Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

High-Tech Blimps Earning Their Wings

Posted by samzenpus on from the truly-goodyear dept.

coondoggie writes "The US Army this week showed off its latest high-tech blimp laden with powerful radar systems capable of detecting incoming threats 340 miles away. The helium-filled blimps, or aerostats, are designed to hover over war zones or high-security areas and be on guard for incoming missiles or other threats. The Army wants them to reduce some of the need for manned and unmanned reconnaissance flights. The aerostat demonstrated this week is known as the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Sensor System (JLENS), which is designed to fly up to an altitude of 10,000 feet. According to GlobalSecurity.org., the $1.4 billion JLENS is a large, unpowered elevated sensor moored to the ground by a long cable. From its position above the battlefield, the elevated sensors will allow incoming cruise missiles to be detected, tracked, and engaged by surface-based air defense systems even before the targets can be seen by the systems."

147 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. blimps by buswolley · · Score: 2, Funny

    I know they lose brain matter an all..but now they're floating?

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    1. Re:Blimps by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 3, Informative

      At 10,000 ft, eh maybe. But blimps are cheaper and use less fuel to stay up there.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    2. Re:Blimps by Jason.Jung · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's extremely easy to shoot one of those down. The Taliban when I was in Afghanistan were great at knocking those out of the sky within days of actually figuring out they couldn't eat their brains. No joke. It seriously scared the shit out of them.

    3. Re:blimps by buswolley · · Score: 1
      I don't do anonymous for surface trolls I troll anonymously when I'm serious.

      Even so I'll stand by my troll ha ha ha :)

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    4. Re:Blimps by Kratisto · · Score: 1

      Hell, at 10,000ft most firearms won't make the trip. Hopefully, these things are orders of magnitude cheaper to produce, as well. It would be advantageous to cover a battlefield in hundreds of cheap sensors communicating to provide a comprehensive image, rather than sending up one or two UAV's to scan the area with a limited perspective for the same price.

      --
      Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
    5. Re:Blimps by Sebilrazen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clouds mess with a satellite and you're limited to the window it's over that area of the planet. Loitering drones use lots of fuel to stay aloft because they need to keep flying. A blimp just needs to ascend to elevation, vent some of the lift gas, and float - using small fans for positioning.

      --
      "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
    6. Re:Blimps by bcmm · · Score: 1

      Clouds mess with things at 10,000ft too.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    7. Re:Blimps by adnd74 · · Score: 1

      and blimps don't have to move around to stay a'float

    8. Re:Blimps by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      And if this is in any way related to the blimp system they're testing near the Sarnia Canada border (which I'm betting it is), they don't do so well with lightning either.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    9. Re:Blimps by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Yah, those lead-lined clouds cause huge problems for our radar arrays ...

    10. Re:Blimps by mikael · · Score: 1

      The blimp has a radar system that allows it to detect all flying objects (missiles, airplanes, rockets) before they reach it - that eliminates the danger from radar sensitive missiles. Since it isn't metal and doesn't have any heat sources, radar guided and heat guided missiles aren't going to be much use.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    11. Re:Blimps by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that, while it probably puts out rather less an a conventional aircraft engine, you aren't going to get a big radar array running with zero IR signature...

    12. Re:Blimps by rattaroaz · · Score: 1

      Isn't it kind of easy to shoot down blimps? Can't anything a blimp does be better done with a satellite or a loitering drone?

      I don't think they are easy to shoot down. Remember that when you poke a hole in a large area, the gas only escapes so quickly. I remember reading somewhere that back in WWII, it was not easy to shoot down blimps. Sure, you could shoot them, but all you would end up with is just a blimp with a bunch of holes that flew home safely. citation unavailable.

    13. Re:Blimps by Gruff1002 · · Score: 1

      A laser would make ribbons of it and there is no warning with a laser, speed of light and all.

    14. Re:Blimps by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      How did they shoot them down? Guns or missiles?

      Seems like if the Taliban hate blimps you could troll them with blimps listen for fire and then kill them.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    15. Re:Blimps by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      And of course the Taliban has a bunch of high powered lasers hidden throughout the mountains of Afghanistan. But wait. How are the sharks going to survive in that desert environment?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    16. Re:Blimps by Jason.Jung · · Score: 1, Informative

      They ended up shooting them down with AK-47, PKM, and Dishka fire. Just the standard stuff.

    17. Re:Blimps by jklovanc · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are no satellites in orbit that can do this job right now. To put new one up would cost quite a bit more.

      A drone with enough radar power to do the job would be called an E-3. This requires huge airports and infrastructure to support.

    18. Re:Blimps by Seraphim1982 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is more to a blimp then a big gas bag. There are engines, a crew area, weapons, fuel and probably a whole lot of other things. Most of those arn't going to react well to bullets.

      As for your claim that blimps were hard to shoot down in WWII:
      The US was the only major power to use blimps in World War II. These were generally used for non-hazardous and anti-submarine patrols. Given a U-boats tendency to flee from an airborn threat anti-submarine threat wasn't someplace where they would really encounter heavy AA resistance. One was lost to enemy action (K-74) and one had its crew disapear (L-8).

    19. Re:Blimps by Entropius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing is huge and doesn't move, making the guidance task of whatever you shoot at it very easy.

    20. Re:Blimps by Inda · · Score: 1

      Drones use lots of fuel? Why?

      I went flying one day and stayed up in the sky for over an hour. We used no fuel. The owner called it a glider.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    21. Re:Blimps by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472062/

      There's a funny seen where Joanne Herring, played by a very glamorous Julia Roberts, talks knowlegably about "Dashukas" while she's doing her makeup.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    22. Re:Blimps by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      Back during World War I, the Germans used hot air balloons as artillery spotters. One of the major jobs for airplanes in those days was shooting them down. Of course, since they couldn't fly all that high (or all that well), they were quite vulnerable to anti-aircraft guns. And, then there was the Red Baron and his flying circus...

