Drones Reach Stratospheric Heights in Race To Fly Higher, Longer

New military and commercial craft aim to go far higher than jumbo jets and stay there for months, offering more flexible alternative to satellites. From a report: This month a drone took off from a missile range in New Mexico and climbed into the stratosphere, joining a race to deliver unmanned aerial vehicles that can fly higher and longer than ever before. Drones have already shaken up warfare, recently playing a prominent role in the war in Ukraine. But militaries have long sought craft that can provide intelligence at a height beyond the reach of most radar and missile-defense systems, and for extended periods. For commercial users, high-altitude drones can be a way to beam internet services into areas with low connectivity.

A handful of military drones have for years operated at some 60,000 feet, far higher than jumbo jets. Now companies are developing craft that can go even higher and stay there for months, offering a cheaper and more flexible alternative to satellites. BAE Systems, the British weapons maker that produced the drone that flew in New Mexico, said its solar-powered craft is designed to stay in the air for as long as a year. "It allows us to enter the race to operationalize the stratosphere," said Dave Corfield, chief executive of Prismatic, the BAE unit that developed the drone. In the recent test flight, the PHASA-35 drone climbed above 65,000 feet and flew for 24 hours before landing. It is expected to enter service as soon as late 2026. Elsewhere, a unit of plane maker Airbus has developed a drone called the Zephyr that has already flown up to 70,000 feet for 64 days.

Battery generation

[akw0088]

We are one battery generation away from having these things be more common than mosquitos. I never really thought about them replacing satellites, but I suppose if they can figure out the battery life, redundant motors could keep them up for quite a while and have another take over for maintenance pretty easily

Re:

[rossdee]

"these things be more common than mosquitos"

They only ever made around 7,700 Mosquitos of which 30 still exist, and less than a handful are flyable.

If They Serve Me Then I Salute Them

[zenlessyank]

If they spy on my then I shoot them.

Re: If They Serve Me Then I Salute Them

[akw0088]

I was in the park the other day, and this dog was spying on me, I should have shot him! He almost hit me!

Re:

[zenlessyank]

Don't be fucking retarded. See a shrink.

Re:

[Harvey Manfrenjenson]

I hate to point out the freakin' obvious, but I just can't resist. What makes you think you can identify a drone at 60,000-70,000 feet? How would you know if it is "serving you" or "spying on you"? And what makes you think you can shoot it down with anything short of a guided missile?

Re:

[zenlessyank]

Wondered how long it would take for someone to say this.

It has to take off from somewhere and land. I am also sure there is a nice little list floating around on the internet somewhere that has that kind of pertinent info I can find. I can wait.

Re:

[godel_56]

If they spy on my then I shoot them.

They'll be flying at a height of eleven or twelve miles or ~18 km, so what kind of heat are you packing?

Re:

[zenlessyank]

Scroll up.

I don't see the point

[Baron_Yam]

If you can build a loitering high altitude spy drone that is beyond the reach of conventional weaponry... I can build a loitering high-altitude attack drone that waits for you to deploy yours and then destroys it.

If you have sufficient superiority over your foe to safely deploy such a device... you shouldn't need to.

Re:

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I can build a loitering high-altitude attack drone that waits for you to deploy yours and then destroys it.

If it can find it. Don't forget the fun we recently had trying to track down a bus-sized balloon.

Replace the satellites..

[rickb928]

0. Constellations are going to hamper satellite surveillance. Watch. It may already have happened.
1. Possibly harder to find than a geostationary satellite.
2. Much easier to replace. And warfare in space could blind the military. If it's my enemy., I'm happy...
3. Decoys will force enemies to expend and waste resources. Good.

Re:

[willy_me]

3. Decoys will force enemies to expend and waste resources. Good.

There are companies researching laser based weapons for affordably addressing such threats. Countries with both the drones and countermeasures will certainly find themselves with a significant advantage in the future. How much so? Just look at the allocation of future defence spending. The current conflict is definitely eye-opening with regards to how technology can impact war and I would expect defence spending to reflect this fact.

Re: Replace the satellites..

[rickb928]

Affordable space lasers? Huh.

Re:

[nonBORG]

Israel has developed lasers to shoot down rockets, they are very cheap to operate. Mount one of those to an F16 and and you can go and shoot down a ton of drones possibly. Lasers do have limited range so you kind of need to get close enough to shoot at it. I think it is about 2 miles or so. Shooting down with missiles seems more straight forward but there are a lot of questions around that. Such as targeting, if it is stealth (radar targeting no good) if it is electric motors it will be hard for IR compared

The End of Flat Earthers?

[Frank Burly]

I don't think there are many bacteria deniers, because anyone with $150 microscope can see bacteria for themselves So shouldn't easily accessible high altitude drones make it easy for anyone curious to send one up and see the curvature of the Earth for themselves?

It seems like the number of sincere skeptics of either a round Earth or bacteria should be about the same once verifiable proof is equally available.

Re:

[Applehu Akbar]

I don't think there are many bacteria deniers, because anyone with $150 microscope can see bacteria for themselves

There are a surprising number of virus deniers out there, though.

Re:

[vivian]

Flat earthers are in it for the lols. It's the troll that keeps on giving.

Internet access?

[Nexus7]

Do we still need constellations of satellites for networking when we have drones that can take off and land on their own, be serviced, and go back up and stay there for a year?

Re:

[vivian]

The lightest (and also the earliest) starlink satellites were about 200kg. If only half of that was comms electronics and solar stuff and not for thrusters etc, then that's still a very big drone to try and keep in the stratosphere. Might need a few more generations of miniaturisation first before it's possible to make a drone that can stay up and handle a good amount of network traffic.

Re:

[nonBORG]

well also there is already internet access via starlink. If you are a commercial user I am sure it would be cheaper to get a starlink receiver than put a drone up there and a receiver and a internet base station for the drone. Like the difference of $10Mil. does not make sense.

British weapons maker?

[alleycat0]

Very curious characterization of BAE (full disclosure: I'm an employee of their North American Electronic Systems division). They are the third largest aerospace contractor in the world (after Lockheed Martin and Boeing), and it's my understanding that the majority of their work is on air and maritime platforms. Something like half their business is in the commercial sector. Yes, they make weapons systems too, but I don't believe that's a significant portion of their business.