Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Sub communications
Message-ID: <15456@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 11 Apr 90 03:17:05 GMT
References: <15387@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 41
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker)
In article <15387@cbnews.ATT.COM> ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.UU.NET writes:
>
>Why would it be hard to communicate with a submerged submarine?  You could
>run a buoy to the surface on a fiber optic cable, and a transceiver could
>communicate with a satellite.  When you're done, the buoy could be reeled in
>as it's air was let out.
>
>Obviously, such things are secret activities, so the Navy wouldn't advertise
>them.  Especially if the sub communication myth needed to be preserved to
>support building a big ELF transmitter.  But it's hard to believe that SOME
>kind of technology for communicating with submerged submarines doesn't exist.

The Navy has SOME kind of technology for communicating with submerged
submarines.  Those methods are are various combinations of slow or
revealing.  For example, your suggestion would require to sub to have
a buoy pierce the surface for approximately a minute, even with high
speed burst communications.  While the buoy was surfaced it is
terribly easy to spot the sub.  Remember we are talking about
communications in a possibly high threat situation.  Such a method
would require the sub to surface just when you want it submerged the
most.  For what it is worth the USN subs use a variation of the method
for routine transmissions.

I don't know what the sub communication myth is.  Any elementary
science text will tell you radio waves to penetrate water very well.
So to communicate with a submerged sub, you need LF and ELF
frequencies.  The advantages of not peircing the surface increase the
sub's chances by an order of magnitude.  The sub is still at risk.
Near the surface they are still easy to detect.  The antenna for LF,
ELF coomunications is very long and hinders the sub's mobility.  In
the zero sum game of defense politics, the Navy (and other services)
may overstate its case, but the SSBN's have the least reliable
communications of any element of the triad.  They are the most
survivable also which justifies the communications hassles.

-- 
Terry Rooker
terryr@cse.ogi.edu