250-Foot Hybrid Airship To Spy Over Afghanistan 343
Toe, The writes "Gizmodo details the Long Endurance Multi-intelligence Vehicle (LEMV) (based on the P-791), a spyship from US Army's Space and Missile Defense Command capable of hovering at 20,000 feet. Planned for deployment in Afghanistan, the ship can float for three weeks and carry well over a ton of payload, apparently surveillance equipment. The video on Gizmodo of the P-791 shows that these ships are a hybrid not only of both buoyancy and propulsive lift, but also of both awe and hilarity."
Airships are meant to be elegant. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sitting duck (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no personal knowledge, but my impression is that our troops are getting slaughtered by roadside bombs; mainly because they don't have the manpower or surveillance assets to control even heavily travelled routes. Anything that can help that must surely be a benefit.
Re:Yeah right (Score:2, Insightful)
My problem with you is that you seem to be advocating cutting support for the troops before they get pulled out. This is simply dishonest and a betrayal of the armed forces. Pull out, or fully support them. Doing neither is not (or at least should not) be an option.
Re:Protection? (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect these are more for 'eye in the sky' operations over military installations where they have a high amount of security already. And if something is 20,000 feet up there is not a lot that will hit them that the insurgency would have access to. I do not believe grenade launchers or RPG's have that sort of range but then again I'm not an expert on military weaponry.
Re:Flashbacks.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Mine wasn't, but then I understand the difference between hydrogen and helium.
Re:Protection? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Protection? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no hand held weapons that reach out that far. Those people talking about RPG's and sniper rifles are clueless. I'd be a little worried about stingers; Raytheon claims it can reach out that far, but not that high. I'd be more worried about medium sized howitzers - but most howitzers aren't configured for dual purpose like naval guns are. You'd have to park it on a hillside to get the elevation necessary, then it would probably fall of the hill when fired. More, we are talking about skills that "army" gunners don't have - they do not routinely track and target air/naval targets. The best bet seems to be an AA battery, but I've not seen any indication that anyone in the region has AA. Remember, when the Russians were there, the Afghans relied on our donations of stingers. I can't recall one report of AA emplacements such as Saddam Hussein had in Iraq.
Finally - anything that has a reasonable chance of hitting the damned thing is going to have radar and/or laser targeting. Since they are trying to target a surveillance craft, chances are good that as soon as they light up the electronics, it has targeted THEM!!
"Is that a train I hear? OH SHIT!! INCOMING!!"
Re:Sitting duck (Score:0, Insightful)
Anything that can help that must surely be a benefit.
So how long does it take to plant a roadside bomb? 15 minutes? Suppose you see some truck stop by the side of the road, some guys get out and they're doing something that might, or might not, be digging a hole. It just so happens that you've got a predator drone in the air so you blow them up five minutes later.
But then it turns out that they were some poor Afghan farmers who had stopped by the side of the road to collect some edible plants. So the word on the street in the villages is that the USA is rich enough and powerful enough to float these big fancy air balloons but not only does the USA not help people in the villages with day to day living but it actively blows them up.
Maybe the balloons will help and maybe they won't but if the USA is going to succeed in Afghanistan it's going to have to get a lot closer to the locals than 20,000 feet.
Laugh, Funny Boy (Score:2, Insightful)
Somebody named Toe, The pulls a PKB and says: "both awe and hilarity".
Go on and laugh. The Army captain from 117 Space BN will be sitting in Huntsville laughing when you don't notice the laser with which he's painting you. And the Air Force lieutenant sitting in base ops in Pueblo driving the Predator will be laughing when she drops the Hellfire to home in on the reflected laser. And you three can laugh and laugh and laugh until suddenly there's two of them laughing and laughing and a cloud of well done meat flakes settling to the ground that never realized what happened when it when it was visited by silent death from above. Paint it brown and call it The Flying Turd to add to the entertainment if you like, it'll still be an awesome piece of weapons delivery systems.
Re:Airships are meant to be elegant. (Score:4, Insightful)
That video was pretty ridiculous. The music doesn't make any sense. It's like out of a montage in an action movie (Under Siege? It has that Steven Segal quality...), and the contrast to that thing wobbling around makes it all the more laughable.
Re:Protection? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I don't know about Afghanistan specifically, it seems to me like trying to use it anywhere near a country that's not already been soundly thrashed and left defenseless, is asking for trouble.
Yes, you're not going to hit it with an AK-47, but for example a SA-2 [wikipedia.org] is going to hit you from 20 to 30 miles away (depending on the exact model), and up to 66,000 ft high. IIRC, if you're a large slow and non-maneuvering target, it can actually go quite a few more miles purely inertial at the end. (Pretty much like a dart with guiding fins.) Unless you're going to pack some equally oversized missile as counter-measures, no, you're not going to get much use out of targeting it before it targeted you. Though technically you will get such an early lock, because the targeting radar will lock on you at 40 miles or so, well before the actual missile actually launches, and the early warning radar from almost 200 miles.
It's an old and cheap missile, and it's probably the most exported missile. It's all over Eastern Europe, ex-USSR, China and IIRC in a few arab countries too.
Mind you, against a fast and low flying modern airplane, it's probably useless, and against helicopters even more so, since it has a 4 miles or so minimum range. But against a blimp? That thing was designed against the early cold war idea of big bombers flying high and not being able to maneuver much. A blimp is pretty much making its day again.
And if we're talking artillery, why bother with a howitzer on a slope, when half the world got one or more of this [wikipedia.org] or this [wikipedia.org] or even more likely this [wikipedia.org] from the Soviets. I know at least Iraq had a lot of the latter.
Yeah, fat lot of good it did them against modern airplanes, but you show up in a blimp within 3-4 miles of one of those and you'll get a lot of holes fast.
So basically, as I was saying, yeah, if you just have to patrol the skies of Afghanistan or some other county you've already thrashed and conquered, and you know you'll never face anything heavier than a RPG or AK-47, it's great. But then the old WW1 Zeppelins would be just as great. And it pretty much doesn't matter if it has its own anti-radar missiles or not, because nobody will shoot a missile that high. The missiles that go that high (like the SA-2) aren't exactly concealed-carry sized, if you get my drift.
But that's about it. If this thing shows itself anywhere else, it doesn't matter how many anti-radiation missiles you pack on it. It's a big slow target, and just asking for it.
Re:Yeah right (Score:2, Insightful)
Your armed forces have not betrayed you. They are doing their duty, as they have sworn to, and obeying the orders given by their political masters. Who were elected by democratic vote. Blaming the soldiers is simply a cop-out. You cannot muster the political support to pull out as you want, so you advocate cutting off resources since it is a battle you may be able to win.
This is a betrayal, and it will cost the lives and limbs of those who are willing to die to protect you. It isn't the military's fault that the politicians sent them into Afghanistan and still have them there 8 years later. They are dying and being maimed for these decisions, while you are simply troubled by your conscience.
You disagree with Afghanistan, fine, possibly I agree with you. What you need to do then is get your forces out of Afghanistan, and if you don't have the support to do so then try to bring people around to your views until you do. But keep your hands off the purse strings.
Re:Protection? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree 100% that this airship would be worthless against a decently funded opponent with access to WW2 weapons and munitions.
Regarding the targeting of ground based weapons - remember, this airship is to play the role of an AWACS. I don't expect that it is as effective as AWACS, but it doesn't sit up there unattended. It is meant to find targets for ground and/or air forces. Paint it with radar, it relays the info to a combat control center, and someone is given a strike mission. That could mean the enemy has several minutes to fire at the airship - or, it could mean they only have several seconds. A well trained gun crew only needs those seconds to kill a target, a poorly trained gun crew might never hit the target.
So many variables.
Personally, I wouldn't invest money in this airship, but it could very well prove worthwhile.
FF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Solar Thrust (Score:4, Insightful)
Airships that are covered in solar panels could be extraordinarily efficient. Get a biomass burning generator to power the electrical system when the sunlight isn't enough. The gas provides passive buoyancy, or just make a majority of the surface absorb heat to keep the air hot. The "free" energy from the sun provides the thrust.
Never underestimate the power of a slow moving vehicle in travel for 24 hours straight. They had them at 60+ mph in the 1920s, so at 50mph average, you could go 1200 miles in 24 hours, which seems like the speed of slow rail travel without the required infrastructure.
It's not going to capture the LA-NY trips, but for regional pleasure travel, it could be a real winner. I know I'd rather spend a day reading a book or cruising around the internet than driving.
Re:Afghanistan in....what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yeah right (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize that 9-11 was ordered by a guy living in Afghanistan, under the protection of the Taliban, right? You can say what you want about Iraq, but going to war in Afghanistan was IN RESPONSE to us being attacked. It was hardly random.
Completely with you on this one. There's a reason we had most of the world's support (or at least understanding) for invading Afghanistan, and it wasn't just that our image was better at the time. There is no conceivable Commander in Chief -- Al Gore, even Ralph Nader -- who wouldn't have put our forces' boots on the ground in Afghanistan in response. Even freaking Canada thought it was a cause worth spilling blood over (that and they're in NATO).
It's too bad the Iraq debacle distracted us so much from the justified war. Before it began, I was worried the Admin. would see Afghanistan through rose-colored glasses and assume it'd be a cakewalk. Turns out they took "The Graveyard of Empires" seriously, and took very pragmatic steps like befriending the Northern Alliance and all the warlords immediately. No, it was in Iraq that all my worst fears became reality, and even worse took vital attention and resources away from Afghanistan. I doubt we'd be out of Afghanistan today, but a lot of the reason the Taleban has kept resurging is because we didn't have the resources to hold the territory we kept taking from them. The very fact that I'm talking about a conflict where "taking territory" is even a relevant concept, but we wasted our army in an urban insurgency hellhole, just depresses me.
Re:Yeah right (Score:1, Insightful)
What's happened is that Congress lost their balls. If they don't support the war, then they can refuse to approve spending for the war. This puts the President in the position of either keeping our troops in harm's way without the resources they need to continue the invasion, or bringing them home.
If congress were to take such action on their own, they would be reviled by President and people alike. However, if American citizens opposed to the wars were to pressure their congressmen into taking such action, the congress would have no choice and neither would the President.
When the executive power fails to be prudent and fails to listen to the citizenry, as has been and continues to be the case, the ability of Congress to defund the war effort is the only check against him.
It's a shame that the rhetoric of "supporting the troops" has been perverted to the level of "keeping them in harm's way for no good goddamned reason."
Re:Protection? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not exactly sure what weaponry would be able to hit a target at 20,000 feet but it's a big, slow-moving target.
An honest-to-god SAM can probably hit one, but they don't have a lot of those in Afghanistan. Shoulder-mounted missiles won't go that high.
It will be approximately the same size in the sky as an airliner at cruising altitude. If there were no contrail and no sound, would you be able to see a 747 crusing above you? Paint it the colour of the sky as seen from the ground -- would you even know this thing was a few miles above you?
It may be slow-moving, but that also means no heat signature for an IR-seeker to lock on to. It's a large plastic bag, so it wouldn't be too hard to give the ship a very small radar cross-section. Best of all, it can be unmanned, so even if by some lucky chance the bad guys manage to shoot one down, big deal.