DOCSLIB.ORG

Department of Commerce

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Vol. 80 Wednesday, No. 106 June 3, 2015 Part IV Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 218 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Northwest Training and Testing Study Area; Proposed Rule VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31738 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Conservation Division, Office of Background Protected Resources, National Marine Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct Administration Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910– the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 3225. upon request, the incidental, but not • 50 CFR Part 218 Fax: (301) 713–0376; Attn: Jolie intentional, taking of small numbers of [Docket No. 140109018–5464–01] Harrison. marine mammals by U.S. citizens who Instructions: Comments sent by any engage in a specified activity (other than RIN 0648–BD89 other method, to any other address or commercial fishing) within a specified individual, or received after the end of geographical region if certain findings Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to the comment period, may not be Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training are made and either regulations are considered by NMFS. All comments issued or, if the taking is limited to and Testing Activities in the Northwest received are a part of the public record Training and Testing Study Area harassment, a notice of a proposed and will generally be posted for public authorization is provided to the public AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries viewing on www.regulations.gov for review. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and without change. All personal identifying Authorization for incidental takings Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), information (e.g., name, address, etc.), shall be granted if NMFS finds that the Commerce. confidential business information, or taking will have a negligible impact on ACTION: Proposed rule; request for otherwise sensitive information the species or stock(s), will not have an comments and information. submitted voluntarily by the sender will unmitigable adverse impact on the be publicly accessible. NMFS will availability of the species or stock(s) for SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ subsistence uses (where relevant), and if from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for A’’ in the required fields if you wish to the permissible methods of taking and authorization to take marine mammals remain anonymous). Attachments to requirements pertaining to the incidental to the training and testing electronic comments will be accepted in mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of activities conducted in the Northwest Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF such takings are set forth. NMFS has Training and Testing (NWTT) study area file formats only. defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR from November 2015 through November FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 216.103 as ‘‘an impact resulting from 2020. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Fiorentino, Office of Protected the specified activity that cannot be Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8477. reasonably expected to, and is not requesting comments on its proposal to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: reasonably likely to, adversely affect the issue regulations and subsequent Letters species or stock through effects on of Authorization (LOAs) to the Navy to Availability annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ incidentally harass marine mammals. A copy of the Navy’s LOA The National Defense Authorization The Navy has also requested that NMFS application, which contains a list of the Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Public Law 108– authorize modifications to watchstander references used in this document, may 136) removed the ‘‘small numbers’’ and requirements for observed behavior of be obtained by visiting the internet at: ‘‘specified geographical region’’ marine mammals during Major Training http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ limitations indicated above and Events (MTEs) in the Hawaii-Southern incidental/military.htm. The Navy also amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’ California Training and Testing (HSTT), prepared a Draft Environmental Impact as it applies to a ‘‘military readiness Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Statement (DEIS)/Overseas activity’’ to read as follows (section (AFTT), Mariana Islands Training and Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): ‘‘(i) Any act that Testing (MITT), and Gulf of Alaska to assess the environmental impacts injures or has the significant potential to Training (GOA) study areas. associated with ongoing and proposed injure a marine mammal or marine Modifications to the Navy watchstander training and testing activities in the mammal stock in the wild [Level A requirements would require a revision NWTT Study Area. The NWTT DEIS/ Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs to regulatory text in current regulations OEIS was released to the public on or is likely to disturb a marine mammal governing the taking and importing of January 24, 2014 (79 FR 4158) for or marine mammal stock in the wild by marine mammals during testing and/or review until April 15, 2014. On October causing disruption of natural behavioral training activities in these study areas. 