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.
Topic: Washington D.C. to Deploy Giant Defense Blimps. A little fearful aren't we? (Read 5325 times)
February 15, 2013, 10:41:05 AM
And that would be really frigin cool.
February 15, 2013, 08:50:54 AM
if these things deploy drones, which they probably will. What we are basically talking about here are carriers from starcraft.
February 14, 2013, 12:40:32 PM
This! The Key West Blimp is probably more of the platform they're thinking of.
February 13, 2013, 07:40:49 PM
The Navy has a blimp tethered over Key West, FL to keep an eye on Cuba and to broadcast Radio Free Cuba.
February 10, 2013, 10:38:17 AM
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
February 10, 2013, 01:01:42 AM
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.
February 10, 2013, 12:16:38 AM
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.
February 09, 2013, 11:55:20 PM
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.
February 09, 2013, 03:54:46 PM
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.
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.
February 09, 2013, 03:35:59 PM
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..
February 09, 2013, 10:26:59 AM
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. 
February 09, 2013, 08:06:47 AM
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.
February 09, 2013, 07:45:12 AM
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.
February 08, 2013, 07:52:47 PM
Is this what's next?
February 08, 2013, 07:25:10 PM
So I guess we are the other universe then ?
Obviously, that's why shit is so fucked up.
February 08, 2013, 05:45:23 PM
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.
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.
February 08, 2013, 03:34:32 PM
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.
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...
February 08, 2013, 03:17:56 PM
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.
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.
February 08, 2013, 03:17:10 PM
Very long. Helium does not burn.
February 08, 2013, 03:12:19 PM
Follow-up news
Also,
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?"
Quote
Anarchists and libertarians to deploy high school kids with BB guns.
Also,
Quote
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?"
Jump to: