RADAR Development

[robert]

http://fas.org/irp/program/collect/holystone.htm
HOLYSTONE
HOLYSTONE and BARNACLE were among a series of codenames used to designate programs undertaken within the US Navy's Special Naval Collection Program (SNCP), which included programs pertaining to submarine surveillance surveillance, intelligence and reconnaissance mission capabilities, including transmitting real-time information to avert or mitigate crises, collecting intelligence of long-term value across the spectrum of levels of violence and, acting as the unseen eyes and ears of the task group as well as operating with relative impunity in waters controlled by hostile forces.

For the past 45 years the attack submarine has been an invaluable platform for surveillance, intelligence, and warning. This capability comes from the submarine's stealth characteristic... the ability to enter an area to watch, to listen, to collect information without being seen. While satellites and aircraft are used to garner various types of information, their operations are inhibited by weather, cloud cover, and the locations of collection targets. In some situations it is difficult to keep a satellite or aircraft in a position to conduct sustained surveillance of a specific area. And, of course, satellites and aircraft are severely limited in their ability to observe or detect underwater activity. Submarines have been employed in various forms of surveillance and intelligence collection throughout the Cold War. Continuing regional crises and conflicts will require such operations in support of U.S. and allied interests.

In the future, submarines may also use Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) or drones to collect intelligence or conduct sustained surveillance of critical regions of the world. These vehicles will be sent out from a submarine to carry sensors into areas where it may not be safe or prudent for the submarine to venture. After fulfilling its mission, the AUV could return to the launching submarine, or transmit the data underwater or to a satellite. Information is vital to American political and military leaders if they are to make proper judgements, decisions, and plans.

The program derives its designation from the pieces of soft sandstone used to scrub the teak decks of battleships, and other ships with wooden decks. The sandstones were nicknamed the "holystone" since their use always brought a man to his knees, it must be holy!


http://fas.org/irp/program/collect/haarp-duma.htm
"Under the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), the
U.S. is creating new integral geophysical weapons that may influence the
near-Earth medium with high-frequency radio waves," the State Duma said
in an appeal circulated on Thursday.
"The significance of this qualitative leap could be compared to the
transition from cold steel to fire arms, or from conventional weapons to
nuclear weapons. This new type of weapons differs from previous types in
that the near-Earth medium becomes at once an object of direct influence
and its component.
These conclusions were made by the commission of the State Duma's
international affairs and defense committees, the statement reads.
The committees reported that the U.S. is planning to test three
facilities of this kind. One of them is located on the military testing
ground in Alaska and its full-scale tests are to begin in early 2003. The
second one is in Greenland and the third one in Norway.
"When these facilities are launched into space from Norway, Alsaka and
Greenland, a closed contour will be created with a truly fantastic
integral potential for influencing the near-Earth medium," the State Duma
said.
The U.S. plans to carry out large-scale scientific experiments, under
the HAARP program, and not controlled by the global community, will
create weapons capable of breaking radio communication lines and
equipment installed on spaceships and rockets, provoke serious accidents
in electricity networks and in oil and gas pipelines and have a negative
impact on the mental health of people populating entire regions, the
deputies said.
They demanded that an international ban be put on such large-scale
geophysical experiments.
The appeal, signed by 90 deputies, has been sent to President Vladimir
Putin, to the United Nations and other international organizations, to
the parliaments and leaders of the UN member countries, to the scientific
public and to mass media outlets.
Among those who signed the appeal are Tatyana Astrakhankina, Nikolai
Kharitonov, Yegor Ligachev, Sergei Reshulsky, Vitaly Sevastyanov, Viktor
Cherepkov, Valentin Zorkaltsev and Alexei Mitrofanov.

[robert]

Possible Schumann's ELF work was accidentally found to be able to detect sonic vibrations of Submarines at the Time. He was I think using ELF to bounce signals off the D layer of the Ionosphere to detect lighting strikes. He stated that this was possible using only three land bases. Possibly the same technology was used to detect the sonic vibration from submarines using the EL frequencies. Old hat since heat signature detection, I presume.
Could also have been the basis / forerunner on the back of which HAARP was being developed? Some of the frequencies are similar to the frequencie used in Brain function.

HAARP
Detection and Imaging of Underground Structures Using ELF/VLF Radio Wave
ELF/VLF radio waves penetrate deeply beneath the surface of the earth and interact with the geologic structure of the earth. This interaction induces secondary fields with measurable effect at and above the surface of the earth. Proper understanding of the physics of the generation and propagation of ELF/VLF waves and their interactions with earth materials will allow these waves to be used for applications such as sub-surface communications and exploration of the subsurface geological structure. The research called for under this effort is to assess the viability of exploiting the concept of electromagnetic induction to detect and image subterranean features such as tunnels, bunkers, and other potential military targets.

Robert

[Observer]

Robert
As much as i admire your scientific posts and all credit to you, it is, well for me blinding me with science, so for us lesser mortals, could you in simpler terms out line the connection, if any to the RFI. More importantly how was it achieved in the area of Rendlesham? This of course is if you are making that assertion? One small point re subs, very few if any subs including the Soviet Navy used the North Sea because it was quite shallow and they knew there was a good chance of being detected. This is not to say that smaller shallow water 'boats' did not use the north sea but their detection risk remained.
Puddle can probably explain this better than me.
Obs

[robert]

Robert
As much as i admire your scientific posts and all credit to you, it is, well for me blinding me with science, so for us lesser mortals, could you in simpler terms out line the connection, if any to the RFI. More importantly how was it achieved in the area of Rendlesham? This of course is if you are making that assertion? One small point re subs, very few if any subs including the Soviet Navy used the North Sea because it was quite shallow and they knew there was a good chance of being detected. This is not to say that smaller shallow water 'boats' did not use the north sea but their detection risk remained.
Puddle can probably explain this better than me.
Obs

Not sure of any positive connection Obs.
Other than the transition from the Cobra Mist style Radar to the HAARP style radar would seem to be a possibility.

The use of this, or one use of this, is apparently by bouncing low frequency waves off the ionosphere and back down to the ground to pick up resonances or vibrations etc from moving targets.
But the way it works I presume it could (intentionally or unintentionly) interfere with guidance systems and also because of the low frequency could also affect brain wave patterns. Therefore looking at the two possible disruptions that could have arisen. It was very similar to Schumanns work on ELF and he only needed three base stations to cover a vast area beacause he was using the ionosphere as gigantic canopy and bouncing his signals off that.
But they were land based stations and possibly the guys were in the middle of this type of, or on the recieving end of some type of experimental testing at that time.

Just kicking the ball about.

Robert

[robert]

The ELF shore transmitters seem to like being near forests!
Just click on the link for the maps.
Robert

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/doc ... part07.htm

SUBMARINE COMMUNICATIONS SHORE INFRASTRUCTURE
B.1 SHORE COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE
The following sections describe current and potential new programs to modernize and cost effectively operate submarine shore communication assets.
B.2 SUBMARINE SHORE COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE
The submarine communications system is an end-to-end system with connectivity established between the submarine shipboard SCSS node and the submarine shore site communication facilities node. The submarine shore communication facilities are located worldwide and consist of ELF, VLF, LF, HF, and SSIXS/ OTCIXS shore sites. In the future, submarine HDR Communications using EHF, SHF, and Commercial satellite RF resources will become an integral part of the submarine shore C 4 I infrastructure. Using all shore site assets, submarine command and control connectivity is assured. Submarine shore site facilities have the capability to be either transmitters, receivers, or both depending on their function and use within the radio frequency spectrum. The following procurement and operation/maintenance efforts support this infrastructure:
B.2.1 Extremely Low Frequency
The ELF communications system consists of two high power shore transmitter stations controlled by a submarine BCA. The two ELF transmitter facilities are located at Clam Lake, Wisconsin and Republic, Michigan. The location of these transmitter facilities are illustrated in Figure B-1.

B.2.15 North Atlantic Treaty Organization/Allied Communications Interoperability
Alliance solidarity is a key to national defense strategy and, as would be expected, drives a key interest in bilateral and multilateral submarine operations and communications. As with the U.S., VLF/LF communications is the backbone of NATO submarine command and control. Within technology transfer and funding constraints, NATO has embarked upon a VLF/LF communications program modeled after the U.S. FSBS. To be interoperable with the NATO submarine broadcast, the U.S. has modified the submarine shipboard VERDIN receivers and one channel of the shore transmitter sites at Cutler, ME and Aguada, PR to be STANAG 5030 MSK waveform capable. The Vinson UHF secure voice system and its KY-58 crypto provide a NATO/Allied interoperable LOS voice circuit for submarines.

