DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Planes, Copters, Blimps » Big Bucks for Giant Blimp

Big Bucks for Giant Blimp

I can’t fig­ure it out, hon­estly, what’s behind this blimp fetish of mine. Maybe it’s because I dig retro visions of the techno-​​future — from pneu­matic sub­ways to mobile homes on the Moon; blimps some­how feed into that. Maybe it’s the idea of being lighter than air that grabs me.
AIR_High_Altitude_Airship_lg.jpgEither way, I’m not alone. There are a bunch of other peo­ple in the Defense Department who share my obses­sion. And they are hand­ing out hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars to develop a new fleet of mil­i­tary air­ships.
The lat­est, Defense Industry Daily tells us: a $149 mil­lion con­tract to Lockheed, to build a mas­sive High Altitude Airship that will look out for bal­lis­tic mis­sile launches.

The blimp will hover above the jet stream at an alti­tude of 65,000 feet for months at a time and will also have the abil­ity to detect low-​​flying mis­siles that may have slipped under­neath ground-​​based radars. Once oper­a­tional, it will be an impor­tant early-​​detection ele­ment of the broader U.S. mis­sile defense archi­tec­ture. It may also add as a weather sur­veyor and tele­com relay.
There are a num­ber of chal­lenges asso­ci­ated with an effort of this nature.
Solar cells and an advanced fuel cells that can deliver up to 500 kW must be devel­oped to power the craft. An aero­dy­namic design and a con­trol sys­tem must be devel­oped to help keep the air­ship steady amid the high winds at that alti­tude, with­out con­sum­ing exces­sive power. Another impor­tant fac­tor is deter­min­ing how the air­ship would react to chang­ing tem­per­a­tures as the sun rises and sets every day, heat­ing and cool­ing the helium. Then there’s the major chal­lenge of find­ing mate­ri­als for the airship’s skin that are capa­ble of with­stand­ing the extreme ultra­vi­o­let radi­a­tion at such high alti­tudes for extended peri­ods with­out becom­ing brittle.

But this HAA is actu­ally a lit­tle less ambi­tious than ear­lier designs. Before, the air­ship was sup­posed to be King Kong big, at 25 times the size of the Goodyear Blimp. Now, it’s merely huge, at two-​​and-​​a-​​half Goodyears in length. Plans to power the air­ship with lasers seem to have also fallen by the way­side, for now.
If every­thing goes well, a pro­to­type HAA should be ready to fly in 2010. I can’t wait.
UPDATE 5:23PM: Via the Wonk, here’s a pre­sen­ta­tion on “Advanced Concepts in Missile Defense.” The HAA is in there, as well as a pro­gram for one inter­cep­tor with “mul­ti­ple kill vehicles.”

Share |

December 12th, 2005 | Planes, Copters, Blimps, Retro-Futuro | 296733 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2005/12/12/big-bucks-for-giant-blimp/Big+Bucks+for+Giant+Blimp2005-12-12+16%3A10%3A07jason You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Pentagon Budget: Read This Blog | Raptor: Just a Plain Ol’ Fighter, Again » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Charles says:
    December 12, 2005 at 2:00 pm

    I was read­ing Ben Rich’s mem­oirs about his time at Skunk Works and was reminded of the blimp.
    In one con­tract pro­posal for a high-​​altitude air­plane they pro­pose using a giant blimp to lift a ram­jet air­craft to the proper height and jet­ti­son the air­craft from the blimp. Kelly Johnson runs the cal­cu­la­tions and tells the pre­sen­ter that the blimp would be too large, to the point of being infea­si­ble. I for­got the size num­ber given, and I’d have to check the book again at a later date.
    If you have the book, it’s prob­a­bly around the part where they develop the U2 or maybe the SR. The book is this one:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316743003/102–3282819-5609722?v=glance&n=283155
    But yeah, Lockheed and blimps fired a neu­ron or two.

    Reply
  2. Murc says:
    December 12, 2005 at 4:32 pm

    I’d like to point some­thing out to the author first.
    King Kong Big??? ah.……no. It was planned to still be smaller then the hin­den­burg.
    How big is an aver­age goodyear blimp any­way?
    And when talk­ing about these air­ship, for exam­ple the HAA, as you pointed out will be 25 times larger then a goodyear blimp, BUT…They came up with that fugure not by mea­sur­ing feet, but volume…which is far dif­fer­ent.
    Off the top of my head i’m think­ing a good year blimp is around 200 feet (that could be wrong though), and if this is 2 1/​2 times longer then its 500 feet…which is the exact same num­ber the pro­posed HAA is intended to be.
    In other words…ITS THE SAME AIRSHIP DESIGN…they just tagged it with another and new mis­sion for it.

