Washington D.C. to Deploy Giant Defense Blimps. A little fearful aren't we?

[The Fool]

http://news.yahoo.com/blimps-bolster-washingtons-air-shield-test-204629886--finance.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A pair of big, blimp-like craft, moored to the ground and flying as high as 10,000 feet, are to be added to a high-tech shield designed to protect the Washington D.C. area from air attack, at least for a while.

The bulbous, helium-filled "aerostats" - each more than three quarters the length of a football field at 243 feet - are to be stitched into existing defenses as part of an exercise of new technology ordered by the Defense Department.

The coming addition to the umbrella over Washington is known as Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System, or JLENS. Raytheon Co is the prime contractor.

"We're trying to determine how the surveillance radar information from the JLENS platforms can be integrated with existing systems in the National Capital Region," said Michael Kucharek, a spokesman for the North American Aerospace Defense Command.
NORAD, a binational command, is responsible for defending air space over the United States and Canada, including the Washington area with its many pieces of important infrastructure.

The most significant air attack in the area took place on September 11, 2001, when Al Qaeda militants hijacked American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, and crashed it into the Pentagon.

To expand the time available to detect and defend against any future attacks from commercial aircraft, major changes were made under Operation Noble Eagle, combat air patrols begun after the September 11 attacks.
Airspace restrictions were extended. U.S. Army Sentinel radars for low-altitude radar coverage and short-range Stinger/Avenger missile batteries were deployed.

Washington is currently guarded by an air-defense system that includes Federal Aviation Administration radars and Department of Homeland Security helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft on alert at Reagan National Airport to intercept slow, low-flying aircraft.

EXPECTED BY END OF SEPTEMBER
The JLENS craft are expected to arrive in the capital area by September 30, according to Kucharek, who is also a spokesman for the U.S. Northern Command, which coordinates the Pentagon's homeland defense role.

A "capabilities demonstration," as the test is called, is expected to last as long as three years. Its location is being withheld, pending notification of lawmakers and others.

JLENS craft work in a roughly $450 million pair, known as an orbit, each tethered to mobile moorings. One of the aerostats carries a powerful long-range surveillance radar with a 360-degree look-around capability that can reach out to 340 miles. The other carries a radar used for targeting.
Operating as high as 10,000 feet for up to 30 days at a time, JLENS is meant to give the military more time to detect and react to threats, including cruise missiles and manned and unmanned aircraft, compared with ground-based radar.

The system is also designed to defend against tactical ballistic missiles, large caliber rockets and moving vehicles that could be used for attacks, including boats, cars and trucks.

A success in the U.S. capital area could give a boost to the JLENS program, which has been scaled back sharply along with the Pentagon's other 15 or so lighter-than-air vehicle efforts.

Blimp-like craft offer several advantages compared with fixed-wing aircraft, including lower cost, larger payload capacity and extended time aloft. However, their funding is to fall sharply as Pentagon spending shrinks to help pare trillion-dollar-a-year U.S. deficits.
Peter Huessy, a consultant on nuclear deterrence and missile defense, said the system would compliment current U.S. missile-defense capabilities.

[1715499135]

1715499135

[1715499135]

1715499135

[Lethn]

This has to be the most stupid thing they've done so far.

[TheButterZone]

Fringe?

[sounds]

C'mon, everyone! Think!

What can you not do from ground-based arrays that you can do from the air? And no, these are not going to be shooting anything.

Well, I take that back. They'll most likely be shooting ... pictures. Which is easier, install "license plate cameras" throughout the greater DC area or install "defense blimps" over it? In particular, the internet would go nuts if DC started rolling out a new surveillance program. And the blimps a lot less vulnerable to petty thieves and vandalism.

This isn't for defense! There are enough radar arrays around DC to spot a pigeon. And as any DC resident will tell you, there are a lot of pigeons. And don't forget the military satellites that also cover the area. "Slow, low flying aircraft," the article says... heh, that's just government-speak for "fast-moving car." The satellites can easily spot an object the size of a missile. But the blimps will be able to look at a 45-degree oblique angle and the payload is simple to switch out for tempest operations. Watergate, you have met your match.

[sounds]

stan.distortion: awesome! I hadn't thought about the fear it will inspire, seeing it there blocking out the sky.

[TheButterZone]

Ha, I just watched a show last night where the enemy had a balloon over a battlefield to intercept communications.

[Littleshop]

I know that if I was trillions in debt I would be buying 1/2 billion dollar blimps!

They would be better off flying a fighter CONSTANTLY vs this blimp if it is really 500 million.

First of all they have the fighter and the pilots and they could get some training/flight time out of it.  Second, the response time would be much better with a fighter in the air.  The blimp might let us know something is coming but the fighter can both do the same job and potentially kill the target. 

I am sure they can sell the blimp claiming it has some detection edge, but the main thing is getting a radar in the air up high, and the radars on modern fighters are quite good. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Avionics

[tiberiandusk]

Who needs drones when you can have a giant fucking blimp spying on everyone?

[sounds]

Drones also don't work in DC because of the potential for them to malfunction. 2 gigantic blimps just say, "I'm in charge," in a really concrete way, also avoiding the panic if some drone goes haywire.

[Anon136]

I know that if I was trillions in debt I would be buying 1/2 billion dollar blimps!

If you know for sure that you are going to default at some point in the future, what sense does it make to spend money wisely? you may as well party until the credit runs out.

[cbeast]

I wonder how hard it would be for a terrorist to hit the blimp with a laser and take out the ordinance?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

So I guess we are the other universe then ?

[Littleshop]

Drones also don't work in DC because of the potential for them to malfunction. 2 gigantic blimps just say, "I'm in charge," in a really concrete way, also avoiding the panic if some drone goes haywire.

The blimps are drones and can go haywire as well.  Blimps are much more endangered by storms or even high wind then conventional drones. 

An F22 says I am in charge more then a blimp. 

[Deafboy]

Yes! Bring back the zeppelins!
And now, imagine something like freedom tower with Tor node installed on that thing.

[Schleicher]

I wonder how hard it would be for a terrorist to hit the blimp with a laser and take out the ordinance?

Hitting it at 10000 feet with a laser?
You would need a very big laser to do any damage.

[cbeast]

I wonder how hard it would be for a terrorist to hit the blimp with a laser and take out the ordinance?

Hitting it at 10000 feet with a laser?
You would need a very big laser to do any damage.

Maybe then painting it with a laser and using a guided rocket. It just seems too easy to knock down such a high priced boondoggle.

[Littleshop]

I wonder how hard it would be for a terrorist to hit the blimp with a laser and take out the ordinance?

Hitting it at 10000 feet with a laser?
You would need a very big laser to do any damage.

Maybe then painting it with a laser and using a guided rocket. It just seems too easy to knock down such a high priced boondoggle.

It might also get a good read on who did it.  If you have a rocket that can go 10,000 feet and destroy the blimp you can do a lot more damage against other targets then the blimp itself.  Nobody is going to shoot at it. 

[Dalkore]

It is interesting that the JLENS is billed and an air defense tool but as you read farther into it, they say it can be used to defend against cars and boats that could be used as a weapon.  I wonder how they are doing that?

[juggalodarkclow]

How long until this happens....... again?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F54rqDh2mWA

[Rassah]

Follow-up news

Anarchists and libertarians to deploy high school kids with BB guns.

Also,

Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System, or JLENS

They really need to stop that idiocy. It was cool with the acronyms for a while, but now they're not even trying. I mean wtf is a "land attack cruise missile?"

[niko]

How long until this happens....... again?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F54rqDh2mWA

Very long. Helium does not burn.

[cbeast]

I wonder how hard it would be for a terrorist to hit the blimp with a laser and take out the ordinance?

Hitting it at 10000 feet with a laser?
You would need a very big laser to do any damage.

Maybe then painting it with a laser and using a guided rocket. It just seems too easy to knock down such a high priced boondoggle.

It might also get a good read on who did it.  If you have a rocket that can go 10,000 feet and destroy the blimp you can do a lot more damage against other targets then the blimp itself.  Nobody is going to shoot at it. 

I don't know, it just seems too big and easy a target. We spend so much on such expensive weapons that can be defeated with cheap technology and ingenuity. Don't get me wrong. I love balloons and dirigibles. I just hope we start making cool floating things for peaceful purposes before we run out of helium.

[Rassah]

I wonder how hard it would be for a terrorist to hit the blimp with a laser and take out the ordinance?

Hitting it at 10000 feet with a laser?
You would need a very big laser to do any damage.

Maybe then painting it with a laser and using a guided rocket. It just seems too easy to knock down such a high priced boondoggle.

It might also get a good read on who did it.  If you have a rocket that can go 10,000 feet and destroy the blimp you can do a lot more damage against other targets then the blimp itself.  Nobody is going to shoot at it.  

What about buying a really high watt microwave, rigging it to work with the door open, wigging a focusing dish around it, and pointing it at the blimp? I think that may at least add a crapton of noise to their radar systems. Do it enough times without any follow-up attacks, in a sense like the boy who cried wolf (or like the boomerang in the movie "How to Steal a Million"), and they may end up thinking it's too much of a pain in the ass to keep going with.


On the other hand, North Korea is claiming to have nukes, and I DO live within DC's blast radius...

[Littleshop]

I wonder how hard it would be for a terrorist to hit the blimp with a laser and take out the ordinance?

Hitting it at 10000 feet with a laser?
You would need a very big laser to do any damage.

Maybe then painting it with a laser and using a guided rocket. It just seems too easy to knock down such a high priced boondoggle.

It might also get a good read on who did it.  If you have a rocket that can go 10,000 feet and destroy the blimp you can do a lot more damage against other targets then the blimp itself.  Nobody is going to shoot at it.  

What about buying a really high watt microwave, rigging it to work with the door open, wigging a focusing dish around it, and pointing it at the blimp? I think that may at least add a crapton of noise to their radar systems. Do it enough times without any follow-up attacks, in a sense like the boy who cried wolf (or like the boomerang in the movie "How to Steal a Million"), and they may end up thinking it's too much of a pain in the ass to keep going with.


On the other hand, North Korea is claiming to have nukes, and I DO live within DC's blast radius...

You would be tracked pretty quickly!  And all of your neighbors would drop their wifi connections. 

[tiberiandusk]

So I guess we are the other universe then ?

Obviously, that's why shit is so fucked up.

[cbeast]

Is this what's next?

[farlack]

I know that if I was trillions in debt I would be buying 1/2 billion dollar blimps!

They would be better off flying a fighter CONSTANTLY vs this blimp if it is really 500 million.

First of all they have the fighter and the pilots and they could get some training/flight time out of it.  Second, the response time would be much better with a fighter in the air.  The blimp might let us know something is coming but the fighter can both do the same job and potentially kill the target. 

I am sure they can sell the blimp claiming it has some detection edge, but the main thing is getting a radar in the air up high, and the radars on modern fighters are quite good. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Avionics

Fighter jets are loud, expensive, and need to be refueled. Its expensive to refuel them.

Blimps can just chill.

[Lethn]

Until they explode in a fireball because of something sparking and setting off the gas that is keeping them there, it's a really fucking stupid idea, even for America.

[niko]

Until they explode in a fireball because of something sparking and setting off the gas that is keeping them there, it's a really fucking stupid idea, even for America.

Helium.

[farlack]

Until they explode in a fireball because of something sparking and setting off the gas that is keeping them there, it's a really fucking stupid idea, even for America.

Blimps were used in WW2 and extremely successful.
WW2 has garbage technology compared to today, I feel like the kinks will be gone.

Its not as stupid as you think..

[Schleicher]

The alternative would be something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon_Sentinel
or this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-3_Sentry
I don't know if any of these can fly in bad weather.

[Littleshop]

I know that if I was trillions in debt I would be buying 1/2 billion dollar blimps!

They would be better off flying a fighter CONSTANTLY vs this blimp if it is really 500 million.

First of all they have the fighter and the pilots and they could get some training/flight time out of it.  Second, the response time would be much better with a fighter in the air.  The blimp might let us know something is coming but the fighter can both do the same job and potentially kill the target. 

I am sure they can sell the blimp claiming it has some detection edge, but the main thing is getting a radar in the air up high, and the radars on modern fighters are quite good. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Avionics

Fighter jets are loud, expensive, and need to be refueled. Its expensive to refuel them.

Blimps can just chill.

Agreed but...

You already have the jets. 

So which is better, $1,000,000,000 for two blimps or jet fuel.  Even if you need LOTS of jet fuel for a BILLION dollars. And the blimps still leave you just a few more moments of notice against a cruise missile, while a jet in the air could actually destroy the cruise missile in time.  A jet sitting on the ground will not make it in the air in time. 

[Rassah]

Don't forget, the blimps aren't just blimps, they are basically R&D (research and development) for future blimp tech. Money may be well spent.

[Littleshop]

I know that if I was trillions in debt I would be buying 1/2 billion dollar blimps!

They would be better off flying a fighter CONSTANTLY vs this blimp if it is really 500 million.

First of all they have the fighter and the pilots and they could get some training/flight time out of it.  Second, the response time would be much better with a fighter in the air.  The blimp might let us know something is coming but the fighter can both do the same job and potentially kill the target. 

I am sure they can sell the blimp claiming it has some detection edge, but the main thing is getting a radar in the air up high, and the radars on modern fighters are quite good. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Avionics

Fighter jets are loud, expensive, and need to be refueled. Its expensive to refuel them.

Blimps can just chill.

Agreed but...

You already have the jets. 

So which is better, $1,000,000,000 for two blimps or jet fuel.  Even if you need LOTS of jet fuel for a BILLION dollars. And the blimps still leave you just a few more moments of notice against a cruise missile, while a jet in the air could actually destroy the cruise missile in time.  A jet sitting on the ground will not make it in the air in time. 

The pair is just under 1/2 billion, according to the link in the OP.

Your right, but does not negate my point.  The price tag for the blimps is $450,000,000.

An F22 uses 4000lbs of fuel an hour or about 5,840,000 gallons a year.  At $6 a gallon it is still under $36 million. 

Having the F22 in the air is a great advantage if you are react quickly. 

[Littleshop]

Then they can use the energy to kill people with high powered laser beams (seems its only stuff like that gets research budgets these days :/ )

They tried that in "Real Genius":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG3g8Saea5E

[tiberiandusk]

The Navy has a blimp tethered over Key West, FL to keep an eye on Cuba and to broadcast Radio Free Cuba.

[sounds]

This! The Key West Blimp is probably more of the platform they're thinking of.

[Anon136]

if these things deploy drones, which they probably will. What we are basically talking about here are carriers from starcraft.

[Rassah]

if these things deploy drones, which they probably will. What we are basically talking about here are carriers from starcraft.

And that would be really frigin cool.