24, 2014 (79 FR 63610), the Navy patterns, including, but not limited to, There are no MTEs associated with published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, Navy training and testing activities in prepare a Supplement to the January feeding, or sheltering, to a point where the NWTT study area. 2014 NWTT DEIS/OEIS. The such behavioral patterns are abandoned DATES: Comments and information must Supplement was released to the public or significantly altered [Level B be received no later than July 17, 2015. on December 19, 2014 (79 FR 75800) for Harassment].’’ ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, review until February 2, 2015. The Navy Summary of Request identified by NOAA–NMFS–2015–0031, is the lead agency for the NWTT EIS/ by any of the following methods: OEIS, and NMFS and the U.S. Coast NWTT Proposed Rule • Electronic submissions: submit all Guard are cooperating agencies On December 18, 2013, NMFS electronic public comments via the pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5. received an application from the Navy Federal eRulemaking Portal, Go to The January 2014 NWTT DEIS/OEIS requesting two LOAs for the take of 26 www.regulations.gov/ and the December 2014 Supplement, species of marine mammals incidental #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015- which contain a list of the references to Navy training and testing activities to 0031, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, used in this document, may be viewed be conducted in the NWTT Study Area complete the required fields, and enter at: http://www.nwtteis.com. Documents over 5 years. On September 26, 2014, or attach your comments. cited in this notice may also be viewed, the Navy submitted a revised LOA • Mail: Submit comments to Jolie by appointment, during regular business application to reflect updates to Harrison, Chief, Permits and hours, at the aforementioned address. exposure estimates based on emergent VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31739 changes to specific types of training authorizations only after providing the provided in the regulatory text at the activities. The revised application also public with an opportunity for review end of this proposed rule. Proposed provided an update to the effects and comment. NMFS is requesting revisions to MITT regulatory text will be analysis for Guadalupe fur seals comments on all aspects of the proposed made in the MITT final rule, which is (summarized in the Analysis of rule. currently being prepared concurrent Guadalupe Fur Seal Exposures section with the NWTT proposed rule and is Modifications to HSTT, AFTT, MITT, of this proposed rule) to more expected to publish in the Federal and GOA Final Rules realistically reflect potential impacts Register prior to the NWTT final rule. from offshore Navy training and testing The Navy is also requesting that There are no MTEs or marine mammal events. On November 7, 2014, the Navy NMFS authorize modifications to sighting reporting requirements submitted a revised LOA application to watchstander requirements, unrelated to associated with Navy training and address: (a) An inadvertent error in the implementation of mitigation measures, testing activities in the NWTT study recommended mitigation zone for mine for observed behavior of marine area. countermeasure and neutralization mammals during MTEs in the HSTT, Background of Request training events; (b) removal of the time AFTT, MITT, and GOA study areas. delay firing underwater explosive With these proposed modifications the The Navy’s mission is to maintain, training activity; and (c) correction or Navy would no longer be required to train, and equip combat-ready naval clarification of certain mitigation report individual marine mammal forces capable of winning wars, measures applied to testing. On April 2, sighting information during MTEs when deterring aggression, and maintaining 2015, the Navy submitted a final mitigation is not occurring in the study freedom of the seas. Section 5062 of revision to the LOA application area. After 5 years of collecting marine Title 10 of the United States Code (hereinafter referred to as the LOA mammal sighting data for all animals directs the Chief of Naval Operations to application) to incorporate and update sighted during MTEs, NMFS and Navy train all military forces for combat. The population density estimates for the have determined that without the ability Chief of Naval Operations meets that Hood Canal stock of harbor seals.
Recommended publications
  • Appendix A. Navy Activity Descriptions

