Defense Agency Has Breaking News on Santa

“Why is the military reporting on Santa?” you ask. Well, it started with a bad phone number that had kids calling an important colonel who was trying to defend the United States and Canada. Now just why does a military group with a serious name like North American Aerospace Defense Command track Santa and take […]
1955 Sears ad with the misprinted telephone number that led to the NORAD Tracks Santa Program
“Why is the military reporting on Santa?” you ask. Well, it started with a bad phone number that had kids calling an important colonel who was trying to defend the United States and Canada. Now just why does a military group with a serious name like North American Aerospace Defense Command track Santa and take notes on just where he is and what he is up to? Any kid can tell you, the man who says, “ho, ho, ho” is no danger to anyone. He may eat one too many a cookie, but that’s no crime. So why is the military watching him? Good question. For more than 50 years NORAD and a group that came before it, CONAD, have tracked Santa on Christmas Eve.
This publicity picture for NORAD Tracks Santa shows two Northeastern Air Defense Sector members with radar equipment in December 2008.
The adventure began in 1955 after Sears put the wrong number for Santa Claus into an advertisement. So all the kids who called trying to talk to Santa got none other than the Commander-in-Chief of another group, the Continental Air Defense Command. Col. Shoup got on it right away. Within no time his staff was checking CONAD’s powerful radar equipment to give children everywhere information on exactly where Santa was and when he was there. Since that time, the United States and Canada got together and that’s how CONAD became NORAD. And the men, women, family and friends of NORAD decided to keep up the Christmas mission that Col. Shoup started. They pitch in to take phone calls and emails from children all around the world. So starting Dec. 24, children can track Santa online and get the latest info right quick. Between now and then, kids can also get updates on what the big guy in red is up to.  
Sign Up For ATI Courses eNewsletter

