Hacking By US Submarines Continues

"America Is Hacking Other Countries With Stealthy Submarines

[Courtesy Brian Fung & Andrea Peterson, Washington Post, July 29, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/07/29/america-is-hacking-other-countries-with-stealthy-submarines/ ]

...The so-called "silent service" has a long history of using information technology to gain an edge on America's rivals. In the 1970s, the U.S. government instructed its submarines to tap undersea communications cables off the Russian coast, recording the messages being relayed back and forth between Soviet forces. [see Operation Ivy Bells]

These days, some U.S. subs come equipped with sophisticated antennas that can be used to intercept and manipulate other people's communications traffic, particularly on weak or unencrypted networks.

"We've gone where our targets have gone" - that is to say, online, said Stewart Baker, the National Security Agency's former general counsel, in an interview. "Only the most security-conscious now are completely cut off from the Internet." Cyberattacks are also much easier to carry out than to defend against, he said.

One of America's premier hacker subs, the USS Annapolis, is hooked into a much wider U.S. spying net that was disclosed as part of the 2013 Edward Snowden leaks, according to Adam Weinstein and William Arkin, writing last year for Gawker's intelligence and national security blog, Phase Zero. A leaked slide showed that in a typical week, the Navy performs hundreds of so-called "computer network exploitations," many of which are likely the result of submarine-based hacking.

"Annapolis and its sisters are the infiltrators of the new new of cyber warfare," wrote Arkin and Weinstein, "getting close to whatever enemy - inside their defensive zones - to jam and emit and spoof and hack. They do this through mast-mounted antennas and collection systems atop the conning tower, some of them one-of-a-kind devices made for hard to reach or specific targets, all of them black boxes of future war."

But even this doesn't compare to what the Navy wants to be able to do next: turn its submarines into motherships for underwater drones that can maneuver themselves even closer to shore and conduct jamming or hacking operations while allowing the sub to work at a distance... [as a "mothership" see the heavily modified USS Jimmy Carter]

See WHOLE WASHPOST ARTICLE

_________________________________________________________

See a National Interest commentary, August 4, 2016 on the above.

Ouch! Before and After Photos of dented submarine Ambush

No subamarines, submariners, commanders, Admirals, or Ministers of Defence, like being associated with surprising and expensive indiscretions. Hence HMS Ambush's misfortune on July 20, 2016.

Apparently Ambush surfaced too quickly into a third party - in this case a tanker. Not only the repair bill, but the downtime of having one of Britain's latest SSN types out of circulation will be unwelcome.

First Before shot of a Astute class sub, leaving Britain. All shiny and new.

---

Second Before shot of an Astute class sub gives a clearer view of the two non-hull-penetrating optronic (also called photonics) masts - instead of periscopes. If one optronic mast was extended, prior to the attempted surfacing, then a damaged mast would add considerably to the repair bill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The After shots are below: Looking very sorry.

All crumpled, dull (probably plastic taped over the damage) and unhappy. The optronic mast closest to the front has been "wound down" - I don't know if that is normal?

The collission apparently happened during the UK Royal Navy run "Perisher" course for SSN  Captain/Commander trainees. Whether Ambush was under the command of a trainee or instructor (known as "Teacher") is unknown. 

Trainees captaining subs in Perisher occasionally duel with a Royal Navy destroyer or frigate or two. While trainees, under pressure, may be mainly focussed on their destroyer/frigate foe, they might not always sufficiently consider third parties, like tankers, who turn up when least expected.

Sonar operators and trainees viewing periscopes ideally spot third parties before the sub surfaces, but not always.

UK Perisher once included RAN trainees, but as Australia has no SSNs Australian trainees now do "Dutch Perisher" for conventional subs, run by the Royal Netherlands Navy.

On Australians in "Dutch Perisher" see this RAN Submarine Squadron magazine "The Trade" pages 10 -13 - large PDF. 

Ouch!

---

Pete

Australia Shouldn't Build Shortfin Subs and Australia Should Forget Exporting Them

COMMENTS

Few countries have truly efficient defence industries. Efficient countries usually need:

1.       A large domestic arms market (eg. the US, Russia and China) and

2.       a stable arms export market which owes much to the international political power of the 

          exporter (especially the Soviets/Russia and the US, how otherwise could the US have 

          continually forced the F-35 on Canada?) or

3.       Mainly a highly efficient and stable arms export market (eg. South Korea, Spain, to an 

          extent Sweden) or

4.       Specialised needs to meet constant national threats (eg. India and Israel in conventional

          weapons and even more in their nuclear weapons.) but

5.       For other countries there are ongoing debates about clearly inefficient defence industries 

          (amounting to massive central government subsidies) versus arguments of defence self-

          reliance and "nation-building". Australia has not attempted to build the latest 4th or 5th 

          generation jetfighters, so why build the latest large warships?