    Reply
  3. Byron Skinner says:
    December 12, 2005 at 6:40 pm

    Good Afternoon Folks,
    This con­tract was let on 12/​8/​05 and it has a cost of $149Million est. but is open ended till 11/​2010. It goals are quote, “…to deve­l­ope an unmanned and unteth­ered protype…high alti­tude airship…500lbs. pay­load and 3Kv. power.“
    This seems to be rather mod­est for this large of fund­ing. I think what we have going here is another project like Boeing con­tract in December 2003 for satel­lites the Air Force didn’t want, all this appears to be is cor­po­rate wel­fare intended to install investors con­fi­dence in order to sup­port the price of Lockheeds stock.
    The need for a high alti­tude air­ship to sup­port mis­sile defense is in itself humor­ous, are we not build­ing a multi bil­lion dol­lar instal­la­tion in Alaska to detect these nonex­is­tant mis­siles?
    Well maybe it can be sold to the TV net­works, at a huge dis­count and be flown over NFL games.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner

    Reply
  4. Mike says:
    December 12, 2005 at 10:23 pm

    Point of fact: The winds in the stratos­phere are very light. I don’t remem­ber the num­ber but try google.

    Reply
  5. john shoemaker says:
    December 15, 2005 at 12:41 am

    The com­pa­nies that prof­ited from Starwars, devised by the peo­ple who pro­grammed Reagan will profit from this project fed to SonofReagan.
    Lasers are per­haps the least effi­cient weapons in exis­tence. Efficiency: Power into a device divided by power out. The most effi­cient bal­lons are are over the heads of car­toon char­ac­ters. Such humor bal­lons are per­haops the most effi­cient way to expose the lack of effi­ciency in invest­ing resources and faith in imag­i­nary shields.
    Better what has served. Being very clear about the response to such an attack: The elim­i­na­tion of a coun­try that allows such to originate.

    Reply
  6. Tod says:
    December 15, 2005 at 4:08 am

    Efficiency of weapons is the new stan­dard of deploy­a­bil­ity? Let’s go back to throw­ing rocks then. It’s OK if mis­siles launched from China (thanks, Bill) destroy us.

    Reply
  7. Andy says:
    December 15, 2005 at 8:18 am

    While in Iraq I was part of a PAC team that looked at bring­ing in Blimps as part of the JLENS pro­gram. The fact that they move too slow in the fluid and rapidly chang­ing air­space above a com­bat zone makes them a non-​​starter.

    Reply
  8. d says:
    December 15, 2005 at 8:54 am

    Nice Language!!! German air­ships were filled with explo­sive hydro­gen, these are not. I don’t like the idea either but have some couth and find out what your talk­ing about.

    Reply
  9. John Robino says:
    December 15, 2005 at 9:25 am

    our gov­er­ment now have the abil­ity to destroy incom­ing mis­siles, we will now have the abil­ity to detect and destroy much ear­lier than before bet­ter to pay a small price fot this high tech defen­sive sys­tem than to pay a high cost of lives in the future.

    Reply
  10. Chris says:
    December 15, 2005 at 9:29 am

    What a plan. Spend 149 mil­lion on a blimp then TRIPLE and DOUBLE Tricare Prime fees? And how much do you think was spent to come up with these great ideas? Just another bright idea from the ranks of the “BECAUSE I AM IN CHARGE AND I DON’T CARE IF IT’S STUPID”.

    Reply
  11. PFCR says:
    December 15, 2005 at 9:59 am

    JLENS.…that the com­bat surviel­lance sys­tem. its just a float­ing secu­rity cam­era. one at camp lib­erty got its tether slice by a helo and the air force had to shoot it down. a waste of money!
    funny stuff

    Reply
  12. Jim Morris says:
    December 15, 2005 at 10:07 am

    I think the ‘eye in the sky’ con­cept has merit but, in absence of any data, empir­i­cal or oth­er­wise, about the vul­ner­a­bil­ity of such a craft, it’s impos­si­ble to eval­u­ate its poten­tial value. Such ques­tions as a. will it be armed and b. will it be able to pro­tect itself against attack were the first of many to come to mind.

    Reply
  13. Rod says:
    December 15, 2005 at 10:44 am

    This has got to Win the Dumb-​​Award-​​Of the Year What I want to know is
    1. Why does the per­son in the Defense Department that came-​​up with this Idea
    Giant Blimps WHY does he Still have a Job work­ing for the Defense Department??
    2. Also, why is the per­son that spend our TAX-​​MONEY on this Idea of a Giant-​​Blimps NOT in Jail for Government Waste !

    Reply
  14. Robert Galloway says:
    December 15, 2005 at 10:52 am

    Amazing the vit­riol of some of the com­ments. The gov­ern­ment has bought in on some pie in the sky schemes over the years. They’ve backed some ambi­tions notions that didn’t pan out. Plenty did. We don’t still fight from trenches with muz­zle load­ers. We don’t get to the bat­tle on foot or horse­back. Give the brass some credit that this scheme may well have merit. Putting a man on the moon was absurd to some. Enough money and brain­power brought it about.

    Reply
  15. DAN says:
    December 15, 2005 at 12:39 pm

    And how much money has been spent on so col at Wright Patterson dream? Maybe he will make General. One well placed SAM/​SLM/​SRAM/​ETC, bil­lions up in, sorry, down in somke

    Reply
  16. Slats Wolfe says:
    December 15, 2005 at 1:54 pm

    I actu­ally served in a unit that had blimps from 1958–1960, The Naval Air Development Unit (NADU). While there the unit man­aged to deflate two blimps in acci­dents. One when a gust of wind caught it as it was being towed out of the hangar. It was slammed against the hangar door and deflated. The other was parked out­side on the ramp so that an inspec­tion of the troops could be made. It snowed rather heav­ily and before the inspec­tion could be can­celled and the blimp moved inside, the weight of the snow cause it to deflate. These were very late model state of the art blimps at the time. About 1962 the last active blimp was folded away. These were billed as all-​​weather air­ships. Unless there are great strides made over what was used at that time, this is a waste. At that time they were being used for early warn­ing purposes.

    Reply
  17. David Bolton says:
    December 15, 2005 at 4:12 pm

    Rod’s com­ments prove that the right to bear chil­dren should be restricted.

    Reply
  18. Dave says:
    December 16, 2005 at 2:58 am

    Seems like old news as Sanswire has been in devel­op­ment on the Stratellite for over 2 years and the award went to Locheed. Seems like a copy infringe­ment as it incor­po­rates the same technology.Research Globetel sym­bol GTE on the American Exchange…

    Reply
  19. Kevin says:
    December 19, 2005 at 3:53 pm

    I’m going to lean on the side of prob­a­bil­ity with this one. How prob­a­ble is it that we have bal­is­tic mis­siles shot at us? Not very likely. Now how high of a prob­a­bil­ity is it that our ene­mies have the tech­nol­ogy to pro­duce bal­is­tic mis­siles that are able to fly under our cur­rent radar sys­tems and strike at the vitals of our coun­try? Extremely unlikely. I’m in a Marine Corps ARFF Plt (air­craft res­cue and fire fight­ing), and our first line of defense is our flight suits because they are fire retar­dant. Riddle me this: Now why is it that even though flight suits are sup­posed to be stan­dard issue, we don’t have them, but the DoD is look­ing at spend­ing mil­lions on things that are not per­ti­nent?
    Let’s spend money where it counts. Maybe in a time of peace it would be dif­fer­ent, and we can spend money on b.s. stuff that is whim­si­cal, but we have iraq, afghanistan, and soon to be iran syria or korea.

    Reply
  20. Troy Thomes says:
    February 12, 2006 at 10:12 pm

    Sanswire’s Stratellite is a high-​​altitude air­ship that when in place in the stratos­phere will pro­vide a sta­tion­ary plat­form for trans­mit­ting var­i­ous types of wire­less com­mu­ni­ca­tions ser­vices cur­rently trans­mit­ted from cell tow­ers and satel­lites. It is not a bal­loon or a blimp. It is a high-​​altitude air­ship.
    Made of Space age Materials and pow­ered by solar pow­ered elec­tri­cal engines, each Stratellite will reach its final alti­tude by uti­liz­ing pro­pri­etary lift­ing gas tech­nol­ogy. Once in place at 65,000 feet (approx. 13 miles) and safely above the jet stream, each Stratellite will remain in one GPS coor­di­nate, pro­vid­ing the ideal wire­less trans­mis­sion plat­form. The Stratellites are unmanned air­ships and will be mon­i­tored from the Company’s Operation Centers on the ground.
    A Stratellite will have a pay­load capac­ity of sev­eral thou­sand pounds and clear line-​​of-​​sight to approx­i­mately 300,000 square miles, an area roughly the size of Texas .

    Reply
  21. Mahir says:
    September 5, 2009 at 6:46 am

    Greeting. Late to bed and late to wake will keep you long on money and short on mis­takes.
    I am from Nicaragua and learn­ing to write in English, give please true I wrote the fol­low­ing sen­tence: “Buy stock picks, the tastes of a char­tered cash can not be poised with a div­i­dend to throw peo­ple.“
    With best wishes :( , Mahir.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      News reports have said that this guy has openly stated his...
      Cannon Fodder
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      Headphones and earplugs are effective, but...
      JustAGuy
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
      Liberals just slay me… The liberal news...
      Cannon Fodder
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      It is quite an experience to see fat bellied old men shooting...
      Zandor
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      This is for Sam and Duality. It appears that you both are Muslim....
      Cannon Fodder
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I wonder if anyone noticed: This attack happened right after...
      freefallingbomb
    • Keep it Simple
      To the poster "Zandor" : You wrote: "Your last post...
      freefallingbomb
    • Airbag Defense
      Part III : You wrote: "These airbags are made similarly, so the...
      freefallingbomb
    • Airbag Defense
      To the educated guesser: Part I : …………...
      freefallingbomb
    • Special Forces Say ‘No’ to M4 Barrel
      Only two companies in the world are...
      Frank Hols
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage