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?
I for one welcome our steampunk overlords.
More information via http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/03/air-force-signs.html
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.
Yes those laser armed taliban have been a real problem.
Just use a laser
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
It's amazing what 65,000 feet of atmosphere will do to your nice laser. Plus the joy of keeping it focused on one place to allow the heat to build up sufficiently.
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.
You are aware that an airship's lift cells are pressurized to barely over atmospheric pressure, don't you? That the lift comes from the volume of gas being less dense than the atmosphere, not from pressure? Take a plastic shopping bag, shake it open, then squeeze the open end closed with your hand. Now poke the inflated bag with a needle. See how violently the bag ruptures? Oh, wait -- it doesn't do that at all; you just get a leak.
Go back and read how hard it was for Allied fighter pilots in WWI to take down German dirigibles and observation balloons; because they were filled with hydrogen, they would have to shoot holes in the balloon, then fly back and fire tracers or incendiary bullets through the plume of escaping hydrogen gas coming out the holes they'd shot. But airships lifted by helium don't have that weakness, so the problem would be limited to patching holes.
"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
It's amazing how trivial those problems are compared to protecting a blimp at 65,000'.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Laser:
"If the ABL achieves its design goals, it could destroy liquid-fueled ICBMs up to 600 km away. Tougher solid-fueled ICBM destruction range would likely be limited to 300 km"
65,000' is just a hair under 20 kilometers. That's beans compared to what the ABL is supposed to be able to do against a smaller, much faster moving target, from a mobile platform. You might need a stronger laser than the ABL carries, but as I said before, most blimps aren't particularily tough.
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
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.