October 7, 2005 at 1:23 pm
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/mg18825205.800
By: Arabella-Cox - 9th October 2005 at 04:18
New Zealand has ships with whale killing sonars on board. I guess you better move to Afghanistan so your concience will feel better huh? Those who live in glass houses. . .
And where exactly does it say that the Te Kaha has the new High Power Sonars the British Navy have developed to detect conventional submarines from long range?
Interesting as I thought the MEKO class wasn’t even British…
By: sferrin - 9th October 2005 at 03:52
Yeah, like the British with their new powerful active sonar for detecting conventional subs that results in whale beachings every time they test it…
Holy sh!t look at this:
http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/te-kaha/default.htm
New Zealand has ships with whale killing sonars on board. I guess you better move to Afghanistan so your concience will feel better huh? Those who live in glass houses. . .
By: sferrin - 9th October 2005 at 03:45
Yeah, like the British with their new powerful active sonar for detecting conventional subs that results in whale beachings every time they test it…
Won’t take much to defeat anyway… a hardened torpedo that requires a metal target to explode (MAD based).
Depends on how much energy they’re able to deposit on the torpedo. If they can actually generate a shockwave vs just a damn loud noise who can say? I doubt they’d invest what would be a substantial amount of money for retrofits or designing into new ships for something that could be defeated as easily as you seem to think.
By: Arabella-Cox - 9th October 2005 at 02:31
Jesus, don’t get your panties in a wad. It’s not like sonar that’s used ALL the time.
Yeah, like the British with their new powerful active sonar for detecting conventional subs that results in whale beachings every time they test it…
Won’t take much to defeat anyway… a hardened torpedo that requires a metal target to explode (MAD based).
By: sferrin - 8th October 2005 at 17:26
I guess most forms of naval warfare are destructive to marine life but sound weapons seem to be one of the most far reaching in their effects. It would be better to have a system that minimises it’s effects to the area targeted.
From the sounds of it they generate a focal point where the sound is the most intense rather than a general wide-area effect.
By: SteveO - 8th October 2005 at 16:44
I guess most forms of naval warfare are destructive to marine life but sound weapons seem to be one of the most far reaching in their effects. It would be better to have a system that minimises it’s effects to the area targeted.
By: sferrin - 8th October 2005 at 16:04
You start killing animals in huge numbers and probably destroying coral reefs just to save a few humans… which the world doesn’t seem to have any shortage of BTW, and there could be just a few minor problems.
Jesus, don’t get your panties in a wad. It’s not like sonar that’s used ALL the time. It’s a defensive system that they may periodically test ONE ARRAY AT A TIME or maybe they test all of them at low power. My point is FOR CHRISSAKES USE A LITTLE COMMON SENSE.
By: sferrin - 8th October 2005 at 15:59
I wonder if you could make a 5 inch rubber bullet :diablo: My preferred method of dealing with those “boats following you around” would be to modify that shotgun round for the 5 inch gun that the navy has and replace the tungstun balls with those balls of stink juice the police forces use and blast a couple of them their way.
By: Arabella-Cox - 8th October 2005 at 09:54
If it is powerful enough to destroy non acoustic torpedoes like wake homers then it will likely kill all animals in the sea… large or small.
I can see the US navy getting banned from more ports than just New Zealands if they move forward with this kind of technology. I can also see them getting a few fishing boats following them around too.
A good point to remember that a large portion of the worlds food comes from the ocean. You start killing animals in huge numbers and probably destroying coral reefs just to save a few humans… which the world doesn’t seem to have any shortage of BTW, and there could be just a few minor problems.
Funny that from my own admittedly limit memory the last US navy vessel to be torpedoed was by the Israels wasn’t it? (You know.. that spy ship incident..)
By: sferrin - 8th October 2005 at 04:16
I wonder what it would be like on the ship when they used it. Or how many dB that would be compared to say a Saturn V
By: sferrin - 8th October 2005 at 04:14
Well, aren’t the people on the vessels, ‘marine life’?
If you had a chance to save your ship with a system like this or save the whales, what would the appropriate choice be?(I realize this sounds rather cruel, but war at sea had devasting impact on marine life as is – how many fish have been killed by depth charges in the past for example? When you engage in a life & death struggle, the impact on nature takes a back seat. It is easy to be environmentally concerned when you participate in war through TV images)
Depth charges? How ’bout nuclear testing in the Pacific?
By: hallo84 - 8th October 2005 at 01:23
Well, aren’t the people on the vessels, ‘marine life’?
If you had a chance to save your ship with a system like this or save the whales, what would the appropriate choice be?(I realize this sounds rather cruel, but war at sea had devasting impact on marine life as is – how many fish have been killed by depth charges in the past for example? When you engage in a life & death struggle, the impact on nature takes a back seat. It is easy to be environmentally concerned when you participate in war through TV images)
Marine life tenically means only animal and plant life “within” saltwater ecosystems.
So technically people don’t count. We might want to think that people are all important and involved but sometimes we are not…
I wouldn’t be suprised If this device accidentally wipes out all the whales or even large fish populations… then we’d have mass extencitons on our hands.
Funniest thing would be that it wasn’t even caused by global warming…
Wait until green peace hears about this…lol! 😀
By: johnestauffer - 7th October 2005 at 23:27
Well, aren’t the people on the vessels, ‘marine life’?
If you had a chance to save your ship with a system like this or save the whales, what would the appropriate choice be?
(I realize this sounds rather cruel, but war at sea had devasting impact on marine life as is – how many fish have been killed by depth charges in the past for example? When you engage in a life & death struggle, the impact on nature takes a back seat. It is easy to be environmentally concerned when you participate in war through TV images)
By: matt - 7th October 2005 at 16:00
BAe is involved i doubt the Idiots their would care for marine life.
By: SteveO - 7th October 2005 at 15:29
Let’s hope they can come up with a system that doesn’t effect marine life instead.