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."

30 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 __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!!!

    2. 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
    3. Re:Back to the future! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

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

    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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...
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
  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.

  4. also flown at Lakehurst: The Hindenburg by aberson · · Score: 4, Funny

    also flown at Lakehurst: The Hindenburg

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

  5. 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.
  6. A technological solution to a political problem. by Required+Snark · · Score: 2

    Yep. That will work just fine.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  7. 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 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.

    2. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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 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!
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. I imagine by delta98 · · Score: 2

    the chase scene might be a bit boring.

  12. Football Field by nukenerd · · Score: 2

    Yes, that good old international dimensional unit.

  13. 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.

  14. 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...
  15. 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