US Pentagon Plans For a Spy Blimp 374
nloop writes "The Pentagon is intending to develop a new spy ship — a dirigible. At 65,000 feet it would provide a 10 year, solar power based, unblinkingly intricate and continuous view of the surface via radar surveillance. Because of its altitude it would be safe from surface-to-air missiles and most aircraft. A 1/3-scale prototype, now being designed, is 'known as ISIS, for Integrated Sensor Is the Structure, because the radar system will be built into the structure of the ship. ... 'If successful, the dirigible... could pave the way for a fleet of spy airships, military officials said.'"
Missiles reach SPACE you know. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of its altitude it would be safe from surface-to-air missiles
The U2 went for this, and it didn't work for long. Though I'm guessing that for what is essentially a balloon with a sensor package, it's radar signature will be pretty low to start with, and extra stealth technology notwithstanding.
Laser (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm. Large gas-filled object, presumably with a not overly-thick skin to keep the weight down. Ground based laser of sufficient power to pop a hole in the giant balloon.
Yeah, this is gonna work real well.
Re:The heck with SAM/long range missles... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The heck with SAM/long range missles... (Score:5, Insightful)
and safe from most fighter planes.
Hmmm. most...It's almost as if they thought that there might be some advanced planes...almost as if they had done some research on possible opponents...almost as if experts in the field are as smart as a Slashdot reader.
Re:Missiles reach SPACE you know. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would think the thing in the sky about the size of the goddamn MOON would be a bigger giveaway that something's in your airspace than the radar signature.
No need for missiles (Score:5, Insightful)
Just use a laser
Re:Missiles reach SPACE you know. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Laser (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
"China works on 'giant slingshots' armed with darts to combat the US spying mission."
That First Generation War stuff isn't the only game in town...
Observation doesn't necessarily require being directly over enemy territory. Such airships would be excellent for covering borders and providing 25/7 situational awareness over areas of Iraq and Afghanistan. They can also observe large marine areas, which is why blimps never totally went out of US service. They aren't sexy, and the general public keeps confusing them with the Hindenburg, but they are useful pieces of gear. UAV don't have near the loiter time of a blimp/airship, but they can plug gaps when the blimp is out of service. Working together they could make for excellent surveillance/interdiction systems.
Re:The heck with SAM/long range missles... (Score:1, Insightful)
You know it's funny reading all these comments about the Chinese shooting it down. Because the first assumption that I made when I saw the summary was that the US government was intending to use it to keep the US people under observation.
After all, which is the biggest threat to the US government? A foreign power or the US people?
Re:Laser (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. Large gas-filled object, presumably with a not overly-thick skin to keep the weight down. Ground based laser of sufficient power to pop a hole in the giant balloon.
Yeah, this is gonna work real well.
You are aware that an airship's lift cells are pressurized to barely over atmospheric pressure, don't you? That the lift comes from the volume of gas being less dense than the atmosphere, not from pressure? Take a plastic shopping bag, shake it open, then squeeze the open end closed with your hand. Now poke the inflated bag with a needle. See how violently the bag ruptures? Oh, wait -- it doesn't do that at all; you just get a leak.
Go back and read how hard it was for Allied fighter pilots in WWI to take down German dirigibles and observation balloons; because they were filled with hydrogen, they would have to shoot holes in the balloon, then fly back and fire tracers or incendiary bullets through the plume of escaping hydrogen gas coming out the holes they'd shot. But airships lifted by helium don't have that weakness, so the problem would be limited to patching holes.
Re:Why Helium? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not use hydrogen and get substantially more lifting power?
How much more? Enough to bring it out of reach of more planes? If not, why bother?
BUT BUT BUT.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Laser (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing how trivial those problems are compared to protecting a blimp at 65,000'.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Laser [wikipedia.org]:
"If the ABL achieves its design goals, it could destroy liquid-fueled ICBMs up to 600 km away. Tougher solid-fueled ICBM destruction range would likely be limited to 300 km"
65,000' is just a hair under 20 kilometers. That's beans compared to what the ABL is supposed to be able to do against a smaller, much faster moving target, from a mobile platform. You might need a stronger laser than the ABL carries, but as I said before, most blimps aren't particularily tough.