    Appendix A. Navy Activity Descriptions

    Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 APPENDIX A Navy Activity Descriptions Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing TABLE OF CONTENTS A. NAVY ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................................ A-1 A.1 Description of Sonar, Munitions, Targets, and Other Systems Employed in Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Events .................................................................. A-1 A.1.1 Sonar Systems and Other Acoustic Sources ......................................................... A-1 A.1.2 Munitions .............................................................................................................. A-7 A.1.3 Targets ................................................................................................................ A-11 A.1.4 Defensive Countermeasures ............................................................................... A-13 A.1.5 Mine Warfare Systems ........................................................................................ A-13 A.1.6 Military Expended Materials ............................................................................... A-16 A.2 Training Activities ..................................................................................................
  • Appendix A: Navy Activities Descriptions

    Appendix A: Navy Activities Descriptions

    Appendix A: Navy Activities Descriptions NORTHWEST TRAINING AND TESTING FINAL EIS/OEIS OCTOBER 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A NAVY ACTIVITIES DESCRIPTIONS .............................................................................. A-1 A.1 TRAINING ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. A-1 A.1.1 ANTI-AIR WARFARE TRAINING ............................................................................................................ A-1 A.1.1.1 Air Combat Maneuver ............................................................................................................... A-2 A.1.1.2 Missile Exercise (Air-to-Air) ....................................................................................................... A-3 A.1.1.3 Gunnery Exercise (Surface-to-Air) ............................................................................................. A-4 A.1.1.4 Missile Exercise (Surface-to-Air) ................................................................................................ A-5 A.1.2 ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE TRAINING ..................................................................................................... A-6 A.1.2.1 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface (Ship) .............................................................................. A-7 A.1.2.2 Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface .................................................................................................. A-8 A.1.2.3 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile
  • Underwater Mines - Past, Present and Future

    Underwater Mines - Past, Present and Future

    UNDERWATER MINES - PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE Prof. S.Veerabhadraiah1, Dr. M.Purnachandra Rao2 1Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Raghu Engineering College, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, (India) 2Professor of Physics, Head, Department of Systems Design, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, (India) ABSTRACT Some examples of past, present and future mines available in the world are initially covered in this paper. This paper makes an assessment of present day underwater Mines technology for various applications in the area of defensive as well as offensive mining. The capabilities of underwater mines namely, operating as automatic sentinels in deep waters and easy deployment for offensive applications as well, meeting the future needs of naval task forces have also been covered in this paper. Finally the limitations of past and present mines are identified and the solutions to overcome these limitations so as to develop a state of the art mine are suggested towards the end of this paper. Keywords: Automatic Sentinels, Contact Mines, Influence Mines, Underwater Mine, World War I. I. INTRODUCTION A naval mine is a self-contained explosive device placed in water to damage or destroy surface ships or submarines. Unlike depth charges, mines are deposited and left to wait until they are triggered by the approach of, or contact with, an enemy vessel. Naval mines can be used offensively—to hamper enemy shipping movements or lock vessels into a harbour; or defensively—to protect friendly vessels and create "safe" zones. The Sea Mine which was earlier thought to be a poor nation‘s weapon has attained a position of prime importance in the armories of many navies of the world.
  • A Comparison of Pumpjets and Propellers for Non-Nuclear Submarine Propulsion

    A Comparison of Pumpjets and Propellers for Non-Nuclear Submarine Propulsion

    A comparison of pumpjets and propellers for non-nuclear submarine propulsion Aidan Morrison January 2018 Trendlock Consulting Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Executive Summary 5 3 Speed and Drag - Why very slow is very very (very)2 economical 9 3.1 The physical relationship . .9 3.2 Practical implications for submarines . 10 4 The difference between nuclear and conventional propulsion 12 4.1 Power and Energy . 12 4.2 Xenon poisoning and low power limitations . 12 4.3 Recent Commentary . 14 5 Basics of Ducted Propellers and Pumpjets 16 5.1 Propellers . 16 5.1.1 Pitch . 16 5.1.2 Pitch and the Advance Ratio . 18 5.2 Ducted Propellers . 20 5.2.1 The Accelerating Duct . 21 5.2.2 The Decelerating Duct or Pumpjet . 22 5.2.3 Waterjets . 24 5.3 Pump Types . 25 6 Constraints on the efficiency of pumpjets at low speed 28 6.1 Recent Commentary . 28 6.2 Modern literature and results . 28 6.3 A simple theoretical explanation . 31 6.4 Trade-offs and Limitations on Improvements . 34 6.5 The impact of duct loss on an ideal propeller . 36 6.6 An assessment of scope for improving the efficiency of a pumpjet at low speeds . 41 6.6.1 Increase mass-flow by widening area of intake . 42 6.6.2 Reduce degree of diffusion (i.e. switch to accelerating duct) to reduce negative thrust from duct.................................................. 45 6.6.3 Reduce shroud length to decrease drag on duct . 46 6.6.4 Summary remarks on potential for redesign of pumpjet for low-speed conditions .
  • Evaluation of Littoral Combat Ships for Open-Ocean Anti-Submarine Warfare

