DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of the Ad-Hoc Group on the Impacts of Sonar on Cetaceans and Fish (AGISC) (2Nd Edition)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report of the Ad-Hoc Group on the Impacts of Sonar on Cetaceans and Fish (AGISC) (2Nd Edition) ICES AGISC 2005 ICES Advisory Committee on Ecosystems ICES CM 2005/ACE:06 Report of the Ad-hoc Group on the Impacts of Sonar on Cetaceans and Fish (AGISC) (2nd edition) By correspondence International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer H.C. Andersens Boulevard 44-46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00 Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15 www.ices.dk [email protected] Recommended format for purposes of citation: ICES. 2005. Report of the Ad-hoc Group on Impacts of Sonar on Cetaceans and Fish (AGISC) CM 2006/ACE:06 25pp. For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the General Secretary. The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council. © 2005 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICES AGISC report 2005, 2nd edition | i Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Participation........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Justification of Terms of Reference....................................................................................... 1 1.4 Framework for response ........................................................................................................ 2 1.5 Overview by the chair............................................................................................................ 2 1.6 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 3 2 Physical background ..................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 The nature of sound ............................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Units for measuring sound..................................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Use of the decibel scale in water............................................................................... 4 2.3 Parameters for estimating noise............................................................................................. 4 2.3.1 Source level .............................................................................................................. 5 2.3.2 Impulsive sound........................................................................................................ 5 2.3.3 Sound propagation and transmission loss................................................................. 6 2.4 Ambient noise........................................................................................................................ 7 2.5 Sonar in general..................................................................................................................... 8 2.5.1 Low-frequency sonar................................................................................................ 8 2.5.2 Mid frequency sonar................................................................................................. 9 2.5.3 High frequency sonar................................................................................................ 9 3 Biological Background - Cetaceans............................................................................................ 10 3.1 Hearing in cetaceans............................................................................................................ 10 3.1.1 Anatomy and physiology........................................................................................ 10 3.1.2 Hearing in smaller odontocetes............................................................................... 11 3.1.3 Hearing in mysticetes ............................................................................................. 12 3.2 Potential effects of sound on cetaceans ............................................................................... 12 3.2.1 Direct damage to hearing........................................................................................ 12 3.2.2 Non-auditory tissue damage ................................................................................... 13 3.2.3 Masking and changes in vocal behaviour ............................................................... 15 3.2.4 Behavioural reactions ............................................................................................. 16 4 Cetaceans and sonar.................................................................................................................... 17 4.1 Marine mammals ................................................................................................................. 17 4.2 Beaked whales..................................................................................................................... 17 4.2.1 Review of literature on effects of sonar on beaked whales..................................... 20 4.2.2 Case study: Greece ................................................................................................. 22 4.2.3 Case study: Bahamas .............................................................................................. 25 4.2.4 Case study: Canary Islands..................................................................................... 27 4.3 Other cetaceans and sonar ................................................................................................... 28 4.3.1 Research on LFA and cetaceans ............................................................................. 28 5 Mitigation measures for cetaceans ............................................................................................. 29 5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 29 5.2 Control at source.................................................................................................................. 30 5.3 Mitigation of death and injury caused by the direct effects of sound .................................. 30 5.3.1 Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) ..................................................................... 31 ii | 5.3.2 Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) or Active Acoustic Monitoring (AAM) .................................................................................................................... 31 5.4 Other control methods ......................................................................................................... 31 5.4.1 Scheduling .............................................................................................................. 31 5.4.2 Warning signals ...................................................................................................... 32 5.5 Monitoring........................................................................................................................... 32 5.5.1 Noise monitoring .................................................................................................... 32 5.5.2 Marine mammal observation .................................................................................. 32 5.6 Mitigation measures in use for military sonars with regard to marine mammals ................ 33 5.6.1 Guidelines for sonar research testing by NATO and marine mammal risk mitigation research at the NATO Undersea Research Centre.......................... 33 5.6.2 Mitigation on UK naval vessels or in UK sonar tests ............................................. 33 5.6.3 Mitigation on Australian naval vessels................................................................... 35 5.6.4 Mitigation on Italian naval vessels ......................................................................... 35 5.6.5 Mitigation on US naval vessels during training and during exercises .................... 36 5.6.6 Future mitigation development............................................................................... 36 6 Summary of gaps in understanding for marine mammals....................................................... 36 7 Other relevant items.................................................................................................................... 37 7.1 Noise pollution as a more serious problem?........................................................................ 37 8 General conclusion for marine mammals.................................................................................. 38 9 Fish 40 9.1 Biological background......................................................................................................... 40 9.1.1 Hearing in fish ........................................................................................................ 40 9.1.2 Impact of sonar on fish ........................................................................................... 45 9.1.3 Mitigation measures for fish................................................................................... 47 10 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Passive Acoustics for Monitoring Marine Animals - Progress and Challenges
    Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2006 20-22 November 2006, Christchurch, New Zealand Passive acoustics for monitoring marine animals - progress and challenges Douglas Cato (1), Robert McCauley (2), Tracey Rogers (3) and Michael Noad (4) (1) Defence Science and Technology Organisation and University of Sydney Institute of Marine Science, Sydney, Australia (2) Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia (3) Australian Marine Mammal Research Centre, Zoological Parks Board of NSW and University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia (4) School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia ABSTRACT Pioneering recordings of underwater sounds off New Zealand showed a wide range of high level sounds from marine animals, particularly whales [Kibblewhite et al, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 41, 644-655, 1967]. Almost 40 years later, a much greater amount of data is available on marine animal sounds and there is now considerable interest in using the sounds to monitor the animals for studies of abundance, migrations and behaviour. Passive acoustic monitoring shows much promise because the animal vocalisations are usually detectable over long distances, allowing a large area to be surveyed. Marine mammals are detectable acoustically at much greater distances than they are visible and passive acoustics has the potential to fill in the gaps in open ocean surveying. There are however challenges, and this paper discusses progress and the steps needed to develop robust methods of surveying the abundance and migrations of marine animals, illustrated by studies in our region. Effective use of passive monitoring requires an understanding of the acoustic behaviour of the animals, a knowledge of the acoustic propagation and ambient noise at the time of the survey and a rigorous statistical analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Acoustic Monitoring Reveals Diversity and Surprising Dynamics in Tropical Freshwater Soundscapes Benjamin L
    Acoustic monitoring reveals diversity and surprising dynamics in tropical freshwater soundscapes Benjamin L. Gottesman, Dante Francomano, Zhao Zhao, Kristen Bellisario, Maryam Ghadiri, Taylor Broadhead, Amandine Gasc, Bryan Pijanowski To cite this version: Benjamin L. Gottesman, Dante Francomano, Zhao Zhao, Kristen Bellisario, Maryam Ghadiri, et al.. Acoustic monitoring reveals diversity and surprising dynamics in tropical freshwater soundscapes. Freshwater Biology, Wiley, 2020, Passive acoustics: a new addition to the freshwater monitoring toolbox, 65 (1), pp.117-132. 10.1111/fwb.13096. hal-02573429 HAL Id: hal-02573429 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02573429 Submitted on 14 May 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Accepted: 9 February 2018 DOI: 10.1111/fwb.13096 SPECIAL ISSUE Acoustic monitoring reveals diversity and surprising dynamics in tropical freshwater soundscapes Benjamin L. Gottesman1 | Dante Francomano1 | Zhao Zhao1,2 | Kristen Bellisario1 | Maryam Ghadiri1 | Taylor Broadhead1 | Amandine Gasc1 | Bryan C. Pijanowski1
    [Show full text]
  • Ocean Noise 2009 Science, Policy, Legal Developments
    45 Cougar Canyon Santa Fe NM 87508 acousticecology.org [email protected] AEI Special Report: Ocean Noise 2009 Science, Policy, Legal Developments Contents 2 Introduction 4 Naval active sonars Navy continues to roll out EISs for training ranges New instrumented range off Florida faces challenges 12 Seismic surveys Academic surveys trigger oversized outrage Oil and gas industry surveys continue unfettered; increasing environmental focus from industry 18 Shipping noise AEI Resource Collection: Shipping noise symposia and reports, 2005-2009 26 The revolution in passive acoustic monitoring New research opportunities, new questions that can be asked AEI Resource Collection: Platforms for remote recording 35 Research briefs, 2009 42 What to keep an eye (ear) on in 2010 45 About the Acoustic Ecology Institute Photos: Scripps HARP autonomous recorder: Sean Wiggins Seaglider: University of Washington Ocean observatory schematic: NOAA In this, AEI’s fourth annual overview of ocean noise, we take a simpler approach than in the last couple of years. This time, we include brief overviews of two ongoing areas of attention — seismic surveys and active sonars — as well as a recap of the most interesting research from 2009. For the first time, we feature in-depth “AEI Resource Collections” on two key topics, shipping noise and passive acoustic research platforms. For those of you new to ocean noise issues, I’d recommend reading this recap along with the 2008 version, which has more detail in some key areas that are given only a brief look this year. As ever, the Acoustic Ecology Institute’s primary mission is to “translate” complex science and regulatory developments for the general public.
    [Show full text]
  • Passive Acoustic Monitoring Projects and Sound Sources in the Gulf of Mexico
    OCS Study BOEM 2020-009 Literature Synthesis: Passive Acoustic Monitoring Projects and Sound Sources in the Gulf of Mexico U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management New Orleans Office OCS Study BOEM 2020-009 Literature Synthesis: Passive Acoustic Monitoring Projects and Sounds Sources in the Gulf of Mexico Authors Jennifer N. Latusek-Nabholz Amy D. Whitt Dagmar Fertl Dennis R. Gallien Anwar A. Khan Natalia Sidorovskaia Prepared under BOEM Contract M17PC00001 by HDR, Inc. 300 N. Madison Street Athens, Georgia 35611 Published by U.S. Department of the Interior New Orleans, LA Bureau of Ocean Energy Management January 2020 New Orleans Office DISCLAIMER Study concept, oversight, and funding were provided by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Environmental Studies Program, Washington, DC, under Contract Number M17PC00001, Task Order No. M17PD00011. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM, and it has been approved for publication. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. government, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. REPORT AVAILABILITY To download a PDF file of this report, go to the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Data and Information Systems webpage (http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Studies- EnvData/), click on the link for the Environmental Studies Program Information System (ESPIS), and search on 2020-009. The report is also available at the National Technical Reports Library at https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancing NOAA's Ability to Characterize Aquatic Soundscapes
    CHAPTER 3 OCEAN NOISE STRATEGY ROADMAP Enhancing NOAA’s Ability to Characterize Aquatic Soundscapes INTRODUCTION—SOUNDSCAPES AND THE SOUNDS THAT COMPRISE THEM A soundscape can be thought of as the aggregate collection of all of the sounds (both natural and anthropogenic) that occur or are received at a particular location making up the total acoustics of a place (Chapter 2). Sounds that occur within a soundscape can be of either natural or anthropogenic origin, with natural sources of sound further divided into biotic (biological) and abiotic (physical) sources. Collectively, these three categories of sound sources, the biophony (natural biological), geophony (natural physical), and anthrophony (man-made) (Pijanowski et al., 2011), comprise the soundscape of a particular location. In marine and freshwater environments, natural sounds comprising the biophony include those produced by animals that reside underwater, and can range in frequency from a deep, low-pitched 10 Hz to extraordinarily high pitched, ultrasonic sounds over 200 kHz. In marine soundscapes, these sources include fish, seabirds, marine mammals, and invertebrates which use sound to perform critical life functions. Natural abiotic sounds comprising the geophony are produced by the physical environment. These sound sources include weather-generated sounds from rain, lightning strikes, wind, and breaking waves on the water’s surface, movement of ice, water, or sediments, tectonic or geo-seismic activity like volcanic eruptions or earthquakes, and any other naturally occurring abiotic process which creates sound within the marine environment. Anthropogenic sounds comprising the anthrophony, on the other hand, are sounds from human activities introduced into the natural environment. Anthropogenic sounds in underwater soundscapes include noise from transportation and vessels, oil and gas exploration, drilling and production, construction and dredging activities, fishing activity, echosounders, geophysical surveys, military activities including sonar, explosions, and many other human activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Emerging Opportunities and Challenges for Passive Acoustics in Ecological Assessment and Monitoring
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UCL Discovery Received: 29 April 2018 | Accepted: 20 September 2018 DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.13101 REVIEW Emerging opportunities and challenges for passive acoustics in ecological assessment and monitoring Rory Gibb1* | Ella Browning1,2* | Paul Glover-Kapfer3,4 | Kate E. Jones1,2 1Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, Centre for Biodiversity and Abstract Environment Research, University College 1. High-throughput environmental sensing technologies are increasingly central to London, London, UK global monitoring of the ecological impacts of human activities. In particular, the 2Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London, UK recent boom in passive acoustic sensors has provided efficient, noninvasive, and 3WWF-UK, Living Planet Centre, Woking, taxonomically broad means to study wildlife populations and communities, and UK monitor their responses to environmental change. However, until recently, tech- 4 Flora & Fauna International, David nological costs and constraints have largely confined research in passive acoustic Attenborough Building, Cambridge, UK monitoring (PAM) to a handful of taxonomic groups (e.g., bats, cetaceans, birds), Correspondence often in relatively small-scale, proof-of-concept studies. Kate E. Jones Email: [email protected] 2. The arrival of low-cost, open-source sensors is now rapidly expanding access to PAM technologies, making it vital to evaluate where these tools can contribute to Funding information Engineering and Physical Sciences Research broader efforts in ecology and biodiversity research. Here, we synthesise and Council, Grant/Award Number: EP/ critically assess the current emerging opportunities and challenges for PAM for K503745/1; World Wildlife Fund; Natural Environment Research Council, Grant/ ecological assessment and monitoring of both species populations and Award Number: NE/P016677/1 communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Miksisolds Et Al 2018Exploring-The-Ocean
    Exploring the Ocean Through Soundscapes Jennifer L. Miksis-Olds Listening to underwater soundscapes helps us understand how Postal: ocean physics and the biology of marine communities are responding School of Marine Science to a dynamically changing ocean. and Ocean Engineering It is a clear afternoon, and you are looking out at the skyline from the highest University of New Hampshire point within 100 km. From this vantage point, you can see for “miles and miles,” 24 Colovos Road but the only sounds you can hear are the people with you, a few birds, insects, Durham, New Hampshire 03824 and the wind. Now, if you went to an equivalent point in the ocean to stand on USA the mid-Atlantic ridge overlooking the ocean’s abyssal plain, you would still have Email: 1,200 m of inky black water above and around you. Listening through a hydro- [email protected] phone, the sounds you hear would be extraordinarily rich. Crustaceans would be heard scratching at the rock and deepwater corals. Sperm, beaked, and pilot whales would be searching for food using echolocating click trains. Blue and fin Bruce Martin whale calls, trapped in the deep sound channel, would arrive from thousands Postal: of kilometers away. Every few seconds, the sound channel would also bring you JASCO Applied Sciences energy pulses from oil and gas seismic surveys arriving from Brazil, Africa, the 32 Troop Avenue - Suite 32 North Sea, and Newfoundland. Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B3B 1Z1 Underwater acoustic research has revealed the amazing physics of how sound Canada propagates in the ocean, primarily motivated by using sound to detect oil and gas Email: under the Earth’s crust or for naval applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. David Mark Fratantoni
    Dr. David Mark Fratantoni Falmouth, MA 02540 [email protected] Citizenship: USA Prior Security Clearance: Secret Education: B.S., Ocean Engineering, Virginia Tech, 1990. Minor: Mathematics Ph.D., Meteorology and Physical Oceanography, University of Miami, 1996 Thesis: On the pathways and mechanisms of upper-ocean mass transport in the tropical Atlantic Ocean Short Course in Underwater Acoustics and Signal Processing, Penn State University, 2006 Graduate, Advanced Management Program, MIT/Sloan School of Management, 2015 Advanced Certificate for Executives in Management, Innovation, and Technology, MIT/Sloan, 2015 Executive Certificate in Strategy and Innovation, MIT/Sloan, 2015 Experience: SVP Research and Engineering, Seatrec, Inc., 2020-present Chief Operating Officer and Chief Science Officer, Seatrec, Inc., 2016-2020 President, 43Squid LLC, 2015-present Chief Scientist, Nortek, 2015 Chief Technology Officer, Horizon Marine, Inc., 2013-2015 Associate Scientist with Tenure, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2006-2013; retired 2014. Associate Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2002-2006 Founder and Principal Investigator, WHOI Autonomous Systems Laboratory, 2006-2013 Assistant Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1998-2002 Postdoctoral Scholar and Investigator, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1996-1998 Graduate Research Assistant, Meteorology and Physical Oceanography, University of Miami, 1990-1996 Undergraduate Research Assistant, Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Tech, 1988-1990 Recipient of complete and continuous funding via competitive research awards from NSF, ONR, NOAA, NASA, and various private individuals and foundations, 1998-2013. Continued engagement with federal and private research organizations, 2015-present. Honors and Awards Gilbert and Lucille Seay Engineering Scholarship, College of Engineering, Virginia Tech (1988) Global Change Graduate Fellowship, U.S. Department of Energy Global Change Program (1992-1995) Koczy Fellowship (Outstanding Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Department, Course Number, and Title ORE 654 Applications of Ocean Acoustics
    1. Department, course number, and title ORE 654 Applications of Ocean Acoustics 2. Designation Elective 3. Course Catalog Description Using sound to observe the ocean. Fundamentals of propagation, sources and receivers, radiated sound and scattering, bubbles, waveguides, scattering at rough surfaces, and bioacoustics. Topics include: marine mammals, fish and plankton imaging, navigation and communication, sound of seismics, ships, wind and rain, using sound to study ocean dynamics, flow imaging and measurement, mapping the seafloor and the combined forward/inverse problem. 4. Prerequisites Consent of instructor 5. Textbook(s) Sound in the Sea, Medwin, Cambridge University Press, 2005 Reference Books Fundamentals of Acoustical Oceanography, Medwin and Clay, Associated Press, 1998 Acoustical Oceanography, Clay and Medwin, John Wiley & Sons, 1977 Underwater Acoustic Systems, Coates, John Wiley & Sons, 1989 Oceanography and Acoustics: Prediction and Propagation Models, Robinson and Lee, American Institute of Physics, 1994 Inverse Problems in Underwater Acoustics, Taroudakis and Makrakis, Springer, 2001 Sound transmission through a fluctuating ocean, Flatte, Cambridge University Press, 1979 Ocean Acoustic Tomography, Munk, Worcester, and Wunsch, Cambridge University Press, 1995 The Sonar of Dolphins, Au, Springer-Verlag, 1993 Principles of Underwater Sound, Urick, McGraw-Hill, 1975 6. ABET Course Learning Outcomes 7. Topics Covered 1. Fundamentals: Simple propagation, rays, sources and receivers, radiated sound, bioacoustics, waveguides, scattering by bubbles, interior fluctuations, and rough surfaces 2. The near surface ocean: upper ocean boundary layer and rain 3. Bioacoustics: sensing of plankton and nekton; passive acoustics and marine animals, marine mammals 4. Ocean Dynamics: tomography, time reversal, turbulence 5. Ocean Bottom: imaging hydrothermal vents, large scale mapping 8. Schedule Two 1.25-hour sessions per week 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Dushaw Tomography
    Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics OCEAN ACOUSTIC TOMOGRAPHY: A MISSING ELEMENT OF THE OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEMS B Dushaw Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Bergen, Norway 1 INTRODUCTION Some twenty years ago the oceanographic community embarked on the grand endeavor of establishing ocean observatories. Such systems had two primary motivations. First, there was an obvious need to transition basic oceanographic research (and the significant societal investment in that research) into products and information that would be useful to society. Information on the evolution of the Earth’s climate system and warning systems to mitigate natural disasters of atmospheric, oceanographic, or geologic origin are examples. Second, many oceanic processes or systems evolve at decadal to century time scales and require sustained, long-term observations to properly understand them. These two motivations highlight a semantic difference: “Ocean Observing Systems” (OOSes) are operationally focused, while "Ocean Observatories” are research focused, although the difference is often blurred. “Operational” implies the commitment of the significant bureaucracy and management required to deliver promised data, information, and products to society on a sustained basis, e.g., the national weather services. Ocean observing systems are global, basin, or regional scales. Examples of OOSes are the Arctic basin system, or the many regional systems along the coasts of the United States. Neptune Canada (www.neptunecanada.ca) and the Ocean Observatories Initiative Regional Scale Nodes (OOI-RCN) are ocean observatories programs. One view is that research capabilities or techniques that have been shown to have long-term value through the Ocean Observatories, should be transitioned to Ocean Observing Systems to become sustained and integrated.