A View From The Booth: Getting A Rivalry Defined By Commonality

I think a lot of our blog visitors would be interested in the article below written by Bob Socci. A half minute earlier, Army head coach Rich Ellerson took the one timeout he’d left his team for the waning seconds of the 113th football encounter of West Point Cadets and Navy Midshipmen. If only to […]
I think a lot of our blog visitors would be interested in the article below written by Bob Socci. A half minute earlier, Army head coach Rich Ellerson took the one timeout he’d left his team for the waning seconds of the 113th football encounter of West Point Cadets and Navy Midshipmen. If only to delay the inevitable.  And for half of the 69,607 at Philadelphia’s Lincoln Financial Field, prolong the misery.  During the stoppage, the stadium’s massive video boards featured a close-up of the Commander-In-Chief’s Trophy, which for the 16th straight year would belong to someone else. When the break ended, Navy quarterback Keenan Reynolds, who was about to be named most valuable player, took the game’s penultimate snap.  There was need for merely one more kneel-down to seal the Mids’ 11th consecutive win in the series. In that moment, as the final seconds elapsed, Ellerson’s counterpart, Ken Niumatalolo, was compelled to do two things.  The first involved one of his veteran leaders.  The second, one of Army’s. As a sophomore, John Howell caught the longest pass in Army-Navy history, running the last of his 77 yards toward the same south end of The Linc where the Mids now aligned in victory formation.  Howell had shredded the ligaments stabilizing his right knee in late September, suffering an injury sure to be career-ending.  For weeks, he rehabbed from surgery mindful of a single goal: to recover enough to run out of the locker room with his Academy brothers one last time, in time for Army-Navy. Howell made it.  He was at the head of the line forming in the stadium tunnel, carrying a Marine Corps flag.  Emerging into the open air of South Philly, Howell jogged — as his teammates charged — along the Mids’ sideline. That remained his vantage point for the football theatre ongoing into early evening.  Howell had watched Navy rally for a late 17-13 lead, before seeing Army threaten to eclipse that advantage. But 14 yards from possibly stopping their skid against the Mids and recapturing the CIC title for the first time since 1996, the Black Knights fumbled their chance away.  In the sudden change of circumstances, Niumatalolo saw an opportunity to give Howell more than he could ever wish for. Reynolds knelt twice, before and after Ellerson’s last timeout.  Then, for the final act of Army-Navy: Episode 113, Niumatalolo sent Howell onto center stage to stand over Reynolds’ right shoulder. In the third line of fine print in the game summary, as part of the Mids’ participation report, “33-Howell, John” will always mark the time Niumatalolo helped a senior re-define the end of his playing career. To the surprise of no one who knows him, it was a classy gesture by Niumatalolo.  So was his next.  Once Reynolds’ knee dropped to the ground, Niumatalolo sought out Ellerson and went searching for Trent Steelman. Steelman was Army’s four-year quarterback and career touchdown leader.  And in the eyes of the rival coach, an all-time competitor.  When Niumatalolo finally got to Steelman, he said as much. “To be honest, I don’t really remember much, I was pretty torn up,” an understandably emotional Steelman told reporters.  “I think he said that I was one of the toughest players he’s ever seen and just a great player, and I respect him for that.  He’s a great coach.” “We should all be proud as Americans that that guy is going to go protect our country,” Niumatalolo explained in his own press conference.  “They don’t get any tougher than Trent Steelman.  Four years starting at West Point, a military service academy.  I know everyone in our locker room has nothing but respect for that young man.” This was Niumatalolo’s 15th Army-Navy game.  His first two ended as Steelman’s last two, in absolute anguish over an excruciatingly close outcome. In 1995, he was an assistant to Charlie Weatherbie, who eschewed a late chip-shot field-goal try that could have separated the rivals by two scores.  The Black Knights mounted a goal-line stand and marched 99 yards to a 14-13 triumph. The following season, again with Niumatalolo assisting Weatherbie, the Mids relinquished an 18-point lead and failed to score on two late, deep drives.  They fell by a 28-24 final. Fifteen years later, Niumatalolo’s fourth Army-Navy experience as head coach ended with a six-point victory, thanks to a pair of fourth-quarter field goals in Landover.  After his fifth, last Saturday, he expressed the kind of bittersweet emotions evoked only when Cadets compete with Midshipmen. Brother of an Army colonel, Niumatalolo understands that while other rivalries are fueled by differences, this one is defined by commonality.  He preaches humility and respect, for the competition and the game itself.  As do his players. “It’s amazing because we have the utmost respect for those guys,” senior linebacker Keegan Wetzel said, as a member of the eighth straight class of Mids to record a career sweep of their mirror images.  “I tell them when I pick them up, ‘I love you brother,’ and I don’t even know them. “You can see it in their eyes that they go through the same things that we do.  They are from the same backgrounds, the same families and they fight and claw the same way that we do.  To beat those guys is a privilege and an honor.  Nobody out there is going to give anybody an inch.” Per usual, Wetzel, an Academic All-American, is correct.  Army earned every one of the more than 14,400 inches amounting to its 400-plus yards of total offense, including 203 more rushing yards than Navy.  And the Mids earned what they got against a high-pressure defense, despite being frustrating into six punts and a fumble that led to the Black Knights’ lone lead. Navy also earned the win.  It made more plays and fewer mistakes.  In the end, performance equaled precedent. The precocious Reynolds rallied his offense, exactly as he’d done at Air Force in early October.  He prolonged the go-ahead drive with a throw to Geoffrey Whiteside — freshman to sophomore — converting a 3rd-and-8.  Two plays later, he deked a pair of pass-rushers to escape up the right sideline for 11 yards.  He then dropped a perfect pass onto the sure hands ofBrandon Turner. The 49-yard strike set up one more Reynolds run, from eight yards out, with 4:41 to go.  He slipped a hit and beat an Army cornerback to the pylon, angling right toward the Brigade of Midshipmen in the stadium’s northeast corner. On the ensuing drive, the Mids lived up to their defensive credo, to make `em snap it again.  Freshman cornerback Kwazel Bertrand made the first of two touchdown saving tackles.  SeniorTra’ves Bush delivered the other. Bertrand slipped in pass coverage, yet lunged from all fours to trip receiver Chevaughn Lawrence at the Navy 40.  Further downfield, at the Mids` 19-yard line, Bush reached out for a one-handed takedown of Raymond Maples.  For the umpteenth time in his Navy career, he was the right man in the right spot. After Bush’s stop, the Black Knights had to snap it again, and again.  The gritty Steelman picked up a first down at the 14-yard line.  But on the next play, the 11th of the series and Army’s 72nd of the contest, the Cadets dropped the ball. Steelman and fullback Larry Dixon mishandled the mesh.  The football squirted loose.  And Barry Dabney, in his only rep of the day, got his hands around it, to help the Mids hold on.  Army was undone again by a fumble. It was the Black Knights’ fifth of the game and third recovered by Navy.  It was their eighth lost this season inside the opposition’s 20-yard line. Not long after, with little time to stop the tears that flowed from such a heart-wrenching end to his career, Steelman asked the press to pin the turnover on him.  Dixon did the same.  Filling the unenviable duty of answering for the indescribable, each `manned up’ to spare the other of fault. Then, you expect nothing less of a Cadet or Midshipman. And what of Ellerson?  