Article Entry
16 Mar 2009
Comments:7
Pentagon Planning to Fly Spy Blimp 65,000 Feet in the Air
Added by USGIF Category: Daily Intelligence Brief
The Pentagon recently came out with the news that it intends to spend $400 million to develop a giant blimp that will float 65,000 feet above the Earth It will fly for 10 years and will provide intricate radar surveillance of the vehicles, planes and even people below.
The chief scientist of the Air Force told the LA Times that it is truly revolutionary and will be a hybrid of a satellite and a spy plane. In addition, the LA Times said that the project reflects a shift in Pentagon planning and spending priorities under Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who has urged the military services to improve intelligence and surveillance operations while cutting high-tech weaponry costs.
Here’s a schematic of how it will work:
What do you all think about this move to use blimps for surveillance? Certainly seems like a very viable solution and it does cross the chasm between the use of spy planes and satellites.
Tags: Blimp, Defense, geospatial intelligence, Intelligence, Pentagon, Survellience
one red flag pops up immediately and that is the matter of high speed winds aloft. how does something with so much surface area and nominal thrust keep on a stable course?
surely the engineers have thought of this i suppose if the pentagon is willing to throw 400 bills behind the concept. then again, would not be the first project that never fully got off the ground… so to speak.
From Linked-In:
“I didn’t notice any mention, but it looks like this would be an unmanned vehicle if it doesn’t need to land (otherwise how would you shuttle a crew back and forth?) So it would need to be remote controled. How much sense would it make for other than domestic surveillance, since even at 65K ft would be a slow moving sitting duck for hostile ground or air launched missiles? And does the jet stream not reach to that altitude? How will it resist high winds?”
“How soon after the Montgolfier’s first flight was the first man with binoculars put in a balloon over a battlefield? Napoleon, perhaps? I agree with Steve that defense of the dirigible may be a problem. It could work very well over secured and peaceful areas. However, if it is that far superior to conventional AWACS, then I think this is well worth looking at. Any idea who is going to build it? I have seen articles about other uses of blimps for both Oil & Gas and freight applications as well. Sometimes what’s new is what’s old. Thank you Matt for the very interesting link.”
Folks,
This is nothing new. I saw an article on this in Defense News (US) years ago (say 2003), where the Israelis were proposing exactly this system.
Unmanned, above the jet stream, above most SAM envelopes (surface-to-Air-Missiles), above weather so you can use solar panels on top to help prolong battery life and remain on station. Just like a very low geo-stationary satellite – not just ISR but also re-trans for radio comms in a theatre of ops.
Great concept for operational threatres to have persistent surveillance as well as for countries who don’t want to rely on expensive satellite systems.
Cheers. TB
Well aerial surveilance and photogrammetry did start out with kites and balloons, back to the basics right? All the technology and money spent on high-tech rockets and satellites, guess a balloon shows more promise? Remember the Hindenburg, “those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” Boom! 400 bill. up in smoke!
From Linked-In:
“Maybe yes, probably no. Keep in mind that one could purposely use low temperature propeller engines. In general, these lighter then air vehicles don’t need anything like the thrust of a heavier then air vehicle so their engine and temperature requirements are much lower. Also there are I’m sure some very clever ways that these engine signatures could be hidden by the helium and within the body of the vehicle so that it would be much more obscured then conventional aircraft. Another tactic among many you might employ is to turn the engines off and coast during hazardous portions of the trip, see the engines aren’t required to maintain lift. You could possibly project your course to take advantage of winds by coming into the area close to your target upwind and drift over your target. Another option if things were particularly dicey and a missile hit was inevitable is to eject the engines and draw the missiles away. Then you might have a couple already on board backup engine or engines you could fire up after the danger was over. Yes an enemy could eventually with time and effort try and develop a special missile that’s hyper sensitive to temperature and has other characteristics to counter lighter then air vehicles. However, that takes time and money and a country that has the ability. One of these missiles might well end up costing more to develop and produce then the target it’s assigned to shoot down!”
From Linked-In:
“Might work well when they own the airspace, but it makes for a slow big baggy target if not. Didnt they fund this before thru DARPA, and then cut the funding?”