Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Grumman Building Football Field-Sized Robotic Surveillance Blimp

Posted by Unknown on from the evil-genius-for-a-better-tomorrow dept.

colinneagle writes with news of the latest in 1930s surveillance technology turned into a robot. From the article: "It's not fashionable to call this flying spy (hybrid military airship) a 'blimp,' but a Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle (LEMV). You are no doubt familiar with the Goodyear blimp that hovers over football games, but the LEMV is almost the size of a seven-story flying football field; it's meant to fly at speeds between 30 and 80 knots without ceasing for 21 straight days while providing an 'unblinking' eye of surveillance. Northrop Grumman has a $517 million contract to build three of these 21st-century robotic airships for the U.S. Army. The first of three had a successful 90-minute test flight last week from the Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey. This first test flight included two pilots, but the Army intends for the LEMV to be like the Predator, an unmanned flying surveillance machine. Both Northrop Grumman and the Army must like the term 'unblinking,' as it was used several times to describe the 'Revolutionary ISR Weapon System' aka the LEMV."

96 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. Back to the future! by SlowGenius · · Score: 4, Funny

    Technology that will prepare us to fight the World War I of the 21st century!

    --
    Listen to what I say, not what I mean...
    1. Re:Back to the future! by TWX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can't see this thing surviving well in a warzone if the opponent knows that it's there. Even if it's got multiple compartmentalized bladders and some secondary lift mechanisms like a quadrotor setup, it's still going to be awfully vulnerable to something as simple as a long line of razor wire tied to a rocket fired in its direction...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Back to the future! by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, that was my first question when reading about this thing. How are we going to protect something THAT big? I see two targets for this type of surveillance:

      1. Use it only on military units who lack the ability to look up; or

      2. Civilians.

      As most humans have the same ability to tilt their heads backward, or, at the very least to move our eyes in a general upward direction, I believe that we can rule out the first option. So, why would our government need to watch civilians?

      On a personal note, this idea seems absolutely ridiculous based on the current age that we live in. I would have loved to see the guy who brought that up in the initial meeting.

      General: What's next for surveillance? Pee-on: Well, Sir, how about a blimp? *Cringes for the incoming backhand to the face* General: BRILLIANT!!! THEY'LL NEVER SEE IT COMING!!!

    3. Re:Back to the future! by grnbrg · · Score: 1

      It'll need to be some rocket to get to the mission altitude of 20,000 feet. And it's got enough range that it will most likely be launched from a friendly base.

    4. Re:Back to the future! by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

      WW I? How about the American Civil War?

    5. Re:Back to the future! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Huh, that's pretty low. I thought they'd have it up to 60,000 feet or higher. Maybe that will happen to a future prototype. They do need to figure out other issues such as reliably launching something that massive in moderately poor weather.

    6. Re:Back to the future! by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or military units that lack long-range missiles. The things are designed to fly at ~20,000 feet (6km), which for reference is the exact maximum range of the longest-range Stinger missile, so you could shoot it if it was exactly overhead (it won't be, though, thats the point). And that is well above the range of non-missile ordinance as well. In other words, it's designed to be used in situations were the military is fighting relatively poorly equipped enemies (i.e. enemies that don't have long-range SAMs) for a prolonged time in rough terrain. Or in other words, the last couple wars the US has been involved in.

      On a side note, I find it amusing that some people complain about how advanced tech like the F-22 is unnecessary since no enemy is even close to a big enough threat to require something that advanced, and then other people complain when tech like this is made which would be useless against advanced enemies. Different enemies require different tools.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    7. Re:Back to the future! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      American Civil War didn't have blimps. They had balloons, but not blimps.

    8. Re:Back to the future! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Or military units that lack long-range missiles. The things are designed to fly at ~20,000 feet (6km), which for reference is the exact maximum range of the longest-range Stinger missile, so you could shoot it if it was exactly overhead (it won't be, though, thats the point). And that is well above the range of non-missile ordinance as well. In other words, it's designed to be used in situations were the military is fighting relatively poorly equipped enemies (i.e. enemies that don't have long-range SAMs) for a prolonged time in rough terrain. Or in other words, the last couple wars the US has been involved in.

      Don't be so sure:

      40mm Bofors
      Produced from 1932 - Present
      Effective range: 24,000ft / 41,000ft (depends on the model)
      Can be owned by US Civilians

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    9. Re:Back to the future! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Painted the right color you would never see it. With stealth tech radar would have a hard time seeing it.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    10. Re:Back to the future! by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      I was thinking that you needed a Stinger to shoot it down, but then I realized that a Stinger is a heat-seeking missile. This thing is a giant balloon, and it has little propellers but I don't know how much heat it puts out. The Stinger can track leading-wing heat, but this thing is going at 30 mph. That's not a lot of heat, and there are no wings. Sticking a towed decoy If they want to militarize it, they probably want to use a hybrid drive system with electric fans, and vent the exhaust up. All in all, this might be pretty tough to shoot down absent anti-aircraft artillery or a radar-guided SAM. It's also freaking quiet so if you have cloud cover I'm not sure you can even see or hear it.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    11. Re:Back to the future! by readin · · Score: 1

      We shouldn't be spending our money figuring out how to defeat poorly equipped enemies. The purpose of our military is to be able to defeat, or at least fight to a standstill, other militaries that may threaten our existence (in the future that likely means China). If we can handle China, we can handle anyone. Most importantly, if we can handle China, we won't have to.

      If we can handle China then most of our wars will be with poorly equipped enemies. But planning for those wars instead of planning for war with China is getting the cart before the horse. Also, if we can win the small wars cheaply but can't win the big one, the small wars will be for naught. It will be an extreme example of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    12. Re:Back to the future! by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      The right tool for the right job. The job being asymmetrical warfare.

      Just like few (here) had heard of IEDs before the Iraqi insurgents made them popular. It's the right tool for the job, developed for that job. IEDs would not be good for an advancing tank column. Or against aerial bombardment.

      While this blimp wouldn't last long against the Russians or those dirty Canadians, it should help against small unit insurgencies.

    13. Re:Back to the future! by valadaar · · Score: 2

      I'm afraid any war worthy of the name with china will be a nuclear one, and no one will win that.

    14. Re:Back to the future! by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      I don't think that post referred to the last civil war but the *next* civil war.

      My bet is on edges versus middle.

    15. Re:Back to the future! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      To add to what Baloroth says;

      This type of blimp also has Naval uses... Such as coastline surveillance, or keeping an eye on a naval base. Or shadowing a ship/boat or formation at sea. Or flying top cover for one of our formations (like a loitering supply or amphibious group).

      To echo what he says; just because it's low tech doesn't mean it doesn't have uses in high tech warfare.

    16. Re:Back to the future! by SlowGenius · · Score: 1

      Speaking of asymmetrical warfare, SAMs are pretty expensive. Helium, hydrogen, and hot air aren't. if I were an insurgent designing a counter-weapon system, I'd think about fighting fire with fire--both figuratively and literally, in this case. That is, I'd build a bunch of tiny contact-fused thermite bombs (maybe with a small amount of a petroleum jelly/napalm-like element for stickiness), wait for a day without a lot of crosswind, then get underneath my flying-football-field sized target and simultaneously launch a wave of small balloons from multiple locations with said bombs rigged to go off when they encounter something on the way up.

      --
      Listen to what I say, not what I mean...
    17. Re:Back to the future! by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      We shouldn't be spending our money figuring out how to defeat poorly equipped enemies. The purpose of our military is to be able to defeat, or at least fight to a standstill, other militaries that may threaten our existence (in the future that likely means China). If we can handle China, we can handle anyone. Most importantly, if we can handle China, we won't have to.

      Both the Soviet Union and the US thought the same thing. Both have had enormous difficulty in maintaining a hold over rag-tag mountain-guerrilla fighters and terrorists who consider horses a fast means of transport. That is a rather significant problem for a military to have: the inability to defeat ill-equipped foes, and frankly as a military's technology grows more advanced, it gets to be a bigger problem. An EMP weapon, for example, may be fantastic against enemies that rely on computers. But if you grow dependent on using EMP to win a battle, you might find yourself suffering a staggering defeat to someone who simply doesn't use a computer. It's a good thing (military wise) to avoid that sort of dependency.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    18. Re:Back to the future! by SlowGenius · · Score: 2

      The civil war you describe is already being fought. There's a major battle held every 2 years, typically on a Tuesday in early November.