    Evaluation of Littoral Combat Ships for Open-Ocean Anti-Submarine Warfare

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Calhoun, Institutional Archive of the Naval Postgraduate School Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis and Dissertation Collection 2016-03 Evaluation of Littoral Combat Ships for open-ocean anti-submarine warfare Valerio, Victor Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/48592 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA SYSTEMS ENGINEERING CAPSTONE PROJECT REPORT EVALUATION OF LITTORAL COMBAT SHIPS FOR OPEN-OCEAN ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE by Team LCS Cohort 311-143O March 2016 Project Advisors: John Green Gregory Miller Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED (Leave blank) March 2016 Capstone project report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS EVALUATION OF LITTORAL COMBAT SHIPS FOR OPEN-OCEAN ANTI- SUBMARINE WARFARE 6. AUTHOR(S) Team LCS, Systems Engineering Cohort 311-143O 7.
  • Assessing the Undersea Balance Between the US and China

    Assessing the Undersea Balance Between the US and China

    SSP Working Paper February, 2011 Assessing the Undersea Balance Between the U.S. and China Owen R. Cote Jr. 1 Assessing the Undersea Balance Between the U.S. and China Owen R. Cote Jr. This paper will assess the undersea balance between the U.S. and China by comparing their relative abilities to accomplish their respective undersea warfare objectives. I will assess both the current balance, and how it might evolve in the future. In the latter case, I will focus on opportunities each side will have to adopt competitive strategies, or strategies designed to exploit its unique strengths or its opponent‟s weaknesses in ways that create favorable asymmetries in the resources that must be committed to accomplish particular missions. Defining the Undersea Balance Naval warfare is at bottom a contest over who will be able to use the seas, how, where, and when. Traditionally, it boiled down to the fate of surface ships carrying civilian or military cargo between ports, or sea lines of communication (SLOCs). One was either trying to assure SLOCs, deny them to one‟s opponent(s), or both. And for stretches of time and in certain areas the balance could be such that SLOCs were denied to both parties to the conflict. Thus naval operations occurred in only two dimensions and tended to unfold in almost complete operational and tactical isolation from events ashore and vice versa.1 The twentieth century saw submarines, aircraft, and earth orbiting satellites add a vertical dimension to naval warfare, and it also saw the obliteration of the coastline principle.
  • The Next Dreadnought Revolution

    The Next Dreadnought Revolution

    THE NEXT DREADNOUGHT REVOLUTION BY DAVID MURRIN 15TH MARCH 2021 WWW.DAVIDMURRIN.CO.UK PART 1: CURRENT DESIGN TRENDS AND LIMITATIONS THE NEXT DREADNOUGHT REVOLUTION THE NEXT DREADNOUGHT REVOLUTION HISTORY DECODED TO INFORM THE FUTURE PART 1: CURRENT DESIGN TRENDS AND LIMITATIONS BY ANALYSING PAST PATTERNS WE CAN PREDICT FORTHCOMING EVENTS AND TRENDS 1.0 TIME FOR A NEW DREADNOUGHT-TYPE INNOVATION IN WARSHIP DESIGN In a time when battleships usually took several years to build, the construction and launch in 1906 of HMS Dreadnought in less than 12 months was a demonstration of British military intention and industrial might. But most critically, her all big gun design and steam turbines made every ship built before that point obsolete. The geostrategic consequences were enormous as it gave Germany a window to attempt to challenge for control of the world’s oceans and accelerated the British-German naval arms’ race to astronomical levels. Today we are witnessing a new and fourth great industrial arms’ race, catalysed by China’s hegemonic ambitions as it seeks to outbuild America and its allies to create a blue-water navy that can dominate the world’s oceans. In this similar environment, perhaps it is time to consider the emergence of a new class of Dreadnought destroyers, which I have named Dominators, that can control large areas of ocean both below and above it. 1.1 DEDICATED MISSION DESTROYERS AND FRIGATES This ship design concept of dedicated mission escorts is favoured by all European navies and the Royal Navy is an excellent specific example of using this concept in its escort fleet.
  • SAESSOLUTIONS DEFENCE & SECURITY Electronica-Submarina.Com SPECIALISTS in UNDERWATER ACOUSTICS and ELECTRONICS