Re:The heck with SAM/long range missles... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are completely missing the about about this things use. In all modern warfare contexts the US has total air superiority. If a war arises where that is not the case, the US makes sure it gains air superiority very quickly.
Once you have air superiority and have bombed shit out of everything that could launch a missile large enough to reach it this thing is perfect for spotting hostile forces on the ground. Most of the people we now fight against are so out gunned in the skys they resort to terrorist and guerilla actions. This thing can be kept flying for very long periods, very cheaply. It also has the advantage of being able to hover. This means when it sees a target, it can remain stationary above it and maintain a visual for long periods.
The current solution is to use spy drones but they are vulnerable to small arms fire form the ground, need fuel, and have to fly in circles to maintain a visual on a fix position. This circling vastly reduces the effectiveness of the drones in urban environment with tall buildings.
Re:spy on who? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right, it wouldn't be useful for a full, conventional conflict with a country like China or Russia, or even pre-invasion Iraq. However, since the fall of the Soviet Union we've been much more involved in police action (the Balkans, Somalia) and insurgency fighting (Iraq and Afghanistan). When they say safe from missiles, they mean safe from shoulder mounted rockets that can devastate helicopters, low-flying aircraft, and any aircraft on take-off or landing. Having something that high with 10 years aloft means that its safe in this style of modern warfare.
Also, while minute-by-minute persistence, what you get from this, is much more important in this kind of asymmetric warfare. Fighting a conventional battle with a large army involves tracking troop movements and other large-scale things that are hard to hide from a satellite. However, for finding insurgents in Baghdad or tracking fighters crossing the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, persistent observation where you can follow an individual's or small group's movements is much more valuable.
The current Secretary of Defense is very big on fighting the current wars instead of developing more cold-war relics like the F-22, so this seems right in line with his priorities, and it makes sense. If it were intended for spying on US cities, they would be trying to keep it much quieter and, as others have pointed out, it wouldn't really be impossible to see the airships. Given the (correct) uproar over the NSA wiretapping, which only focused on phone-calls going out of the country, I can only imagine how quickly such a program would be brought down, especially given how much harder it would be to hide.
Re:As safe as a satellite... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The heck with SAM/long range missles... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if they are disposable (1 year aloft doesn't seem all that disposable) you mistakenly associate disposable with inexpensive ... as it's certainly not the case with the military in the US
The chinese can probably launch a space shuttle for what one of these buggers will cost us :)
Re:In other news... (Score:1, Insightful)
Though funny, the interesting thing about your comment was your immediate thought that China was the "natural enemy" here. Just makes me think about how the fundamental world situation has shifted over time.
(Posting anonymously to not kill some moderation)
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming this will be used against foreign countries.
There's no reason it can't be used domestically as well.
Or entirely.
Nothing to see here citizen, move along.
Re:As safe as a satellite... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
That is totally correct the blimps have absolutely nothing to do with monitoring so called enemy territory but everything to do with monitoring 'enemy' domestic populations or subjugated countries. This is the panopticon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon [wikipedia.org] taken from behind prison walls, and put out into all public spaces and private space, welcome to prison planet.
The dirigible will obviously sport a full range of optical and infra-red sensors, spy video captured 24/7. Truly dangerous stuff, they will know when you lack an effective alibi and with a quick bit of digital editing be able to place you at the scene of any crime. You want to access the data to protect yourself, forget about it, it will be protected by nationally security concerns, they want to use it against you, not a problem you are a threat to national security.
So now new technology, just the general public's willingness to accept a perverted use of existing old technology.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to break this to you, but the USA isn't in the business of fighting technically equivalent rivals anymore. Even aside from the fact that the ability to deal damage has long since outstripped the ability to defend against it on both sides, the USA can't afford to fight another war. If the Chinese want to hurt the US, they call in their loans.