[robert]

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/f ... lf2003.pdf
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/elf.htm

Extremely Low Frequency Communications Program

How ELF Communications works
ELF communications systems make use of a principle in
physics where the attenuation of radio signals
(electromagnetic waves) from seawater increases with
the frequency of the signal. This means that the lower the
frequency a radio transmission, the deeper into the ocean
a useable signal will travel. Radio waves in the Very Low
Frequency (VLF) band at frequencies of about 20,000
Hertz (Hz) penetrate seawater to depths of only tens of
feet.
The Navy’s ELF system operates at about 76 Hz,
approximately two orders of magnitude lower than VLF.
The result is that ELF waves penetrate seawater to
depths of hundreds of feet, permitting communications
with submarines while maintaining stealth.

In conjunction with the development and construction of the ELF system, the Navy sponsored a variety of
environmental and ecological studies. In the 1970's the Navy sponsored a wide range studies, most being laboratory
studies, that were conducted by independent researchers and Navy laboratories. This research culminated in a 1977
review by the National Research Council (NRC) of the biologic effects of electric and magnetic fields associated with
the proposed Seafarer system. The NRC concluded, “… the likelihood of serious adverse biologic effects of Seafarer
is very small.” In conjunction with the upgrade of the ELF system in the mid-1980's, the Navy initiated two additional
efforts; a literature review and an unprecedented ecological monitoring program. The American Institute of Biological
Sciences (AIBS) was requested to provide an evaluation and analysis of the extant professional literature published
since January 1977 about biological and human health effects of extremely low frequency non-ionizing
electromagnetic radiation germane to the Navy's ELF system. In 1985, the AIBS concluded in its report, "It is unlikely
that exposure of living systems to ELF electric and magnetic fields in the range of those associated with the Navy's
ELF Communications System can lead to adverse effects on plants and animals." The unprecedented twelve year
ecological monitoring program, which began in 1982, included in situ studies near the transmitter facilities in both
Wisconsin and Michigan. At the conclusion of the field studies, the Navy requested the National Research Council to
review the findings of the twelve year program. In 1997, the NRC committee published its findings which agreed with



The ELF frequency range is critically important to the Navy because of its value in providing a way to communicate with submerged submarines. As a result of the high electrical conductivity of sea water, signals are attenuated rapidly as they propagate downward through it. In effect, the sea water "hides" the submarine from detection while simultaneously preventing it from communicating with the outside world through normal radio transmissions.

The degree to which a signal is attenuated depends on its frequency, however. The lower the frequency, the more deeply a signal can be received in sea water. In order to receive conventional radio transmissions a submarine must travel at slow speeds and be near the surface of the water. Both of these situations make a submarine more susceptible to enemy detection. Frequencies in the ELF range, however, can be received considerably deeper, and broadcasts using this mode provide a primary link between the nation's commander-in-chief and the submarine force.
The US Navy extremely low frequency [40-80Hz] experiment Project Sanguine installed a 222km pole mounted dipole antenna high up in the Laurentian Shield in Wisconsin - upgraded to the 45km Project Seafarer antenna at Clam Lake, Wisconsin. Following an unsucessful standoff between environmental lobbyists and Ronald Reagan in 1981 a futher Seafarer upgrade featuring 90km wires was installed KI Sawyer Air Force Base, Michigan, incorporating operational VLF into the integrated C3i program of the American Department of Defense. VLF links between the Wisconsin station & submarine receivers in the Pacific were established in May 1985, followed by transmissions to beneath the Mediterranean Sea and Northern Polar Ice Cap.

Geological Requirements
An ELF antenna sends a signal from the ground to the ionosphere where it travels around the world filtering down through the ocean depths to reach the fleet of submarines (see figure above). Due to the limits of the lengths of the system’s antennas (less than 100 miles versus the required 2,500 miles to generate a 76 Hz electromagnetic wave), the antennas are placed near nonconductive rocks from the Precambrian era. To be useful, the rock formation must be fairly close to the surface and be large enough to support the ELF antenna grid. The rocks must be as nonconductive as possible so as not to “shorten” the electromagnetic wave.
…and a German

ELF was accidentally detected in World War I when the Germans noticed a very low frequency noise in the ground which had a strong resonance at 7 Hz [The] Germans felt that the noise was caused by electrical storms. The phenomenon was dismissed as interesting but of no practical use. It was not until the early 1950s that interest in ELF began again. In 1952 a German scientist named W. O. Schuman pointed out the existence of a cavity between the earth and the ionosphere that has a fundamental resonant frequency of about 7 Hz. A radio wave having the same frequency [NB: one more time, it isn’t a “radio” field!] can be broadcast into this cavity [and] will travel 25,000 miles around the world at the speed of light. [Other] scientists quickly added to Schuman’s discoveries. They found out more about the resonances: frequencies below 100 Hz do not fade out. [These] discoveries set the stage for the ELF concept.

L. W. Klessig and V. L. Strite (The ELF Odyssey)
Few places in the United States meet those conditions, Wisconsin and Michigan being the best two.

FIRST MADE PUBLIC by the US Navy in 1968 as Project Sanguine (1), the Extremely Low Frequency communications project—Project ELF—is designed to communicate with deeply-submerged submarines. Project ELF uses low-frequency waves to signal one-way coded messages to US and British Trident and Fast Attack submarines. The system alerts them to surface to receive a more detailed communication.

ELFS IN THE FOREST

Each facility consists of a transmitter, pole-mounted antenna cables, and buried ground terminals where the antenna currents enter the earth. The Navy Radio Transmitting Facility (NRTF) transmitters are located near the intersection of the antennas in each site. The NRTF at Clam Lake has two orthogonal antennas, one essentially oriented north-south (NS) and ther other east-west (EW), resembling a large “X.” Each antenna is 14 miles long and carry 300 amperes. The NRTF at Republic has one NS antenna (28 miles) and two parallel EW antennas (14 miles each), the whole system resembling an enormous “F”; overall current is 150 amperes. The transmitters have been operated either synchronously or independently to broadcast messages.

[robert]

Bare in mind these weapons in early development by the West were still behind the development of similar weapons in the USSR.
Robert

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/cpb.htm
Early US efforts included a project called Seesaw, funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense, to develop a Navy beam weapon. The project was discontinued because of insurmountable problems in physics. Some research continued, but the emphasis was on lasers rather than particle beam weapons. During the past few years, beam weapon research has been resumed by the Armed Services and is now being coordinated by the Department of Defense as a nationally directed program.

The Navy's Chair Heritage program was initiated in 1974 to develop a charged particle beam weapon for aircraft carriers and cruisers to defend against antiship cruise missiles. Because its particle accelerator is the best mechanism for testing beam propagation, the Chair Heritage program was given a higher priority than other beam weapon programs. The weapons would be located below deck, and the beams would be magnetically routed to small firing turrets located at strategic points on the hull and deck. The system would be capable of firing six shots per second and engaging targets at ranges out to 4.5 kilometers. Deployment of this system depends on beam propagation. Lethality tests in 1981 used two particle accelerators developed at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories in California.

An Army beam ground-based, charged particle beam system was being funded at less than $10 million by 1980. It was based on an autoresonant particle accelerator being developed under contract from the Army Ballistic Missile Defense Command. The accelerator is a proof-of-principle device and is not intended for direct weapon application. The design has the potential of generating single pulses with 1 to 10 megajoules of beam energy.

The United States conducted beam weapon research for several years, but until the late 1970s it was a low priority effort. With the seeming risk of a Soviet technological breakthrough, the US program picked up momentum and direction. Parmentola and Tsipis presented a landmark paper on this subject in Scientific American in 1979 (J. Parmentola and K. Tsipis, "Particle-Beam Weapons," Scientific American, 240:54-65, 1979). The authors presented scientific reasons why such weapons would be highly useful, but also dramatized the fundamental reasons why these weapons could never work.

The authors presented many small but practical problems of particle-beam weapons such as how to generate sufficient power in space, how to deal with countermeasures, and how to find targets among decoys. They also discussed two problems that they considered unsolvable. That is, the smaller problems may be considered very difficult scientific and engineering problems that may challenge practical implementation.

However, even if all those could be dealt with, two significant problems remained that were unsolvable due to fundamental physical limitations that no amount of Herculean engineering could resolve. These fundamental problems are (1) that Coulomb repulsion of a particle beam spreads the energy over a large area at reasonable distances to targets, and (2) that the near-earth magnetic field deflects the beam and is somewhat variable. (The beam is steered electrically by magnetic fields or electric fields. Mechanical steering would not be fast enough.)


Below by By two different Posters

http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/0 ... ments.html
Laser Weapons "Almost Ready?" Not!

Just remember folks, there are NO comments on this board by anybody who is actively working in this field, because it is CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. I was involved in this project in the 1970's,and WE WERE SHOOTING DOWN MISSILES WHEN EVERYBODY SAID IT CAN'T BE DONE, so take everything people say on this board with a huge grain of Sodium Chloride. You have NO IDEA what the air force is actually doing right now with lasers. None.

Information/Disinformation What's the real truth?
Nov 10, 2002 article appeared in the Sunday News Journal, Wilmington, Delaware, written by Andrew Bridges, Associated Press. "Pentagon develops fast laser weapons".
In this article it says that defense officials used a laser to shoot an artillery shell out of the sky!
I've seen films of lasers dropping drones back in the 1970's. We have the technology and we wouldn't be spending $3.7 billion on the mounting of a laser in the nose of a 747 unless they worked and worked well. Well enough to eliminate the need for Patriot missles and maybe even anti-ballistic missles.
One of the lager lasers is in Bagdad since last year. I've only seen that on the news once. Why not tout what we have in our arsenal. It may deter our enemies from spending their money on scud missles etc.

[Observer]

Thanks for that Robert, very interesting reading, I remember some of it now. However, these posts although they may be distantly related to the RFI, should be in the UFO News From The UK file as it does slightly take us off topic. Perhaps Admin can shift them over.
Obs

[robert]

Whatever makes you guys happy is fine with me Obs.

Although you don't have to go near the Radar string if you don't want to!

If Admin thinks thats the way to go, no worries.

Robert

[puddlepirate]

Robert

Many thanks for your long and informative posts regarding ELF/VLF and OTH radar etc but with regard to the RFI what are you actually trying to say? Are you proposing that it was ELF/VLF or 10Mw (give or take) radar emissions that caused the incident? That a covert experiment, conducted during a holiday 'quiet' period, brought down a satellite, a missile or something similar? Or that such an experiment induced some kind of aerial or other phenomena - odd lights, beams coming down, strange craft, ground traces and feelings of disorientation amongst the personnel present and so forth - and it was those phenomena that Halt and the others saw or experienced? Some kind of summary and / or a conclusion would be useful.

[John Burroughs]

I was told along time ago the Russian Satellite that came down was shot down by US. Less just say it was it was suppose to come down at sea but didnot. I am sure after it was brought down both the Russians and Americans were looking for it . Now I say I was told that that does not mean it happened. But if both of us were looking for it all kinds of search and recovery would have been used. I was also told that we would not have wanted the russian to know how we didit.....

[robert]

I think a conclusion is not really the way to go unless you are trying to wind up the few theories we have and use those for a conclusion.

At the moment I would be looking at an experimental ELF radar system that could have been operated from within the area of Rendlesham (it would be nothing like the size of Cobra mist) that may have inadvertently or deliberately brought down a Drone.

I think we have established that CM had finished but possibly the home of Radar would have continued in the vincinity with something else that was less visible and proven to be ongoing in it's development like the ELF radar. It had a very large range and would stretch over the Atlantic or the North sea where it was deep enough for the Subs to go.

This was an obvious threat to the Warsaw Pact Submarines coming out of the Baltic and it would have been in their interest to attempt to jam these frequencies if at all possible.

How they would do this., (IE send over a Drone to recce, use an EM beam weapon of some sort to break up the electronic signals) is, I think, my next bit of research Puddle.

If you don't mind I would like to hold off on a conclusion until I have some more research on a useable proposition.

Cheers

Robert

As I mentioned to Obs, if you want to move the string out of the RFI section I have no problem with that.

[robert]

Just a small point Obs.

Do you want the Radar string moving to the UFO UK site as you have posted here or do you want the 81st foo fighters in alternate theories moving to the UFO Uk site, which I can undersatnd, as a post in the wrong section?

