Navy to Defend Sonar in Court (EnviroNazis hindering our security alert)

Wired ^ | 02:00 AM Jun. 30, 2003 PT | Noah Shachtman

[Long Cut]

It's not hearsay, Sir. It's firsthand experience.

[hchutch]

Thanks for your honest take on this situation.

My biggest beef on this has been the fact that it has not been dying at the hands of the R&D or the other military considerations. Like the land mine ban treaty, it's coming from folks who probably have never heard a shot fired in anger, and who probably will not have to deal with the potential adverse effects of not having this system in place and ready to use.

If the environmentalists and the military are in a dispute over something, I'm inclined to support the military.

[Fresh Wind]

I'll take a UYS-1 or 78-A

You better take both, the USQ-78A by itself won't find a sub in a century.

[Long Cut]

"If the environmentalists and the military are in a dispute over something, I'm inclined to support the military."

That is ALWAYS a good plan.

[Long Cut]

"the USQ-78A by itself won't find a sub in a century."

I must differ. By itself, it is much more user-friendly than the UYS-1, which in and of itself is worthwhile. The 78-B and C upgrades are even better. Oh, and after that's been all wrung out, the next step is an even MORE advanced processing and display system, one we're all salivating for.

[Fresh Wind]

My comment was based on my understanding that the 78A still required the UYS-1 as the acoustic processor, and that it was the 78B that had absorbed the UYS-1 functionality. I'm probably right for pre-AIP systems. I couldn't agree more, though, the next generation is something to look forward to.

Been out of this business for a while!

[sargunner]

Reading your posts did my heart good. I was involved with the development of the UYS-1 during my years with IBM. During its day, it performed some rather remarkable feats. It was never meant to stay in service this long. The UYS-2 was supposed to be its replacement but failed miserably. The UYS-1 was a monster to code, particularly the signal processing algorithms. With COTS insertion the code development is much quicker and given the extra horsepower some algorithms which, in the past, could only be simulated are now running in real time. The downside to COTS is the life cycle management. The advancement in technology and the high turnover of personnel for the hardware and software vendors cause extreme support issues. After a couple of years, the vendors can't or simply won't support older product.
Still in the business, now as an independent. Air ASW R&D funding is very low in comparison to the NAVSEA side. Currently support IEER development and test out of PAX.

Have a great holiday.

[Fresh Wind]

I used to work at NAWCAD Warminster, mainly involved with the software support facilities, took an early out as I didn't really want to make the move to Pax. Enjoying my retirement!

[Long Cut]

I knew a few guys who worked at NAWC at Warminster; some of 'em you probably knew. One of them was the SS-1 who taught ME the intricacies and uses of the UYS-1 SASP.

That was back when I was a lowly Third-Class SS-2.

Now, I'm a First-Class, Replacement Air Group Instructor. How time flies when you're havin' fun...

[Eaker]

Salute brother. Bureaucrats hate a trained and motivated man.

People like ou keep us safe. People like them do not.