Australia lacks points 1 to 4 but 5 fits it well, as the following article illustrates.

ARTICLE

Andrew Robertson for Australia’s ABC News, July 26, 2016, in part reports http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-26/productivity-commission-on-south-australia-submarines-build/7662296

"Productivity Commission: Building submarines in SA is 'a return to bad old days of protectionism'

…the Productivity Commission has now said without a better product to justify the extra cost of building submarines at home, "productive resources (labour, capital and land) are diverted away from more efficient uses".

In other words, the billions of extra dollars spent on building submarines in Australia instead of buying them from Germany, Japan, or France could be better spent on developing the industries of the future.

…South Australia, with its heavy reliance on old-world industries, has long been a problem child for politicians of all persuasions.

With the Government having bitten the bullet and allowed the heavily subsidised car industry to walk, the $50 million bailout of Arrium to keep its Whyalla steelworks open shows the political reality of keeping voters happy will trump painful structural change.

In its latest report on Trade and Industry Assistance, the Productivity Commission said the 30 per cent cost premium to build submarines in South Australia is "a major step back from the historical reduction in using Government procurement preference as industry policy".

[30% is a vast underestimate – more like the build-in-Australia price will be 100% higher than the build in France price!]

"It's hardly surprising that the state with the most protectionism — South Australia — also has towards the highest unemployment rate, some of the lowest growth and is a significant net recipient of Government subsidy," said Simon Cowan, research manager at the Centre for Independent Studies.

"It's literally just a small niche industry being protected to the tune of billions of dollars a year. It just doesn't make sense from any perspective other than how do we try to shore up votes in Adelaide."

According to its research, the Productivity Commission said the effective assistance being given to the companies who will build Australia's next generation submarines is "higher than the peak historical levels recorded for the automotive and textiles clothing and footwear industries prior to the significant economic reforms of protection".

…However the Australian Industry Group, which represents the manufacturing sector, said the submarine deal is not protectionism but nation building…” See WHOLE ABC Article.

RELEVANT PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION DOCUMENTS

The main relevant document is the Australian Government Productivity Commission, Trade & Assistance Review 2014-2015 (Productivity Commission Annual Report Series) at http://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/trade-assistance/2014-15/trade-assistance-review-2014-15.pdf - see mainly pages 36 to 38 on submarine building cost premiums. 

Also see with “Key points” and the Media Release

COMMENTS CONTINUED

New submarine selling countries find it is difficult to break into the submarine export market. Submarines are high cost, specialised products that frequently need to be tailor-made for each customer country.

A country usually needs an already proven reputation that it can maintain subs as they age in terms of ongoing advice/expertise for overhaul and ongoing spare parts availability. I understand that there were problems in the ongoings for the Collins.

As with the Collins (Australia entertaining the notion of selling 2 to New Zealand?) certain submarine building Australian Defence Ministers will imply Australia can build and export Shortfin submarines or at least be a regional hub for DCNS Scorpene parts. 

-   This is unrealistic because of licensing and intellectual property restrictions and realities.

-  Also Australia would be competing in Shortfin selling against the Shortfin experts DCNS of

    France.

-  France would remain the main place where the original submarine parts and spare parts are

   manufactured

-  Also Australia would be competing against the world’s most successful submarine seller -

   Germany's TKMS and against the TKMS designs that South Korea builds.

-  Russia is also a low cost builder of repute, and 

-  China is becoming a serious low cost competitor.

Pete

New Defence Industry Minister, Pyne, has Percentage Troubles

Kathryn Diss. Australia’s ABC News online, July 26, 2016, reports,  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-26/christopher-pyne-refuses-to-break-down-wa-shipbuilding-share/7662582 :

"Christopher Pyne refuses to 'break down' WA's shipbuilding share"

PHOTO: Christopher Pyne (in illfitting hat, second from right) toured Austal's Henderson yard on his WA visit. (Supplied)

"The head of the new Defence Industry portfolio Christopher Pyne has visited Western Australia to promote the state's role in constructing a new fleet of defence vessels, but has repeatedly refused to say what percentage of the work it will receive. [more in article]"

RELATED [ABC] STORY: Frigate maintenance deal will create hundreds of WA jobs: Barnett

RELATED [ABC] STORY: France to build Australia's next submarine fleet

RELATED [ABC] STORY: Offshore patrol vessels deal will save Adelaide defence jobs: union

COMMENT

Actually it is highly subjective to estimate what percentage of Australia work (by that parts and/or labour) is in anything - from a mobile phone to a ship or sub.

BUT, if Defence Ministers want to gain political advantage by using percentages, they need to explain them.

It was one of Christopher Pyne's LNP Coalition Government Ministerial colleagues who first brought up the percentage claims.

As Submarine Matters recorded in September 17, 2015: 

"It has yet to be confirmed in Hansard (officially recording Parliamentary House of Representatives statements) whether Kevin Andrews, who [was then] Defence Minister, stated in Parliamentiary Question Time (September 17, 2015) that perhaps 70% to 80% of new submarine work could be done in Australia. If so this may signal a change in policy. Note that the current feeling by industry in Australia is that Australia will order 8 submarines overall – not 12.

[Fairfax, Sydney Morning Herald journalists reported (September 17, 2015) the same Andrews statement: "I see that one of the bidders has said that they can build a significant part of a submarine here in Australia - some 70 to 80 per cent," Mr Andrews told Parliament. "That means that we're going to have more jobs, a significant part of that build, perhaps 70 to 80 per cent of submarines, built here in Australia." Note the DCNS offer described in the same article.]"

Pete

Potentially Diver Killing "Hydroacoustic" Noise Maker

Combat divers, be they SEALs or otherwise, have dangerous jobs. Target countries can make life that much more dangerous by protecting ports, or other facilities, with potentially deadly devices, including the ZEVS Hydroacoustic Protection System.

Probably several countries sell deadly anti-diver devices, but one of the most explicit is the ZEVS Mobile Hydroacoustic System. It is a sound through water projector. It is designed for protection of objects in aquatic areas (ports and harbours, private property, various hydrotechnical facilities, large vessels, nuclear plants). The sales brochure adds "as well as for traumatizing trespassing divers and swimmers."

The ZEVS Mobile Hydroacoustic System can be nasty to trespassing swimmers or divers. 
Between 15m to 100m the ZEVS noisemaker can cause "Minor bodily injury, painful impact", 4m to 15m grievous bodily harm, maybe "fainting". "Fatal" between 0m to 4m.
---

Below are photos and specifications for ZEVS from the sales brochure. 

The last feature of the specs indicates "Special feature: Requires no special permission". I would imagine that is for the Russian seller. Importer Deadly Weapons buying rules and public safeguards are likely to be very restrictive in responsible buyer countries.

Main specifications [for ZEVS Hydroacoustic Protection System]
Dimensions	∅ 0.4×0.95 m
Weight	95 kg
Power supply parameters	220 V 50 Hz or 24 V DC
Length air- and water-tight cable	100 m
Beam pattern	38 deg.
Protection range	100 m
Special feature
·       Requires no special permission

Other countries market (likely) similar devices. For example US company "HAI has developed extremely effective hydroacoustic based Diver Interdiction Systems (DIS).  These defense systems are designed to neutralize terrorist divers and thereby providing marine and underwater protection. The DIS acts against the threat of an underwater terrorist by delivering non-lethal acoustic low frequency energy into the environment which causes the diver to come to the surface for effective prosecution.  HAI provides fixed, portable and mobile systems. The DIS is a great compliment to Diver Detection Systems (DDS). Now there is a non lethal deterrent to force a diver to the surface. The DIS is classified as EAR99 by the Department of Commerce. HAI has developed and delivered the DIS to multiple customers including for the US Navy, Coast Guard, commercial agencies and foreign militaries."

North Korea building new submarine pens (probably)

The new construction (probably submarine pens) is less than 3km from Mayang Do Primary Naval Base on the east coast (see See Naval Bases and Fleet HQs map above) of North Korea. Sinpo "SSBs" might operate out of Sagin Ni (under West Sea Fleet Command) and Sinpo/Mayang Do (under East Sea Fleet Command).  (Map courtesy US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)) For Sinpo class "SSBs" (see diagram below) 

---  

For Background on Submarine Pens (WWII and Cold War) see the previous article of July 25, 2016.

IHS Jane’s, July 22, 2016, reports North Korea is constructing a concrete fortified structure near the port of Sinpo that looks like pens capable of covering conventionally powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBs). I would guess that UK and US naval intelligence have been doing the observing and analysis then feeding the following to Jane’s (the conduit to we the public).

The construction is 2.25 km south of Sinpo shipyard and close to the Mayang Do Primary Naval Base (see it marked on map above), on the east coast of North Korea.

Commercial satellite imagery shows construction began August 2009 - November 2012 with the harbour blocked off by a sea wall and filled in by November 2012. Visible dock excavations have been made and concrete pored for protective slab roofs. 

Two pens are approximately 150m long, 10m wide, and 14m apart. I would say these are large enough to take 5,000 – 6,000 tonne submarines that have beams less than 10m.

Satellite imagery from 8 May 2016 revealed construction on the pens had progressed to portions  being covered with earth. Construction was still ongoing on the front of both pens and a barge was tied to the seawall. The new pier, now 137m long and 13m wide, was nearing completion.

North Korea already has several submarine bunkers, at least some of which are capable of accommodating its obsolescent Romeo class SSKs.

This diagram of the Singpo clas SSB (at 68m long, 6.5m beam) is clearly small for the pens. Maybe 2 to 4 could be squeezed into the larger pen space of 137m long and 13m wide. H I Sutton of Covert Shores has produced excellent artwork, photos and description here depicting a North Korean "Gorae" Sinpo class SSB with two SLBMs mounted in the fin. 

---

Pete

Background on Submarine Pens (WWII and Cold War)

A submarine pen (U-Boot-Bunker in German) is a type of submarine base that acts as a bunker to protect submarines from air attack. The term is generally applied to submarine bases constructed during World War II. Note the open sides.

The Nazis built submarine pens with thick concrete roofs in France (photo above), Germany and Norway. These proved almost impervious to common, garden, Allied bombs. Explosions were fine but penetrating thick concrete was the difficult part.

This is where deep penetrating 12,000 lb "Tallboy" bombs dropped by the "Dambusters" of No. 617 Squadron came in (in 1944 - 45). They penetrated the thick roofs of the pens - destroying the subs and all inside. Near misses resulted in mini-earthquakes - also sub-wrecking. 

In the Cold War (about 1948 - 1992) new build submarine pens needed to be WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) Resistant. Due mainly to the danger of deep penetrating nuclear weapons pens-bunkers were preferably dug from harbours into mountains. Doors, were also needed, to shield from sideways flash-blast and fallout.

Hence the youtube below features not just a sturdy roof but a whole town/base complex under the ground, behind heavy doors.

Youtube uploaded by Seth Miller Sep 6, 2012. In the 1950s the Soviets built the Balaklava (in Crimea) submarine pen and nuclear weapon bunker complex (above). The complex was surrounded by base worker accommodation in what was yet another Soviet "secret city" (only authorised entry and not marked on map). The base was decommissioned in the 90s for various reasons including Russia terminating almost all SSN and SSBN patrols. 

Balaklava complex become a nuclear museum with a small surrounding community. But I don't know whether the museum is still open to the public after Russia's takeover of Crimea in 2014?

Pete

Submarine Matters Articles - Excellent Opinion Piece

Great minds think alike :)

This Opinion Piece of July 23, 2016 provides an excellent discussion on Turnbull electoral and  shipbuilding strategy, as well as steel and original Australian content issues for the DCNS Shortfin submarines.

I’d like to think there was some inspiration from my special report “Australian Election and Shipbuilding” (to donors) and Submarine Matters’ articles (written for free) over the last few days, weeks and months.

Before each of the paragraphs of the Opinion Piece below I will provide a quote or link to “Australian Election and Shipbuilding” (of 13/7/2016) and the relevant Submarine Matters article(s) with the date(s).

Submarine Matters Articles and a Comment	From Opinion Piece
My comment of 19/7/2016 "This new Turnbull Ministry contains an unusually high number of Cabinet Ministers and junior Ministers. The reason for that is Turnbull is insecure. He feels compelled to bestow positions on all the factions and personalities of the Liberal National Party Coalition Government who can bring him down."	“…An unwieldy cabinet of 23 …underline Turnbull’s weakened position and the fact he can’t afford to make more enemies.”
My article of 18/7/2016 “Where I indicated in Australian Election and Shipbuilding (of July 13, 2016) that Prime Minister  Turnbull's imminent post Election Ministerial reshuffle would likely involve: "However, [Defence Minister Marise Payne's] portfolio, with its domestically influential shipbuilding programs, is now attractive to others, including Abbott"..."Alternatively the centrist (and significantly South Australian) Christopher Pyne may take her position." The message of a diminuation of Marise Paynes' defence industry power appears accurate.  Mr Pyne has made unsolicited comments on submarine building policy for at least a year - as these articles on Submarine Matters reveal. Just announced today (July 18, 2016) in Turnbull's post Election Ministerial reshuffle is Christopher Pyne's new role of Minister for Defence Industry.	“Central to the promise to deliver an economic transformation and the most significant change in cabinet was the gutting of Marise Payne’s defence ministry and the huge portfolio promotion for Christopher Pyne as Defence Industry Minister.”
My article of 21/9/2015 "While the promise of 70% of submarine work in Australia has been mentioned by the outgoing defence minister Andrews in Parliament this is not yet a formal commitment. 70% involves complex costings over a 20 year period. The new Australian Defence Minister, Marise Payne, will be faced with a highly complex $90 Billion shipbuilding situation.  She and the whole Australian Federal Cabinet will have to:  plan, conduct and complete submarine/ship selections which heavily rely on the knowledge/designs/industrial capacity/contractural clarity of overseas companies…"	Yet on every count there are signs Turnbull’s strongly stated intentions may not be fulfilled, and that includes the central economic transformation of $90bn in defence spending. “…Yet at the same hearing she would not commit to giving a percentage of how much of the subs would be built in Adelaide, refused to say a minimum would be 70 per cent and said the aim was “to maximise Australian industry involvement”.”

Further from Submarine Matters Articles

From Opinion Piece

From my “Australian Election and Shipbuilding” in WORD that I emailed out to donors on 13/7/2016. “The Australian July 2, 2016 Election result confirms the Government was on the right political track pursuing a South Australian-centric shipbuilding strategy. But it also leaves scope for much instability… The result appears to re-affirm that the Government followed the right electoral strategy in its April 2016 announcements (here and here) that most of the surface shipbuilding tonnage and all of the new submarines should be built in South Australia (SA)… Turnbull in Opposition proved he was not a stayer when confronted with the frustrating grind of negotiation and conflicting interests. The clash of interests now include centrists and conservatives in his own Government. The election results have proven Turnbull does not have the sure hand (that many expected him to have) to win elections.” My article on Arrium of 4/April/2016 “The steel plant at Whyalla, owned by Arrium, makes “long steel” products - mainly steel reinforcing bars and beams for homes and buildings.  It is possible that Arrium could gear up to make the few hundred tonnes of steel beams needed in Australia's Future Submarine project. But this would only be needed in the mid 2020s based on the Turnbull Government's plans to delay the Future Submarines build until the late 2020s. For an Australian submarine build, first steel might only be cut in 2028. The example of any Australian company making submarine steel overwhelmingly involves a fundamentally different type of product, that is flat steel for submarine hulls.  The precedent of an Australian company producing submarine steel seems limited to Port Kembla-Wollongong based Bisalloy Steels Pty Ltd. This only involved Bisalloy making 8,000 tonnes of steel in the 1980s-1990s for the Collins submarine program. There was research and development involvement from BHP.  Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) was also involved - see "High-strength steel and welds" here.  My article of 26/4/2016 “Collins steel mainly made in Port Kembla,-Wollongong, NSW” My article of 20/1/2015 “Australian companies approached by Japan may include BHP-Billiton and BlueScope Steel. However the main company Japan approaches is likely to be current naval steelmaker Bisalloy Steels Pty Ltd based in Port Kembla-Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.  In the 1980s-1990s Bisalloy supplied 8,000 tonnes of hardened steel for the Collins submarine program with research and development involvement of BHP and the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO). Bisalloy Steels Pty Ltd (company website) has connections to Indonesia (PT Bima Bisalloy), Thailand (Bisalloy Thailand) and from July 2011 investment in the Chinese CJV - Bisalloy Jigang (Shandong) Steel Plate Co. Ltd. It would be crucial that Japanese-Australian submarine steel technology does not find its way to foreign affiliates - particularly China.”

“Turnbull’s announcement of the successful French bidder for the subs on the eve of the election to “see Australian workers building Australian submarines with Australian steel” was at the heart of the Liberal attempts to stave off defeat in several seats in South Australia.” “What’s more, naval chiefs said the strength of the steel needed for submarines was not produced at Whyalla’s Arrium and only Bisalloy, in Wollongong, NSW, had produced the necessary grade of tensile steel used in the Collins-class submarines.”

More from Opinion Piece of July 23, 2016.

“They also said the same steel had to be used in all parts of the submarine, which could include bits produced in France. Evidence was also given that by Turnbull’s prediction of 2019 for the next election, the design process for the new Barracuda Shortfin French sub would be only three years into its five-year starting phase.

It is possible that even by 2019 it won’t be certain as to what steel will be needed for the hull and the government will again run the risk of going to an election with an unresolved promise to South Australia on submarines.

The government has already given the impression of an all-Australian build, with Australian workers using Australian steel, when it cannot possibly be known what percentage will be Australian made and neither the builders nor the Australian navy can give any real assurance.

But Pyne kept boosting the benefits after his first official meeting as Defence Industry Minister with the leaders of the Future Submarine program on Wednesday, saying it “will bring unprecedented economic benefit to Australia, driving jobs and growth across the country”.

The appointment of Pyne as a South Australian “fixer” to ensure promises are kept is a sign that Payne was not seen as assertive enough and that her cabinet colleagues were anxious. Having made a great deal only nine months ago of appointing Australia’s first female Defence Minister as part of a promotion of women into cabinet, Turnbull could do no more to address the concern….”

See WHOLE EXCELLENT OPINION PIECE

Pete

Intelligence on a Russian SOSUS System

The following are slides describing Russian research company, Morinformsystem-Agat's 

MGK-608E Passive Stationary Sonar System

   The MGK-608E Passive Stationary Sonar System in a satellite, strike fighter and surface ship surveillance     network (above).

---

   The MGK-608E Passive Stationary Sonar System used for Harbour Protection.

The MGK-608E Passive Stationary Sonar System used for anti-submarine detection with the potential for destruction.

---

In researching evidence of Chinese or Russian SeaWeb systems I thought I'd have to rely on obscure, fragmentary mentions. Instead the Russian SOSUS (fixed passive sonar) system is comprehensively described in slides (above) and description (below).

Instead a Russian arms research and sales company (with online sales brochures in English and other languages) is selling SOSUS systems to foreign customers - which could easily include the Chinese Navy (PLA-N).

That Russian company is the Morinformsystem-Agat Joint Stock Company (JSC). Morinformsystem-Agat has been developing electronics systems for submarines and naval ships for over sixty years. More see http://concern-agat.ru/en/about-us and http://concern-agat.ru/en/about-us/enterprises/morinsis-agat-kip

Here is a Morinformsystem-Agat sales brochure that I retrieved on July 22, 2016]  

MGK-608E Passive Stationary Sonar System

http://concern-agat.ru/en/production/hydroacoustics-hydroacoustic-equipment/mgk-608e-passive-stationary-sonar-system

MGK-608E Passive Stationary Sonar System is a group of linear phased arrays of hydrophones mounted on the sea floor at a distance from dozens to several hundreds of kilometers from the coastline.

The signals received by the hydrophones are additive combination of signal-independent noise interference of distributed long-range vessel and local source noises that are located within the system detection range. Having been filtered and amplified the signals are transformed into digital form and are transmitted to the coastal post via the fiber-optic cable channel.

MGK-608E Passive Stationary Sonar System is designed for sea surveillance in the predetermined area of responsibility. The system performs the following tasks:

-          detection of underwater and surface objects using their hydroacoustic field parameters;

-          hydroacoustic monitoring of detected underwater and surface objects, as well as determination of their heading, speed and behaviour;

-          computer-aided object classification according to object noise emission;

-          record and archiving of detected object data;

-          computer-aided diagnostics of the technical state of MGK-608E Passive Stationary Sonar System at startup, and performance monitoring during system operation;

-          automated output of data on detected objects.

MGK-608E system includes:

1. Underwater equipment:„

·            long hydroacoustic antenna groups;

·            signal collection and analogue-to-digital conversion equipment;

·            digital cable data links;

·            mounting kit;

·            single SPTA set.

2. Coastal-based equipment:„

·            computing system with display devices;

·            power supply system;

·            single SPTA set;

·            mounting kit;

·            user manual.

Main specifications
Number of hydroacoustic antennas in the system	up to 60
Antenna offshore distance	200 km
Deployment depth	up to 1000 m
Underwater object classification probability	0.9
Object positioning inaccuracy	1.5–2 km
Underwater object velocity determination inaccuracy	2%
Underwater object heading determination inaccuracy	6 deg
Maintenance crew	2 persons/shift
Service life	10 years
Special features
Efficient detection and output of hydroacoustic data to the operator.
Maximum antenna offshore distance – up to 200 km.

It is interesting Russia is marketing the system so openly.

I'm unaware of a Western SOSUS system being offered like this.

Pete