Grumman Building Football Field-Sized Robotic Surveillance Blimp 150
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."
Re: (Score:2)
The UNBLINKING anus in the sky.
Re:Thats OK (Score:4, Funny)
The UNBLINKING anus in the sky.
I'd be more concerned if it was blinking.
Back to the future! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Painted the right color you would never see it. With stealth tech radar would have a hard time seeing it.
Re:Back to the future! (Score:4, 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!!!
Re:Back to the future! (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 [wikipedia.org]
Produced from 1932 - Present
Effective range: 24,000ft / 41,000ft (depends on the model)
Can be owned by US Civilians [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking that you needed a Stinger to shoot it down, but then I realized that a Stinger is a heat-seeking missile. This thing is a giant balloon, and it has little propellers but I don't know how much heat it puts out. The Stinger can track leading-wing heat, but this thing is going at 30 mph. That's not a lot of heat, and there are no wings. Sticking a towed decoy If they want to militarize it, they probably want to use a hybrid drive system with electric fans, and vent the exhaust up. All in all, th
Re: (Score:1)
A few minor mods to a stinger or similar: shoot straight up, let it glide down looking for the top of an object.
It CAN pay for itself, though, if they sell advertising space on the underside.
Re: (Score:2)
but the top damn sure will unless they fly a super huge umbrella over it.
So will the ground. Paint the ship so it has a similar heat signature as the ground and/or clouds.
Re: (Score:2)
If we can handle China then most of our wars will be with poorly equipped enemies. But planning for those wars instead of planning fo
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Back to the future! (Score:4, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
But about this blimp, how many 50 cal rounds do you think it can take before floating down to the ground? Everyone is talking about missiles, I'm think anti-aircraft guns or a planes 50 cal machine guns, simple but effective. As others have said as well, the US fights a lot of wars where our enemy has inferior technology, so a bullet would probably be the best weapon they have.
It probably can take quite a few 50 cal rounds. These balloons have small pressure differences between inside and outside. I'd wager it would drift down slowly once hit. The equipment carried, would of course be more susceptible to that sort of thing.
I've heard a story of the Canadian airforce trying to shoot down a balloon that was just above the upper ceiling at which their aircraft could fly. Oh, google found the story [bbc.co.uk]. Turns out both Canadian and UK aircraft (possibly the US too) took a lot of shots
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
However, if it were truly an existential battle and recognized as such, the Soviet Union could have taken and held A
Re: (Score:2)
I think it has to do with motivation as well, how do you motivate your populace to go out of their way to a podunk nowhere and die in mass numbers for no apparent gain other than monies...
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
hehe my tinfoil hat is fully deployed :)
war is good for business.
USSR invasion failed because of US involvement and support.
We should have learned from USSR. US response should have been proportional (strategic rather than emotional). making sure binladen and his top managers were taken out. Can't destroy a country and hope they will like you back!! Also cant win wars against ideals, only people.
yes this is overly simplistic but there are no complex way to arrive at a solution for this either, nature of the
Re: (Score:2)
US response should have been proportional (strategic rather than emotional).
Who says it wasn't? Al Qaeda wasn't just some crooks hiding in a secret lair. They were a significant ally of the Taliban, maintaining a fair-sized militia in Northern Afghanistan. In turn, the Taliban provided them with significant support. A "strategic" response which didn't also take out the Taliban somehow wouldn't have been effective.
Re: (Score:2)
hehe my tinfoil hat is fully deployed :)
war is good for business.
I don't believe that is true, though I know there are people who do. But even assuming Bush and the cabinet believed war is good for business, they would have to be psychopaths to launch a war for business purposes. Given what I've seen of Bush I just don't believe that's true. He may not be an angel, but I think it is safe to say he has a conscience. I think the same can be said of most of the people at the high levels of US government.
USSR invasion failed because of US involvement and support.
That doesn't negate what I said about the USSR's willingness to
Re: (Score:2)
so "didn't also take out the Taliban"... basically the response after 11 years of war... hasn't been effective either. The cost in lives both foreign and domestic has been very high.
I do wonder how things might have been if we had focused in on Afghanistan without the distraction/wtf in Iraq.
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I didn't like Bush policy, I think he is a decent guy who may or may not have had the befit of fit council (Iraq war?).
what I did mean is that the military industrial complex does benefit from the wars we the taxpayer have to support. I am a proponent of a strong military, but our spending is disproportional. The introduction of military contractors cheapens the sacrifices our armed forces make. Said contractors behavior, though not subject to US articles of war, reflects on US the country not th
Re: (Score:2)
so "didn't also take out the Taliban"... basically the response after 11 years of war... hasn't been effective either. The cost in lives both foreign and domestic has been very high.
They did take out the Taliban. It turns out more difficult to keep them out. Somehow I doubt a "strategic" token bombing effort would have discouraged Al Qaeda or its allies.
Yes and (Score:2)
Especially the ultimate enemy: your own citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
The right tool for the right job. The job being asymmetrical warfare.
Just like few (here) had heard of IEDs before the Iraqi insurgents made them popular. It's the right tool for the job, developed for that job. IEDs would not be good for an advancing tank column. Or against aerial bombardment.
While this blimp wouldn't last long against the Russians or those dirty Canadians, it should help against small unit insurgencies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To add to what Baloroth says;
This type of blimp also has Naval uses... Such as coastline surveillance, or keeping an eye on a naval base. Or shadowing a ship/boat or formation at sea. Or flying top cover for one of our formations (like a loitering supply or amphibious group).
To echo what he says; just because it's low tech doesn't mean it doesn't have uses in high tech warfare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
American Civil War didn't have blimps. They had balloons, but not blimps.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that post referred to the last civil war but the *next* civil war.
My bet is on edges versus middle.
Re: (Score:3)
The song says it all (Score:4, Funny)
Everybody needs to get a blimp [weebls-stuff.com].
Blade Runner flashbacks (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm having Blade Runner flashbacks.
Flashbacks to the future are strange.
ah was assaulted by a bar hade! (Score:2)
Watch you for falling refrigerators!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Blade Runner, that's what *immediately* leapt to my mind too. I wonder if these things will have giant display ads on the sides? "Sponsored by the Exxon Corporation" maybe.
protip - active camouflage can be easily be repurposed as an electronic billboard [goodyearblimp.com]. And vice-versa.
Goodyear? No the worst... (Score:1)
I for one... (Score:1)
also flown at Lakehurst: The Hindenburg (Score:5, Funny)
also flown at Lakehurst: The Hindenburg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Also flown at Lakehurst:
The highly successful Graf Zeppelin.
Isn't obvious to everyone? (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.
Re: (Score:1)
Flamebait? Really? It was meant as a joke.
(btw I meant Vogons not Vorgons)
A technological solution to a political problem. (Score:3)
Helium?! (Score:2)
It's unmanned, so why not use hydrogen? Who cares if they lose the odd one to lightening?
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's terrible. Yeah hydrogen is kinda dangerous, but it's manageable.
Re:Helium?! (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it bouyed with helium, which is incredibly expensive?
Well, in part because helium is not incredibly expensive.
Re:Helium?! (Score:5, 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.
How many square meters is that? (Score:2)
Is that soccer fields or rugby (aka american football) fields?
Re: (Score:2)
yes
Re: (Score:1)
Let's see...American company building a blimp for America's army reported by an American news service and displayed on an American website. I'm going to say "football pitch", that makes the most sense!
Being a dumb American is hard, can you help me define "obtuse" or "willful ignorance" for me?
Ta ta!
And who will they be watching? (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
One kamikaze FPV-equipped RC plane could take this thing out.
Re: (Score:1)
It'll need to be armed up like a WW2 bomber to defend itself from all angles from manually guided/ballistic weapons that won't fall for flares or chaff.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
The Taliban doesn't have high altitude SAMs.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have any SAMs of any kind. The only interference with aircraft in flight in Afghanistan is light automatic weapons and the odd lucky hit by an RPG if you are slow and under a couple of thousand feet.
Look, the Taliban don't even have a single brain between them, that works properly. All they are good at is blowing themselves the fuck up; sadly, taking out actual useful human beings with them in the blast radius.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like your citation-free post is just parroting a second hand reference to the rather breathless, and uncorroborated, 2007 report that was in the Telegraph [telegraph.co.uk] five years ago. A single missile fired, unnamed sources, lots of conjecture, the attack was readily defeated. So if sensational reports are that the Taliban has had numbers of SAM-7s for years, and all they lack is BATTERIES for their old Stingers, how is it that there has not been widespread use and some successes? Hmm? I smell crap. Whether it is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Taliban have SAMs now? Maybe your wet dream of a government conspiracy for everything is misplaced?
Re: (Score:2)
My point was I don't think these things are being built for overseas deployment. This thing is made to order for domestic surveillance. If you sent one of these blimps to Syria or a hotspot where the hostiles have real stockpiles it would last five minutes.
"Conspiracy" implies our government efforts to control citizens are done in secret. The reality is they have become quite bold in recent years.
1 Blimp, That'll Be $172M, Please (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Now at the same time I'm sure there is an over s
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it depends on whether that's $172M/blimp or $500M in development and $6M/blimp. The current 787/A350 aircraft development costs were in the $10B+ range, with per-unit prices in the $150M-$190M range. With development costs running 70x a production unit, that would come out very close to the $497M/$7M for the cost of the airship.
Re: (Score:2)
If that covers the C4ISR electronic package, that's much more than a simple camera platform.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Syndicate, here we come? (Score:2)
Blade Runner (Score:1)
...reborn.
Now life imitates art.
I imagine (Score:2)
Incredibly stupid idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Balloons probably aren't stable enough and satellites "blink". But i agree with you.. we already have drones that fulfill this role pretty well. Though i suppose this is just another drone.
Football Field (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Normal football pitches: 45-90m(w) x 90-120m(l)
International football pitches: 64-75m(w) x 100-110m(l)
Unless you're talking about hand-egg. I do not know the dimensions for hand-egg.
I hope that clears things up! I'm always happy to help!
celestine data-pig (Score:1)
MOAR plz! (Score:1)
why so big and expensive? (Score:2)
Wouldn't a weather balloon do?
Re: (Score:3)
Commercialized Black Triangle (Score:3)
Obligatory Starcraft Reference (Score:2)
Spy on me will ya? (Score:1)
Pricetag for 3? (Score:2)
Anyone else notice that the cost for just *3* of these things is half a billion dollars, assuming no cost overruns?
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone else notice that the cost for just *3* of these things is half a billion dollars, assuming no cost overruns?
Yup. And if they can't scam cost overruns outta this, they ain't trying.
And now you know where the NASA budget cuts are going...
assassination platform (Score:2)
http://wh.gov/YuEi [wh.gov]
Blimps + NRA = comedy (Score:2)
Perhaps not the best surveillance platform in a country where anyone can buy a 50-calibre sniper rifle.
Unblinking Eye (Score:2)
So, by day 22, will there be the paddling of the swollen rump before I get to be a member of the surveillance Stonecutters?
Re: (Score:2)
ob: Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Re: (Score:2)