      --
      Listen to what I say, not what I mean...
    19. Re:Back to the future! by readin · · Score: 1

      Both the US and Soviet Union were unwilling to do what it took to maintain a hold over rag-tag mountain guerrilla fighters and terrorists. The Soviet Union may have been willing to do the dirty work, but it was unwilling to take the casualties (had the Soviet Union been willing to take the casualties in Afghanistan that the Soviet Union took in WWII, there wouldn't be an Afghanistan today).

      However, if it were truly an existential battle and recognized as such, the Soviet Union could have taken and held Afghanistan, and the US could do so today. It is a question of will, not capabilities.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    20. Re:Back to the future! by readin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I seriously doubt nuclear war will happen, especially with China. We've had them for 60+ years and the US is the only country to use not 1 but 2 against Japan. No one else has, and if there was a time for nuclear war, that would have been the Cold War.

      After the US dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, there has never been a similar case to be made that using nuclear weapons would end a war and save hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives.

      Looking at another scenario, there has never been a case where a nuclear armed country was facing potential total defeat - faced with having to surrender.

      If either of those situations occurs in the future, it would not be too surprising to see nuclear arms used again. Would a nuclear-armed Assad be willing to use such a weapon against his own people?

      I do agree that the US and China won't go to nuclear war so long as the US maintains a large enough arsenal to eliminate China. If we only have enough weapons to destroy half of China then there might be a problem. China has a long history of using human wave techniques and being callous about taking casualties. In the near future I don't think that's a problem - but in 50 to 100 years, who knows?

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    21. Re:Back to the future! by zlives · · Score: 1

      I think it has to do with motivation as well, how do you motivate your populace to go out of their way to a podunk nowhere and die in mass numbers for no apparent gain other than monies...

    22. Re:Back to the future! by readin · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure money wasn't the motivation for either country's invasion of Afghanistan. For the America it was 9-11, both for capturing Bin Laden and a belief that leaving the country in ruins would allow it to be used as a base for future terrorists and would also be morally wrong.

      I'm not sure what the motivation for the Soviet Union was, but since they were communists I doubt it was money.

      At least in the case of America (I frankly don't know that much about the inner workings of the Soviet Union), I believe the leadership wouldn't have wanted to motivate the populace to die in mass numbers anyway. There is plenty of reason to question the wisdom of Bush and his cabinet in deciding to invade and nation build in Afghanistan, but if you think they were out to make a profit you need to adjust your tinfoil hat.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    23. Re:Back to the future! by rot26 · · Score: 1

      The bottom might not have much of a heat signature but the top damn sure will unless they fly a super huge umbrella over it.

      A few minor mods to a stinger or similar: shoot straight up, let it glide down looking for the top of an object.

      It CAN pay for itself, though, if they sell advertising space on the underside.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    24. Re:Back to the future! by flyingsquid · · Score: 1
      The big drawback with a lighter-than-air design is that your aircraft has to be really large, and that, in turn, inherently limits your speed. Drag on the fuselage is proportional to area, so if you've got an airship five times the diameter of a 747's fuselage, it's going to have 25 times the drag. The result is that airships are limited to low speeds. Top speed of the Goodyear Blimp is 50 mph and top speed of the Hindenberg was 85 mph. It's an inherent design limitation, which means that even with modern technology, this thing will have a similar top speed to a 1930s era airship like the Hindenberg. That's a huge part of why blimps have never really caught on.

      Airships have one big advantage, however. It doesn't cost anything to produce the lift. The lighter than air design means that in still air, the airship isn't expending any energy. The aircraft, meanwhile, produces lift by having a continuous flow of air over the wings. That creates drag, so to maintain speed, the airplane has to compensate and burn fuel to produce thrust with an engine.