In his post-game presser, he was succinct. “It was a mesh fumble,” he said.  “It was a quarterback-fullback mesh; it’s fundamental.” To a subsequent query about the Reynolds throw and Turner catch, Ellerson replied with his unhappy recap of what, in his view, decided the outcome. “That wasn’t the difference,” Ellerson asserted. “The difference is the kicking game and turnovers.  Those are the things that correlate with success; those are the things that are fundamental to the game.  The scoreboard will reflect those things.  It will reflect the kicking game; it’ll reflect turnovers.” And it will reflect the fact that Navy ensured itself at least eight wins for the ninth time in 10 years and claimed its eighth CIC title in that same span.  Already, the Mids had earned a ninth bowl bid in those 10 seasons. It will also reflect a 2-10 finish to the Cadets’ 12th season of four or fewer victories in the last 15 years.  They are now 17-32 overall under Ellerson; 5-19 since posting their only winning record of the past 16 seasons (7-6 in 2010). Yet in the weeks before, and minutes after the scoreboard went final, there was scant acknowledgement by Ellerson of what Navy’s accomplished, remarkably, for so long.  Already, as evidenced by pre-game comments Niumatalolo made to a radio audience, the Mids sensed a disrespect uncharacteristic of Army-Navy. Shortly after Ellerson returned to his locker-room office, he gave them their first bulletin board pin-up for 2013.  Speaking to reporter Sal Interdonato of the Middletown, N.Y. Times-Herald Record, here is some of what Ellerson had to say:
  • “Give (Reynolds) some credit. He made some good plays and he’s hard to tackle.  But, he’s not that hard to tackle…We were there.  We have people in position to make plays in that game.  If we do those things that are fundamental, we beat them by three touchdowns.  We’re better than that bunch. We lose the turnover by two.
  • “We are playing a good football team.  We have them right by the throat.  We could have put them away in the first half.  We didn’t have to wait until the end…They are better than Air Force, but they are a touchdown better than Air Force.  We are better than they are.  It’s (expletive).  It’s (expletive).”
You can be the judge of whether Ellerson’s implications are an indictment of others, but not himself.  On CBS, analyst Gary Danielson found Army’s play-calling “questionable” on two crucial drives, when it appeared Ellerson was willing to put the onus solely on a placekicker in only his second start. Ellerson’s been steeped in Army-Navy his whole life.  His father and two older brothers were West Point grads; one of them the captain of the ’62 Cadets.  He’s also experienced it from the other side, as a Naval Academy plebe. He’s obviously a bright coach, good enough to go 56-34 in his prior stint at Cal Poly and smart enough to understand the fallacy inherent when comparing results.  He should also beware of the hypocrisy of such analysis. The Mids who faced Air Force on the road were 1-3, had yet to launch the Reynolds era and had to defend 200-yard-a-game Cody Getz on two healthy ankles.  As for Army’s win over the Falcons, the Black Knights have every right to relish every bit of their 20-point triumph — even if, to borrow an Ellerson phrase — Air Force lost the turnover by five. Thirty years ago, Ellerson was an assistant coach at his alma mater, the University of Hawaii, when he helped recruit a quarterback by the name of Ken Niumatalolo from Honolulu’s Radford High.  Ellerson had wound up playing for the Warriors, after transferring from the Academy. Asked why he left Annapolis by New York Times writer Joe Drape for his book, Citizen Soldiers, Ellerson replied: “I was nineteen — I had no excuse, sir.” Assuming he returns for the 114th Army-Navy game, Ellerson will do well to remember that phrase.  He’d do better to emulate the kid he once coached, and the young men he now coaches. One points to himself in defeat, while thinking first of the players in victory.  The others, as one of their own might say, fight and claw, never giving an inch. And should they come up short, offer no excuse, sir.