    23. Re:Blimps by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Those were small, tethered, unpowered and unmanned; in fact the weapon was the cable. They have as much in common with maritime patrol Zeppelins as the ones clowns use to make animals.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    24. Re:blimps by buswolley · · Score: 1

      If we kept this up you'd make it down to Good Karma. YOu know, my Karma jumped between Excellent and Good about 4 times in this thread alone. I AM on the edge. ...I'm edgy. ha ha

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    25. Re:blimps by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Informative

      :) I got another -1 off topic, and I'm still excellent. This may be the last post in the thread, as this will just be more trouble than it's worth to see how many times I can get modded down slightly. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    26. Re:Blimps by farnham · · Score: 1

      You are thinking about air raid balloons.

      The blimps referred to were large, untethered, powered and manned. They were the direct progenitors of the Goodyear blimp and were in fact made by Goodyear.

      --
      pending committee review
    27. Re:Blimps by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Cheaper? $1.4 billion?

      Cheez, the mind boggles at the concept.

    28. Re:Blimps by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      Why does the phrase, "you could troll them with blimps" seem so inherently funny to me? After thinking about it for awhile, internet trolls in blimps would make the perfect arch-enemy for XKCD's cape-wearing, hot-air-balloon-borne, Cory Doctoro, but even on it's own, "you could troll them with blimps" seems so beautifully absurd.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    29. Re:Blimps by Javaman59 · · Score: 1

      My first thought on reading this was to think that we are back to WWI.

      Hopefully we'll also see the return of bi-plane fighters, with machine guns,

      Someone please tag this "biggles", or "redbarron"

      --
      I'm a software visionary. I don't code.
    30. Re:Blimps by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Actually I wish I'd written "you could troll them with blimps and then when they try to shoot them down you could troll them to death with an AC-130"

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    31. Re:blimps by buswolley · · Score: 1

      I think you are winning. I got moderated to hell and back. :)

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    32. Re:Blimps by metaforest · · Score: 1

      for the purposes of an SAM or an AIM, an unpowered blimp has no signature to lock on to. Now that said.. a modified missile might just track the transmitter signature. But you'd still need to get within 340 miles to fire it. Getting AIM or SAM to work at those ranges is not easy. This blimp is not useful if you don't already have and effective air canopy and ground support.

    33. Re:Blimps by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

      Isn't it kind of easy to shoot down blimps? Can't anything a blimp does be better done with a satellite or a loitering drone?

      Let me use a Stinger on this or a Sea Wolf Missile, Eitherway you will know the outcome when the "Lights go out".

      --
      All cows eat grass!
  2. 1.4 billion? What is that describing? by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even after reading the article, it doesnt specify if that is per unit or the total cost of all the systems, including r&d. It says they are less expensive to buy and operate than comparable fixed-wing aircraft so I am hoping that is the total.

    1. Re:1.4 billion? What is that describing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It may be an expensive initial cost (though you really see how much aircrafts cost as well, anything flying is expensive), fuel and manpower is expensive. Using planes to constantly circle an area would far exceed a blimp once you factor in time.

      fuel
      manpower: pilot, mechanics, transportation (for fuel), officers to guide and maintain a constant launch
      # of planes to covers the same area due to smaller size for instruments

      Factor all that over the lifetime of the blimp vs the airplanes, it's really no surprise the blimp is cheaper

    2. Re:1.4 billion? What is that describing? by danwesnor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's going to be either total life cycle costs (requirements, development, manufacturing, operations/maintenance and disposal) or costs through proof-of-concept or LRIP (low-rate initial production). I don't think SMDC's total budget is $1.4B/year. The military budgets programs for total life-cycle if they know it's going to be fielded, or through the expected milestone decision if it's a tech demo that could potentially be fielded. That's why the costs of fighter jets jumped from $20M each to $200M each when acquisition reform was introduced. They are no longer allowed to hide the true total costs of the program by leaving out maintenance/operations/disposal.

    3. Re:1.4 billion? What is that describing? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      As it states in the article; "Long term acquisition requirements call for 12 complete systems at an estimated value of $1.6 billion. " Each system consists of 2 blimps and mobile ground facilities.

    4. Re:1.4 billion? What is that describing? by ralewi1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I second the opinion that the $1.4B is for proof-of-concept. Reuters reported that the contract was for the System Design and Demonstration phase of the contract, with which the Army buys two orbits of two aerostats (likely engineering design models) for testing and evaluation.

      Regarding the aerostats floating over Iraq and Afghanistan now, these are likely the Persistent Threat Detection System.

    5. Re:1.4 billion? What is that describing? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Even after reading the article, it doesnt specify if that is per unit or the total cost of all the systems, including r&d. It says they are less expensive to buy and operate than comparable fixed-wing aircraft so I am hoping that is the total.

      Yes. $1.4Big is a lot of balloon, especially when you can inflate it directly from Washington and get the hot air free (grin).

      It's most likely the cost of the entire programme, and simply administering the deployment will cost big bucks. Figure you'll have quite a few of these things, even if it's as few as (say) 10,000 units, you have to tie in with logistics to package and deliver them, train people on their use, worry about spares and repair and system upgrades, and of course -- the "hot air". Which can actually be hot air if they want, although I'd think it unlikely given the IR signatures & suchlike. Although a radar signature of a quickly-deployed hot air balloon may not be such a problem if your theatre is 340 miles away.

      More likely hydrogen (hey if it gets hit, it blows up. Pretty!) and I hope certainly not helium, which is a bit more difficult to source. The US has a lot of it, but once it escapes it's gone. Hydrogen availability we know about. Hot air would be way easy to deploy - easy to get fuel and you have grunts to clean the burners. Possibly a bit simple, however, to get past the procurement process. YMMV.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    6. Re:1.4 billion? What is that describing? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Now of course if you factor in survivability, what, blimps have zero survivability and in fact would be enormous nearly impossible to miss targets. That must be for use on those kinder gentler battle fields where people don't shoot a flying targets.

      Hmm, lots of hang time, continuous 24/7 monitoring, sounds more likely to be used over zones of occupation and perhaps even domestically, rather than any actual battlefields. For that investment dollar it certainly sounds like they will be loading them up with much more than just radar systems and will be looking to incorporate every kind of monitoring equipment available as well as the latest in telecommunications interception and tracking systems.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:1.4 billion? What is that describing? by awright69 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, lots of hang time, continuous 24/7 monitoring, sounds more likely to be used over zones of occupation and perhaps even domestically, rather than any actual battlefields. For that investment dollar it certainly sounds like they will be loading them up with much more than just radar systems and will be looking to incorporate every kind of monitoring equipment available as well as the latest in telecommunications interception and tracking systems.

      Israel uses aerostats similar to these to hold aloft monitoring and jamming equipment for long periods, and I assure you that if you have a fleet of jets and ground based anti-aircraft batteries, you can guard them well enough

    8. Re:1.4 billion? What is that describing? by metaforest · · Score: 1

      Yes lets factor in survivability, since you think that it's important. Guess what. Aircraft carriers have zero survivability. You know what keeps them alive? They seem to have an air defense canopy and the rest of the battle group which consists of a lot of ships to reduce the risk from subs. ACCs do not go where they cannot guarantee their air superiority.

      With a view of 340+ miles this blimp is going to be able to see just about anything on the ground trying to sneak up, and once again. Such a system is not deployed unless you already have air superiority by other means. AWACS costs a lot more money than a blimp to fly, and puts a lot more human assets at risk for the same job.

      Domestic use is not likely to be all that appealing. I think a blimp moored at 10,000 feet is going to raise a lot of noise in the local political process.

      Local and state authorities already have a much less expensive solution: They flight light planes with spotters on board along highways and large public areas, looking for anomalous things on the ground. They find a lot of marihuana fields this way in California. No blimp required.

      I, for one, welcome our helium-filled overlords!

  3. Blimps by proudfoot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't it kind of easy to shoot down blimps? Can't anything a blimp does be better done with a satellite or a loitering drone?

  4. Overpriced by Angst+Badger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    $1.4 billion dollars? We are talking about what is basically a balloon with an instrument package slung beneath it, aren't we? I don't know about you, but I'd be willing to bet that if the purchaser was anyone but the Pentagon, the price would be at least an order of magnitude lower.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    1. Re:Overpriced by Ironsides · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Consider that price includes development (not just construction), and that to power the radar you're going to need a multi-kilowatt power source that will last for as long as the blimp is in the air, without refueling.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    2. Re:Overpriced by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Sure, but they're not just paying for the defense, they're paying for the sticker, for the -status- that a Rayethon brings. You cruise around in a lockeed blimp, people ignore you. They see "Raytheon JLENS" and they want to know who you are, the valet makes sure not to scratch the doors.

      In seriousness, it looks like raytheon built them. Their wiki page on them lists several controversies that seem pretty typical of the industry.

      Another blurb on JLENS I found (http://defense-update.com/products/j/jlens.htm) had this interesting bit

      A different concept of an untethered airship is pursued by Lockheed Martin. The program cost is estimated at US $149 million with completion expected by November 2010.

      (a page on that airship here http://defense-update.com/products/h/HALE-airship.htm)

      I'm not any kind of expert in defense or aerospace, so maybe the key differences would be obvious to an expert or someone who did more than skim over those two product descriptions, but yeah, an order of magnitude. Suspicious...

    3. Re:Overpriced by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The price is not each but as the report says; "Long term acquisition requirements call for 12 complete systems at an estimated value of $1.6 billion. ". Which is actually 24 blimps and related mobile ground equipment"

    4. Re:Overpriced by timeOday · · Score: 1
      That appears to be the entire program cost: "Long term acquisition requirements call for 12 complete systems at an estimated value of $1.6 billion." So, yeah, each one is almost exactly an order of magnitude cheaper than you are thinking.

      I know the Pentagon pays quite a bit for stuff, but even the B2 Stealth Bomber are less than a billion per copy.

    5. Re:Overpriced by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      I am considering that. Excepting the blimp itself and whatever aerodynamic controls are involved, everything else can -- or could be -- sourced from off-the-shelf parts. And since the device is tethered, the power source could be on the ground.

      Whether it's a good idea to build a platform so vulnerable to such a wide variety of low-tech, improvised attack vectors is another question altogether.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    6. Re:Overpriced by wfstanle · · Score: 1

      "even the B2 Stealth Bomber are less than a billion per copy."

      When you add in the entire costs of the B2 system it costs about 2 billion each.

    7. Re:Overpriced by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 1

      Son, it costs good money to come up with these fancy acronyms. After all it takes some creativity to come up with a name that shortens to something that vaguely sounds like what it's intended to do.

      Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Sensor System (JLENS)

      By my reckoning, that should spell JLACMDESS. Even accounting for the dropping of "and", that's still a stretch to shorten it to JLENS

    8. Re:Overpriced by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Or, since the article pointed out that it would be tethered to the ground, you just combine the tether and the power. 10,000 ft is a fairly long distance, but it should be doable. Provided the power-cord tether weights about the same as a kevlar tether + onboard power supply, it'd be foolish not to do it this way. If you can pump power up there from the ground, it never has to come down.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    9. Re:Overpriced by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Off the shelf wouldn't survive one month. Read up on the military environmental requirements. Start with MIL-STD-810. Also, since when is Radar off the shelf?

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  5. Get a patent! by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    High tech! With a computer!

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  6. Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by wfstanle · · Score: 3, Informative

    I hate to pop your balloon (pun intended) but 10,000 feet is not that high. In World War 2 the Germans had anti-aircraft guns that could easily get to much over 20,000 feet. Many cheap modern shoulder held anti-aircraft missiles can easily shoot this high and a blimp would be easy to hit. It might be safe from small arms fire but a few small holes wouldn't hurt it much. An anti-aircraft missile is another matter.

    1. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by Drakonik · · Score: 1

      So....you're saying that the aircraft is going to be vulnerable to anti-aircraft missiles. Stop the presses.

      Really. If the blimp can be built cheaper than an airplane/UAV, and cover loads more area, then it getting shot down would be unpleasant, but a loss less expensive than losing a plane, its fuel, its weapon payload, its pilot, and so on.

    2. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In World War 2 the Germans had anti-aircraft guns that could easily get to much over 20,000 feet

      Well, yes, artillery is referred to as "guns", but that's a bit misleading, don't you think? If the bad guys have managed to move artillery pieces that close to your base of operations, you've got bigger problems than whether or not your blimp gets shot down.

      Many cheap modern shoulder held anti-aircraft missiles can easily shoot this high and a blimp would be easy to hit

      Yeah, most modern shoulder-launched ground-to-air missiles could get a lock at that range, but most of these missiles also use infrared guidance. Would a blimp give off enough of a heat signature for a lock?

    3. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by students · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But the blimp is for missile defense. What sort of adversary would have missiles but no antiaircraft guns? As for closeness, all sorts of weapons are more easily smuggled on the surface than launched by missiles, so missile defense is pretty futile.

      --
      Simon's Rock College
    4. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by MynockGuano · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hate to pop your balloon (pun intended) but 10,000 feet is not that high. In World War 2 the Germans had anti-aircraft guns that could easily get to much over 20,000 feet. Many cheap modern shoulder held anti-aircraft missiles can easily shoot this high and a blimp would be easy to hit. It might be safe from small arms fire but a few small holes wouldn't hurt it much. An anti-aircraft missile is another matter.

      True.
      Blimpin' ain't easy.

    5. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Its not just its vertical distance, but horizontal. With a 320 mile range you could put it a hundred miles behind your own lines and still have two hundred miles of enemy territory covered. Not a lot of surface to air is going to reach that far I think.

    6. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by glennpratt · · Score: 1

      Guns that are big enough to shoot the blimp down would probably be better off aimed at the base this thing is tethered to. Large enemy ground weapons shouldn't be moving that close to your base. Missiles should be detected by the blimp and engaged with defensive weapons, guns should be kept far enough away with basic security.

    7. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      So....you're saying that the aircraft is going to be vulnerable to anti-aircraft missiles. Stop the presses.

      Really. If the blimp can be built cheaper than an airplane/UAV, and cover loads more area, then it getting shot down would be unpleasant, but a loss less expensive than losing a plane, its fuel, its weapon payload, its pilot, and so on.

      And if the blimp is cheaper than the anti aircraft missiles you might have a net benefit right there.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    8. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by wfstanle · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting something... The estimated cost of 1.4 billion! How many blimps are we talking about? Knowing the military, not very many. Even if 1,000 blimps are built we are talking about 1.4 million.

    9. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by wfstanle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Note: on further investigation, it seems that we are talking about 12 or 24 blimps. Taking 24 that puts the cost at 58.3 million. Given much of the costs are in ground facilities and development, but the total cost is just too high for something that can easily be shot down. The entire program sounds like the infamous $800 toilet seat the military paid for.

    10. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, even if you could shoot it down with a ground to air missile, how much would one missile cost and how much would the blimp cost? Something tells me they could build 10 blimps for the price of missile.

    11. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Shoulder-launched AA missiles are pretty cheap -- we're not talking about the serious SAM's used to shoot down jets, but the dinky little things that we gave Bin Laden to shoot down Soviet helicopters.

    12. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by j_sp_r · · Score: 1

      How much would each second balloon cost? Because if each balloon costs 100000 dollars in material, then replacing one only costs that, you don't need to factor in research costs (they are already made).

    13. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by j_sp_r · · Score: 1

      But the bad guys don't have loads of them, and shooting down a stupid blimp doesn't give them jihad-credits.

    14. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If the blimp is big enough and constructed with multiple chambers, it is actually possible for it to survive a missile strike, but YMMV.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    15. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by kinnell · · Score: 1

      I hate to pop your balloon (pun intended) but 10,000 feet is not that high. In World War 2 the Germans had anti-aircraft guns that could easily get to much over 20,000 feet. Many cheap modern shoulder held anti-aircraft missiles can easily shoot this high and a blimp would be easy to hit. It might be safe from small arms fire but a few small holes wouldn't hurt it much. An anti-aircraft missile is another matter.

      That's hardly relevant though. This is a stand-off radar platform which will be tethered well inside friendly territory and have a range of over 300 miles. If the enemy get anywhere near close enough to shoot this down with anything other than an aircraft or cruise missile, losing a blimp will be the least of your problems.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    16. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      we're not talking about the serious SAM's used to shoot down jets, but the dinky little things that we gave Bin Laden to shoot down Soviet helicopters

      Leaving aside the silly Bin Laden comment (do you get ALL your information from Michael Moore?), the US supplied the Mujahadeen with Stinger missile systems, which aren't exactly "dinky". And they cost about $40,000 a piece.

    17. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Probably the kind of adversary with missiles but without anti-aircraft artillery a mere 15,000 feet of your base of operations? And your smuggled weapons is a bit of a strawman. It's easier to smuggle weapons in so we should not care at all about defending against missiles that could drop biological weapons or make precision strikes against vital targets?

    18. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by Entropius · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't get that information from Michael Moore -- that's part of the historical record. Obvious troll is obvious. Let me guess -- you're not an American. Israeli?

      And they're dinky compared to other AA missiles. $40,000 is "dinky" in modern warfare.

    19. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      that's part of the historical record

      I think you misspelled "shit I pulled out of my ass". But what the hell - let's see you list just one credible source which shows that Osama Bin Laden received funding from the US. If you can do it, you'll be the first.

      Go on, I'll wait.

      Let me guess -- you're not an American. Israeli?

      That's right, anyone who questions your made-up version of history is either an American or a Dirty Stinking Jew, eh? Let me guess ... most of your shirts are brown, right?

      And they're dinky compared to other AA missiles

      Considering we were discussing shoulder launched systems, no, they're not. Thanks to sensor improvements over the years, Stingers are still top of the line. If you're comparing shoulder launched missiles to ICBM's on the other hand, then yeah, they're "dinky". Only a fool would bother with such comparisons, though. May as well say that a Hummer is dinky because it's smaller than a Battleship.

    20. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by jandrese · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And yet people keep using missiles, even though they're "useless" compared to smuggling. Why do you think this is? Is smuggling perhaps harder than you think, especially into fortified compounds like military bases or Israel?

      Plus, there is the risk factor in smuggling. If you are caught, often the agent will be caught alive and may give away secrets. Rockets don't do that, you launch one from the roof of an orphanage and then drive off before the rocket even hits the ground. Even if someone does spot your shooters, they're more likely to be killed instead of captured, preventing them from giving up too much information about your operation.

      Of course the article talked a lot about cruise missiles, but in modern battles the only people launching them is the US. The real threat is cheap and poorly made rockets fired by insurgents.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    21. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by Vexor · · Score: 1

      It could very well be that the missiles are more expensive than the blimp...

      --
      ~Vexed and loving it!
    22. Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

      I hate to pop your balloon (pun intended) but 10,000 feet is not that high. In World War 2 the Germans had anti-aircraft guns that could easily get to much over 20,000 feet. Many cheap modern shoulder held anti-aircraft missiles can easily shoot this high and a blimp would be easy to hit. It might be safe from small arms fire but a few small holes wouldn't hurt it much. An anti-aircraft missile is another matter.

      You are quite correct Mr. You do not really need a missile either. A Berett 95M will just about do the trick. Two Miles up. The problem here is with short arms fire. The way to handle these drones is to pepper them like a shotgun and that is why drones are effective, because you need a carrier to get the munition to the right height. This makes these butterflies hard to hit you see.

      --
      All cows eat grass!
  7. And... by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    Yet it still can't detect the low-tech truck bomb or suicide bomber that is the biggest current threat.

    1. Re:And... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Yes you can: if the truck or suicide bomber has strapped himself to the side of a missile!

  8. Why Helium and not Hydrogen? by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I saw this thing the other day about the Hindenburg and how it wasn't burning hydrogen that the world saw, but rather it was the doping compound used on the outside of the airship. Turns out the majority ingredients used in the compound are the same ones we use today... in solid rocket boosters! (The 3rd Reich knew about it back then but blamed the use of hydrogen to save face.)

    Hydrogen is lighter and is easier and cheaper to create. So I have to wonder why it's not being used.

    1. Re:Why Helium and not Hydrogen? by RobVB · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This page, despite the horrible colors, does a pretty good job of explaining why helium is used instead of hydrogen.

      The main reason to use helium is that hydrogen is indeed flammable, even though it may not have caused the fire on the Hindenburg, it's still highly reactive to oxygen.

      From the link:

      Hydrogen (atomic weight 1, but exists as pairs of atoms (diatomic), molecular weight 2), should weigh 2g per 24 litres at room temperature, whereas Helium (exists as lone atoms (monatomic), atomic weight 4), should weigh 4g per 24 litres at room temperature. But the mistake is to think that this would automatically make it float twice as buoyantly. The fact that's important is not the weight of the gas in the balloon, but the weight of the air which it displaces.

      [...]

      Both Hydrogen and Helium weigh almost nothing for the purposes of buoyancy in air. In contrast, air is mainly nitrogen, as pairs of atoms, which has a weight of about 28g per 24 litres at room temperature. To put some figures on it, a 24 litre helium balloon would seem to weigh 4g minus 28g = minus 24g in air. In comparison a 24 litre hydrogen balloon would seem to weigh 2g minus 28g = minus 26g in air. -24g or -26g, take your pick? The difference is about 8%.

      So basically, you're either flying a safe blimp, or a giant bomb with 8% better buoyancy.

      --
      I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
    2. Re:Why Helium and not Hydrogen? by schnikies79 · · Score: 1

      Adding to the above post, hydrogen is much harder to keep contained over He. After all, it's just a proton.

      --
      Gone!
    3. Re:Why Helium and not Hydrogen? by Tweenk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hydrogen is not actually much lighter than helium. What matters is not the molar mass, but the difference between the molar mass and the average mass of air - this is what generates buoyancy. Hydrogen is 2 g/mol, helium 4 g/mol, air approximately 29 g/mol (it is a mixture, so that's the average value). Ths means that 1 mol (about 22,4 l) of helium will lift 25 g, and 1 mol of hydrogen - 27 g. Therefore hydrogen is only 8% better than helium.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    4. Re:Why Helium and not Hydrogen? by erice · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. Two protons. Atomic hydrogen is pretty much never seen in nature. It's always bonded as H2. I think that's actually a slightly bigger molecule than mono-atomic He.

    5. Re:Why Helium and not Hydrogen? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      I have heard it's because it's a smaller molecule and therefore escapes easier. More of it just aspirates through the skin of the bag, so to speak, than does helium. IANAChemist.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    6. Re:Why Helium and not Hydrogen? by schnikies79 · · Score: 1

      Lol, you're right as it's diatomic. I'm a chemist, should have caught that!

      Fail.

      --
      Gone!
    7. Re:Why Helium and not Hydrogen? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Even though hydrogen did not take down the Hindenburg it is still highly explosive particularly in compressed form. What would you prefer to transport to and through a war zone; inert helium or volatile hydrogen?

    8. Re:Why Helium and not Hydrogen? by syousef · · Score: 1

      So basically, you're either flying a safe blimp, or a giant bomb with 8% better buoyancy.

      Which is probably only unacceptable if it's a manned blimp.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    9. Re:Why Helium and not Hydrogen? by CZakalwe · · Score: 1

      Fail.

      Pass

      If you're happy to admit a mistake you're smarter than most

    10. Re:Why Helium and not Hydrogen? by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen is actually a larger molecule than helium, since it's diatomic.

    11. Re:Why Helium and not Hydrogen? by notmyusualnickname · · Score: 1

      On the face of it, the only problem I can see would be fabricating a shell strong enough to resist the pressure the atmosphere would exert upon it (which I tried working out, but only found I need more coffee...), whilst being light enough to float.

    12. Re:Why Helium and not Hydrogen? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Given the rough figures above, air has a mass of 28g per 24 litres. Helium has a mass of 4g per 24 litres. So every 24 litres of balloon volume gives you 24 (the difference) of lift. Hydrogen (at 2g per 24 litres) would give you 26g of lift/24 litres.

      A perfect vacuum would weigh 0g per 24 litres, and thus give you 28g of gross lift. But because of the pressure difference, you'd need an immensely strong and heavy envelope that would outweigh the extra lift.

      [1] if anyone is wondering why everything is in terms of 24 litres, it's roughly the molar volume at 20 celsius and normal atmospheric pressure.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:Why Helium and not Hydrogen? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      But the molecular mass (and therefore the density) is still less which, according to Graham's law, is what matters.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:Why Helium and not Hydrogen? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      The electron cloud may extend further, but Helium has two protons and two neutrons, whereas Hydrogen only has the two protons (and something like 16 in every ten-thousand has a neutron as well.) But the actual differences have already been stated, so I'll stop talking now.

      --
      Is 1563649 a prime number?
    15. Re:Why Helium and not Hydrogen? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Eventually we'll probably have to look into Hydrogen again, but only because Helium is a non-renewable resource on Earth and is already getting somewhat tight on supply. The safety issue is going to be a big problem no matter what you do though.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    16. Re:Why Helium and not Hydrogen? by RobVB · · Score: 1

      Not an expert, so this post is almost pure speculation. If you're using this information to do anything important, you're insane.

      Structural strength is one problem. Another problem is what would happen if something pierced it. Because of the big difference in pressure, it would fill up with air very quickly, which means losing a lot of buoyancy.

      Airships with lighter-than-air gas also lose buoyancy when they're pierced because the gas escapes which reduces volume, but the pressure differences are much smaller so I suppose it wouldn't go as fast.

      Also, it's not hard to simply release more buoyant gas from a tank to compensate for the loss. It's probably much harder to vacuum the incoming air out.

      --
      I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
    17. Re:Why Helium and not Hydrogen? by metaforest · · Score: 1

      Because most monkeys(even monkeys who should know better) think the hydrogen is what caused the Hindenburg to burn.

      OTOH: It's hard to argue that managing huge volumes of Hydrogen is somehow less risky than huge volumes of Helium.

  9. Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by students · · Score: 5, Informative

    The amount of Helium on the Earth is very small (though there is lots in space). Helium is needed for medical MRIs and scientific research, but we are going to run out in a few decades. My lab is already suffering from increased Helium prices. Helium has a nasty way of escaping from containers (we're only able to recycle about a third of what we use), so these blimps are likely to waste a lot. Just like the rest of the missile defense systems, they'll never be used for their intended purpose.

    --
    Simon's Rock College
    1. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by Locke2005 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Using Helium in the blimp really is a big mistake... most of it will be wasted by GIs taking hits off it so they can talk like Donald Duck! On the other hand, hydrogen is extremely abundant and lighter, so it should be used instead. Regardless of what it is filled with, this thing is a sitting duck and when it gets hit it is going down. It should automatically jettison the payload and parachute it down, while the gas bag itself should be cheap and disposable. The fact that things burn quicker in a hydrogen environment should be irrelevant for this application.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I eagerly await somebody's explanation of how the Free Market will conjure up a substitute...(for a lot of things, sure, for a particular element with a rather useful set of properties, that forms very slowly in the company of alpha-emitters and has a penchant for escaping, not so much.)

    3. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      Hot air balloon carrying a propane tank?

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    4. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it's really that scarce non-renewable, people could make big bucks buying it now and storing it for a few decades. People right now either think that the price is fair --- (helium price now + cost of N decades helium storage + financing / opportunity costs) >= (helium price in future) --- or people are being stupid/oblivious to opportunity.

      Perhaps you and your finance buddies should get a helium futures ETF started? It's a commodity play, and people are worried about inflation in the next few years. Could be a sweet little deal.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    5. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by timeOday · · Score: 2, Funny

      There was already a bubble in the helium futures market. It didn't exactly burst, it just floated away...

    6. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by evilWurst · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What comes to mind is that, as far as I know, we only use helium for three things... lighter-than-air stuff, as a neutral gas in very deep dive air tanks, and as a coolant for nifty medical and sciency devices. Part of the reason, IIRC, is that it's just that it's a relatively cheap byproduct of existing oil and natural gas mining. But we could just as easily use hydrogen for the lighter-than-air stuff and other gases or techniques for the coolants. I'm not so sure about the diving, but then, we use a hell of a lot less helium for that than we do for blimps or coolant, so it may be that diving will be fine, since using helium to fill gigantic balloons will price itself out of that market before it prices itself out of the diving air market...

    7. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by Seraphim1982 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I eagerly await somebody's explanation of how the Free Market will conjure up a substitute...

      As the price of helium goes up it will become worth it tap more expensive supplies of helium, and people will use less of it. This is pretty basic free market economics.

    8. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by grrrl · · Score: 2, Informative

      Liquid helium is pretty unique as a coolant - it boils at 3-4 K, and is needed to cool the core in superconducting magnets. Everything else has a much higher boiling temperature (quickly scanned off of wikip) - 20 K (hydrogen) 77 K (nitrogen) or 90 K (oxygen, paramagnetic - no good for superconducting magnets anyway).

      It's also pretty standard to measure well below 20 K - down to mK in some experiments - and you can't do this without sucking hard on LHe. I'm not an expert but I use LHe a lot and I don't know of any alternative. Already the price of (very) high purity He gas has gone up - we're not able to do as many experiments as we would like. As much He as possible is recovered and re-liquified but you always lose some to atmosphere when doing transfers, and so have to buy more (as well as pay for the liquification).

    9. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Because all those free market crazies constantly tell us that if a solution is needed, then a free market will automagically provide one.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    10. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      it will become worth it tap more expensive supplies of helium

      You know, it's that assumption that there must be an alternative supply of everything that's got us on the slippery slope back to the fucking stone age when the oil really does run out.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    11. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      Couldn't we always produce helium with fusion? Just because fusion hasn't produced power yet, doesn't mean it can't be used to produce elements.

    12. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      There's a substitute available: hydrogen. However, after a certain problem with the Hindenburg, they decided against using it in the future.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    13. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by Bluesman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, instead, we should stop using oil immediately and we won't have that problem.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    14. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by lbmouse · · Score: 1

      Go sue a clown.

    15. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by students · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the Helium market is already cornered. This is because Helium extraction was developed for World War II airships. The US government has a strategic reserve, but they are selling it.

      --
      Simon's Rock College
    16. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by rwade · · Score: 1

      You are assuming that market actors are rational. Of course they are not.

      Look at oil -- it is incredibly cheap for what it provides, totally non-renewable, and with no known substitute that can do the job for the price. If market actors were rational, they would be hoarding it.

      We have already hit the peak of oil production, only about 100 years after we started using it and demand is only going up...

      Same thing with helium.

    17. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Well, there is. We are sitting in a sea of energy. Sure, oil is convenient now because you bought a car that runs on oil, but thats just a source of energy. You can get energy elsewhere.

    18. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by Explodicle · · Score: 1

      We could mine it from the moon too, but both solutions have a similar problem: cost.

    19. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      no known substitute that can do the job for the price

      See, that's the thing: you're trying to hoard it for when it's more expensive... and when that happens, there are alternatives (ethanol, natural gas, electrical battery-power for cars (fueled by coal, or nuclear, mmmaybe even renewables if you go for that stuff and it's really expensive)... plant-based plastics for medicine, "less packaging" for the stuff in the grocery stores... recycling... plus any really-expensive-to-extract oil fields.

      Raise the price and you'll see the (quantity) demanded fall off fast enough.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    20. Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually the free market will just make it profitable to start capturing it again.
      The price of Helium was artificially low for a very long time because the US government was paying for it to be captured and stored as a strategic material. Most of it comes from natural gas wells in West Texas where ti comes from... Alpha emitters.
      Yes we still may run out but right now I don't think we are actually capturing much of it.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  10. Unfortunately, because of their size... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    ... the blimps will be seen from over 1000 miles, and the single high-altitude high-speed stealth anti-spy missile will say hello, shortly thereafter. ;)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:Unfortunately, because of their size... by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      And who has these "high-altitude high-speed stealth anti-spy missile[s]"? No one. So for now this is a moot point. Who has cruise missiles? Just about everyone.

    2. Re:Unfortunately, because of their size... by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      If you have a missile which can not be detected by the blimp, why not just use it to deliver the payload? Even if you destroy the blimp, the control center will still notice "oh our blimp is gone". Kinda gives away that you are attacking...

  11. Re:Overpriced wrong price by markk · · Score: 4, Informative

    That billion dollar price includes the communication system between the aerostats radar and the targeting radar of other systems like anti-aircraft missile systems. So it is a very misleading number. I would guess the "blimp" or really aerostat part is less than 5% of the total cost. This is really an integrated detector system that happens to use a blimp as one of its inputs.

  12. Bah. by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 1

    Wake me up when they bring back the Transatlantic Zeppelin flights. We already have a perfectly good mooring mast in New York City.

    --
    http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
    1. Re:Bah. by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I'm anticipating those newfangled steam powered vehicles and trains that everyone is talking about. I mean, they run on water which is like 75% of the Earth's surface!

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    2. Re:Bah. by notmyusualnickname · · Score: 1

      Wake me up when they bring back the Transatlantic Zeppelin flights

      And me.

      Hell, I'd build one, if the certification process wasn't so onerous. And had the money. (Time, now that I have plenty of...)

  13. Re:Overmind? by Rip+Dick · · Score: 1

    Fool! They're obviously going to use Goblin Sappers to demolish key enemy structures...

  14. The ultimate in slow moving targets. by richardkelleher · · Score: 1

    They should be able to track what ever is coming to take them out. I can't imagine it would take much and it is not like the will be able to get out of the way! If they want to use them to protect or monitor, they will have to put up enough of them to block the sun! They will be shot down in minutes.

  15. Calling it Rocket Fuel is Ignorant by Iskender · · Score: 1

    I saw this thing the other day about the Hindenburg and how it wasn't burning hydrogen that the world saw, but rather it was the doping compound used on the outside of the airship. Turns out the majority ingredients used in the compound are the same ones we use today... in solid rocket boosters!

    Please don't take what you see on TV (or on the internet) at face value.

    For the above to be true, one has to make a pretty wild assumption: engineers who knew how to get a 240-metre airship to fly at all were totally ignorant about the chemistry of the building materials they used. In addition to this, the papers below show that surviving pieces of the fabric covering are actually hard to ignite and slow-burning.

    Here's an excellent page with papers about this thing: http://spot.colorado.edu/~dziadeck/zf/LZ129fire.htm . It states sources, authors and credentials so you don't have to trust it blindly, either.

    Hope this helps.

  16. blimp laden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    > latest high-tech blimp laden with

    > blimp laden

    > blimps laden with radars to find Osama Blimp Laden?

  17. I had no idea by hyades1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    So except for the US, who has a huge cruise missile fleet that needs to be guarded against?

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:I had no idea by Marcika · · Score: 1

      So except for the US, who has a huge cruise missile fleet that needs to be guarded against?

      Every other nuclear power of course; then there is Germany, Taiwan, Norway (NSM), Spain (Taurus), Korea (Hyunmoo) and Pakistan (Babur).

      None of them are current threats, but a scenario where Pakistan/China/Russia sells missiles or missile technology to a US adversary is not all that outlandish...

    2. Re:I had no idea by cipio · · Score: 1

      concerning cruise missiles, you generally are not worried about a huge fleet, but the little bugger headed for your command and control center. in that sense, it doesn't matter who has/is producing them, it matters if one gets sold to the wrong guy. but to sell jlens as a cruise missile niche sensor is a bit off. this is an irregular warfare (think long conflicts, not short wars) AWACS replacement -- the E-3 costs 4K an hour to fly + a big crew + multiple platforms are required to fly an orbit. the US has spent millions keeping the E-3 in the sky over Iraq -- they would like to let this float up there and provide an air picture.

    3. Re:I had no idea by denobug · · Score: 1

      Taiwan has neither nuclear weapon nor cruise missle. Their weapons are supplied by US. Please check your facts before posting.

    4. Re:I had no idea by SeeSp0tRun · · Score: 1

      Cruise missile wielding Overlords.

      --
      Something witty.
    5. Re:I had no idea by Marcika · · Score: 1

      Taiwan has neither nuclear weapon

      Nor have I asserted that anywhere...

      nor cruise missle[sic].

      Oh really? Go google "taiwan cruise missile". Just in case you are too lazy, I'll even give you a link...

      Please check your facts before posting.

      I do that. Do you?

    6. Re:I had no idea by Arimus · · Score: 1

      Correct... they don't have nuclear weapons.

      Wrong... they do have cruise missiles. And it does not matter if they are supplied by the US or ACME. The go/no go on launching a missile is their decision and the missile will go where told (well assuming it works... which is a seperate can of worms).

      A missile doesn't need to be nuclear to make it a serious threat... a single cruise missile targetted by a terrorist organisation or rogue state at, say, the Pope's Easter address and one nice little atrocity done and dusted.

      Also, while one of the aims of this is for cruise missile detection I suspect it has alot more abilities - and if you can spot a cruise missile you can easily use it to spot (for example) drug runner speedboats, light aircraft flying below ground based radar, vehicle movements etc.

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
    7. Re:I had no idea by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Russia has a lot of Cruise Missiles as does China. Any country more advanced than Germany in 1944 can have a cruise missile.
      Rankly several other nations have them and they are not expensive of complex to make. A cruise missle is nothing but a small airplane with an auto pilot and a warhead. Any country that can make a drone can make a cruise missiles.
      Also just so you understand almost but not all anti ship missiles are cruise missiles.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:I had no idea by landskov · · Score: 1

      The blimp is potentially useful for fighting in the style of previous big wars. It does not seen useful for small wars, as in Iraq or Afghanistan.

  18. Blimp attack? by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

    Meltdown alert? Mad dog drill? Blimp attack? Ah... I think a good old-fashioned fire drill today.

  19. New Targets by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    So now the US military will float huge sitting ducks essential for battlefield command. Which enemies will immediately target. When the blimps pop, two mile long cables will lash the battlefied, thrashing to pieces the military, civilians and landscape helpless below.

    These things are like an unmanned trojan horse.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  20. $1.4 billion? by lbmouse · · Score: 1

    For a balloon? Then again, this is from the same organization that pays $20k for a hammer.

  21. WWI technology by Corson · · Score: 1

    "From its position above the battlefield, the elevated sensors will allow incoming cruise missiles to be detected, tracked, and engaged by surface-based air defense systems even before the targets can be seen by the systems." -- I guess size... ups! I mean, detection range is really critical. If the enemy can detect the blimps before the blimps detect the enemy then a long-range enemy ground-to-air missile can easily bring the blimp down.

  22. lighter than air crafts are valid aircraft by anticharisma · · Score: 1

    that get an undeserved bad review ever since hindenburg.

    --
    http://www.anticharisma.com/
    1. Re:lighter than air crafts are valid aircraft by anticharisma · · Score: 1

      and here is my latest aircraft design, its a hybrid fixed wing - lighter than air safe to operate sports aircraft, so safe even yo mamma could fly it http://www.anticharisma.com/zeplinaeroplane.html

      --
      http://www.anticharisma.com/
  23. it really is..straight shot by delete2kill · · Score: 1
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder-launched_missile_weapon thing low-cost unguided cluster munition i mean its a big painted bulls eye that moves slower than my grandma and

    JLENS is a large, unpowered elevated sensor moored to the ground by a long cable

    one hit and they go blind but of course there are redundancy

    1. Re:it really is..straight shot by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      low-cost unguided cluster munition

      Where? I've never heard of shoulder-launched cluster bombs, and your link doesn't provide any such info.

      As for using RPG's to shoot down a blimp at a 3km altitude ... only Rambo could do that. The rest of us are handicapped by human limitations and the laws of physics.