    [Show full text]
  • Discovery of Sound in the Sea
    dosits.org Discovery of Sound in the Sea Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode Island 1 The Discovery of Sound in the Sea website (dosits.org) and associated resources provide informa- tion on the science of sound in the sea, how both people and animals use sound underwater, and the effects of sound on marine life. There are also technology, audio, scientist, and career galleries as well as special sections for educators, students, and media. Contents Importance of Sound in the Sea, 3 Science of Sound, 4 People and Sound in the Sea, 6 Animals and Sound in the Sea, 9 Effects of Sound on Marine Animals, 13 Discovery of Sound in the Sea Resources, 16 Acknowledgments The Discovery of Sound in the Sea website and educational resources have been developed by the University of Rhode Island’s (URI) Graduate School of Oceanography (GSO) in partnership with Marine Acoustics, Inc. of Middletown, R.I. Many other people have contributed to the site, including independent scientific reviewers. Special thanks go to Dr. Peter Worcester of Scripps Institution of Oceanography for his substantial contribution. The Discovery of Sound in the Sea Project has been funded since 2002 by the U.S. Office of Naval Research. Other contributors are acknowledged below. Graduate School of Oceanography Team Gail Scowcroft, Project Director Christopher Knowlton, Marine Research Associate Holly Morin, Marine Research Associate Marine Acoustics, Inc. Dr. Kathleen Vigness-Raposa, Vice-President of Enviromental Programs Scientific Advisory Panel Dr. Danielle Cholewiak, NOAA Fisheries Northeast Fisheries Science Center Dr. Darlene Ketten, Boston University, Biomedical Engineering and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Alliance Airborne Anti-Submarine Warfare
    June 2016 JAPCC Alliance Airborne Anti-Submarine Warfare A Forecast for Maritime Air ASW in the Future Operational Environment Joint Air Power Competence Centre von-Seydlitz-Kaserne Römerstraße 140 | 47546 Kalkar (Germany) | www.japcc.org Warfare Anti-Submarine Airborne Alliance Joint Air Power Competence Centre Cover picture © US Navy © This work is copyrighted. No part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission. Inquiries should be made to: The Editor, Joint Air Power Competence Centre (JAPCC), [email protected] Disclaimer This publication is a product of the JAPCC. It does not represent the opinions or policies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and is designed to provide an independent overview, analysis, food for thought and recommendations regarding a possible way ahead on the subject. Author Commander William Perkins (USA N), JAPCC Contributions: Commander Natale Pizzimenti (ITA N), JAPCC Release This document is releasable to the Public. Portions of the document may be quoted without permission, provided a standard source credit is included. Published and distributed by The Joint Air Power Competence Centre von-Seydlitz-Kaserne Römerstraße 140 47546 Kalkar Germany Telephone: +49 (0) 2824 90 2201 Facsimile: +49 (0) 2824 90 2208 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: www.japcc.org Denotes images digitally manipulated FROM: The Executive Director of the Joint Air Power Competence Centre (JAPCC) SUBJECT: A Forecast for Maritime Air ASW in the Future Operational Environment DISTRIBUTION: All NATO Commands, Nations, Ministries of Defence and Relevant Organizations The Russian Federation has increasingly been exercising its military might in areas adjacent to NATO Nations. From hybrid warfare missions against Georgia to paramilitary operations in Crimea, the Russian Federation has used its land-based military to influence regional events in furtherance of their strategic goals.
    [Show full text]