Home » News » Around the Globe » Marines Use Helium Balloons to Talk to Harrier Jump Jets Over Libya

Marines Use Helium Balloons to Talk to Harrier Jump Jets Over Libya

by John Reed on March 26, 2011

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.

 

 

Share |

{ 46 comments… read them below or add one }

elportonative77 March 26, 2011 at 2:55 pm

Gotta love it when you save money.

Reply

Randall Combs March 26, 2011 at 3:53 pm

Adapt, and over come.

Reply

jamesb101 March 26, 2011 at 4:21 pm

Cheap and it works…..

Low Tech…I love it!

Reply

yankee fifth March 26, 2011 at 5:16 pm

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. :)

Reply

Jacob March 26, 2011 at 7:37 pm

I would imagine that the tethered balloons would work better for that reason.

Reply

chactas.stryker March 26, 2011 at 11:25 pm

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"

Reply

Yankee Fifth March 27, 2011 at 2:22 pm

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.

Reply

trustbutverify March 28, 2011 at 2:51 pm

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.

Reply

Oblat March 26, 2011 at 5:36 pm

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.

Reply

USMC March 26, 2011 at 9:37 pm

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

Reply

chaos0xomega March 27, 2011 at 11:08 am

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.

Reply

blight March 27, 2011 at 7:19 pm

Go Navy.

Reply

Randall Combs March 26, 2011 at 11:32 pm

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.

Reply

Nadnerbus March 27, 2011 at 1:09 am

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.

Reply

Guest March 28, 2011 at 7:42 am

Haha he's the Buzz Killington of DT….

Reply

Max March 26, 2011 at 7:12 pm

Works great, as long as we have air superiority…Will that work in all situations? Probably not.

Reply

TrustButVerify March 28, 2011 at 2:52 pm

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.

Reply

dauntlessCelt March 26, 2011 at 7:14 pm

"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".

Reply

Adam March 26, 2011 at 8:23 pm

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

Reply

chactas.stryker March 26, 2011 at 11:06 pm

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!

Reply

Joe Schmoe March 27, 2011 at 1:29 am

The EFV was a catastrophic program. A failed from the start project horribly mismanaged by the Marines; along with other programs as of late.

Reply

William C. March 27, 2011 at 2:16 am

I'm still scratching me head over what the USMC should do now when it comes to amtracks however.

Reply

Joe Schmoe March 27, 2011 at 10:35 am

They have already started on another program, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV).

Reply

William C. March 27, 2011 at 2:09 pm

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.

chactas.stryker March 26, 2011 at 11:15 pm

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

Reply

STemplar March 27, 2011 at 4:31 am

Or helicopters…..

Reply

PMI March 27, 2011 at 2:02 pm

.And how many CH-53's would it take to airlift a battalion of armored vehicles? How much deck space would they need?

Reply

STemplar March 27, 2011 at 2:22 pm

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.

Reply

Cranky Observer March 26, 2011 at 11:51 pm

> 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

Reply

chactas.stryker March 27, 2011 at 10:19 am

@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.

Reply

Nadnerbus March 27, 2011 at 1:11 am

Guys, its obviously some sort of alien UFO. Or maybe light from Venus reflecting off swamp gas.

Reply

Sanem March 27, 2011 at 5:24 am

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!

Reply

Mastro March 27, 2011 at 11:05 am

A 360 radar weighs a lot more than an antenna.

Maybe a small dirigible could carry something-

Reply

Matrix_3692 March 27, 2011 at 5:40 am

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?

Reply

chactas.stryker March 27, 2011 at 10:14 am

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.

Reply

FormerDirtDart March 27, 2011 at 11:11 am

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.

Reply

Mastro March 27, 2011 at 11:08 am

Maybe I'm paranoid- but isn't there a danger of a plane hitting the tether?

They might have accidentally reinvented the barrage balloon.

Reply

Lkimura March 27, 2011 at 2:08 pm

The balloon could be relaying RF transmissions using a passive relay, if so no power is required and no sensitive radio equipment.

Reply

Chuck Reynolds March 28, 2011 at 1:45 am

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

Reply

4prey March 28, 2011 at 8:31 am

One’s upon a time, after flawless victory, you will notice that your children attend Muslim church with your neighbor` kids from Libya.

Reply

Tenn Slim March 28, 2011 at 9:54 am

Good for the USMC.
Innovate, adapt, succeed.
Semper FI
end

Reply

chris eltringham March 29, 2011 at 10:58 pm

Love to see Marines inguenuity at work. Semper Fi.

Reply

@MarandaLaw April 11, 2011 at 3:46 pm

You guy's are just Brilliant….Bring our troops home safe!!

Reply

Devil Dog April 21, 2011 at 8:12 pm

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 $$$$!

Reply

aaronc October 1, 2011 at 12:46 pm

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.

Reply

Joe Schmoe March 28, 2011 at 1:55 am

"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.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: