**Blimps** to thwart cruise missile attack?

dragonridr
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

Actually the more i think about it it makes sense. See ground radar cant track cruise missiles there designed to hug the earth and unless its flat for hundreds of miles it won't see it. They move to quickly for satellites to track however planes can detect them. But you cant keep planes flying 24 hrs a day would get expensive. Do yeah i blimp makes sense it could easily sit above a target for weeks on end with a radar tracking system. I laughed at first but it does make sense.

only because we haven't developed anti-grav tech yet.....or at least that they have told us about.

Just seems like we haven't come very far tech wise on aircraft ...or .... blimps were one of those things that was a pinnacle of innovation that can't be improved upon?

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus


They would have to be geosynchronous or you could miss a launch. Cruise missiles are short range, so the satellites would have to be over the US, and would have to have ultra sensitive IR cameras due to the small launch signatures.

We have the technology, but it would have to be put together into one platform type, and two to three satellites launched.

Zaphod58
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

They would have to be geosynchronous or you could miss a launch. Cruise missiles are short range, so the satellites would have to be over the US, and would have to have ultra sensitive IR cameras due to the small launch signatures.

We have the technology, but it would have to be put together into one platform type, and two to three satellites launched.

gotcha....you would have to have designated satellites just for that purpose....hence expensive.

so once they have these blimps in the air to detect........then what? How to defend?

UxoriousMagnus

Zaphod58
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

They would have to be geosynchronous or you could miss a launch. Cruise missiles are short range, so the satellites would have to be over the US, and would have to have ultra sensitive IR cameras due to the small launch signatures.

We have the technology, but it would have to be put together into one platform type, and two to three satellites launched.

gotcha....you would have to have designated satellites just for that purpose....hence expensive.

so once they have these blimps in the air to detect........then what? How to defend?

You wouldn't need to if they shot it down unbox another one and launch it. All this thing needs is a solar panel electric motor and radar package. one satellite would pay for hundreds of these things.

dragonridr

UxoriousMagnus

Zaphod58
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

They would have to be geosynchronous or you could miss a launch. Cruise missiles are short range, so the satellites would have to be over the US, and would have to have ultra sensitive IR cameras due to the small launch signatures.

We have the technology, but it would have to be put together into one platform type, and two to three satellites launched.

gotcha....you would have to have designated satellites just for that purpose....hence expensive.

so once they have these blimps in the air to detect........then what? How to defend?

You wouldn't need to if they shot it down unbox another one and launch it. All this thing needs is a solar panel electric motor and radar package. one satellite would pay for hundreds of these things.

no...no...I mean...so these blimps "see" a cruise missile coming in to take out the White House.....now what?

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus


The Aegis BMD system already being deployed on many Arleigh Burke class ships, as well as Ticonderoga cruisers.

It uses the SM-3 missile, and eventually (when it comes online the SM-6). It has a great record to date in some very realistic tests, and has even shot down a satellite.

Zaphod58
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

The Aegis BMD system already being deployed on many Arleigh Burke class ships, as well as Ticonderoga cruisers.

It uses the SM-3 missile, and eventually (when it comes online the SM-6). It has a great record to date in some very realistic tests, and has even shot down a satellite.

edit on 1/24/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

So we also have to keep missile cruisers sitting off the coast of DC as well....247/365?

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus


They don't even have to be at sea to launch. They can take the feed from the blimp radar and launch from the dock at their home port in Norfolk without ever moving.

UxoriousMagnus
The Pentagon is looking into using blimps to detect cruise missile attacks which they say is to close a gap in our current defenses.

So...my questions is....we have had this gap for how long, and "blimps" are the answer?

Cruise missiles are becoming more of a threat thanks to technological progress (they're getting faster and presumably more accurate) and proliferation (More countries are either using them or developing them for use in the near future). There's no way to defend every place against every threat, but as threats pass a certain threshold (determined by admittedly obscure and classified means), it's the job of the Department of Defense to look into ways to counter the threat. Detection is the first step in countering.

We have NSA listening to every conversation we have, satellites that can see a zit on your kids face and how many hundreds of billions spent on defense each year .....

If you can convince the incoming cruise missiles to chat on their cellular phones while in flight, I'm sure the NSA will be only too happy to track them. The only conversation relevant to a cruise missile launch (assuming it wasn't carried out over secure land line) would be nothing but an authentication code and a fire order....probably less than 60 seconds long. That's not much to work with, and doesn't give you any information that's usable for a missile intercept.

As for satellites that can see zits on kids' faces, we can only wish. Satellites have amazing capabilities, but optical technology is limited by simple (well, relatively simple) physics, and satellites are limited by orbital mechanics...having a satellite where you need it, when you need it, is very much a non-trivial problem.

Spending hundreds of billions on defense has never guaranteed that hundreds of billions are spent well. Problems with our defense procurement system are a pet peeve (and frequent rant target) of mine. Waste and inefficiency aside, though, as noted above, there's no way to cover everything, everywhere, all the time.

but technology from the late 1800's is the answer?

You do realize that the basic principle behind the fixed-wing aircraft was mathematically presented in 1738, and the first glider flew in 1849? Technology from the middle 1800's is alive and well in all forms of aviation. The lighter-than-air platform has the advantage in this particular application, because it can be placed exactly where it's needed (unlike satellites), and remain there for longer periods for less cost than fixed-wing aircraft. It's a relatively 'low tech' solution, but then again, so is "Ma Deuce", and so is an entrenching tool, and they both work very well in their roles. Sometimes, 'high tech' isn't 'better tech'.

where did all our money go!?

www.cbsnews.com...

An unfortunate amount of it goes up in wasted effort like excessive paperwork and duplicated oversight (the military is hardly the only segment of government with this problem). A huge amount of it goes into research and development, and into developing new systems to replace our current inventory. It's really shocking to realize that most of our currently operational aircraft were designed long before their pilots were born (the B-2 is pushing 30, the B-52 is pushing 60, as is the KC-10/KC-135 fleet that refuels them, the F-15 is over 40, and the F-16 and F-18 are pushing 40). The numbers on tanks and ships aren't a lot better. It's a testament to good engineering that equipment as old as ours does as well as it does.

Zaphod58
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

They don't even have to be at sea to launch. They can take the feed from the blimp radar and launch from the dock at their home port in Norfolk without ever moving.

I feel sorry for the dock worker who happens to be replacing the wrong bit of decking at the wrong time.

We could always go back to the 'bad old days' of having actual air-defense systems defending our cities...of course, that will just reignite the Army vs. Air Force turf war in a new and improved three-player version. Good luck getting the Army to use a Navy missile system, good luck getting the Navy to let the Army use their equipment, and somebody please hit the Air Force guy over the head with a pre-flight checklist until he stops claiming ownership of anything and everything that flies and isn't a helicopter.

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer


There are a surprising number of fixed and mobile SAM sites (not Patriots) around the Washington area already. Most people don't know anything about them

reply to post by Zaphod58


Haven't posted in years... don't know how to do anything, sorry.
But- aerostats are still deployed ... there is one over my house right now.
We all think it's funny ( except for the last one- the self destruct mech. malfunctioned on that one and parts of it fell all over my neighborhood ).
I live near Ft. Huachuca,Az.

These things can't handle weather, so there is a joke about the dope runners callin' their bros ' come on over, man- the blimp's down !'

If the one in DC area really includes the mission of tracking incoming ( possibly nuclear ) weapons, then the whole thing is absolutely idiotic. All you would then need to have good expectations of success would be a report of bad weather ahead...

The unit deployed hereabouts goes to about 1000 M above mean. The one OP describes apparently to about 3000- much more vulnerable, I should think.

Thank God it would be defending the utterly useless DC area. Even though as an adjunct to AWACS it could make some sense... I don't buy it for a second, nor should you IMO. Thanks.

reply to post by Bazart


It's not for nuclear missiles. They won't come in from that direction. And cruise missiles don't handle bad weather well either.

Although these "blimps" are currently designed for surveillance purposes only, it is not too far-fetched to project an "interdiction" role in the near-ish future.

Especially if one considers the possibility of replacing these aerostats ("blimps") with fully autonomous, Armed, high-altitude airships.


Yes, it is possible to launch a rocket (or a missile) from a "balloon" (airship), as anyone who cares to Google the term "rockoon" will discover.


Using an advanced autonomous airship as both a detection and interdiction platform for inbound threats has a number of advantages over land or sea based resources; among which are cost, coverage and response time.


A high altitude airship could easily loiter high above bad weather (as long as it launched in good weather), linger over a specific area for days, weeks, or even months, and upon detecting a threat, "rain death from above" down upon the threat in the form of air to air missiles (or even "something" more "exotic"?).

Calling this 1800's tech is like calling the F-22 or F-35 1903 tech.

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus


The technology you are referring to is an aerostat. An aerial stationary blimp equipped with an array of sensors.

We have them on nearly every base here in Afghanistan. They are almost useless. They can't even track Chinese made rockets that insurgents fire on us on a regular basis. A sophisticated cruise missile would not be easily tracked by a PGGS aerostat.

While the PGGS does have a 360 degree view of it's surrounding environment, and CAN track incoming fire, it takes a person to react to the situation. That said, a cruise missile is NOT what this system would be used for.

It's most useful qualities are not missile tracking sensors, but ground surveillance. The PGGS acronym stands for Persistent GROUND Surveillance System. They would be there to keep a constant eye on everything within it's range. This is NOT about cruise missiles. This is about expanding the surveillance society we are now living in.

Cruise missiles can already be tracked by long range radar systems. The notion that a PGGS would be used for such counter-missile surveillance is laughable to me.

reply to post by projectvxn


The new system is not PGGS. It's a new radar system under development.

Zaphod58
reply to post by projectvxn

 

The new system is not PGGS. It's a new radar system under development.

Haven't heard of it to be honest.

But I have seen a news article recently that talks about the use of a PGGS aerostat for constant surveillance..

EDIT:

Just realized it talks about the same thing. This wasn't the article I read before and it hadn't added that the sensor suite on it was still being tested.

But the idea that PGGS aerostats could be used in our cities one day scares the crap out of me. This kind of tech should not be used as it would simply amplify the domestic spying capabilities of an already out of control surveillance dragnet.

reply to post by projectvxn


There are a couple new radars in development, including a new Aegis radar.

The new system is JLENS (Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System), armed with a Surveillance Radar and Fire Control Radar that is capable of tracking SLCM/GLCM, SRBM, SAM, ASM, and MRBM, as well as UAV, manned aircraft, ground targets and ships at sea.

Thus far they've been in use on the US Southern Border to aid Border Patrol and act as augment for our Southern Corridor where there is a slight gap between the PAVE PAWS/BMEWS.

The idea is augmentation and mobility. Supposedly giving the ability to strength detection capabilities around sensitive military and government installations (i.e. C4ISTAR, Launch Facilities, MAJCOM, Hardened Facilities, ect...)

As far as the deployment of Aerostats/JLENS over DC, Posse Comitatus does not apply because DC is a Military District and the deployment on the border is being fulfilled by a Raytheon-Border patrol joint venture.

The threat to commercial air traffic is reported to be minimal and private air traffic is non-existent because of the DC ADIZ/SFRA.