I am sure the Navy will also argue that to stop the ongoing expenditures would produce major disruption and irreparable harm. The judiciary will then be placed between a rock and a hard place, with an agency substantively and substantially violating environmental laws over an extensive period of time in pursuit of a system the agency claims is necessary for national security. To accept the Navy's behavior would be to create an exemption for the Navy to compliance with the law. Such an exemption would be to place the Navy beyond the mandates of Congress applicable to all other federal agencies and call into question whether the Navy is actually subject to civilian control. To stop the deployment, even for the time necessary for the Navy to prepare an adequate EIS, would require the court to reject the Navy claims of harm to the national security.
Federal judges are very reluctant to take such a step.
There is one final factor I ask you to consider. Part of the heightened public concern regarding deployment of this system is the threat posed by LFA to marine life, such as whales. If the Navy does not take a hard look at potentially damaging effects on the environment from routine operations, the Navy will not have really considered the potential damage from use during conflict and threat conditions. I would assume that you would want to know just what damage this system could actually do under all circumstances, including conflict and threat conditions, before accepting this alternative as the technology of choice for detecting silent submarines. Given that the Navy did not pursue an open process for selecting the LFA technology, there is no reason to assume alternatives are not available.