Talk:Sonobuoy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Cost of Sonobuoy Devices

These things come in loads, and are therefore expendable, is that correct? What is the cost of such equipment? Are these devices inexpensive enough to be used in throw-away mode, like artillery shells or bullets? I'm just wondering how efficient these are. If they are cheap enough, do users deploy tens, or hundreds of them, to saturate an area? Deploying three would seem like a minimum to me. I'm just interested in what the economies of scale are now that they are only 5"! Thanks for any comments! // Brick Thrower 08:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you do a Google search for sonabuoy and cost, you get a figure of around $ 300. Seaphoto 21:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In the mid-1970s, I heard a figure of $60 for an omnidirectional sonobuoy (SSQ-41, IIRC). The directional passive sonobuoys (SSQ-53?) were around $300. I heard a figure of $500 for an active (command-activated pinger) bouy. We used shedloads of them, ten to thirty in a six to ten hour mission. Spacing was dictated by several factors (five factors IIRC), and ambient noise was a biggie. They had scuttling plugs, with a delay that was user selectable. I believe that the actual figures are still classified, as are the hydrophone depth selections. Think of this: if a sub has moved from the initial search area, the radio frequencies that were in use need to be available in the new search area, so the buoys need to visit Davy Jones. I don't recall of an instance when we would have liked to have one resurface. Efficient? Well, they were quite good, with consistent quality, at least the one made by Magnavox, the primary contractor. The bulk of the solution hinged on ambient noise, proper spacing, the expertise of the operators, and the tactical savvy of the TACCO. Constant training and study. I do believe that the US won the Cold War, albeit at a significant cost. LorenzoB (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

External link is dead.

It works correctly for me. If an external link is broken, it is OK to remove it; comments like the previous one can easily become outdated and it is not easy to know what do they refer to.--Gorpik 09:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)