon submarines towing such an array in the GIUK and then refers to potential exploitation of the deep sound channel depression frequency sounds.
  4. ^ The sometimes mentioned Sea Spider "system" was merely a circuitous and unsuccessful experiment with a very large suspended array in the Pacific. It was part of LRAPP every bit noted on page 181 of the reference. The experiment was part of the Pacific Acoustic Research Kaneohe — Alaska (PARKA) II experiment in 1969. Parts of Body of water Spider concluded up off Bermuda, designated Testbed for more experiments. That array was installed by unusual cablevision and installation vessel Naubuc simply also failed (Run into Naubuc).
  5. ^ Her Majesty's Telegraph Transport, H.M.T.South. Alarm , was a British General Post Office cable layer built in 1915.
  6. ^ The USS Aeolus Association website has a photo of a display of the first three types of Project Caesar cables.
  7. ^ For details on locations, including photographs, run into "Past IUSS Sites" Archived 2020-02-xvi at the Wayback Auto
  8. ^ The similarity is seen in the 1962 Bell Phone Organization ad "How the ocean grew 'ears' to pinpoint missile shots".
  9. ^ The spider web folio A Century of Service: The U.S. Navy on Cape Henlopen has a detailed description with photos and illustrations of this NAVFAC and the cable and array locations. The original phonetic name for the system was GEORGE. The photo of a cross section of the sometime 21 quad cablevision is of particular interest.
  10. ^ The Naval Ocean Processing Facility (NOPF) appears to be a "super NAVFAC" with processing of multiple array data, often by joint allied forces. Naval Ocean Processing Facility (NOPF), Dam Cervix, Virginia, in 1980 with Western Atlantic consolidation was the start of the NOPFs to be so named. With closure of NAVFAC Brawdy and its array data remoted to Joint Maritime Facility (JMF), St Mawgan the later Integrated Undersea Surveillance Organisation character of the consolidated, joint centers was achieved. Ultimately that JMF itself was "remoted" across the Atlantic to Dam Cervix.
  11. ^ Both Aeolus and Thor had been conversions from Artemis class AKA types of unusually shallow typhoon. Cable ships were designed for deep draft with high capacity cable tank storage and ability to maintain station during stopped or low speed repair operations in poor weather. The AKA conversions could not bear a full cable load and full fuel load without exceeding maximum draft. A major deficiency for a modern cablevision laying send, rather than defended repair ship, was lack of stern laying capability. Neither of the larger repair ships could be modified for that. On some operations, they had to exist towed from astern past a tug in order to lay cable over the bow sheaves using cable machinery forward. They even had dual sets of running lights installed and so the stern could be the bow and show proper lights.
  12. ^ PME-124 and PMW-180 were the plan manager's function designations. Name inverse in June 2019 to Naval Information Warfare Systems Command.

See too [ edit ]

References [ edit ]

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k 50 yard n o p q Whitman, Edward C. (Winter 2005). "SOSUS The "Surreptitious Weapon" of Undersea Surveillance". Undersea Warfare. Vol. 7, no. two. Archived from the original on 24 March 2020. Retrieved five Jan 2020.
  2. ^ "The Papers of Colubus O'Donnell Iselin". Woods Pigsty Oceanographic Institution. Apr 2001. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
  3. ^ a b c d e f thousand h i j 1000 l one thousand northward o p q r s t u v west x y z aa ab ac advert ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an "Integrated Undersea Surveillance Organisation (IUSS) History 1950 - 2010". IUSS/CAESAR Alumni Association. Retrieved eleven Feb 2020.
  4. ^ Goldstein, Jack S (1992). A Unlike Sort of Time: The Life of Jerrold R. Zacharias . Cambridge, Mass: MIT Printing. p.338. ISBN 026207138X . LCCN91037934. OCLC1015073870.
  5. ^ Report on Security of Overseas Transport. Volume i. Projection Hartwell. (B. A Proposed Sonar Listening System for Long-Range Submarine Detection (Report). 21 September 1950. pp. D2–D8. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
  6. ^ "Origins of SOSUS". Commander, Undersea Surveillance. Archived from the original on 7 August 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
  7. ^ Committee on Armed forces (U.S. Senate) (1968). Authorization for War machine Procurement, Research and Development, Fiscal Year 1969, and Reserve Strength . Washington, D.C.: Government Press Office. p. 997. Retrieved 14 March 2020.
  8. ^ a b Holler, Roger A. (November v, 2013). "The Development Of The Sonobuoy From World War 2 To The Common cold War" (PDF). U.S. Navy Journal of Underwater Acoustics: 332–333. Retrieved xiv March 2020.
  9. ^ Solomon, Louis P. (April 2011). "Memoir of the Long Range Acoustic Propagation Plan" (PDF). U.S. Navy Journal of Underwater Acoustics. 61 (2): 176–205. Retrieved 20 September 2020.
  10. ^ a b c d eastward f Weir, Gary E. (Baronial 2006). "he American Sound Surveillance System: Using the Bounding main to Hunt Soviet Submarines, 1950-1961" (PDF). International Periodical of Naval History. 5 (2). Retrieved xi Feb 2020.
  11. ^ Di Mento, John Mark (December 2006). "The Ocean Surroundings and the Third Dimension of Naval Warfare" (PDF). Across the Water'due south Edge: United States National Security & the Ocean Surroundings (Ph.D. thesis). Medford, Thousand A: Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts Academy. pp. 73–74.
  12. ^ Rau, J. One thousand. (Baronial 1974). Measures of Effectiveness Handbook (Written report). Irvine, California: Ultrasystems, Inc. pp. B-54–B55. Retrieved 29 August 2020.
  13. ^ "SOSUS Unclassified Comprehend Story". IUSS/CAESAR Alumni Association. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
  14. ^ Waterman, Larry Wayne (March 1972). Officer Education and Training in Oceanography for ASW and Other Naval Applications . Naval Postgraduate School. p.115 . Retrieved 11 February 2020.
  15. ^ a b c d Maskell, Dawn M. (12 April 2001). The Navy's All-time Kept Secret — Is IUSS Becoming a Lost Art? (Thesis). Quantico, Virginia: United States Marine Corps Control and Staff College. Retrieved 13 February 2020.
  16. ^ Alpern, David Thousand.; Martin, David C. (Jan 5, 1981). "A Soviet War of Fretfulness". Newsweek. p. 21.
  17. ^ a b Kneedler, Robert (Autumn 2007). "Recollections On the Successful Implementation of the Portion of Brick Bat 03 - Titled Project Caesar II - Pacific (Office two of ii)" (PDF). The Cablevision. Vol. ix, no. ane. IUSS/CAESAR Alumni Clan. pp. iii–6. Retrieved 28 March 2020.
  18. ^ Commander, Undersea Surveillance. "CAPT Joseph P. Kelly, USN (1914-1988)". U.Due south. Navy. Retrieved eleven February 2020.
  19. ^ "Catalog of Audiovisual Productions — Navy and Marine Corps". Department of Defence. 1984. Retrieved 23 March 2020.
  20. ^ Sentry in the Sea — Projection Caesar (Standard AV Production Identification Number: 24458-DN) . Department of the Navy, Bureau of Ships. 1960. Retrieved 23 March 2020.
  21. ^ Cote, Owen R., Jr. (2003). The Third Battle: Innovation in the U.S. Navy'south Silent Cold War Struggle with Soviet Submarines (PDF) (Report). Naval War College. pp. 25–26. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
  22. ^ a b c d Weinel, Jim (Summer 2004). "Evolution of SOSUS/IUSS Point Processing (Role two of 2)" (PDF). The Cablevision. Vol. vii, no. 1. IUSS/CAESAR Alumni Association. p. 3. Retrieved eleven February 2020.
  23. ^ "Commander Undersea Surveillance". Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved ane January 2021.
  24. ^ Weinel, Jim (Leap 2003). "Development of SOSUS/IUSS Point Processing (Office one of 2)" (PDF). The Cable. Vol. half-dozen, no. one. IUSS/CAESAR Alumni Association. p. 3. Retrieved xi February 2020.
  25. ^ United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on War machine (1963). War machine Construction Authorization, Financial Year 1964: Hearings ... Eighty-8th Congress, First Session, on S. 1101 - H.R. 6500, a Bill Authorizing Certain Structure at War machine Installations, and for Other Purposes. September half-dozen, 27, 30, October 1, ii, 3, and 7, 1963 . U.S. Government Printing Office. pp. 288–289.
  26. ^ a b Weir, Gary R. (2017). "The Navy, Scientific discipline, and Professional History". Naval History and Heritage Command. Retrieved eleven Feb 2020.
  27. ^ Hallett, Bruce. "MILS". SOFAR Bermuda. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
  28. ^ Commander Undersea Surveillance. "Naval Facility Lewes, August 1955 - September 1981". U.South. Navy. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
  29. ^ a b "USNS Flyer". Sealift Magazine. Vol. 17, no. 1. Jan 1967. p. xix. Retrieved 24 February 2020.
  30. ^ a b c Committee on Armed forces (U.South. Senate) (1978). Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1979 . Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Function. pp. 4244–4246. Retrieved 24 February 2020.
  31. ^ Fenner, Don F.; Cronin, William J., Jr. (1978). Begetting Pale Exercise: Sound Speed and Other Ecology Variability (PDF) (Written report). NSTL Station, MS: Naval Bounding main Research and Development Activity (NORDA). Retrieved 26 September 2020.
  32. ^ Commander Undersea Surveillance. "Naval Facility San Salvador, December 1954 - January 1970". U.S. Navy. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
  33. ^ "Gerace Research Eye". The Islands Of The Bahama islands. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
  34. ^ "Naval Facility Brawdy April 1974 - October 1995". United States Navy. Retrieved 22 March 2020.
  35. ^ Jefford, C.G. (2001). RAF Squadrons, a Comprehensive Record of the Motion and Equipment of all RAF Squadrons and their Antecedents since 1912. Shrewsbury, Shropshire, Great britain: Airlife Publishing. p. 32. ISBN one-84037-141-2 .
  36. ^ The Federal Body of water Program (Study). April 1974. p. 100. Retrieved 23 February 2020.
  37. ^ Rule, Bruce (2012). "Faulty Intelligence Nearly "Sank" SOSUS During the Cuban Missile Crisis". IUSS/CAESAR Alumni Clan. Retrieved 13 February 2020.
  38. ^ a b Dominion, Bruce (June 17, 2015). "The SOSUS Organisation A Personal Perspective of the Early Years". IUSS/CAESAR Alumni Association. Retrieved 13 February 2020.
  39. ^ Rule, Bruce (November xiii, 2013). "NAVFAC ADAK, Ancient History". IUSS/CAESAR Alumni Clan. Retrieved 13 Feb 2020.
  40. ^ Keller, Bill (1985). "Spy Case is Called Threat to Finding Soviet Submarines". The New York Times . Retrieved 11 February 2020.
  41. ^ "Blue Water Acoustic Enquiry at APL-UW". Academy of Washington. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
  42. ^ "Sound SUrveillance System (SOSUS): General Information". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved xi Feb 2020.
  43. ^ "PMEL/Vents Ocean Acoustics (Conference)" (PDF). Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA. August 2008. Retrieved eleven Feb 2020.
  44. ^ Lippsett, Lonny (April 5, 2005). "A Lone Voice Crying in the Watery Wilderness". Oceanus. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
  45. ^ "Ongoing Inquiry at ARL:UT". Arlut.utexas.edu. University of Texas at Austin Applied Research Laboratories. Retrieved 2013-12-13 .

External links [ edit ]

Deep Sea Fishing St George Island

Posted by: edmondsonhamithen.blogspot.com

0 Response to "Deep Sea Fishing St George Island Updated"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel