US Army's New Giant Super Blimp - Wonder How Many "Sightings" That One Caused?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by MmmPie
 


Yes blimps. You realize that they can stay airborne for days in some cases? And are safer than any airship ever built? This "blimp" is about as far from earlier airships as the SR-71 is from the Wright Flyer.




posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Can't satellites achieve the same thing, but for years? I'm not even close to an expert in this area. Just seems like there is better tech to be dumping that much money into.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by MmmPie
 


Satellites are predictable. They go over the same place, every 90 minutes or so in some cases. So you always know when you have to hide what you're doing. Make one of these stealthy, let it just "drift" across an area at high altitude, and it can linger for a good long time collecting intel. Or if you don't want to use it for that, it's a much safer way to move large amounts of cargo into an area, because it's a lot cheaper than a C-130 or C-17, and doesn't need a runway, so you can move it into a FOB with tons of supplies for the base and land vertically.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Perfect explanation, thanks man.


I can see the mobility and ability to haul a massive payload to be pretty useful. If you can convince me of just how durable one of these modern/militarized blimps can be...I might just come around on this whole blimp escapade.


Thanks for the info, you're a pro.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by MmmPie
 


We'll find out as the testing program goes on, however I've read some interesting things about the durability.

At high altitude, you'd be lucky to detect one, because there is very little aural, thermal, or radar signature. So one cruising at say the altitude of a Global Hawk, would be effectively invisible for the most part.

At lower altitude, they'd be easier to detect and hit, but, and here's the interesting part, because of the way the internal structure is built, and because the helium only has to be slightly more pressurized than the outside atmosphere, anything from relatively small arms is going to leak very slowly, and not impede the ability to fly.

Airships would be used almost exclusively in secured airspace, so they wouldn't have to be able to take huge amounts of damage, but the Pelican is designed with chambers for the helium, so a single round or even a fairly significant number of rounds isn't going to bring it down.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Personally I remain unconvinced by the arguments that these things will be any use for resupply.

Certainly they do not need runways - but hey are still massively affected by wind, and their maintenance and support requirements are quite considerable.

Small arms fire won't bring one down it is true - but the constant loss of lifting gas through many small holes WILL require attention - if only to keep pumping gas into it!

On the whole I see the argument for persistent surveillance platforms - but IMO shifting of men and materials will remain the preserve of heavier-than-air craft.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I don't see them taking over from heavier than air craft, but I see a lot of potential in them. I seriously doubt we're going to see them used in an active war zone, except in secure background areas, or secure FOB areas. If they go ahead with plans for a larger version than the Pelican, they can be very useful. It's a C-17 amount of cargo, with a much cheaper, asset, that if they lose it, it doesn't hurt as much as a C-130 or C-17.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Personally I remain unconvinced by the arguments that these things will be any use for resupply.

Certainly they do not need runways - but hey are still massively affected by wind, and their maintenance and support requirements are quite considerable.

Small arms fire won't bring one down it is true - but the constant loss of lifting gas through many small holes WILL require attention - if only to keep pumping gas into it!

On the whole I see the argument for persistent surveillance platforms - but IMO shifting of men and materials will remain the preserve of heavier-than-air craft.


The time required for the blimp to transfer cargo and men is not significant most of the time. The cost is much lower. Not only will this have military applications, very soon air freight will be transported with them. They are better on saftey and cost.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Someone should have asked Gerry Anderson (RIP FAB).

This looks much like Thunderbird 2.

If it can fly to 30-40,000 feet, maybe it would make a nice launch platform for future spacecraft, ie hybrid jet/rocket/emp saucers that we are sure to have or build, save on the expense of at least getting to the upper atmosphere.
As they are almost a balloon, how high did Felix Baumgartner get to in his balloon? 24 Miles or so. (100,000+ ft)
That would be a good height to launch a Moon vessel.
We can do it, Yes we can.....



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

The time required for the blimp to transfer cargo and men is not significant most of the time. The cost is much lower. Not only will this have military applications, very soon air freight will be transported with them. They are better on saftey and cost.


No - they are completely useless on safety and cost!

And here is the thumbnail analysis why

Airships simply lift less than heavier than air aircraft, transport it more slowly, and are at the mercy of inclement weather to a much greater extent.

they are a romantic option - but not a practical one



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
wouldnt be suprised if one day massive blimps like this replaced aircraft carriers. if they can make it big enough i dont see why a runway for a couple f-22 couldnt be added. and posting "facts" about why they didnt work 60-70 years ago is pointless. In-case you didnt know, technology advances over time and becomes safer. anyone thinking that this is going to go up in flames like the Hindenburg is delusional.
edit on 6-1-2013 by MastaShake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MastaShake
 


If you read the words on that article and don't just look at the pictures you will see that it addresses modern materials and safety records too.

Denying ignorance means examining the evidence, not ignoring it.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by cayote
Wow,

This can be used for Urban environment.
more then 20 days hoovering above certain area's.
If a big metropolitan area like New york, San francisco, LA has massive amount of riots going on they can use these for Monitoring the streets from above and even strike down with an act of fire if needed.

Looks like we are going into a direction that i do not like.


Yep.
I'm sure they plan on adding the big brother logo to production models.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

The time required for the blimp to transfer cargo and men is not significant most of the time. The cost is much lower. Not only will this have military applications, very soon air freight will be transported with them. They are better on saftey and cost.


No - they are completely useless on safety and cost!

And here is the thumbnail analysis why

Airships simply lift less than heavier than air aircraft,

Really? How much do heavier than air craft hold, because ....
Modern airships 'could lift 1,000 tonnes'


transport it more slowly,

Valid point. They travel at about 125mph. Faster than many forms of travel including trains. About 1/4 of most aircraft.


and are at the mercy of inclement weather to a much greater extent.

Possibly. It's to determine how weather will effect the next generation. It will be greater than heavier than air craft.


they are a romantic option - but not a practical one

They may be faster and cheaper than trains, as far as carrying people. They are slower than cargo aircraft, but can carry significantly more cargo meaning cargo/hour they win hands down, with ease. The post you linked seems to not take into account any of the recent advances made.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Valid point. They travel at about 125mph. Faster than many forms of travel including trains. About 1/4 of most aircraft.


True, but for cargo that doesn't have to be there quickly, like certain spares that are rarely used, they'd be perfect.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


If that is the case about airships been doomed as a design option, logically you'd thing we'd stop looking for ways to improve them and use them.

Here is something your harpooning of blimps left out: fuel efficiency. For a fraction of the fuel spent, an airship can lift far more cargo than a fixed wing transport. Period. Will there be inclement weather issues with using the new-style airships? Of course! There are inclement weather issues with airplanes - it's the reason for companies to continue to make deicing fluid and to continue to come up with advanced avionics.

The fact is if you don't like the new form factor of a "blimp", which these aircraft are NOT, don't fly in one.

Here's a latest UFO-like craft that will have people pointing to the sky and running to ATS to make new threads:

Aeros completes construction of new airship



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Valid point. They travel at about 125mph. Faster than many forms of travel including trains. About 1/4 of most aircraft.


True, but for cargo that doesn't have to be there quickly, like certain spares that are rarely used, they'd be perfect.


Exactly the point I was trying to make. You can go from Cali to DC in about 16 hours. That is fast enough for pretty much any cargo. With a 1,000 ton limit, you are sending much much more cargo per hour using hybrid airships than traditional cargo planes, with a much cheaper price tag.

ETA: With a 1,000 ton limit, you could take an average of 551 cars. Now imagine this. You want to take a trip to cali, and will need to rent a car once there. Why? Take the latest airship with a hold designed to carry cars. The possibilities really open up.
edit on 6-1-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Never mind.
edit on 1/6/2013 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by chizeled
I actually saw a similar blimp in Dallas in 1994-1995. The blimp looked exactly like this one:
i.dailymail.co.uk...

from this article:
www.dailymail.co.uk... fare.html

but it also had invisibility technology like in this article:
www.smartplanet.com...

I was sitting outside at around 1-2 a.m. and looked up and noticed a small cloud, in an otherwise cloudless sky, moving unnaturally. I then looked above the cloud and saw the outline of the blimp and windows although the blimp and windows were projecting some kind of reflective invisibility technology. The blimp lost some of its camouflage effect though as I watched it fly towards the city lights. There was some kind of discrepancy between reflecting the city lights and night sky at the same time. At one point, the entire blimp appeared to switch from being entirely lit up by reflecting the city lights to invisible again by reflecting the night sky. The little cloud that was traveling along underneath it gave it away initially but then the invisibility technology gave it away as it flew over the city. I imagine that the technology has been corrected by now though.


Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by chizeled
 

Or it was a long way away and hard to see details of?

no, it wasn't a long way away. I saw the blimp fly right pass me and watched it for at least 15-20 minutes as it flew away from me...which is why I had a chance to study it. I, of course, did not realize that it was using invisibility technology at the time but rather assumed that it had a mirrored surface that reflected the night sky. I could see it though because there was a discrepancy between the outline of the blimp and the night sky behind it; they didn't match up and were in constant motion. I could also see the windows on the blimp for the same reason. The windows didn't reflect the sky in the same consecutive segments as did the rest of the blimp. In a combat situation, if I knew what I was looking for then I believe that I could see the blimp even if it was camouflaged against the night sky. I also wonder if it gives off some kind of temperature signal that could be recognized in infrared. I just don't see how these blimps, even with invisibility technology, could be used in combat. The blimp that I saw moved faster than any blimp that I have ever seen but it wasn't moving fast enough to not be seen. I don't remember hearing any kind of motor. This was 20 years ago though. The technology has probably been advanced since then. For example, whatever condensation from the blimp that may have caused the formation of the cloud under the blimp has probably been corrected. However, I'm not sure how the discrepancy between the outline of the blimp and night sky could be corrected. The only thing that I can think is that some kind of ground diversion would have to be created in order to distract people from studying the sky in a combat situation or you would otherwise be able to see the blimp come and go if you knew what you were looking for.
edit on 8-1-2013 by chizeled because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum