It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stealth Blimp

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow


But blimps as spy platforms suck, sorry guys. You need a HUGE blimp to go higher than 10 000 meters. Such beast is very visible, it's no problem to shoot it down. And you cannot make it optically invisible because such stalth skin weights too much. Of course over friendly (or conquered) territory blimps rock. They're cheap and can stay in air for a lot of time. They would be great to guard US-Mexico border for example. Just add high resolution cameras and powerfull IR detectors amd NO ONE will cross the border illegally.


I don't see weight as a issue when blimps can be made to carry payloads in the hundreds of tons. The German civilian blimp "sky crane" can carry 160 tons. How do you know how much electro-optical camouflage would weigh anyway? There isn't that much information on the stuff but we do have evidence it is shockingly lightweight.



Dr. Rashid Zeineh (a.k.a. Dr. Z) how much weight STS would add to an iRobot PackBot UGV (Unmmaned Ground Vehicle)/Robot or Foster-Miller Weaponized Talon Robot/SWORDS (Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection System) UGV, he replied " Less than 2 lbs. That's as specific as I want to be."


link

You also don't need a "HUGE blimp to go higher than 10 000 meters" Not nearly to the extent that you will be able to see it. The Excelsior III gondola used by Joe Kittinger was able to reach (19.5 miles above sea level), and though it was a big balloon it was nowhere near big enough to be visible at those heights.

This balloon reached 24,000 meters and filled the role of a communication hub and you wouldn't see it close to those heights either
www.newscientist.com...




posted on May, 31 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
I have to admit that just reading the title of this thread makes me chuckle. "Stealth Blimp" seems like such an oxymoron. It's huge, slow, and painfully easy to smite with a SAM. The exact opposite of modern-day fighter planes to which we are accustomed.

Nothing like a blast from the past, eh?


And this is probably the opinion of the Congresscritters who cancelled it...
Read some of my posts and you'll see why it's very viable. Also a Stealth Blimp will never exist. A blimp is just a big amorphous gasbag. The future of aerostat technology will be a rigid, aerodynamic, stealthy flying wing using Vacuum cells for weight and mass reduction, while it gets most of its lift from Aerodynamics and Jet/Turbine/Prop. engines.

The only obstacles I see are these:

1st. Biased Uneducated Opinions on the part of Congress

2nd. Rigid Vacuum Cells capable of withstanding the pressure exerted by the atmosphere at sea level and supersonic flight.

Don't underestimate the power of the vacuum or the limits of Carbon Composite hulls.

[edit on 31-5-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by el cid
i was always of the opinion that the source of the phoenix lights could have been a variation of this type of craft...if it was of terrestrial origin at all....


That could very well be the case.

If I remember correctly it was a massive V shaped craft that was completely silent and could hover. I dont remember any reports of it moving at insane speeds. The biggest shocker to most people was its massive size I think.

A lighter then air or Rigid Vacuum Cells (like sardion2000 mentioned) could account for the giant size. Humans also have technology that could in theory make propulsion completely silent Ion lifters for example.

I think the tech is there in theory for the military to make a craft that would mimic the accounts of the phoenix lights UFO.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
There isn't that much information on the stuff but we do have evidence it is shockingly lightweight.


Also once OLED screens become widely available not only can the blimp skins be clear but they can give images too.
Come to think of this that would be absolutely fabulous to try out on a B-2 Spirit if they could make a big enough OLED screen....INVISIBLE BOMBER O' DEATH!


Sorry, I'm rambling.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
There isn't that much information on the stuff but we do have evidence it is shockingly lightweight.


Also once OLED screens become widely available not only can the blimp skins be clear but they can give images too.
Come to think of this that would be absolutely fabulous to try out on a B-2 Spirit if they could make a big enough OLED screen....INVISIBLE BOMBER O' DEATH!


Sorry, I'm rambling.


OLED organic Light emitting diodes? I forgot about that stuff Its a very thin almost paper thin film and very flexible.

Something like that could be a very good candidate for what the military is working with now.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Does it both transmit and recieve? That would be the most useful for an application like this.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Does it both transmit and recieve? That would be the most useful for an application like this.


The OLEDs?

Im no expert on them but have seen them on a few shows. OLEDs can be printed onto flexible substrates allowing things like a roll up display. Imagine a LCD screen that you can roll up like a piece of paper
. They also have a wider range of colors, brightness then LCDs and can even produce true black something LCDs can do.

I dont know much more then that about them though.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:14 AM
link   
The OLED's, while certainly an advantage to creating an optically stealthy aircraft, are not a requirement.

The same type of optical camoflage could have been, and I believe has been, implemented for more than 10 years using conventional LED's.

The idea is this: Take a few thousand RGB LED triplets and mount them to the underside of an aircraft. Mount a camera on the top of an aircraft to monitor the sky pattern above the aircraft (cloud pattern or star pattern works equally well). Feed the video signal of the sky pattern to the LED array on the bottom of the aircraft.

Voila! A simple optical camoflage system, using 10+ year old technology, that would render the aircraft nearly invisble from below.

Some might say: "But, blue LED's didn't exist 10 years ago... the idea is total BS!"

My response: "But they did exist and were available. Do a little research."



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I agree Xenophobe with the military I dont put it past them that they could have had such LED tech long before civilians had access to it.

Such optical stealth would also seem much easier to use on a high flying aircraft then any ground or sea based craft. The backgrounds would generally be much simplier when high up in the air. You would only have to match a starfield or blue sky and maybe some clouds. Compared to complex shapes,color and patterns found on the ground I think it would be much easier.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Shadow, this is the technology I was referring too when I talked about the sending and recieving aspect of the technology.

www.newscientist.com...



Apple's all-seeing screen

We could soon see a new kind of display screen from computer maker Apple – one that simultaneously takes pictures while showing images.

The clever idea is to insert thousands of microscopic image sensors in-between the liquid crystal display cells in the screen. Each sensor captures its own small image, but software stitches these together to create a single, larger picture.

A large LCD screen filled with image sensors would be ideal for videoconferencing, Apple suggests, as participants would always appear to look straight into the "camera". The technique could also add a camera function to a cellphone or PDA without wasting space, and light from the screen should help illuminate a subject.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Oh cool thats the first Ive seen of that sardion2000
thanks for posting it. Inserting thousands of microscopic image sensors in-between the liquid crystal display cells in the screen. Very interesting.. being able to simultaneously takes pictures while showing images.

That seems like just the stuff you would need for optical camo.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xenophobe
Voila! A simple optical camoflage system, using 10+ year old technology, that would render the aircraft nearly invisble from below.


If its so simple and can be done with 10+ year old tech then why hasn't it been done? Why isn't it a feature on the bird of prey or any tech demonstrator or active aircraft? It sure would be alot easier to hide a plane this way than a blimp, surely! I spose it could have gone black but i'm not convinced this is as easy as everyone makes out.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
If I remember correctly it was a massive V shaped craft that was completely silent and could hover. I dont remember any reports of it moving at insane speeds. The biggest shocker to most people was its massive size I think.


that was my reasoning, too. it didn't have the "speed-jumps", characteristic of the belgium triangle -- it hovered, and moved quite slowly if i recall correctly. that, coupled with its huge dimensions made me think it COULD be a "black project" stealth blimp being test-flown. although why they would test it over a heavily-populated city is beyond me.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
If its so simple and can be done with 10+ year old tech then why hasn't it been done? Why isn't it a feature on the bird of prey or any tech demonstrator or active aircraft? It sure would be alot easier to hide a plane this way than a blimp, surely! I spose it could have gone black but i'm not convinced this is as easy as everyone makes out.


Hehe.. funny you should say that:


Modern advances in active camouflage began with the US Air Force who placed blue lights on aircraft in preparation for night missions. A typical plane looks like a black shape against the sky, which is not perfectly black but a shade of blue: dim blue lights attempt to blend the shape of aircraft against the background of the sky. The Boeing Bird of Prey, developed as an internal project by Boeing from 1992, is rumoured to have taken active camouflage a step further in addition to its low RCS although no further details on the specific technology used are known.


The above quote comes from this source: photonswarm.com...

Actually, my belief in the existing use of active camouflage stems from a "UFO" sighting my wife had back in 1994. I just happened to come across the above article.


[edit on 1-6-2006 by Xenophobe]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I had actually heard that the BoP might be designed with active camoflage but I can't see any evidence for this and I think its just a rumour. Probably stemming from the fact that its designed and painted (ie. highlights and lowlights) to be devoid of shadows and be optimal for daylight stealth.

I've never heard of fitting the AF plane with blue LEDs before though. I'd like to see a source beore I believeit completely but depending on when this was it could give na insight into AF active stealth research, it could also just be a rumour too though.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xenophobe
The above quote comes from this source: photonswarm.com...


Very cool site. Bookmarked.



Originally posted by gfad
I've never heard of fitting the AF plane with blue LEDs before though. I'd like to see a source beore I believeit completely but depending on when this was it could give na insight into AF active stealth research, it could also just be a rumour too though.


Here are the references from the link Xenophobe posted.

www.ucl.ac.uk...

www.janes.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 1-6-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 1-6-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Yeah I checked all those links and they dont lead anywhere. The same thing regarding a plane with blue LEDs is mentioned in the wikipedia article but their links dont give a reference for the information. So there is still no official sourse on the AF plane with LEDs on it.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by el cid
although why they would test it over a heavily-populated city is beyond me.


Thats has always puzzled me about the Belgium Triangle as well. Part of me think it was a Top secret military craft but then when I ask myself what is was doing over Belgium
Im lost..

Its the same for the phoenix lights. The only possible answer I could think of is some type of Psychological Operations on civilians for reasons that are beyond me. Perhaps in the case of the Beligum Triangle testing the air defense of a moderate air defense since it seemed to have toyed with those Beligum F-16s, something like a practice run before trying a heavy air defense like say Russia.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   
gfad,

I agree, its difficult to find any factual info on on whether or not the BoP utilized an active camouflage system, rumors abound. Then again, it was a "black program", and it would be difficult to get that info without actually being part of the R&D program.

One thing to ponder: Is it just a coincidence that they named the project after a fictional Star Trek spacecraft that employed a cloaking system?

Regarding the history of active camouflage, you could try the following link: www.globalatlantic.com... (relevant info is about halfway down the page in the middle column), or try doing a Google search for "Project Yehudi".



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Bird of Prey was a cheap company project (I didn't say 'publicity stunt aimed at the shareholders') not a true multi-billion Black program, and so not much to get excited about.

Blue LEDs - how long have those been around? Methinks someone just means lights, and Yehudi lights go way back.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join