Comments on: Pentagon Pushes For Unblinking Surveillance

By: Bobch47

Bobch47 — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:23:56 +0000

I believe the Russians or some other country will be happy to sell the Taliban any weapon they need to shoot down any blimps we put up. I also belelieve a USA movers and shakers that makes blimps has sold our sucker politicians/leaders a bill of lousy goods that we get to pay for that will not get the job done.

By: Bobch47

Bobch47 — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:22:52 +0000

By: pedestrian

pedestrian — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:49:36 +0000

>This is a floating waste of money.
I often prefer disinformation from paranoids like you, but I will give you a very very special tip only for this time.
1)You have no idea of the advantages of unmanned blimps
2)You have no idea about cost per flight
3)You have no idea this can sit in the air while others have to loiter
4)You have no idea about the cost versus satellites
5)You have no idea about the maintenance cost advantages
6)You have no idea this is the next most long flying aerial platform after satellites
dismissed

By: freefallingbomb

freefallingbomb — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:23:33 +0000

How to defeat this system (instructions for minors, age 7+ ) :
1) Please wait until the U.S. Americans have paid for its development, mass-production and deployment.
2) Then make your I.E.D.s look like rocks (cover them with lots of clay or chalk and dirt), walk or drive at the roadside and drop them discretely out of your bag or out of the truck window.
3) Hurry! When the Nazis have fled from the country, all the fun is over.
Next “sophisticated surveillance system”, please!

By: drremccutcheon@verizon.net

drremccutcheon@verizon.net — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:11:45 +0000

As an old bag CAC I would not relish being that big a target for any s/a ordinance. It’s a no win situation. Topside maintenance to patch the holes from ground fire would be almost impossible. I think it would be a kick for the rag heads since the target only travels about 5o mph.

By: Cannon Fodder

Cannon Fodder — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:11:19 +0000

This just in, out of jealousy of Lockheed, Boeing is going to release a new Bi-Plane. If this is successful, they plan on also developing a tri-plane with a cool retro look that can shoot its GAU-8 avenger synchronously through its main propeller.
Seriously though, if the blimp works, go for it. It just seems that we would be using a satellite or something space based to do this by now instead of bringing back technology that was a huge target for the enemy.

By: Anton

Anton — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:09:31 +0000

They are apparently using these as a defense against enemy UAVs. Here’s a picture I found on another mil site:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=1118&pictureid=16498

By: elgatoso

elgatoso — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:16:30 +0000

Campbell,how is the work going with the turtle airship?

By: elgatoso

elgatoso — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:14:53 +0000

Like Valcan said ‚we need some airtruck like Skyhook from Skyhook International.

By: campbell

campbell — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:33:35 +0000

@JN: your comment points out the constantly sidestepped fact that this aircraft type is “a hybrid, slightly heavier than air”.
It’s that word “slightly” that is the killer. Anyone who supposes that this will be able to bear up under even light surface winds; has not found themselves on the end of a line trying to hold an airship down. I have. In a breeze of a mere 7mph. That huge sail area of the hull is bound to cause trouble. Avoiding this truth does not make it conveniently disappear, (as much as proponents of the so called “hybrids” would like it so). Use of a hovercraft landing system adds needless complexity,cost,control issues…and denies the dangers of FOB damage.
(disclosure: Airships are my business, for 29 years. I know whereof I speak. I applaud progress in lighter-than-air development; I deplore the continued, archaic designs. I support the militarys’ adaption of airships, from any source, provided that the airships are designed, constructed, and operated properly.)