US Marines are getting in on Navy submarine hunting
"We're past the question of whether the Marine Corps can contribute to ASW," said Navy Capt. Bill Howey, director of maritime operations for Commander, Submarine Group Two, in a press release on the training. "Now we're refining how they contribute and then integrating that into the fleet playbook."
Anti-submarine warfare (ASW) involves detecting, tracking, and neutralizing enemy submarines using specialized ships, aircraft, sonar systems, and underwater weapons. It is a critical component of naval defense aimed at protecting fleets and strategic waterways from hidden underwater threats, though it hasn't traditionally been a mission in which Marines have been involved.
Expendable sonobuoys, like those used in the exercise, are launched, or in this case dropped, from the air (from fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft and uncrewed airborne platforms) and are used for detecting and tracking submarines. They can also help with targeting subs for a torpedo attack.
The recent training was part of a yearslong reshuffling for the Marine Corps from fighting counterinsurgency warfare in the Middle East toward peer-level warfare against adversarial nations like China or Russia. It seems to be among the first times the DoD has relied on the Osprey for sonobuoy deployment.
Maj. Sean T. Penczak, the executive officer of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 162 said that "the Osprey's unique capabilities as a tiltrotor aircraft allow it to excel within the framework of distributed aviation operations and expeditionary advanced base operations."
"Its ability to cover long ranges with a payload comparable to the P-8, while maximizing time on station for time-critical tasking, has made it highly effective in the anti-submarine warfare arena— demonstrating its versatility and value as emerging threats continue to evolve," he said of the Osprey.
The other aircraft Penczak referenced is Boeing's P-8 Poseidon airplane, which is based on the civilian 737-800 and was created for maritime missions like anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare. The plane can deploy torpedoes and anti-ship missiles and serves as a premier airborne ASW platform.
NATO countries have stepped up their anti-submarine warfare efforts in recent years in the Atlantic Ocean and Arctic amid more frequent Russian submarine activity. They are also ramping up efforts to combat unintentional damage and sabotage to undersea cables and critical infrastructure, sometimes relying on sensor systems, uncrewed surveillance, and patrols.
Sonobuoys like the ones used recently aren't new to the US military's arsenal of submarine detection tools, though they are a new tool for Marines. The sensors were developed during World War II in response to German U-boats' attacks on Allied vessels in the Atlantic.
A DoD technical paper described this tech as a "simple, reliable, inexpensive, technically complex, adaptive, and effective device that has been produced by the millions and used for almost seventy years."
"A few years ago, the idea of Marines flying [anti-submarine warfare] missions might have raised eyebrows," Col. James C. Derrick, commanding officer, Marine Aircraft Group 26, said in his statement. "Now we're doing it as part of the plan, using the Osprey's unique capabilities to help enable naval maneuver."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
4 days ago
- Washington Post
Race to build nuclear reactor on moon raises galaxy of legal questions
Accelerated plans announced by NASA this month for the United States to put a nuclear reactor on the moon ahead of its geopolitical rivals would break new ground — not just on the lunar surface, but in the realm of space law. The vastness of space is governed by long-standing legal frameworks, parts of which have yet to be tested. NASA's efforts in that realm raise thorny questions around those rules, and the possibility for conflict as countries vie for a stepping stone on the path to Mars and beyond, some experts say. Earlier this month, Sean P. Duffy, the acting administrator of NASA and the U.S. transportation secretary, asked NASA to accelerate efforts to place a nuclear reactor on the Moon by 2030. The reactor technology will 'support a future lunar economy, high power energy generation on Mars, and to strengthen our national security in space,' Duffy wrote in a directive first reported by Politico. The NASA chief cited growing pressure from China and Russia as a reason for urgency on the project. Since 2024, both countries have repeatedly affirmed their plan to jointly install a reactor on the moon by the mid-2030s. In his directive, Duffy wrote that the first country to place a nuclear energy source on the moon 'could declare a keep-out zone.' Although placing a nuclear reactor on the moon is not a new concept or a shocking leap for NASA — and the request for proposals calls for the construction of a rather small reactor — Duffy's framing of the move as relating to geopolitics and control raised questions among legal experts. 'There's a certain part of the moon that everyone knows is the best,' Duffy said in the news conference Tuesday. 