Slashdot Mirror


High-Tech Blimps Earning Their Wings

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."

12 of 200 comments (clear)

  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 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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 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?

    2. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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!