Cheers

Robert

[puddlepirate]

Don't forget SOSUS

[Observer]

Robert
Its best that all other UK sightings that we have been discussing should not be on the main RFI forum page. That way we can keep the page free of off topic subjects which are a distraction. There are other headings more suited to the subjects such as UFO's from around the world or other UK sightings etc.
Obs

[robert]

Robert
Its best that all other UK sightings that we have been discussing should not be on the main RFI forum page. That way we can keep the page free of off topic subjects which are a distraction. There are other headings more suited to the subjects such as UFO's from around the world or other UK sightings etc.
Obs

I agree Obs. The alternate theories section was not really about UFOs from Haverfordwest and a move to the UK UFO section re the Welsh triangle subject is fine wth me.

Robert

[robert]

Don't forget SOSUS

Re SOSUS. I think this was one use of ELF Radar, Puddlepirate.

Robert

http://www.cus.navy.mil/timeline.htm
50's and 60's witnessed the birth, early childhood development and growth of undersea surveillance; originally the Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS). With the 70's came technology upgrades both in shore and underwater systems; planning for new cable ships, super NAVFACs and the follow on to the Towed Array Sensor System (TASS), the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS). The 80's realized consolidation of shore assets due to technology advances in underwater systems, arrival of the first SURTASS ships, delivery of the cable ship USNS Zeus, and the end of the Cold War; this last one to have repercussions that most of us did not anticipate. The 90's where we are today.


http://www.iusscaa.org/history.htm
1974

* NAVFAC Brawdy Wales established- First "Super NAVFAC"
* NAVFAC Keflavik makes first detection on a Soviet Delta Class Nuclear submarine
* NAVFAC Ramey, PR changed to NAVFAC Punta Borinquen, PR

1995

PD 80 becomes PD 18 and designated ISR

* 19 April - Advanced Deployable System officially becomes the newest member of Integrated Undersea Surveillance System - designated a major program.
* NAVFAC Brawdy, Wales, UK ceased operations for equipment transition to JMF St Mawgan, UK.
* Joint Maritime Facility, St Mawgan, UK commissioned.

Footnote.
RAF Brawdy is now Cawdor Barracks., run by the British army.

(Another Cold War US Naval Facility, similar to RAF St. Mawgan's JMF, tracking Atlantic ship and submarine movements, was until 1995 based on the Pembrokeshire heritage coastline in South Wales next to RAF/RNAS Brawdy. That old Royal Navy Air Station (RNAS) at Brawdy is now described on OS maps as a "disused airfield". It is no surprise therefore that the base still has significant military presence, now in the form of the Army's Electronic Warfare Unit - No. 14 Signals Regiment at Cawdor Barracks.)

[puddlepirate]

Re SOSUS. I think this was one use of ELF Radar

Not radar. SOSUS was/is passive. As the name suggests it was for listening. SOSUS was/is a series of hydrophones linked by cable laid across the seabed. Anything coming through the Greenland - Iceland - Faroes - Scotland - Norway gap would be picked up, its soundwaves analysed and the type of vessel determined. Thus any Soviet boat coming out into the Atlantic in 1980 would almost certainly have been identified without the need for sophisticated sub-surface radars. I've been told by the sound guys that by careful analysis of the sound waves it was possible for a skilled operator to identify not only the class of vessel but each vessel within each class because each had its own unique sound signature.. They could identify ice (ice 'screams' apparently) and all sorts of stuff simply by analysing the sound it made. Sound can travel a long way in water and the quality of the soundwave can be affected (attenuated?) by factors such as water temperature, depth, salinity etc..

SOSUS is now used for the scientific study of whale migration and the like.

[robert]

Hi Puddle.
This was a previous post on this string.

I take your point about the cable system. Quite different to ELF they were using for communication. This one wasn't relying on cables and was obviously being used prior to 1982. (see previous posts.)

Cheers for the Update.



http://www.cus.navy.mil/timeline.htm
50's and 60's witnessed the birth, early childhood development and growth of undersea surveillance; originally the Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS). With the 70's came technology upgrades both in shore and underwater systems; planning for new cable ships, super NAVFACs and the follow on to the Towed Array Sensor System (TASS), the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS).

I just presumed they would be talking about the ELF detection and communication system as below as below.

Apolgies for the confusion.

Robert

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/f ... lf2003.pdf
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/elf.htm

Extremely Low Frequency Communications Program

How ELF Communications works
ELF communications systems make use of a principle in
physics where the attenuation of radio signals
(electromagnetic waves) from seawater increases with
the frequency of the signal. This means that the lower the
frequency a radio transmission, the deeper into the ocean
a useable signal will travel. Radio waves in the Very Low
Frequency (VLF) band at frequencies of about 20,000
Hertz (Hz) penetrate seawater to depths of only tens of
feet.
The Navy’s ELF system operates at about 76 Hz,
approximately two orders of magnitude lower than VLF.
The result is that ELF waves penetrate seawater to
depths of hundreds of feet, permitting communications
with submarines while maintaining stealth.

[puddlepirate]

Hi Robert

The problem with VLF/ELF comms being at the root of the RFI is that both are being radiated 24/7/365. If such low frequencies could bring something down over Rendelsham Forest then there would be aircraft falling out of the sky all over the place. One of the best known UK VLF transmitter sites was at Rugby, right next to the M1 motorway. Anyone driving along the M1 in that area would see several tall masts in the fields next to the motorway (they used to graze sheep there to keep the grass short). The site was managed by BT, certainly up until the mid 1980's. There were other sites, e.g. Anthorn but Rugby was probably the best known - and miles from any forest. The Rugby site is no longer used for VLF transmissions but instead broadcasts a time signal. Although the site housed the transmitters, signal traffic was originated and encrypted elsewhere before being carried by BT T1/T2 ccts to the site. You might also want to look at SSIXS - the Satellite Submarine Information eXchange System. But again, signals from the satellite were being transmitted virtually constantly (there is a procedure for sub-surface transmissions that are of no relevance here) so if SSIXS tx's caused problems with aircraft or aircraft onboard systems, then we'd all know about it!

If radio waves were involved then they were probably highly concentrated, line of sight, high power radar signals (CM output was iro 10Mw max - although as I understand it this was never actually achieved - and might well have cause arcing at the aerial array). I would have thought that if ELF/EM etc was being used as some kind of experimental 'star wars' weapon then it would surely have to be a laser of some kind.... That leads to the problem - would the US test a highly classified weapon off base on foreign soil? Almost certainly not. They would probably have used one of their test ranges in the US and if the intention was to bring down a Soviet satellite, then they would most likely try to do that nearer home. That is, of course, if it was experimental. What's to say they hadn't perfected something - something deployed in space, in a satellite, that could be activated by a signal from an earth station.

That said, the Soviets had developed a low altitude Kosmos which was in orbit sometime between the late seventies and early eighties. It was fitted with high resolution cameras so would have been used for intelligence gathering - which Uncle Sam would have found very irritating indeed. The only link I can think of that might have induced the US to shoot down or otherwise disable a 'bear' (ref JB's comments) would have been Poland and the increased tension along the Polish border. What follows is an unsubstantiated 'what if' scenario but in the summer of '79 HMG had given approval for Cruise missiles to be sited in the UK. They were to be held at nominated hubs but deployed to launch sites within a 50km radius. Molesworth in Cambs was to be one such site but in Dec 1980 the storage facilities were not ready so the belief is that no missiles had arrived. However, knowing the US, if there was a threat in eastern Europe then it would not surprise me in the least to learn that the US had brought Cruise missiles into east Anglian bases at the first opportunity (there was a truck fitted with dummy missiles - oil drums welded together and painted white - that used to be parked at the twin bases. Why did they need that? As decoy?) and parked them in WSA's. There is a bit of a conundrum here - if the Soviets had photographed Cruise and it's associated road vehicle launchers and had released that info, there might have been political embarrassment in the UK/US but by having the decoy's the US could say there were no missiles, just dummies created for a prank which the daft Soviets had mistaken for the real thing. Maggie was in power and Reagan had been elected - we were big chums with the US in those days. Both Maggie and Reagan were hawkish and Reagan was keen on star wars technology so who knows what was going on prior to his taking office in early '81.

That ELF/EM is somehow at the bottom of this and that this technology brought something down either by accident or by design, is entirely feasible. The problems are: exactly what technology, who 'owned' it, what did it bring down and why.....