'We want to get there first and claim that for America.' The United States' lunar activity is largely governed by the Outer Space Treaty, a legally binding agreement signed by all major moon faring nations in 1967, and the Artemis Accords, a set of nonbinding principles designed to guide civil space exploration launched in 2020. China and Russia are not signatories to the latter. Michelle Hanlon, the executive director for the Center for Air and Space Law at the University of Mississippi, said that certain clauses of the Outer Space Treaty have unintentionally created a first mover advantage for placing an energy source on the moon. Article 9 of the Outer Space Treaty says that nations have to conduct activities with 'due regard' for the activities of others, she said, adding that Article 12 outlines the need for state to ask permission to work in an area where another nation has an installation. 'Whoever gets there first has this implicit greater right to exclude than anybody else,' Hanlon said. 'This raises a question of what exactly 'due regard' means.' Neither the treaty nor the accords mention a 'keep-out zone.' In fact, the treaty prohibits all nations from claiming territory on the moon or any celestial bodies. The accords, meanwhile, outline a 'safety zone' — areas where nations can conduct space operations with the assurance that their personnel and equipment will be safe from other nations. The size, scope and duration of the safety zones are left vague, however. 'The only practical and legal provision is that if you land on a particular spot, then the Russians or whomever else would not be entitled to land so closely as to prevent an actual operating risk,' said Frans von der Dunk, a professor of space law at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. If a nation claims more than a few kilometers as a 'safety zone,' other countries might begin to suspect that they aren't motivated by a desire for security but are instead using it as a 'sort of veiled approach to say everyone keeps out,' said von der Dunk. He added that it is too early to assess the proper size of a lunar safety zone, given how little is known about NASA's plans. The intention of the Outer Space Treaty, according to Erika Nesvold, an astrophysicist and author of 'Off-Earth: Ethical Questions and Quandaries for Living in Outer Space,' was to prevent misunderstandings and conflicts and accidents — not to help people 'looking to get a foothold for their nation's government or profit for their companies.' China is committed to 'the peaceful use of outer space,' said Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for China's embassy in Washington. 'China has no intention to engage in a space race, nor do we seek so-called edge in outer space.' Duffy's team forwarded The Washington Post's request for comment to NASA, which said in a statement that the nuclear reactor plans are meant to 'further advance U.S. competition and lunar surface leadership.' Bethany Stevens, a spokeswoman for the agency, said NASA would share additional details about the plans in the future. NASA has been eyeing areas around the moon's southern pole for science and exploration. There, the sun hovers below or just above the horizon in some parts, with looming mountains casting long shadows over the surface. Deep craters are expected to hold frozen water, an extremely valuable commodity in space. In his Tuesday news conference, Duffy pointed to the availability of ice and sunlight as motivating the push to 'claim' space on the moon. Even in sunlit regions of the South Pole area, solar panels would provide energy for only half the month because a night on the moon lasts roughly two weeks. Hanlon said that finding a nonsolar source of energy for rovers or even an eventual permanent human presence on the moon would be 'the right next step' for long-term lunar exploration efforts. 'We can't ship propane to the moon for energy,' she said. Though few details exist about the aim of the project, the request for proposals issued by Duffy calls on commercial companies to outline plans to build a reactor that could generate at least 100 kilowatts of power. 'That's the same amount of energy a 2,000-square foot home uses every 3½ days,' Duffy said Tuesday, describing the project's scale. 'We are not talking about massive technology.' Space experts are concerned that the urgency surrounding Artemis, NASA's return-to-the-moon program, is papering over a range of lunar legal issues. Nesvold, the astrophysicist, said there are concerns that racing to the moon could lead to a 'gold rush' mentality, conflicts over access to lunar resources, environmental losses and labor exploitation that would especially stem from the involvement of profit-motivated private companies mining on the moon. Edwin Lyman, a physicist and the director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization in Washington, said 'undue speed is not a friend of nuclear power development,' adding that rushing the process could result in 'safety incidents and reliability issues.' Lyman also raised questions about what might be done with radioactive waste on the moon. 'That type of waste could persist for hundreds of years,' Lyman said. 'It's going to be a mess frankly.'
