Talk:Communication with submarines

It should be noted that SSIX is being replace by Intenet Protocol (IP)communictions over SATCOM of various types to enable higher dta rates.

Original Discussion

I do not understand, why the page states "only the US and the Russian Navy OWNED such systems".

From the article text, it is clear that the US one was dismantled. But the Russian one still stays on! So why should the verb "ownED" be applied to Russia too?

Discussion moved from The Epopt's user page

What a pity. I do a web research and then write a nice, lengthy article on ELF communication with submarines, and you insert a correction, that the system has just been dismantled this month. ;-)

Well, but that's interesting. So, the US finally don't see any need any more to call up their nuclear subs whereever these are to order them to shoot ICBMs over our heads. That's good news. But why now? The Cold War is over since a while. And Dubbya's politics is not exactly about downstepping in military. So, do you happen to know more about this? I would appreciate? Simon A. 16:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The US still retains the ability to send orders to the SSBN's. Seafarer was a supplemental system, not the main channel for orders. IIRC, Seafarer is due for major (read costly) maintenance and upgrades, and the decision was made to shut it down instead. Elde 18:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Elde: That's interesting. So, what is the main system? Maybe you could add this to the communication with submarines article? Thanks. Simon A. 08:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The main system is VLF, as it has been for decades. I've looked at the article and fixing it is on my 'to-do' list. Elde 23:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course. But the hole point of ELF is that it works at deep depths, so that you can reach a submarine which went hiding, say, deep down in the Bering street. With VLF, you only get a few meters below water surface, i.e. the sub should be not much deeper than periscope depth. This is not really well hidden. But maybe, the Americans just don't feel the need to hide from the Russians any more, and so stay on VLF-reachable depths. Simon A. 08:42, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Simon; the custom here is for an individual user to stay with the same indentation level per message/conversation.

otherwise

we

end

up

like

this

The problem with ELF is it's low data rate. At best it served as a 'bellringer', alerting a boat to a message waiting elsewhere (SSIXS or VLF). So far as VLF goes, we carry the antenna on a bouy. The bouy remains near the surface while the hull remains far below. (And if the bad guys are close enough to find the bouy on active sonar, then they'll find the hull too... Sonar doesn't work (in the real world) like it does in Hollywood.) Elde 16:23, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as the dismal data rate is concerned, has anybody tried chopping gamma rays or xrays, or any radiation that deeply penetrates liquid water? That should make an ultrahigh data throughput possible, but would also be very directional, and would require precise aiming of antennas/detectors, possibly to satellites. Sillybilly (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Blah.. Sorry for the above post. After looking into it, liquid salt water is very absorbant for all types of high frequency em radiation, including microwaves, terahertz waves, gamma rays, or xrays. Moreover the atmosphere only lets through visible light as the highest frequency EM radiation, UV, x-ray and gamma ray observatories must be placed in outer space, above the atmosphere. Sillybilly (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If we ever come up with a small scale neutrino detector, then communicating through anything solid or liquid or gas would be practical.Sillybilly (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

ELF/VLF & SSIXS

If I'm understanding this conversation correctly, the U.S.'s only/primary method of communicating with submarines is VLF radio, which requires an antenna buoy to be extended from the submarine to at most 20 meters below the surface? But the last message says that the buoy gives away the sub's position to the adversary's active sonar... So we just don't care that the Russians (or whoever) know where our subs are? Isn't our submarine fleet now the primary nuclear delivery platform? It just seems a bit bizarre that we wouldn't be more concerned with keeping them hidden. On another note: What is SSIXS? --DrDeke 01:00, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

DrDeke: This is precisely why I was so astonished to learn from Elde that they dismantled their ELF transmitters. Before, at least so I imagine, the subs went into hiding, and when they were "ringed" by an ELF signal they would rise their VLF buoy (or surface and flap open some staellite dish) and see whats the matter. But maybe the Americans are simply no longer scared of somebody taking out their subs. After all, I wonder whether the Russian Navy is still able to engage a US sub. And who else might be? Still, it's strange. Oh, and Elde: The same question - what is SSIXS? Ok, I know, Googling helps: "Submarine Satellite Information Exchange Sub-System" Simon A. 08:02, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, we have a little confusion here, so let me clean it up a little... ELF was never planned as or used as the main communications system. It was nothing but a 'bellringer' to get the submarine to come up to bouy depth or up to antenna depth (for SSIXS). This allowed (in theory) the boomers to patrol at much greater (and thus much more secure) depths than previously. ELF was (AFAIK) never fully operational. (It was a massive PITA to operate at the recieving end.)

Being able to 'see' the VLF bouy via active sonar wasn't/isn't a concern because the submarine can hear the active sonar long before the sonar can detect the submarine. If the sonar can 'see' the VLF bouy at x miles, that mean the submarine can generally hear the sonar at least at 2x miles. (Keep in mind the pulse that detects the bouy has to travel 2x miles (1x out and 1x back) for the originating sonar to recieve it.) Sometimes the hearing range for the unit with the bouy can as much as 5x or 10x! (If you read Clancy or some of the other techno-thrillers, you'll sometimes see them say 'signal x is approaching detection values'. That means the reflected pulse (of radar or sonar) is approaching the strength that it can be detected by the sender.)

Because of this, active sonar is rarely used for general searching, it gives away the position of the hunter to the hunted long before the it gives useful information to the hunter. Active sonar is generally used for localization (I.E. 'we know there is a target close and in this general range and we need to pin it down to launch') only.

SSIXS is a store-and-forward system, not a continous broadcast system like VLF. The submarine comes to antenna depth, raises a mast antenna, and sends a very short HF ping. (Too short for direction finders to localize, and too HF to be much more than line-of-sight.) The satellite recieves this 'ping' (the exact ping is unique to a given hull), and transmits the contents of it's 'mailbox' (for that boat) to the boat. Since 'footprint' of the sattelites antenna is hundreds of miles across on the earth's surface, this broadcast does not give the bad guys a real good idea of where the recieving unit is located. When we are in a secure location, we can use the same antenna to send messages to the SSIXS bird, which will be downloaded the next time it comes in range of a ground station. Elde 17:35, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Elde: That ELF is just a bell ringer was clear. But I first missed the point about how unlikely it is that the bad guys find the VLF buoy. Now it makes sense to me too just keep with VLF. Thanks for the clarification. (BTW: Do you do anything regarding submarines; or have you just read all Clancy novels? ;-) ) Simon A. 19:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm a former SSBN crewman, as well as a long time student of submarine operations and technology. Elde 23:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Sawyer Air Force Base is nowhere near Republic, Michigan, but near Gwinn, Michigan. I know this because I live there and have worked on the former AFB. I'm changing it in the article.--Theloniouszen 20:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First some facts. Elf was fully operational. Nobody in the submarine communications business called it "seafarer," it was always "Elf." U.S. submarines do not have to surface to perform any kind of communications functions. Satellite communications systems operate in the UHF/VHF/SHF bands. In addition to VLF there are also LF/HF/UHF communications systems and components. Submarines are always hiding but that doesn't mean that they would have to be out of communications. The ocean is very big; submarines are very small. Numerous exercises have proven that even when you know where to look a submarine is hard to find. For an enemy to find a U.S. SSBN patrol area it would have to track the submarine all the way from its departure from port. There are measures taken to prevent this.

Now then, why was Elf shut down? The first reason was money. It was viewed as costing too much with limited benefits. It was also funded out of the Naval Telecommunications Budget as opposed to the submarine budget which caused several problems. Secondly, the development and implementation of Elf had less to do with communicating with submarines and more to do with blunting strong U.S. Air Force criticism and minor Congressional concerns about the Navy's ability to exert command and control over strategic nuclear forces. Once the airborne and landbased legs (read Air Force) of the nuclear triad were downsized, any previous political problems evaporated and the Navy was free to abandon the system. Thirdly, the Navy has made improvements in existing submarine communication technologies. Lastly, there are new systems/programs under development which further eliminate any need for Elf. Oldbubblehead 17:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As a former Sonar Technician I can tell you that an aggressor would not be looking for US submarines via active sonar unless they were trying to herd the submarine into a kill box. Passive sonar is how submarines are found and there are ways of hiding your sound from a potential adversary depending on water conditions. That being said, a submarine hiding below a detection shield could raise a buoy for communications and wouldn't fear active sonar from finding the buoy because of the small size and proximity to the surface don't favor active sonar unless its a huge target. But the SSBN would hear the approaching hostile ship approaching long before while in its safest area and able to retract the buoy.  The best way to communicate to a submarine is with sound. Conditions can be right for propagation over long distances with an encrypted message.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.163.87 (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 

Submarine Communications in film

The movie Crimson Tide with Denzell Washington and Gene Hackman centered on an American ballistic missile submarine which received two messages: one, an order to launch its missiles, and another, partially received, which may or may not have been a cancellation of the first. As presented it seems unrealistic to believe there isn't a standard procedure for this scenario, so it took away from my enjoyment of the film.

There are standard procedures for this (and many other) possible scenarios. (Said procedures are however classified.) The general philosophy however is simple; If there is any doubt as to the validity of launch authority - the launch is witheld. So far as the accuracy of Crimson Tide... Down Periscope is far more accurate. Elde 18:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Project Seafarer is actually featured in an episode of The X-Files entitled "Drive." In the episode, a power surge of an ELF array causes health problems (main inner ear abnormalities) to nearby humans and animals. I understand that this is just a TV show, and a science fiction TV show at that. What I am wondering is if there is any possibility of humans being harmed by such low frequencies. - Zepheus 19:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Communications with submaries seems to have been solved in the late 1960s TV series "UFO" - SHADO routinely communicates with Skydiver subs near the sea floor (probably continental shelf floor), with detailed enough two-way so that SHADO can send detailed intercept data and be assured that Sky has been launched. They also seem to have FTL communications with Moonbase, so perhaps some form of FTL can "bypass" the seawater's inhibiting effects? GBC 21:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

SEALs

The article identifies Navy Seals as further reading, but they are mentioned nowhere in the article. Why? Anti-Submarine Warfare or maybe Torpedos might a more logical "next-step" than seals. 98.150.85.243 (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Airborne ELF

Article says "Attempts to design a transmitter which can be immersed in the sea or flown on an aircraft were soon abandoned." TACAMO and Nightwatch articles say otherwise. Miken32 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Indeed, in one of the quarto-size Time/Life books there is an article with diagram of how this was done. The plane flew at great altitude in a circle and trailed a long (several miles) aerial. Due to the relative length of the aerial compared to the diameter of the circle, the long aerial was close enough to straight and vertical to be effective. I don't remember any more than that, given that my recollection is now over 40 years old. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Army Jargon/Compression

Is the discussion of army jargon and its potential for compression really appropriate in this context? Surely the transmissions would be encrypted so a transmission would never contain "officer", nor "off1" nor "cmdhq" etc, no? --flatfish89 (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought the same thing and expected to see some really interesting references added, though none have appeared so far. I'd expect the transmission channel is used for something even more cryptic, like a full message containing "7328815" indicating in true codebook form who it is addressed to and particular context and message. —EncMstr (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess a pure codebook approach wouldn't be secure enough (an observer intercepting enough messages might be able to work out some of the codes), but a codebook message encrypted with an often changing key, precalculated or OTP even would work well in this low bandwith situation. But of course that's all just speculation. --flatfish89 (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be surprised if this had any practical relevance, and think it should be removed, unless sources are given. Real messages are not only encrypted, but also likely to contain a significant amount of redundancy, particularly if there is no two-way communication, that could ensure error-correction. 86.145.250.191 (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the section as it's uncited, is unlikely to be true and adds little to the article. A more likely approach is something like Slidex, where you have a vocabulary card. ~Excesses~ (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(ELF Transmission) type?

The article says:

The Extremely low frequency transmission employed was a 64-ary Reed-Solomon, meaning that the alphabet had 64 symbols[...]

This doesn't actually state the modulation type used in the transmissions, which would be relevant. The Reed-Solomon is a data scheme applied prior to modulation, not a translation method. I'm guessing it's a 64 MFSK (64 QAM seems quite a bit less likely), but we will need a confirmation. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 01:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Baud rate

Baud rate means symbols per second, not characters per second. Regardless of how many bits there are in a symbol, going from 8-bit character codes to 7-bit codes does not increase baud rate. 193.40.242.97 (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

What used today?

The article states that the U.S. used to use ELF transmitters but they have been dismantled. Assuming some new secret technology is now being used, the article should state this, even if we don't know what it is. --173.76.69.153 (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

In the NSRS, Communications are achieved using an advanced array of equipment including an underwater telephone, underwater modem and a lightweight fibre-optic umbilical.

Portable Navigation, Tracking and Communication System (PNTCS)

The PNTCS, housed within a 10’ ISO container has the necessary equipment for tracking the NSRS underwater assets and for underwater communications with the SRV and the DISSUB. Using a portable acoustic positioning system and deployment system, the rescue team can locate and navigate between the primary assets including the Rescue Vehicle, ROV, DISSUB and the MOSHIP. The container is also equipped with SATCOM, VHF, UHF, underwater telephone, underwater modems and interfaces directly with the SRV via the lightweight Fibre-Optic umbilical.
--Pyrog (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Pyrog: He's not talking about emergency rescue communications, but tactical communications. BTW, in your cute garden of acronyms above, NSRS links to National Assembly (Republika Srpska), not "NATO Submarine Rescue System".

@173.76.69.153: When the US Navy shut down its ELF transmitters in 2004, it said technological advances had made it obsolete. It is generally assumed that technological advances now allow the Navy's high power VLF radio transmitter network to reach submarine operating depths, and it has taken over the function of the ELF system. --Chetvorno^TALK 09:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Chetvorno: I don't know who use NSRS linked to National Assembly (Republika Srpska), but I fixed both links ;)
--Pyrog (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Submerged signal ejector

In case of communication failure, SSE permit to send pyrotechnic signal devices (smoke, illumination), distress beacons or canister containing messages written on a simple sheet of paper. --Pyrog (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Communication with submarines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007110748/http://enterprise.spawar.navy.mil/UploadedFiles/fs_clam_lake_elf2003.pdf to http://enterprise.spawar.navy.mil/UploadedFiles/fs_clam_lake_elf2003.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

comment

76 and 82 Hz are SLF, not ELF.

The unit names are common names and must be written lowercase, hertz instead of Hertz (but the symbol is uppercase Hz because named after a man) 151.29.137.229 (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)