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."

1.4 billion? What is that describing?

[Kral_Blbec]

Even after reading the article, it doesnt specify if that is per unit or the total cost of all the systems, including r&d. It says they are less expensive to buy and operate than comparable fixed-wing aircraft so I am hoping that is the total.

Re:Blimps

[Sebilrazen]

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.

Re:1.4 billion? What is that describing?

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be an expensive initial cost (though you really see how much aircrafts cost as well, anything flying is expensive), fuel and manpower is expensive. Using planes to constantly circle an area would far exceed a blimp once you factor in time.

fuel
manpower: pilot, mechanics, transportation (for fuel), officers to guide and maintain a constant launch
# of planes to covers the same area due to smaller size for instruments

Factor all that over the lifetime of the blimp vs the airplanes, it's really no surprise the blimp is cheaper

Overpriced

[Angst Badger]

$1.4 billion dollars? We are talking about what is basically a balloon with an instrument package slung beneath it, aren't we? I don't know about you, but I'd be willing to bet that if the purchaser was anyone but the Pentagon, the price would be at least an order of magnitude lower.

Re:Overpriced

[Ironsides]

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.

Re:1.4 billion? What is that describing?

[danwesnor]

It's going to be either total life cycle costs (requirements, development, manufacturing, operations/maintenance and disposal) or costs through proof-of-concept or LRIP (low-rate initial production). I don't think SMDC's total budget is $1.4B/year. The military budgets programs for total life-cycle if they know it's going to be fielded, or through the expected milestone decision if it's a tech demo that could potentially be fielded. That's why the costs of fighter jets jumped from $20M each to $200M each when acquisition reform was introduced. They are no longer allowed to hide the true total costs of the program by leaving out maintenance/operations/disposal.

Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy

[students]

But the blimp is for missile defense. What sort of adversary would have missiles but no antiaircraft guns? As for closeness, all sorts of weapons are more easily smuggled on the surface than launched by missiles, so missile defense is pretty futile.

Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources

[FooAtWFU]

If it's really that scarce non-renewable, people could make big bucks buying it now and storing it for a few decades. People right now either think that the price is fair --- (helium price now + cost of N decades helium storage + financing / opportunity costs) >= (helium price in future) --- or people are being stupid/oblivious to opportunity.

Perhaps you and your finance buddies should get a helium futures ETF started? It's a commodity play, and people are worried about inflation in the next few years. Could be a sweet little deal.

Re:Irresponsible waste of nonrenewable resources

[evilWurst]

What comes to mind is that, as far as I know, we only use helium for three things... lighter-than-air stuff, as a neutral gas in very deep dive air tanks, and as a coolant for nifty medical and sciency devices. Part of the reason, IIRC, is that it's just that it's a relatively cheap byproduct of existing oil and natural gas mining. But we could just as easily use hydrogen for the lighter-than-air stuff and other gases or techniques for the coolants. I'm not so sure about the diving, but then, we use a hell of a lot less helium for that than we do for blimps or coolant, so it may be that diving will be fine, since using helium to fill gigantic balloons will price itself out of that market before it prices itself out of the diving air market...

Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy

[wfstanle]

Note: on further investigation, it seems that we are talking about 12 or 24 blimps. Taking 24 that puts the cost at 58.3 million. Given much of the costs are in ground facilities and development, but the total cost is just too high for something that can easily be shot down. The entire program sounds like the infamous $800 toilet seat the military paid for.

Re:Blimps

[Entropius]

The thing is huge and doesn't move, making the guidance task of whatever you shoot at it very easy.

Re:Shoot down at 10,000 feet is easy

[jandrese]

And yet people keep using missiles, even though they're "useless" compared to smuggling. Why do you think this is? Is smuggling perhaps harder than you think, especially into fortified compounds like military bases or Israel?

Plus, there is the risk factor in smuggling. If you are caught, often the agent will be caught alive and may give away secrets. Rockets don't do that, you launch one from the roof of an orphanage and then drive off before the rocket even hits the ground. Even if someone does spot your shooters, they're more likely to be killed instead of captured, preventing them from giving up too much information about your operation.

Of course the article talked a lot about cruise missiles, but in modern battles the only people launching them is the US. The real threat is cheap and poorly made rockets fired by insurgents.