Russ2146 wrote:
I think the point is that anything new in the buoys should be protected by self-destruct with the last gasp of the battery.
Apparently, the new found usefulness of these bouys does not lie in the buoys themselves but in the computer software and the developments in "pattern analysis", which locates the diesel-electrics via anomolies in passively measured environmental characteristics, which the passage of the sub changes by its movement, no matter how silent it might be.
This is an interesting concept. Back when my capability included the Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare units (MIUW), we would take our 34' patrol boats out and drop a bunch of sonobouys in straight lines. The sonobouys would then transmit raw sensor information back to our land-based element in a tactical operation center (TOC), and the computers there would process the information. I don't think the sonobouys did any processing of their own. They only gathered raw information.

On a fun note, once in a while they could receive commands to go active, and we could hear the sounds radiating off the water. The capability was dropped after a while. I am willing to bet that in addition to the budget being too low for us to be deploying sonobouys and not being able to get them back the sounds of our boats dominated what they reported back. We were able to recover a few of them, but jerry-rigging floatation devices to them got in the way of them working right.
So, unless these sonbouys worked differently I think the ASW craft is the one that does the information processing, and the sonobouy itself is only a sensor package that gathers information. As for a self destruct mechanism, I know that with exercise torpedoes if we cannot recover them in a certain time they will scuttle and sink. Who knows how many of those the Russians have recovered over the years.