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Scientists make startling discovery after analyzing historic photos of Antarctic ice shelves: 'An unambiguous signal'
Scientists make startling discovery after analyzing historic photos of Antarctic ice shelves: 'An unambiguous signal' They could have missed it — a black-and-white aerial image taken back in 1966. The photographer is imagined to have been a member of the U.S. Navy who was likely mapping the Antarctic landscape. But, years later, a few researchers noticed something unusual. That frozen frame seemed to show the Wordie Ice Shelf giving way. The old photo turned out to be a major clue, one that could reshape our understanding of Antarctica's melting crisis and show why ignoring it could cost us. What's happening? Researchers at the University of Copenhagen, the institution shared in a release, compared those vintage photos to newer satellite images. What they found was quiet but alarming: The Wordie Ice Shelf hadn't just melted from the surface — it had been worn down from beneath. Warmer ocean waters, they deduced, had slipped under the ice, slicing into it from the inside out. With the team's findings published in Nature Communications in April, corresponding author Mads Dømgaard explained in the university's release, "We have identified several signs of incipient ice shelf collapse that we expect will be observed in other ice shelves, but perhaps more importantly, the dataset has given us a multitude of pinning points that can reveal how far advanced a collapse is. It's a completely new tool." Dømgaard says the resource could be used to assess shelves that could collapse or are already collapsing. Co-author Anders Anker Bjørk added that they've found the process of "ice shelf collapse may be slower than we thought." But Bjørk also strongly cautioned, " … this longer process will make it harder to reverse the trend once it has started. This is an unambiguous signal to prioritise halting greenhouse gas emissions now rather than sometime in the future." Why does it matter? Wordie wasn't huge to start — losing it has bumped sea levels by only millimeters — but it has given scientists a look into the future. If bigger ice shelves, such as Ross or Ronne, crumble, the chain reaction could be a lot worse. These shelves currently provide a stabilizing force, and once they break down, it could be difficult to prevent further damage. That's why tools that might help researchers spot the signs of collapse earlier on could really matter. They might buy us more time — and offer stronger motivation to make a change. Do you think our power grid needs to be upgraded? Definitely Only in some states Not really I'm not sure Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. What can be done? Research like this in-depth look at the Wordie Ice Shelf can encourage more effective mitigation and adaptation efforts. As Bjørk noted, the team's findings underscore the urgency with which governments and coalitions need to reduce the amount of heat-trapping, ice-melting pollution in our atmosphere. They could also help state officials and community advocates better prepare to withstand the effects of rising sea levels by taking actions like updating flood guidance, reworking zoning ordinances, and relocating and strengthening critical infrastructure. But maybe these activities don't fall under your personal purview? Individual choices can still stack up — especially when organized en masse. Residents can organize support for policies that lower emissions, ask local officials how they're preparing for sea level rise, and use clean energy options whenever available. That photo sat, seemingly untouched, for decades. But it captured something big. And committed people took it to the next step. What happens next — that's still up to us. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Solve the daily Crossword
New York Post
6 days ago
- New York Post
Lasers are innovating modern warfare, for better or worse
Earlier this summer, Israel made military history. Not with a missile, bomb or bullet — but with a beam of light. In a first for modern warfare, the Israel Defense Forces successfully intercepted Hezbollah drones using a high-energy laser weapon in live combat. The breakthrough weapon, developed under the Iron Beam program, quietly zapped dozens of targets out of the sky during the Iron Sword campaign, marking the first confirmed use of laser cannon technology on an active battlefield. According to a joint statement in late May from the Israeli Ministry of Defence, the Israeli Air Force and defense contractor Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, 'soldiers from the IAF Aerial Defence Array operated high-power laser system prototypes in the field, successfully intercepting scores of enemy threats.' Advertisement 9 Rafael Advanced Defense Systems The technology might sound like science fiction, but officials say this laser cannon, which resembles an oversized spotlight, is anything but make-believe. Israel's success may signal a turning point in the race to develop laser weapons, but it's far from the only player on the field. China was accused last month of targeting a German aircraft with a laser during an EU operation. Germany called it 'entirely unacceptable,' although China denied the claim. Meanwhile, Chinese scientists are reportedly developing a microwave-based beam weapon that resembles the Death Star and is capable of combining multiple sources into one high-powered shot. Advertisement Russia recently unveiled the 'Posokh,' a laser weapon described as a 'ray gun' for downing drones. Russian Airborne Forces also showcased a prototype laser rifle in March designed to protect civilian infrastructure from UAV attacks. 9 AFP via Getty Images Laser weapons, formally known as directed energy weapons (DEWs), have been on the global radar for decades. But until now, they've mostly lived in research labs and defense trade shows. More than 30 countries are developing the technology — and the US military alone spends $1 billion annually on high-energy laser (HEL) research. 'The Army, Navy and Air Force have all been developing laser weapons,' says Dr. Iain Boyd, PhD, director of the Center for National Security Initiatives at the University of Colorado Boulder. 'The Navy has installed HELs on several ships, the Army is using them for base defense and vehicles, and the Air Force has studied installing HELs on fighter jets.' Advertisement Are lasers poised to become the weapon of choice for modern warfare? Boyd tells The Post he expects to see 'a steady increase in the use of high-energy laser weapons in the coming years. It is still relatively immature technology, but as the remaining challenges are overcome, their potential to change some aspects of warfare will be realized.' For the moment, the Iron Beam — known in Hebrew as Magen Or, which translates to Shield of Light —shows the most promise. An offshoot of the Iron Dome, Israel's air defense system that's been operational since 2011, the Iron Beam was designed to 'complement the Iron Dome and work alongside it, not replace it,' says military analyst Yaakov Lappin, who's been closely following the technology for years. But the Iron Beam promises something no other weapon can deliver: shots that cost a few dollars apiece. 'It's vastly cheaper,' Lappin says. Advertisement Israel currently spends upwards of $100,000 per Iron Dome interceptor. That's a steep price to shoot down enemy projectiles that might cost just a few hundred dollars to build. The Iron Beam's electric 'bullets,' by contrast, are practically free. 9 AP 'They are described as having an 'infinite magazine,' ' says Dr. Boyd. 'Unlike guns and rocket launchers that have a finite number of munitions available, as long as a HEL has electrical power, it can keep on firing 'bullets' of photons.' The US, meanwhile, has yet to deploy lasers in real-world combat despite decades of research. The Army's Stryker-based laser, Navy's ship-mounted HELs and Air Force programs all remain in test phases. 'I am not content with the pace,' US Navy Vice Adm. Brendan McLane said in a keynote speech at the Surface Navy Association confab in 2024. 'We must deliver on the promise this technology gives us.' America's laser weapon dreams go back to Ronald Reagan's 1983 'Star Wars' Strategic Defense Initiative, a $200 billion attempt to shoot down nuclear missiles with space lasers. That program fizzled out by 1993. Subsequent efforts, like the joint US-Israel 'Nautilus' laser in the late '90s, also stalled for being too bulky, weak and slow. 9 Sygma via Getty Images The pivot came with solid-state lasers which are smaller, more efficient and electric rather than chemical. Advertisement Israel had one key advantage over other nations in the race to develop lasers, says Brian Wang, a science writer and co-founder of the popular tech blog Next Big Future. 'The US has spent billions over the decades, but Israel had actual fighting as a forcing factor to get this stuff working and deployed,' he explains. The breakthrough came when Israeli engineers abandoned the old idea of firing one giant beam and instead developed a system that fires hundreds of small, coin-sized beams. These beams lock onto a single vulnerable spot, often identified via telescopic reflection, and bombard it in succession until the threat is neutralized. The Iron Beam uses optical fiber lasers, which are essentially souped-up industrial lasers, to destroy aerial threats. 'Electricity is used to excite atoms or molecules,' explains Wang. 'They emit high energy photons, and all the photons are concentrated using mirrors. The laser heats a critical area — say, the fuel tank or warhead — until the missile fails.' 9 Commander Naval Surface Force Atlantic/Facebook Advertisement Lasers convert electrical energy 'into a focused beam of light particles, or photons,' says Boyd. 'Depending on the energy, they can cut, melt, combust or destroy a target.' In practical terms, the Iron Beam vaporizes drones with surgical precision. But there are limits. HELs currently can't intercept long-range ballistic missiles like the ones targeted by Israel's Arrow 3, which shoots down threats outside the Earth's atmosphere. For now, lasers remain short-range guardians. Also, a weapon capable of melting metal at 2 kilometers isn't exactly energy-efficient. A 100-kilowatt laser requires a massive power source and cooling system. The most advanced (and smallest) prototypes draw 300 kilowatts — enough to power 30 homes — and are only about 50% efficient, meaning they produce immense waste heat. This limits where and how the weapons can be deployed. And there's another catch. Advertisement 'The effectiveness of laser beams can be diminished through interaction with a variety of environmental phenomena,' say Boyd. Rain, fog, dust and smoke can scatter laser beams, reducing their effectiveness. 'The laser needs to stay locked on a target for several seconds to be effective,' he adds. Which is why naval lasers, like those tested on the USS Preble, haven't seen wide use. The sea is a famously unforgiving place for precision optics. A misplaced beam can also cause serious unintended damage. As Boyd warns, there's concern about potential collateral effects. 'A laser beam reflecting off a surface could blind someone,' he says. 'Or if it misses a target, it could travel hundreds of miles. There is a need to ensure no innocent party is affected.' Advertisement The UN banned laser weapons designed to blind in 1995. But with nations like Russia and Turkey reportedly fielding HELs, updated international rules may be overdue. And then there's the conspiracy crowd. Social media has fueled bizarre theories claiming government lasers have started wildfires in California and Hawaii, an idea experts flatly reject. 'I am very skeptical about these claims,' says Boyd. 'Installing a laser of sufficient power to start a fire on a drone is not simple. For a laser to be effective, you need to have very fine pointing control to ensure that the beam stays precisely on the target.' Achieving that during flight requires sophisticated technology, Boyd says, and there are 'probably more effective ways of starting wildfires from drones than lasers.' In a world where a $500 drone can destroy a $10 million tank, militaries are desperate for cheaper, smarter defenses. Lasers offer just that, if they can overcome their limitations. Israel's success may mark the beginning of a new era, one where the flash of a laser, not the roar of a missile, is what keeps the skies safe.
