Slashdot Mirror
US Pentagon Plans For a Spy Blimp
nloop writes "The Pentagon is intending to develop a new spy ship — a dirigible. At 65,000 feet it would provide a 10 year, solar power based, unblinkingly intricate and continuous view of the surface via radar surveillance. Because of its altitude it would be safe from surface-to-air missiles and most aircraft. A 1/3-scale prototype, now being designed, is 'known as ISIS, for Integrated Sensor Is the Structure, because the radar system will be built into the structure of the ship. ... 'If successful, the dirigible... could pave the way for a fleet of spy airships, military officials said.'"
China works on 'giant slingshots' armed with darts to combat the US spying mission.
Because of its altitude it would be safe from surface-to-air missiles
The U2 went for this, and it didn't work for long. Though I'm guessing that for what is essentially a balloon with a sensor package, it's radar signature will be pretty low to start with, and extra stealth technology notwithstanding.
and I thought that model rocketry was dead.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
What's this business in the article about it being "nearly impossible to see"? A 450 foot dirigible at an altitude of 65,000 feet would subtend an angle of 0.4 degrees from ground-level directly underneath, just a little smaller than the full Moon. Or will it be painted with big words on the side saying "Please ignore the spy in the sky", instructions that we all will no doubt dutifully follow, like the sheep we are?
The last project trying to revive the blimp ended by having to transform the hangar into a tropical bath. Good luck.
I for one welcome our steampunk overlords.
More information via http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/03/air-force-signs.html
Hmm. Large gas-filled object, presumably with a not overly-thick skin to keep the weight down. Ground based laser of sufficient power to pop a hole in the giant balloon.
Yeah, this is gonna work real well.
Don't worry, after the couple of unfortunate incidents, the surplus will be sold off at a substantial discount to local law enforcement agencies who wish to better Secure the Homeland(tm).
The 450-foot-long craft would give the U.S. military a better understanding of an adversary's movements, habits and tactics, officials said. And the ability to constantly monitor small movements in a wide area -- the Afghanistan- Pakistan border, for example -- would dramatically improve military intelligence..... The giant airship's military value would come from its radar system. Giant antenna would allow the military to see farther and with more detail than it can now.
Sounds pretty useful to me. Not against countries with advanced weapons but probably Afghanistan. Think of it as a Protoss Observer. Not invincible but godly useful for recon.
and safe from most fighter planes.
Hmmm. most...It's almost as if they thought that there might be some advanced planes...almost as if they had done some research on possible opponents...almost as if experts in the field are as smart as a Slashdot reader.
Floating cannon battles with the Ron Paul blimp.
The engineers don't have to seem as silly now that they get to put the purestrain gold shells to good use. Hard to starboard!
Just use a laser
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Considering modern Mig's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-35) can reach approximately 62,000 feet already, having a missle go the extra distance from there would be relatively trivial.
But at what cost?
The missles aren't cheap, and neither is the costs of sending the plane up there (fuel, maintenance...and don't the higher-end planes that will be capable of reaching that altitude cost more in every way?). If the blimp costs $20,000 and missiles are $50,000; $ENEMY could have a problem.
http://xkcd.com/494/
http://xkcd.com/495/
http://xkcd.com/496/
http://xkcd.com/497/
http://xkcd.com/498/
One of my all-time favorite series...
Since this thing is unmanned, why not use hydrogen and get substantially more lifting power or get the same lift with a smaller craft?
If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
However, by then the developers will have had the money and moved on to other projects, which is the usual way military R&D works (cynicism borne of experience).
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Who is going to watch the watchers?
"At 65,000 feet ..... it would be safe from surface-to-air missiles and most aircraft."
Francis Gary Powers was shot down in his U-2 by an S-75 Dvina missile on May 1, 1960. The operating altitude for his mission was 70,000 feet. How is 65,000 safe 50 years after 70,000 isn't?
It's obviously not. On 13 September 1985 an F-15 launched an ASM-135 ASAT anti-satellite weapon from 38,000 feet and took down the Solwind satellite orbiting at an altitude of 345 miles (1,821,600 feet). The ASM-135 was built from off-the-shelf (ie. already developed, tested and in production) hardware. One can assume the shelf 25 years later to be much better stocked, and any launch platforms to be much more capable, such as the recent development of Mach 1+ missile launch capability.
With or without the "surface-to-air" in the summary replaced with "hand held" as in the original, TFA is ludicrous.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
You are completely missing the about about this things use. In all modern warfare contexts the US has total air superiority. If a war arises where that is not the case, the US makes sure it gains air superiority very quickly.
Once you have air superiority and have bombed shit out of everything that could launch a missile large enough to reach it this thing is perfect for spotting hostile forces on the ground. Most of the people we now fight against are so out gunned in the skys they resort to terrorist and guerilla actions. This thing can be kept flying for very long periods, very cheaply. It also has the advantage of being able to hover. This means when it sees a target, it can remain stationary above it and maintain a visual for long periods.
The current solution is to use spy drones but they are vulnerable to small arms fire form the ground, need fuel, and have to fly in circles to maintain a visual on a fix position. This circling vastly reduces the effectiveness of the drones in urban environment with tall buildings.