    SAESSOLUTIONS DEFENCE & SECURITY Electronica-Submarina.Com SPECIALISTS in UNDERWATER ACOUSTICS and ELECTRONICS

    SAESSOLUTIONS DEFENCE & SECURITY electronica-submarina.com SPECIALISTS IN UNDERWATER ACOUSTICS AND ELECTRONICS ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE MARINE SECURITY & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Sonobuoy Processing SPAS System SYSTEMS FOR SUBMARINES AND SURFACE SHIPS SONARS ACOUSTIC CLASSIFICATION OWN NOISE MONITORING SYSTEM SONAR PERFORMANCE PREDICTION SYSTEM RDTAS Towed Array Sonar Diver Detection Sonar UNDERWATER SIGNATURE MEASUREMENT ENGINEERING & TRAINING SERVICES Multi-Influence Range MIRS System NAVAL MINES TRAINING & SIMULATION Tactical Simulators MINEA – MULTI-INFLUENCE NAVAL MINES MILA – LIMPET NAVAL MINE SAES High Technical Qualification Own Technical Capability Specialists in Underwater Electronics SAESSOLUTIONS DEFENCE & SECURITY 2 WELCOME SAES is a Spanish company specialized in submarine electronic equipment and systems for undersea security and defence that provides advanced solutions technologically adapted to the need of clients and offers security services in the civil and military fields. SAES offices and electronic workshop are located in Cartagena and Cádiz, where the Spanish Navy has its main facilities and schools related to Submarine, Mines Warfare and Antisubmarine Warfare. Our engineers are highly skilled and experienced in electronics, acoustics, design, software and hardware development, methodologies, quality and operational requirements on underwater based needs. SAES, founded in 1989, is classified as a strategic national company being NAVANTIA, INDRA and THALES their shareholders. SOLUTIONS Innovation SAES Cost- Quality Effective Customer Confidence oriented 3 electronica-submarina.com CONTENTS From our engineering and manufacturing facilities, we have successfully developed and integrated solutions tailored to the governments needs. Cost effectiveness, reliability, modularity and open architecture defines our systems, which are in-service around the world. SONAR & ONBOARD SYSTEMS PAG. 5 UNDERWATER SIGNATURES ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE MEASUREMENT PAG. 10 PAG.
  • Navy Ship Propulsion Technologies: Options for Reducing Oil Use — Background for Congress

    Navy Ship Propulsion Technologies: Options for Reducing Oil Use — Background for Congress

    Order Code RL33360 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Navy Ship Propulsion Technologies: Options for Reducing Oil Use — Background for Congress April 12, 2006 Ronald O’Rourke Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Navy Ship Propulsion Technologies: Options for Reducing Oil Use — Background for Congress Summary General strategies for reducing the Navy’s dependence on oil for its ships include reducing energy use on Navy ships; shifting to alternative hydrocarbon fuels; shifting to a greater reliance on nuclear propulsion; and making use of sail and solar power. Reducing energy use on Navy ships. A 2001 report by the Defense Science Board (DSB) stated that fuel efficiency has not been given a high priority in future system design. A 2001 study for the Navy by the Rocky Mountain Institute concluded that fitting a Navy cruiser with more energy-efficient electrical equipment could reduce the ship’s fuel use by 10% to 25%. The Navy has installed fuel-saving bulbous bows on certain ships, but might be able to install them on others. The Navy has installed fuel-saving stern flaps on many of its ships. Ship fuel use could be reduced by shifting from simple-cycle gas turbines to other turbine designs such as an intercooled recuperated (ICR) gas turbine. Shifting from mechanical-drive to integrated electric-drive propulsion can reduce a ship’s fuel use by 10% to 25%, and some Navy ships, such as TAKE-1 class cargo ships and DD(X) destroyers, are to use integrated electric drive.
  • Calendar No. 84

    Calendar No. 84

    Calendar No. 84 105TH CONGRESS REPORT 1st Session SENATE 105±29 "! NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 REPORT [TO ACCOMPANY S. 924] ON AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 FOR MILI- TARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILI- TARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES TOGETHER WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE JUNE 17, 1997.ÐOrdered to be printed NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 1 Calendar No. 84 105TH CONGRESS REPORT 1st Session SENATE 105±29 "! NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 REPORT [TO ACCOMPANY S. 924] ON AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 FOR MILI- TARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILI- TARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES TOGETHER WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE JUNE 17, 1997.ÐOrdered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 41±406 WASHINGTON : 1997 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES (105th Congress, 1st Session) STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia CARL LEVIN, Michigan JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts DAN COATS, Indiana JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico BOB SMITH, New Hampshire JOHN GLENN, Ohio DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine MAX CLELAND, Georgia PAT ROBERTS, Kansas LES BROWNLEE, Staff Director DAVID S.
  • APPENDIX H ACOUSTIC SYSTEMS DESCRIPTIONS I GULF of ALASKA NAVY TRAINING ACTIVITIES EIS/OEIS FINAL (MARCH 2011)

    APPENDIX H ACOUSTIC SYSTEMS DESCRIPTIONS I GULF of ALASKA NAVY TRAINING ACTIVITIES EIS/OEIS FINAL (MARCH 2011)

    Appendix H Acoustic Systems Descriptions GULF OF ALASKA NAVY TRAINING ACTIVITIES EIS/OEIS FINAL (MARCH 2011) TABLE OF CONTENTS H ACOUSTIC SYSTEMS DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................................... H-1 H.1 GENERAL SUMMARY OF ACOUSTIC SYSTEMS ............................................................................. H-1 H.1.1 SURFACE SHIP SONARS ................................................................................................................ H-1 H.1.2 SURFACE SHIP FATHOMETER ....................................................................................................... H-2 H.1.3 SUBMARINE SONARS .................................................................................................................... H-3 H.1.4 SUBMARINE AUXILIARY SONAR SYSTEMS ................................................................................... H-4 H.1.5 AIRCRAFT SONAR SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................... H-4 H.1.6 TORPEDOES ................................................................................................................................... H-7 H.1.7 EXERCISE TRAINING TARGETS ..................................................................................................... H-7 H.1.8 TRACKING PINGERS, TRANSPONDERS, AND ACOUSTICAL COMMUNICATIONS (ACOMS) .......... H-8 H.1.9 PORTABLE UNDERSEA TRAINING RANGE (PUTR) ......................................................................
  • Restoring the Fleet: Naval Procurement and the National Shipbuilding Strategy

    Restoring the Fleet: Naval Procurement and the National Shipbuilding Strategy

    House of Commons Defence Committee Restoring the Fleet: Naval Procurement and the National Shipbuilding Strategy Third Report of Session 2016–17 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 15 November 2016 HC 221 Published on 21 November 2016 by authority of the House of Commons The Defence Committee The Defence Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Ministry of Defence and its associated public bodies. Current membership Dr Julian Lewis MP (Conservative, New Forest East) (Chair) Douglas Chapman MP (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline and West Fife) James Gray MP (Conservative, North Wiltshire) Jack Lopresti MP (Consevative, Filton and Bradley Stoke) Johnny Mercer MP (Conservative, Plymouth, Moor View) Mrs Madeleine Moon MP (Labour, Bridgend) Jim Shannon MP (Democratic Unionist Party, Strangford) Ruth Smeeth MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent North) John Spellar MP (Labour, Warley) Bob Stewart MP (Conservative, Beckenham) Phil Wilson MP (Labour, Sedgefield) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in the House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No. 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website and in print by Order of the House. Evidence relating to this Report is published on the relevant inquiry page of the Committee’s website. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are James Davies (Clerk), Dr Anna Dickson (Second Clerk), Claire Cozens, John Curtis, Eleanor Scarnell, and Ian Thomson (Committee Specialists), David Nicholas (Senior Committee Assistant), Carolyn Bowes and David Gardener (Committee Assistants).