Sign Up For ATI Courses eNewsletter

Can You Pass the CSEP Exam?

Certified Systems Engineers Are In Demand (RIVA, Md., March 2009) Just as you would not attempt a state bar exam without studying, you should not attempt the CSEP (Certified Systems Engineer Professional) exam without preparation. By taking a preparatory course, you can yield great benefits in performance, stress reduction and overall, greatly improve your chances […]

Certified Systems Engineers Are In Demand

(RIVA, Md., March 2009) Just as you would not attempt a state bar exam without studying, you should not attempt the CSEP (Certified Systems Engineer Professional) exam without preparation. By taking a preparatory course, you can yield great benefits in performance, stress reduction and overall, greatly improve your chances of passing the exam. While the economy is down, the demand for systems engineers is still growing–but supply is low. Last October, Jitu Desai of IBM said, “The demand for systems engineering management of complex programs is increasing. This is coupled with the new technologies that are entering the marketplace to make it both easier and more difficult to manage. We need new ways of managing design and development activities of major systems. This method includes access to global talent and skills, as well as the marketplace offerings that provide improved methods for collaborating innovations.” To assist you in your career, the Applied Technology Institute (ATI) has added a CSEP preparation course to its curriculum. Systems engineering is a profession, practice and way of doing business that concentrates on the design and application of the whole system to produce a successful product or system. The International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) has established a Professional Certification Program to provide a formal method for recognizing the knowledge and experience of systems engineers. The INCOSE Certified Systems Engineering Professional (CSEP) rating is a more coveted milestone in the career of a systems engineer, demonstrating knowledge, education and experience and is of high value to systems organizations. Test what you know. ATIcourses has posted samples from its CSEP Preparation class on its web site at:www.ATIcourses.com/sampler/CSEP_Preparation_CourseSampler.pdf These materials include information on how to apply successfully for the CSEP, a study plan to pass the CSEP exam, sample questions to assess your skills and a guide to completing your application selected from a full two-day course CSEP Preparation sponsored by the Applied Technology Institute. This two-day course walks you through the CSEP requirements and the INCOSE Handbook Version 3.1 to cover all topics on the CSEP exam. Interactive work and study plans, and sample examination questions will help you to prepare effectively for the exam. Participants complete the course with solid knowledge, a hard copy of the INCOSE Handbook, study plans, and a sample examination. This course is currently scheduled as a public offering at several dates and locations: Your facility can request this course as an on-site presentation. The current schedule includes the following public dates open to all:
Mar 20-21, 2012 Columbia, MD
Apr 20-21, 2012 Orlando, FL
The instructor is Eric Honour, an international consultant and lecturer, who has a 38-year career of complex systems development & operation. He was Founder and former President of INCOSE. He has led the development of 18 major systems, including the Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation systems and the Battle Group Passive Horizon Extension System locations. ATI, a leader in scientific and technical training since 1984, will be hosting the course. ATI specializes in training seminars for professionals working in radar, sonar, space systems, satellites and systems engineering. For more information contact Applied Technology Institute at (888) 501-2100 or register online atwww.ATIcourses.com.


Sign Up For ATI Courses eNewsletter

Do You Resonate with Shock, Noise and Vibration?

  Video Clip: Click to Watch Two Short Courses from ATI on Vibration, Shock or Noise in Vehicles, Devices, and Equipment If you are concerned with vibration, shock or noise in vehicles, devices, and equipment; then Applied Technology Institute (ATI) short courses maybe for you. Why not take a short course? Our short courses are less […]
Negative Stiffness Vibration Isolator
 
Video Clip: Click to Watch
Two Short Courses from ATI on Vibration, Shock or Noise

in Vehicles, Devices, and Equipment

If you are concerned with vibration, shock or noise in vehicles, devices, and equipment; then Applied Technology Institute (ATI) short courses maybe for you. Why not take a short course? Our short courses are less than a week long and are designed to help you keep your professional knowledge up-to-date. They provide a practical overview of space and defense technologies which furnish a strong foundation for understanding the issues that must be confronted in the use, regulation and development of complex systems. If you are test personnel who conduct or supervise or “contract out” vibration and shock tests, then take the three-day course fundamentals course. It also benefits design, quality and reliability specialists who interface with vibration and shock test activities. If you have some prior acquaintance with vibration or noise fields, then you should sign up for the more advanced four day course. It emphasizes understanding of the relevant phenomena and concepts in order to enable the participants to address a wide range of practical problems insightfully. See sections below for more details on these two short courses from ATI. FUNDAMENTALS OF RANDOM VIBRATION & SHOCK TESTING This three-day course is primarily designed for test personnel who conduct or supervise or “contract out” vibration and shock tests. It also benefits design, quality and reliability specialists who interface with vibration and shock test activities. From this course you will obtain the ability to understand and communicate meaningfully with test personnel, perform basic engineering calculations and evaluate tradeoffs between test equipments’ and procedures. Each student receives the instructor’s brand new, minimal-mathematics, minimal-theory hardbound text Random Vibration & Shock Testing, Measurement, Analysis & Calibration. This 444 page, 4-color book also includes a CDROM with video clips and animations. What you will learn: • How to plan, conduct and evaluate vibration and shock tests and screens. • How to attack vibration and noise problems. • How to make vibration isolation, damping and absorbers work for vibration and noise control. • How noise is generated and radiated, and how it can be reduced. VIBRATION & NOISE CONTROL This course is intended for engineers and scientists concerned with the vibration reduction and quieting of vehicles, devices, and equipment. The course will provide guidance relevant to design, problem solving, and development of improvements. It will emphasize understanding of the relevant phenomena and concepts in order to enable the participants to address a wide range of practical problems insightfully. The instructors will draw on their extensive experience to illustrate the subject matter with examples related to the participant’s specific areas of interest. Although the course will begin with a review and will include some demonstrations, participants ideally should have some prior acquaintance with vibration or noise fields. Each participant will receive a complete set of course notes and the text Noise and Vibration Control Engineering, a $210 value. What you will learn: How to attack vibration and noise problems What means are available for vibration and noise control? How to make vibration isolation, damping, and absorbers work How noise generated and radiated, and how it can be reduced? Course Outline, Samplers, and Notes Determine for yourself the value of these courses before you sign up. • Fundamentals of Random Vibration & Shock Testing course slide sampler • Vibration & Noise Control course slide sampler Our other short courses are designed for individuals involved in planning, designing, building, launching, and operating space and defense systems. See our samples (See Slide Samples) on some of our courses. Or check out the new ATI channel on YouTube. After attending a course you will receive a full set of detailed notes from the class for future reference, as well as a certificate of completion. Please visit our website for more valuable information. About ATI and the Instructors Since 1984, ATI has provided leading-edge public courses and onsite technical training to DoD and NASA personnel, as well as contractors. Whether you are a busy engineer, a technical expert or a project manager, you can enhance your understanding of complex systems in a short time. You will become aware of the basic vocabulary essential to interact meaningfully with your colleagues. Our mission here at ATI is to provide expert training and the highest quality professional development in space, communications, defense, sonar, radar, and signal processing. We are not a one-size-fits-all educational facility. Our short classes include both introductory and advanced courses. ATI’s instructors are world-class experts who are the best in the business. They are carefully selected for their ability to clearly explain advanced technology. Fundamentals of Random Vibration & Shock Testing course Wayne Tustin has since 1995 been president of a specialized engineering school and consultancy he founded in Santa Barbara, CA. His BSEE degree is from the University of Washington, Seattle. He is a licensed Professional Engineer – Quality in the State of California. Wayne’s first encounter with vibration was at Boeing/Seattle, performing what later came to be called modal tests, on the XB-52 prototype of that highly reliable platform. Subsequently he headed field service and technical training for a manufacturer of electrodynamic shakers, before establishing another specialized school on which he left his name. Wayne has written several books and literally hundreds of articles dealing with practical aspects of vibration and shock measurement and testing. Vibration & Noise Control course Dr. Eric Ungar has specialized in research and consulting in vibration and noise for more than 40 years, published over 200 technical papers, and translated and revised Structure-Borne Sound. He has led short courses at the Pennsylvania State University for over 25 years and has presented numerous seminars worldwide. Dr. Ungar has served as President of the Acoustical Society of America, as President of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering, and as Chairman of the Design Engineering Division of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. ASME honored him with its Trent-Crede Medal in Shock and Vibration. ASA awarded him the Per Bruel Gold Medal for Noise Control and Acoustics for his work on vibrations of complex structures, structural damping, and isolation. Dr. James Moore has, for the past twenty years, concentrated on the transmission of noise and vibration in complex structures, on improvements of noise and vibration control methods, and on the enhancement of sound quality. He has developed Statistical Energy Analysis models for the investigation of vibrations and noise complex structures as submarines, helicopters, and automobiles and has been instrumental in the acquisition of corresponding data bases. He has participated in the development of active noise control systems, noise reduction coating and signal conditioning means, as well as in the presentation of numerous short courses and industrial training programs. Times, Dates, and Locations Fundamentals of Random Vibration & Shock Testing Sep 20-22, 2011 Detroit, MI Oct 4-6, 2011 Santa Clarita, CA Nov 7-9, 2011 Acton, MA Vibration & Noise Control Sep 26-29, 2011 Boston, MA Mar 12-15, 2012 Columbia, MD Apr 30-May 3, 2012 Boston, MA  

Sign Up For ATI Courses eNewsletter

Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Yesterday, instructor Mark Lewellen was explaining some of the background to UAVs:  from aerial attacks on Venice through Marilyn Monroe to sizes of UAVs and likely future uses. If prospective attendees knew they would enjoy the thought-provoking subject half as much as I did,  ATI would be running this course once a month.
Yesterday, instructor Mark Lewellen was explaining some of the background to UAVs:  from aerial attacks on Venice through Marilyn Monroe to sizes of UAVs and likely future uses. If prospective attendees knew they would enjoy the thought-provoking subject half as much as I did,  ATI would be running this course once a month.

Sound Levels and Mammal Mitigation

The effect of mid-frequency sonar on marine mammals is a controversial topic. This was originally posted on a Navy web site. Comparing Mid-Frequency Active Sonar to a Saturn V Rocket For several reasons, it is inaccurate and misleading to claim that the sound of mid-frequency active sonar in water is equivalent to a Saturn V […]
The effect of mid-frequency sonar on marine mammals is a controversial topic. This was originally posted on a Navy web site. Comparing Mid-Frequency Active Sonar to a Saturn V Rocket For several reasons, it is inaccurate and misleading to claim that the sound of mid-frequency active sonar in water is equivalent to a Saturn V rocket. Sound levels in water and sound levels in air are expressed very differently*, and therefore comparing sound levels in water and air must be done carefully. As an example of the difference in the way sound levels are received in air versus water, note that a sound level of 120 dB sound pressure level in air (similar to a rock music amplifier 4-6 feet from the listener) can cause hearing damage or distress to humans and animals, while human divers and animals receiving 120 dB sound pressure level underwater experience no such issues. 1. Saturn V Rocket is 10x Louder: At 1000 yards (914 m) from a Navy ship, the receive level for mid-frequency active sonar is approximately 175 dB in water. At the same distance in water, a Saturn V rocket would register 197 dB. This 22 dB difference means that the Saturn V rocket would have approximately ten times greater intensity than mid-frequency active sonar at the same distance. Temporary threshold shift (TTS), which is the National Marine Fisheries Service’s baseline for non-permanent effects on marine mammals, is 195 dB, so the Saturn V rocket would have the potential to cause TTS to marine mammals at 1000 yards, whereas mid-frequency active sonar at the same distance would not. 2. Saturn V Sound is Continuous, Mid-Frequency Active Sonar Sound is Intermittent: Rocket engine noise is a continuous sound source, lasting for many minutes at a time. By comparison, sonar pings are intermittent, with each ping lasting one second or less and being repeated about every 30 seconds. Over the course of one minute, ship and animal movement at sea would make it very unlikely that a marine mammal would be exposed to even two sonar pings. By comparison, marine mammals would be far more likely to be exposed to the continuous “roar” of rocket engine sound during a similar timeframe. 3. Saturn V Frequencies Would Potentially Affect More Species: Rocket engine sound is a broadband sound, spanning as many as five octave frequencies. Sonar signals are limited to a narrow band, typically 1/3 octave frequencies or less. The greater number of frequencies from the broadband rocket sound would make it likely that more types of species would be affected by the rocket sound than by the narrow band sound of mid-frequency active sonar. *All sound levels in water are referenced to 1 microPascal (μPa). All sound levels in air are referenced to 20 microPascal (μPa), often expressed as sound pressure level (SPL). Sound waves with the same intensities in water and air have relative intensities that differ by 61.5 decibels (dB). Therefore, 61.5 dB must be added to relative intensities in air to obtain the relative intensities of sound waves in water.

What Effect Will Transformational Satellite (TSAT) Termination Have?

Defense Budget Recommendation Statement As Prepared for Delivery by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Arlington, VA, Monday, April 06, 2009 DOD will “terminate the $26 billion Transformational Satellite (TSAT) program, and instead will purchase two more Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellites as alternatives.” Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT) Advanced Wideband System The Transformational Satellite […]
Defense Budget Recommendation Statement As Prepared for Delivery by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Arlington, VA, Monday, April 06, 2009 DOD will “terminate the $26 billion Transformational Satellite (TSAT) program, and instead will purchase two more Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellites as alternatives.” Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT) Advanced Wideband System The Transformational Satellite System (TSAT) provides orbit-to-ground laser communications. Throughput for the five-satellite constellation could top out at 10 to 40 gigabytes per second, with a total program cost of $12 billion-to-$18-billion for the entire constellation. The Transformational Satellite Communications (TSAT) System will provide DoD with high data rate Military Satellite Communications (MILSATCOM) and Internet-like services as defined in the Transformational Communications Architecture (TCA). TSAT is key to global net-centric operations. As the spaceborne element of the Global Information Grid (GIG), it will extend the GIG to users without terrestrial connections providing improved connectivity and data transfer capability, vastly improving satellite communications for the warfighter. As the terrestrial aspects of communication in the TCA evolve, so will DoD satellite resources. The stated goal of the Transformational Satellite communications system is to provide improved, survivable, jam-resistant, worldwide, secure and general purpose communications as part of an independent but interoperable set of space-based systems that will support NASA, DoD and the IC. TSAT will ultimately replace the DoD’s current satellite system and supplement AEHF satellites. The TCA proposes a radio frequency (RF), i.e., traditional radio-based, crosslink to complete the AEHF group of satellites or constellation. The constellation is called the Advanced Polar System (APS), which supports strategic and national users in the polar region. The APS is designed to withstand nuclear attacks and support the strategic mission with uninterrupted service. These satellites introduce the use of jam-resistant laser crosslinks for connection into the TSAT. http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/tsat.htm

Seeking Sea Based Strategic Deterrence and Future SSBNs

I found this interesting for my underwater acoustics readers. U.S. Seeks Successor to Trident Submarine By Gerry J. Gilmore American Forces Press Service NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE KING’S BAY, Ga., Feb. 20, 2009 – The U.S. Navy has started the process to find a 21st-century successor to the Trident strategic missile submarine, senior Defense Department officials […]
I found this interesting for my underwater acoustics readers. U.S. Seeks Successor to Trident Submarine By Gerry J. Gilmore American Forces Press Service NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE KING’S BAY, Ga., Feb. 20, 2009 – The U.S. Navy has started the process to find a 21st-century successor to the Trident strategic missile submarine, senior Defense Department officials said here yesterday. “We’re just at the opening phases right now, going through the proper systems engineering that will advance that particular design approach,” Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter told reporters at a news conference. Tridents are nuclear-powered, Ohio-class submarines. At 560 feet long and 42 feet wide, Tridents are the largest submarines in the U.S. Navy’s inventory. The first Trident ballistic-missile submarine, the USS Ohio, was commissioned in 1981. “A wide variety of options” are being considered for the Trident’s replacement, Winter said. However, the Navy secretary expressed his belief that the Trident system would be replaced by another undersea-going platform. “I do fully expect that it is going to be a submarine,” Winter said of the Trident’s successor. Prior to the news conference the Navy’s top leaders and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were among senior officials who attended a ceremony that paid tribute to the crew of the USS Wyoming Trident strategic missile submarine. The USS Wyoming finished its 38th patrol Feb. 11, marking the 1000th completed patrol of a Trident submarine since the Ohio embarked on its initial patrol in October 1982. The Wyoming was commissioned in July 1996 and began its first patrol in August 1997. Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed Winter’s belief that the Trident’s replacement “will be a submarine.” Chief of Naval Operations Navy Adm. Gary Roughead told reporters of the resilience and independence exhibited by submariners’ families. “I think the families of our submariners are really like submariners, a special breed,” Roughead said. “And, my hat’s off to them, and they have my utmost respect and support.” The U.S. military is about to embark on its Quadrennial Defense Review and a Nuclear Posture Review, Cartwright said, to determine what types of defense capabilities will be required to maintain U.S. national security in the coming years. The QDR is performed every four years. The threats America faces during the 21st century are much more diverse and involve “a much broader spectrum of conflict against a much broader number of enemies, to include those that are not nation-states,” Cartwright told reporters. Gauging and evaluating future threats and determining what kinds of military capabilities and systems will be needed to deter them will be debated during the QDR and the nuclear posture review, Cartwright said. U.S. defense planners are now seeking “to tailor our deterrence for the types of actors that were not present during the Cold War but are going to be present in the future,” Cartwright said. And, “it will be the sailors that will make the difference in deterrence, not necessarily just the platforms,” Cartwright said of the Navy’s future nuclear-deterrent mission. The 14 nuclear-missile carrying Trident submarines based here and at other Navy ports provide more than half of America’s strategic deterrent capability, King’s Bay officials said. “The application of deterrence can be actually more complicated in the 21st century, but some fundamentals don’t change,” Air Force Gen. Kevin P. Chilton, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, said. “And, the underlying strength of our deterrence force remains the nuclear deterrent force that we have today.” The Trident submarine strategic missile force “is absolutely essential” to America’s nuclear-deterrent capability, Chilton said. “And, it’s not just to deter nuclear conflict,” he said of the Tridents’ mission. “These forces have served to deter conflict in general, writ large, since they’ve been fielded.” The U.S. government agreed to reduce the number of its strategic-missile submarines as part of the 1992 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Consequently, four of the Navy’s 18 Trident submarines were modified to exchange their nuclear missiles for Tomahawk-guided cruise missiles. These vessels carry the designator SSGN. In 2006, the USS Ohio was converted into a guided-missile submarine. At the news conference, Roughead said the Navy is “really pleased” with the converted Trident submarines, which also carry a contingent of special operations troops, as well as the Tomahawks. “That [type of] submarine has performed extremely well,” Roughead said of the cruise-missile carrying Tridents. The facility here was established in 1980, replacing a closed U.S. ballistic submarine facility that had been based in Rota, Spain. In 1989, USS Tennessee was the first Trident submarine to arrive at the facility. Another Trident training facility is based in Bangor, Wash.