      In short, if you want to take a trip by air, take a plane. But what if you don't want to go anywhere? Well, if you don't want to go anywhere, an airship is the way to go there. Since it doesn't spend any fuel, it can just hang out in one place for a long time. That makes blimps perfect if your mission is surveillance, and if you're dealing with an opponent that lacks any sort of air force or anti-air capability. Which is the situation in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

    25. Re:Back to the future! by zlives · · Score: 1

      hehe my tinfoil hat is fully deployed :)
      war is good for business.
      USSR invasion failed because of US involvement and support.
      We should have learned from USSR. US response should have been proportional (strategic rather than emotional). making sure binladen and his top managers were taken out. Can't destroy a country and hope they will like you back!! Also cant win wars against ideals, only people.

      yes this is overly simplistic but there are no complex way to arrive at a solution for this either, nature of the beast that is human.

    26. Re:Back to the future! by khallow · · Score: 1

      US response should have been proportional (strategic rather than emotional).

      Who says it wasn't? Al Qaeda wasn't just some crooks hiding in a secret lair. They were a significant ally of the Taliban, maintaining a fair-sized militia in Northern Afghanistan. In turn, the Taliban provided them with significant support. A "strategic" response which didn't also take out the Taliban somehow wouldn't have been effective.

    27. Re:Back to the future! by khallow · · Score: 1

      but the top damn sure will unless they fly a super huge umbrella over it.

      So will the ground. Paint the ship so it has a similar heat signature as the ground and/or clouds.

    28. Re:Back to the future! by khallow · · Score: 1

      But about this blimp, how many 50 cal rounds do you think it can take before floating down to the ground? Everyone is talking about missiles, I'm think anti-aircraft guns or a planes 50 cal machine guns, simple but effective. As others have said as well, the US fights a lot of wars where our enemy has inferior technology, so a bullet would probably be the best weapon they have.

      It probably can take quite a few 50 cal rounds. These balloons have small pressure differences between inside and outside. I'd wager it would drift down slowly once hit. The equipment carried, would of course be more susceptible to that sort of thing.

      I've heard a story of the Canadian airforce trying to shoot down a balloon that was just above the upper ceiling at which their aircraft could fly. Oh, google found the story. Turns out both Canadian and UK aircraft (possibly the US too) took a lot of shots at a 25 story balloon.

      The balloon also remained aloft after two Canadian air force CF-18 fighters fired more than 1,000 rounds of cannon shells into it off the coast of Newfoundland

      I imagine the balloon was a lot higher than 20,000 feet too.

      The anti-air weapons seems more likely to be effective since it's a combination of explosion and shrapnel, the balloon is as unarmored as you can get, and it's a slow moving target relative to the gunner. But all you have to do is raise the height of the balloon. If it's above 50,000 feet, there's not much that can touch it. For what it's worth, you can fly balloons past 100,000 feet relatively easily.

    29. Re:Back to the future! by readin · · Score: 1

      hehe my tinfoil hat is fully deployed :) war is good for business.

      I don't believe that is true, though I know there are people who do. But even assuming Bush and the cabinet believed war is good for business, they would have to be psychopaths to launch a war for business purposes. Given what I've seen of Bush I just don't believe that's true. He may not be an angel, but I think it is safe to say he has a conscience. I think the same can be said of most of the people at the high levels of US government.

      USSR invasion failed because of US involvement and support.

      That doesn't negate what I said about the USSR's willingness to take casualties. American involvement increased the difficulty of taking Afghanistan, but our support would have been insignificant had the USSR been willing to launch the kind of effort and take the magnitude of casualties that they did in WWII.

      We should have learned from USSR.

      We need to learn both from this and from Vietnam and from Iraq. America just isn't willing to do what it takes to win a regional war against an uncivilized opponent. We don't fight dirty, we aren't willing to take many casualties, and regardless of which administration gets us involved in the war, eventually the Democrats get elected and we betray whatever friends we had in the region even if our involvement in the fighting is largely over. Whatever the reasons, good or bad, of getting involved the result is a loss of American lives, money, and credibility.

      US response should have been proportional (strategic rather than emotional). making sure binladen and his top managers were taken out. Can't destroy a country and hope they will like you back!! Also cant win wars against ideals, only people.

      yes this is overly simplistic but there are no complex way to arrive at a solution for this either, nature of the beast that is human.

      At the time the mood in the press was such a that a "to hell with them" approach where we destroy but not rebuild wouldn't have been able to get support. It was clear that to get public support we had to commit to rebuilding. I don't know if Bush would have chosen that route given a choice - he might have done it anyway.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    30. Re:Back to the future! by zlives · · Score: 1

      so "didn't also take out the Taliban"... basically the response after 11 years of war... hasn't been effective either. The cost in lives both foreign and domestic has been very high.
      I do wonder how things might have been if we had focused in on Afghanistan without the distraction/wtf in Iraq.

    31. Re:Back to the future! by zlives · · Score: 1

      As much as I didn't like Bush policy, I think he is a decent guy who may or may not have had the befit of fit council (Iraq war?).
      what I did mean is that the military industrial complex does benefit from the wars we the taxpayer have to support. I am a proponent of a strong military, but our spending is disproportional. The introduction of military contractors cheapens the sacrifices our armed forces make. Said contractors behavior, though not subject to US articles of war, reflects on US the country not the corporation. Profits are being made on peoples lives. That is just fact, a sad one.

      "eventually the Democrats get elected " because we the people are tired of the war and the casualties and no resolution or end in sight.

      ""to hell with them"" would be an effective policy if an entire nation was involved in the attacks. AQ was not even technically in power as head of state. The taliban (imho inhuman pieces of feces, mostly because of their fictionalized vision of the world) are a bane to their own people. Bush as a decent human being probably knew this.

      The current US policy of "Proportional Response" in southeast Asia seems to generate much better result. That is a direct lesson learned from our recent experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. This may also be a factor in response to Syrian violence.

    32. Re:Back to the future! by khallow · · Score: 1

      so "didn't also take out the Taliban"... basically the response after 11 years of war... hasn't been effective either. The cost in lives both foreign and domestic has been very high.

      They did take out the Taliban. It turns out more difficult to keep them out. Somehow I doubt a "strategic" token bombing effort would have discouraged Al Qaeda or its allies.

  2. The song says it all by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 3, Funny

    Everybody needs to get a blimp.

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  3. Blade Runner flashbacks by Zaphod-AVA · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm having Blade Runner flashbacks.

    Flashbacks to the future are strange.

    1. Re:Blade Runner flashbacks by somarilnos · · Score: 1

      Technically, it's a flashback to the past's future. Which is, at this point, still is in the present's future. But not by much.

    2. Re:Blade Runner flashbacks by akeeneye · · Score: 1

      Blade Runner, that's what *immediately* leapt to my mind too. I wonder if these things will have giant display ads on the sides? "Sponsored by the Exxon Corporation" maybe.

      --
      The man who dies rich dies disgraced. -- Andrew Carnegie
    3. Re:Blade Runner flashbacks by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      Blade Runner, that's what *immediately* leapt to my mind too. I wonder if these things will have giant display ads on the sides? "Sponsored by the Exxon Corporation" maybe.

      protip - active camouflage can be easily be repurposed as an electronic billboard. And vice-versa.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  4. Goodyear? No the worst... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Goodyear? No the worst...

  5. I for one... by Grundibular · · Score: 1

    Insert obligatory "welcome our x overlords" here.

    --
    "Dance like nobody's watching" ... "Poo like nobody's watching"
  6. also flown at Lakehurst: The Hindenburg by aberson · · Score: 4, Funny

    also flown at Lakehurst: The Hindenburg

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster

    1. Re:also flown at Lakehurst: The Hindenburg by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Also flown at Lakehurst:
      The highly successful Graf Zeppelin.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  7. Isn't obvious to everyone? by canadiannomad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't obvious to everyone that this is for domestic or "friendly' spying?
    I guess it is to replace the "urban flies" that are in use today but really expensive to run for extended periods...
    I just don't get why it needs to be so big. You would think they would go small and many to enhance their chilling effect.
    Maybe this is just to scare unwitting populaces that the vorgons have arrived and they will destroy their pitiful sub-continent if they don't comply with their RIAA demands.

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    1. Re:Isn't obvious to everyone? by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

      Flamebait? Really? It was meant as a joke.
      (btw I meant Vogons not Vorgons)

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
  8. A technological solution to a political problem. by Required+Snark · · Score: 2

    Yep. That will work just fine.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  9. Helium?! by grnbrg · · Score: 1

    Why is it bouyed with helium, which is incredibly expensive?

    It's unmanned, so why not use hydrogen? Who cares if they lose the odd one to lightening?

    1. Re:Helium?! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I know it's terrible. Yeah hydrogen is kinda dangerous, but it's manageable.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Helium?! by captainpanic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is it bouyed with helium, which is incredibly expensive?

      It's unmanned, so why not use hydrogen? Who cares if they lose the odd one to lightening?

      Because there is no point in doing surveillance over non-populated areas. It may be unmanned, but there are people under it.

    3. Re:Helium?! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Why is it bouyed with helium, which is incredibly expensive?

      Well, in part because helium is not incredibly expensive.

    4. Re:Helium?! by dontclapthrowmoney · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe they should fill it with hydrogen, fly it at very low altitude, and coat it with ball bearings to dissuade people from shooting at it.

    5. Re:Helium?! by valadaar · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen, once free of the bags, would rise very quickly. The only thing those under it would need to fear would be the debris. Fire would only be an issue if it was very low when it happened.

  10. How many square meters is that? by Lord+Lode · · Score: 1

    Is that soccer fields or rugby (aka american football) fields?

    1. Re:How many square meters is that? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      yes

    2. Re:How many square meters is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let's see...American company building a blimp for America's army reported by an American news service and displayed on an American website. I'm going to say "football pitch", that makes the most sense!

      Being a dumb American is hard, can you help me define "obtuse" or "willful ignorance" for me?

      Ta ta!

  11. And who will they be watching? by Picass0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    FTFA >> "The LEMV is expected to be deployed and hovering over Afghanistan skies by January 2012."

    And if you believe that I have some junk bonds I'd like to sell you.

    80 knots = ~ 92mph. That's a slow crawl compared to other aircraft. And it can fly at 20,000 feet. Sitting duck for a SAM.

    A big, slow air vehicle like that isn't practical for flying over an overseas theater. So I wonder who this thing is designed to watch?

    Oh, that's right. Us.

    1. Re:And who will they be watching? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      One kamikaze FPV-equipped RC plane could take this thing out.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:And who will they be watching? by khallow · · Score: 2

      And it can fly at 20,000 feet. Sitting duck for a SAM.

      While that does seem low altitude for such a large blimp, there are several things to note. First, it doesn't have that much of a radar signature and no thermal signature. Second, what's a SAM going to do to it? Pop a few cells? Just pick it up when it lands, fix the bag, replace whatever got broke, and refly it.

      Frankly, I'd be more concerned about what would happen if they lost control of the vehicle. If it went into China or Iran (and perhaps Russia too) before it landed, then that would be yet another free technology gift from the US. Not such a big deal, if it's using off the shelf components, but a big deal, if it happens to be carrying hundreds of millions of dollars of specialized espionage gear.

    3. Re:And who will they be watching? by jpmorgan · · Score: 1

      The Taliban doesn't have high altitude SAMs.

    4. Re:And who will they be watching? by operagost · · Score: 2

      I do have to admit that January 2012 is a rather short timeline for anyone not named Doc Brown.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:And who will they be watching? by operagost · · Score: 1

      BTW, I was wondering how many SAM installations the Taliban currently control... or any terrorists, for that matter.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:And who will they be watching? by fnj · · Score: 1

      They don't have any SAMs of any kind. The only interference with aircraft in flight in Afghanistan is light automatic weapons and the odd lucky hit by an RPG if you are slow and under a couple of thousand feet.

      Look, the Taliban don't even have a single brain between them, that works properly. All they are good at is blowing themselves the fuck up; sadly, taking out actual useful human beings with them in the blast radius.

    7. Re:And who will they be watching? by gtall · · Score: 1

      The Taliban have SAMs now? Maybe your wet dream of a government conspiracy for everything is misplaced?

    8. Re:And who will they be watching? by Picass0 · · Score: 1

      My point was I don't think these things are being built for overseas deployment. This thing is made to order for domestic surveillance. If you sent one of these blimps to Syria or a hotspot where the hostiles have real stockpiles it would last five minutes.

      "Conspiracy" implies our government efforts to control citizens are done in secret. The reality is they have become quite bold in recent years.

    9. Re:And who will they be watching? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Sounds like your citation-free post is just parroting a second hand reference to the rather breathless, and uncorroborated, 2007 report that was in the Telegraph five years ago. A single missile fired, unnamed sources, lots of conjecture, the attack was readily defeated. So if sensational reports are that the Taliban has had numbers of SAM-7s for years, and all they lack is BATTERIES for their old Stingers, how is it that there has not been widespread use and some successes? Hmm? I smell crap. Whether it is purposeful fantasy, or mistaken guesswork, it ain't happenin'.

      And all those so-called suitcase nukes we have been told have been floating around in wrong hands for years? How is it none of those has been used?

  12. 1 Blimp, That'll Be $172M, Please by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2, Informative

    >> Northrop Grumman has a $517 million contract to build three (blimps) for the U.S. Army.

    It allegedly costs only $2M to build a Goodyear blimp. Wish I knew how to land government contracts like these.

    1. Re:1 Blimp, That'll Be $172M, Please by ageoffri · · Score: 2
      Comparing the Goodyear blimp to this is like comparing a Geo Metro to a 18 wheeler. First off it is listed with a seven ton cargo/supply capacity. Doing a quick search on the Goodyear blimp didn't find a rating but the next generation blimp is listed at just over 2 tons. I'd be surprised if the Army blimp doesn't have low observation technologies built-in to it. All in all I'm not surprised at the price and comparing to the Goodyear blimp is an unfair one.

      Now at the same time I'm sure there is an over sized profit margin but nothing like saying the Goodyear only costs 2 million implies.

      --
      -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
    2. Re:1 Blimp, That'll Be $172M, Please by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it depends on whether that's $172M/blimp or $500M in development and $6M/blimp. The current 787/A350 aircraft development costs were in the $10B+ range, with per-unit prices in the $150M-$190M range. With development costs running 70x a production unit, that would come out very close to the $497M/$7M for the cost of the airship.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:1 Blimp, That'll Be $172M, Please by camperdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Contractor 1: "I can build it for $500,000
      Congressman: "We will take it under advisement.

      Contractor 2: "I can build it for $4.5 million.
      Congressman: I have a bid from Contractor 1 who says he can build it for only half a million. Why should we pay you four and a half million?
      Contractor 2: "Two million for me; Two million for you - and half a million to hire Contractor 1 to build the thing."

      Congressman: "I would like to announce the winner of the bid: Contractor 2".

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:1 Blimp, That'll Be $172M, Please by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 2

      "Defense boondoggles" produce warfighting goods and employ hundreds of thousands of highly skilled American workers. Welfare queens produce more children so that they can continue to be welfare queens.

    5. Re:1 Blimp, That'll Be $172M, Please by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

      So your saying welfare queens produce War-fighting goods-- err i mean solders.

      Pretty much, yeah. Grow up in a gang-infested slum so broke you can't even pay attention, and all of a sudden, military service looks like a good option to get out, especially when the government stops all the educational benefits designed to bootstrap kids out. When the house is burning down, and there's only one door available to escape, you're not gonna stick around and cook marshmallows.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    6. Re:1 Blimp, That'll Be $172M, Please by couchslug · · Score: 1

      If that covers the C4ISR electronic package, that's much more than a simple camera platform.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  13. ah was assaulted by a bar hade! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    they're immantizing the Gernsback continuum!

    Watch you for falling refrigerators!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  14. Syndicate, here we come? by gentryx · · Score: 1

    Anyone else feeling reminded of Bullfrog's classic PC game Syndicate? Can't wait to see corporations (e.g. Academi/Blackwater) buying these to supervise their missions.Oh, and please let them send out cyborgs with miniguns and mind control devices.

    --
    Computer simulation made easy -- LibGeoDecomp
  15. Blade Runner by emaname · · Score: 1

    ...reborn.

    Now life imitates art.

    --
    An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
  16. I imagine by delta98 · · Score: 2

    the chase scene might be a bit boring.

