The Marines debuted another new technology last week in the fight against Gadhafi’s forces when the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit aboard the USS Kearsarge used a high-tech balloon to relay messages to the ship’s AV-8B Harrier jump jets flying strike missions over Libya, beyond the range of the ship’s transmitters.
Normally, the ship would have to pass messages to a nearby E-3 AWACS jet that would then send those messages along to the Harriers. However, the helium balloon-based Lofted Communications System carried aboard the Kearsarge fills that role without leaving the Marines reliant on an AWACS.
Here’s how it works; depending on how far the Marines need to send messages, they send up a tethered or untethered balloon carrying a communications relay device capable of passing radio messages and encrypted information hundreds of miles to the Harriers.
All of this saves a ton of cash and keeps the dozens of airmen aboard an AWACS out of harm’s way, or frees them up to fly other missions.
{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }
Gotta love it when you save money.
Adapt, and over come.
Cheap and it works…..
Low Tech…I love it!
What are the risks for loss of communication equipment, encryption on disposable balloons? What is to stop someone from snagging the balloon and its payload?
I am all for simple solutions as long as they work. :)
I would imagine that the tethered balloons would work better for that reason.
A relay in theory would not necessarily need to contain the crypto but simply boost the signal… plus the key material constantly changes to account for this battlefield inevitability anyway… accidents happen, just ask Murphy. Presumably an AWAC would have the very same vulnerability plus a bunch of crew members, tanker support, fighter CAP, etc, etc… Cost/risk analysis… Marines "1" Air Force "0"
I like the idea just have questions about implementation. All things being equal I would think it would be better to minimize loss of hardware and software; do not start by throwing a bunch of hardware around.
How effective a solution is this when underway? If untethered and traveling in a direction different from the wind? Can it be tethered while underway without interfering with flight operations or other equipment?
Just asking.
I concur with chactas- there's no reason to include keymat on the balloons, all they need to do is loft a simple repeater. Encrypted signal in = encrypted signal out.
As for the cost, this is a relatively simple piece of equipment and it doesn't have to cost very much, particularly in DoD terms.
It would save money if there wasn't a bunch of AWACs flying around the clock nearby anyways. Really it's just another case of the marines trying to pretend that all the other services don't exist.
As a Marine I am aware you exist lol google Marine rescue army then google army rescues Marines you will find Marines have rescued the Army many times and few or none of the Army rescuing the Marines, and we did just rescue that Air force pilot in libya also. All at 20000 USD less per man each year than any other branch. One reason we have out own air, tanks, and landingcraft Army just cant move quick enough. Semper Fi
I'm not really sure google searching these rather imprecise terms is an accurate research method, especially considering all the PR spin the Marines get. And you got your numbers wrong, its 10000 less per man each year, but thats actually a lie, because the numbers didn't account for all the costs incurred upon the Navy to support you. In reality the Marine Corps costs the DoD about 10000 USD MORE per man per year.
Go Navy.
Oblat, I'm curious. Why all this negativity? Honestly I cannot recall a post where you haven't been the most pessimistic one on the forum?
So maybe… Once and for all what is your end game? How should the military be ran? What few changes would make Oblat happy and not troll?
Did you or any one personal to you serve? Really you must know that continued behavior like yours is frowned on to say the least.
Don't bother. He should just change his handle to Debbie Downer, he's going to crap on whatever the prevailing view is. Tell him the apples are better than oranges, he'll tell you that oranges are clearly the superior fruit. Tell him oranges are better, and he'll tell you that apples are obviously the best. Guy just likes to be contrarian.
Haha he's the Buzz Killington of DT….
Works great, as long as we have air superiority…Will that work in all situations? Probably not.
I don't think anyone's selling it as a fix-all. Just the same, I doubt it has an RCS comparable to, say, a KC-135. If implemented properly it's inexpensive enough to be field-expendable.
"High-tech balloon." It just sounds funny.
Was it Patton who said something like "never tell a man HOW to do something, you may be surprised at the results".
ha classic, with the low tech wars being fought now you have to wonder about keeping AWACS and other high tech stuff in the air this is great idea as the Americans will almost certainly have air superiority for many a year to come. China? Russia or even India? blah its about motivation,training and national pride things the Yanks have in bucket loads
Sec. Gates cancelled the marines EFV on Jan 6, 2011… sad when you think how efficient the OV-22 Osprey is w/ it's additional range that ALL the Services have now benefitted directly from Marine R&D $'s even though it was plagued w/ problems and withstood years of questionable need and project cost analysis. We spent $3.5 Billion on research on the EFV/AAAV because it is scheduled to replace the AAV which came into the inventory under Pres. Nixon 40+ years ago at the same time as the LCC USS Mt. Whitney purpose built by Congress for "Amphibious Command" and Control. Of course now it is occupied by NATO NAVAL Brass enforcing a "No Fly Zone," oh the irony!
The EFV was a catastrophic program. A failed from the start project horribly mismanaged by the Marines; along with other programs as of late.
I'm still scratching me head over what the USMC should do now when it comes to amtracks however.
They have already started on another program, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV).
Indeed, but what should the requirements of that be? Will it be mostly the same as EFV?
One problem with amtracks in general that many critics seemed to ignore is that cannot make these things too heavy or they won't swim at all.
$700 toilet seats come to mind…. Littoral Ships that the crew can see the light of day thru the cracks:
http://www.huskermax.com/vbbs/showthread.php?1703…
(3) Capial Amphibious Class Ships in the same timeframe… come on? Apply the same level of quality control and financial restraint based on perceived threat and pound of pound marines are a far better bang for the buck… crunch the real numbers and you will see who does more with less for the last 235 years.
Given the history of the LCC Class during previous conflicts, like the first Persian Gulf War, the Marine's Naval Leadership knows the value of its marines, as it continues to littoral-ly capital-ize on the backs of Marine budget restraint and "perceived" capability.
Remember Tarawa anyone? "The ideal defensive barrier has always been the one that could not be demolished, which held up assaulting forces under the unobstructed fire of the defenders and past which it was impossible to run, crawl, dig, climb, or sail. The barrier reef fulfills these conditions to the letter, except when sufficient amphibious tanks and similar vehicles are available to the attackers." — Admiral Nimitz
Or helicopters…..
.And how many CH-53's would it take to airlift a battalion of armored vehicles? How much deck space would they need?
I'm just saying if a reef is your issue, flying it works just fine. If Admiral Nimitz had CH-53s, I guarantee you Tarawa would have gone differently.
> The Marines debuted another new technology last week
> in the fight against Gadhafi’s forces when the 26th Marine
> Expeditionary Unit aboard the USS Kearsarge used a high-tech
> balloon to relay messages to the ship’s AV-8B Harrier jump
> jets flying strike missions over Libya, beyond the range of the
> ship’s transmitters.
Interesting use of the concept, but I believe that is one of the technologies that Arthur C. Clarke's research group worked on during WWII, so I would hardly call it "new"!
Cranky
@Cranky- more revisionist history forgetting we are going "Back to the Future" if you ask me… just look a light rail if you want proof.
Guys, its obviously some sort of alien UFO. Or maybe light from Venus reflecting off swamp gas.
make that balloon a bit bigger, put a small radar or some passive sensors on it, and each ship can have it's own, low cost mini-awacs. not world-changing, but against low-flying aircraft and anti-ship missiles every second counts
but even better would be to use such relays to control UAVs far over the horizon: time to robotize those Harriers!
A 360 radar weighs a lot more than an antenna.
Maybe a small dirigible could carry something-
looks simple and effective (and i like that), but how far really can this balloon help extend the com range? Isn't there suppose to be AWACS flying 24/7 in theater and SATCOMs available?
Line of sight…. VHS is line of sight to the balloon, mountain top, horizon, etc.. SATCOM needs an antenna with gyro to stabilize it's azimuth on a satelite… also line of sight, but you can't mount it on a spinning airplane doing 700 knots.
They have had SATCOM on aircraft for decades. Its is however a bit less practical to slap one on a fighter. I believe the B2 uses SATCOM as the primary operational communications method.
Maybe I'm paranoid- but isn't there a danger of a plane hitting the tether?
They might have accidentally reinvented the barrage balloon.
The balloon could be relaying RF transmissions using a passive relay, if so no power is required and no sensitive radio equipment.
Improvise,adapt, and overcome… A low-cost solution that works-that's what the Marines have done historically for a long time. I'm willing to bet this is for passing comm that isn't practical to push via AWACS. Those guys are busy making sure the planes of 4+ nations don't hit each other and tasking missions. The ship needs to coordinate recovery and turnarounds on the deck. An LHD often isn't capable of 24-hour ops. Usually it's 8-10/day standard, maybe a little more for a few days of surge ops. If the Harriers are getting tanked and getting multiple taskers, the ship might not know when they're coming back. Being able to communicate directly probably allows them to stand down flight quarters more and maintain their ability to cycle planes for what could be weeks.
"A low-cost solution that works-that's what the Marines have done historically for a long time."
The F-35B, V-22 and EFV would like a word with you.
With everybody focusing on how much each day costs us over there it's good to see some intel come out about how they're thinking and using ways to save some cash
One’s upon a time, after flawless victory, you will notice that your children attend Muslim church with your neighbor` kids from Libya.
Good for the USMC.
Innovate, adapt, succeed.
Semper FI
end
Love to see Marines inguenuity at work. Semper Fi.
You guy's are just Brilliant….Bring our troops home safe!!
If the USA only new how much it cost to keep a Harrier flying, they wouldn't be talking about some damn low cost balloon. I've been working on these jets for years now.. The cost for parts is upsetting to say the least. For example, a piece of cloth 3 inches long with two gromments cost $3,750. This part holds an explosive in place on the ejection seat. With that said, my Marines made the same part for less than 10 bucks.. I could go on and on, but it doesn't matter……….no one gives a $$$$!
Using helium doesn't save money. It is at record prices. Using methane instead would give all the lift they needed for less than 1% the price. A blackened balloon would provide even more lift. I agree with other posters that using balloons for radio communications is hardly a novel innovation. People have done it since the earliest days of radio. But they had the sense to use hydrogen instead.