US judge reinstates sonar curbs

Discussion in 'Submariners' started by Ships_Cat, Feb 5, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

    When a whale was asked for comment, he said, "What? pardon? Speak up I cant hear a thing, Im completely deaf...." :thanks:
  2. I wonder how it compares to dragging several UNIFOXERs from ASI to FI?
  3. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    UNIFOXERs were noisy, but not THAT noisy...

    I should know - I was a Larne Target Coxswain! :thumright: :wink:
  4. Active transmissions on the Main Sonar Array
    when alongside, can make a hell of a mess
    of ships divers if they're round the front bit.

    Crazy Ivan! Crazy Ivan!
  5. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    BNM: That's noty a 'Crazy Ivan', that's just SOPs for Op AWKWARD! :wink:
  6. Crazy Ivan is a Naval term for a submarine maneuver, characterized by any number of sudden and sharp turns, used by submarine crews to "look behind" them. Because of the acoustic distortions and noise caused by propeller blades, it is nearly impossible for conventional sonar to detect objects directly behind a submarine. So, with sudden turns, the area where the sonar is not effective shifts relative to the current heading of the submarine, causing previous gaps in sonar coverage to be revealed while masking known areas. This gap in sonar coverage because of the submarine's own propeller is commonly known amongst submariners as "the baffles."

    The "Crazy" part of the name comes from the fact that these maneuvers were very sudden and "Ivan" was a common nickname used to refer to the Russians. A standard tactic of pursuing submarines would be to closely follow the Soviet submarine hidden right in the sonar gap, causing the U.S. submarine to go undetected. Because of this, there were two dangers for the submarine's crew. The first would be, of course, detection by the Soviet submarine if the sonar gap shifted and the U.S. Navy submarine would be revealed. A common countermeasure was to stop the engine and pumps in the pursuing sub and rapidly go for maximum silence, which would lead to the second danger, collision. With its inertial momentum, the U.S. sub's forward movement would continue with the possibility of collision with the unknowing Soviet submarine dead ahead in the process of turning sharply. An example of Crazy Ivan gone wrong happened on June 20, 1970, when USS Tautog collided with the Soviet Echo class submarine known as "Black Lila". Fortunately, both boats survived the collision.

    Most modern nuclear submarines deploy a towed array sonar which specifically covers the baffles, rendering the Crazy Ivan mostly obsolete.

  7. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    IDID: Nice bit of 'cut & paste' there (hence US spelling of certain words)... :wink:
  8. SPB.

    Yes it was cut and pasted from Wikipedia, hence as you so astutely deduced it contained American spellings. I have posted the explanation of a "Crazy Ivan" so that people reading the thread and being unversed in submarine warfare would have a basic understanding of the term.

    I must thank you wholeheartedly for giving me the opportunity to respond to your very sarcastic posting. Yet again this proves beyond all reasonable doubt what a edited by me to comply with Nutty's request you really are. :thumright:

    Yours Aye

    PS I should get my third medal for abusing a moderator- bonus!
  9. Moderator Mode

    Gentlemen this is not the forum for abuse or even self abuse so can we please stay on subject.

    Thank you

  10. The only time I have ever heard the term 'Crazy Ivan' is in that movie 'Hunt for Red October'. We in the real world call it 'clearing stern arcs'.

    Note: 'stern arcs' - not 'baffles'

    As for the environmentalist belief that active sonar kills the whales - Bullshit IMHO.
  11. But they are a hazard for ships divers when the wanks can't read the signs, too many times in Halifax harbour those guys have literally boiled the surrounding water with their desire to do what they want, all in the name of security of course... :threaten:
  12. What would you Australians know anyway?

  13. Contributor MOde

    AfterSSE and Jack77

    If certain sonar transmission are a danger to ship or other divers why is it thought that they are not dangerous to other mammals?


  14. Well, I didn't exactly state in my post anything about mammals, but I am sure my reference to dangers to humans should also apply to mammals and perch... :thumright:
  15. Sorry AfterSSE I did not mean to suggest that you had said anything about mammals. I was just asking the question of the two contributors who had voiced any knowledge of the subject.

  16. Because the marine life is clever enough to swim away before the TXs reach a dangerous level. I am of the opinion the active TXs actually tend to attract marine life, at least to a safe distance, rather than repel it.

    Active sonar is dangerous within a certain range, which is why its used as a deterrent to hostile divers.

    When your own divers are in the water there is a series of protocalls that must be observed, all laid out in the 'safe to dive certificate' that must be signed off by the ships OOD and the divers OIC before they can enter the water. At least , thats the theory.
  17. Contributor Mode

    Here is a link to National Resources Defence Council and their anti sonar view of the subject.


    This is what Reuters had to say about the US Navy view on the subject. The US Navy have removed their page concerning sonar and whales from the Official US Navy Site


  18. And of course Moby Dick knows exactly when you are going to throw one transmission down the bearing!

  19. Well well....that is not what I remember as a "Crazy Ivan" manoeuvre but.....ho hum..can't be bothered..sorry
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page