  17. Re:Thats OK by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    The UNBLINKING anus in the sky.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  18. Re:Now that is interesting... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    STOP SHOOTING AT US YOU IDIOT

    ob: Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  19. Incredibly stupid idea by mclaincausey · · Score: 1

    Let's see... SAMs shouldn't have a hard time shooting a target of this size down. I imagine it would be difficult to move this thing out of the way of a storm as well. They should be looking at arrays of weather-balloon type devices or something. Perhaps just use satellites? This seems bald stupidity.

    --
    (%i1) factor(777353);
    (%o1) 777353
    1. Re:Incredibly stupid idea by tibman · · Score: 1

      Balloons probably aren't stable enough and satellites "blink". But i agree with you.. we already have drones that fulfill this role pretty well. Though i suppose this is just another drone.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  20. Football Field by nukenerd · · Score: 2

    Yes, that good old international dimensional unit.

    1. Re:Football Field by Inda · · Score: 1

      For those non-sports fans:

      Normal football pitches: 45-90m(w) x 90-120m(l)

      International football pitches: 64-75m(w) x 100-110m(l)

      Unless you're talking about hand-egg. I do not know the dimensions for hand-egg.

      I hope that clears things up! I'm always happy to help!

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  21. celestine data-pig by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

    It must be acknowledged the potential this odious beast holds for amusement. If this blubberous tyrannical skywhale were to get an infection, it could be quite a show. Maybe Anonymous will hack into the elephantine data-pig and make it hover over the pentagon while playing Kitaro for all 21 of its days. I hope Grumman has taken this into consideration and prepared the bastard with ample laser-disco-balls and extraordinary speakers. But instead of puking forth an abundance of guns like in Zardoz, it can spit out military-grade amphetamines, contraceptives and buckyballs.

    --
    Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
  22. why so big and expensive? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't a weather balloon do?

    1. Re:why so big and expensive? by SlowGenius · · Score: 2

      It's hard to get awarded a multi-million dollar contract to build a weather balloon.

      --
      Listen to what I say, not what I mean...
  23. MOAR plz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  24. Commercialized Black Triangle by j-stroy · · Score: 2

    While driving at night in the desert near Yuma AZ over a decade ago, I saw indicator lights on the tips of a huge triangle. The only reasonable explanation I could come up with was either a very large inflatable aircraft, or a very very slow flying formation of smaller aircraft. I doubt this is actually a new development.. more of an announcement of a project that has already been in play for some time.

  25. Obligatory Starcraft Reference by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    Somebody took the whole "Spawn More Overlords" thing a bit too seriously.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  26. Re:Thats OK by TheSpoom · · Score: 3, Funny

    The UNBLINKING anus in the sky.

    I'd be more concerned if it was blinking.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  27. Spy on me will ya? by Budgreen · · Score: 1

    Where's my BB gun...

    --
    The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
  28. Pricetag for 3? by sinnergy · · Score: 1

    Anyone else notice that the cost for just *3* of these things is half a billion dollars, assuming no cost overruns?

    1. Re:Pricetag for 3? by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Anyone else notice that the cost for just *3* of these things is half a billion dollars, assuming no cost overruns?

      Yup. And if they can't scam cost overruns outta this, they ain't trying.

      And now you know where the NASA budget cuts are going...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  29. assassination platform by aminorex · · Score: 1

    http://wh.gov/YuEi

    --
    -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  30. Blimps + NRA = comedy by coldsalmon · · Score: 1

    Perhaps not the best surveillance platform in a country where anyone can buy a 50-calibre sniper rifle.

  31. Unblinking Eye by Dangerous_Minds · · Score: 1

    "to fly at speeds between 30 and 80 knots without ceasing for 21 straight days while providing an 'unblinking' eye of surveillance"

    So, by day 22, will there be the paddling of the swollen rump before I get to be a member of the surveillance Stonecutters?

    --
    Daily read for tech news: Freezenet.ca
  32. Re:Oh, the UFO reported for the past ten years. by turgid · · Score: 1

    So they can officially unveil it to the public in about 5 years time, after all the "R&D has been done." I see what they're up to. Crafty devils! Just like the Stealth Fighter and the B2.

    --
    Stick Men
  33. Yes and by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Different enemies require different tools.

    Especially the ultimate enemy: your own citizens.