I dont read
You're right, it wouldn't be useful for a full, conventional conflict with a country like China or Russia, or even pre-invasion Iraq. However, since the fall of the Soviet Union we've been much more involved in police action (the Balkans, Somalia) and insurgency fighting (Iraq and Afghanistan). When they say safe from missiles, they mean safe from shoulder mounted rockets that can devastate helicopters, low-flying aircraft, and any aircraft on take-off or landing. Having something that high with 10 years aloft means that its safe in this style of modern warfare.
Also, while minute-by-minute persistence, what you get from this, is much more important in this kind of asymmetric warfare. Fighting a conventional battle with a large army involves tracking troop movements and other large-scale things that are hard to hide from a satellite. However, for finding insurgents in Baghdad or tracking fighters crossing the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, persistent observation where you can follow an individual's or small group's movements is much more valuable.
The current Secretary of Defense is very big on fighting the current wars instead of developing more cold-war relics like the F-22, so this seems right in line with his priorities, and it makes sense. If it were intended for spying on US cities, they would be trying to keep it much quieter and, as others have pointed out, it wouldn't really be impossible to see the airships. Given the (correct) uproar over the NSA wiretapping, which only focused on phone-calls going out of the country, I can only imagine how quickly such a program would be brought down, especially given how much harder it would be to hide.
Comsidering that an F-15 successfully shot down (destroyed) a satellite which was orbiting 555km above the Earth, the assertion that a blimp would be safe from aircraft attack is demonstrable bunk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle#Operational_history
Moreover, a preproduction F-15 (the "Streak Eagle") in breaking its eighth time to altitude record, went from standstill on the ground to 98,425 feet (30 km) in 208 seconds, and coasted to 103,000 feet. Modern interceptors can reach such altitudes with little if any modification. 65,000 feet is within their normal operating capability.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=621
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Even if they are disposable (1 year aloft doesn't seem all that disposable) you mistakenly associate disposable with inexpensive ... as it's certainly not the case with the military in the US
The chinese can probably launch a space shuttle for what one of these buggers will cost us :)
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Who needs that, the good old Mig 21 has a service ceiling of 17500m, and its GP-9 gun pod has a known effective range of 3000m.
17500+3000=20500m, or 67,000 feet....
and that is one hell of a big target.
So it is easily hitable by anyone with even a historic jet airforce. It would be safe from foot soldiers and shoulder launched missiles.
http://members.tripod.com/YUModelClub/yugoslav_air_force/mig21/mig21var.htm
http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jalw/jalw2788.html
Would be just the thing for monitoring the home populous though.
Oh hell, just put a 'Goodyear' logo on it and everyone will just wave at the thing. Smile for the camera!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The summary was a little misleading on how/where these would be deployed. The dirigibles would be used for covering large areas from a safe distance. They would not be deployed in a active air war where major military opponents had AA defenses against high altitude targets. Think Iraq, Afghanistan, and similar places. The threats are real but generally limited to small arms and shoulder fired missiles. 65,000 feet is plenty safe against these threats.
As I understand it, this U2 was 'shot' down by an unarmed, manned, Soviet interceptor not a SAM.
From wikipedia:
"In 1996, Soviet pilot Captain Igor Mentyukov revealed that, at 65,000 feet (19,812 meters) altitude, under orders to ram the intruder, he had managed to catch the U-2 in the slipstream of his unarmed Sukhoi Su-9, causing the U-2 to flip over and break its wings. The salvo of rockets had indeed scored a hit, downing a pursuing MiG-19, not the U-2. Mentyukov said that if a rocket had hit the U-2, its pilot would not have lived.[19][20]
Though the normal Su-9 service ceiling was 55,000 feet (16,760 meters), Mentyukov's aircraft had been modified to achieve higher altitudes, having its weapons removed. With no weapons, the only attack option open to him was ramming."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-2_Crisis_of_1960
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Aye. However, they didn't have missiles that were fast enough to catch the plane. It's my understanding that some pretty impressive photos were taken from the BB that show it leaving incoming missiles in the dust.
Try not to bash the high-tech weaponry being developed by the US military.
For one, other "cold war relics" like the stealth bombers have been used extensively and extremely effective in modern wars.
Secondly, and this is really the more important issue... maintaining vast military superiority over all potential challengers is what has provided the relative levels of peace that most of the world has experienced since the end of WWII.
It's not anti-insurgency weapons that keep hostile nations like North Korea and Iran in line, and it's certainly not nukes (because they know the US would be hard pressed to use them in any but the most dire situations, and even then, may cause more collateral damage than enemy damage). Knowing that you are at odds with countries that can annihilate you 6 ways from Sunday in mere moments, without any real effort, is an extremely strong diplomatic tool.
Of course, you only need to look at the start of the trend to see the reasons behind it... WWII started specifically because allied nations had not been pushing to advance their military technology, while Germany had. This gave the tiny nation an overwhelming capability to relatively easily take over nearly all of Europe, Africa, and much of Asia, if not for poor decisions, both political and militarily.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant