Airships being used for military UAVs

Amp34 · 13 Jul 2010 at 12:08

simulatorman said:
Wait till you see what they charge for a Zeppelin.

Worlds most expensive bomb?

xibinim said:
Considering the other UAV mentioned in another thread 'appears' to be much more complex.

Exactly, massive cost difference. :confused:

neoboy said:
Military contracts are expensive things and do make a considerable part of US economy so they don't care much for the price. Besides the cost involves the very expensive R&D involved in designing this so further end units will be cheaper.

Yes I realise that but the cost of this project compared to other projects just seems astronomical.

(and it was a bit of a joke).

neoboy · 13 Jul 2010 at 12:10

Aye but still peanuts compared to some of the projects they had/have going. If you look there are so many pointless things they spent billions on and this actually seems like a decent project so why not.

Skully · 13 Jul 2010 at 12:14

xibinim said:
Surely they are only going to take off from bases/secured zones?

The Taliban do attack these bases though.

Minstadave · 13 Jul 2010 at 12:14

Won't this be totally useless on a cloudy day if it's sat at 20k?

Cosimo · 13 Jul 2010 at 12:21

Minstadave said:
Won't this be totally useless on a cloudy day if it's sat at 20k?

It’s in the small print in the sales brochure.

Squark · 13 Jul 2010 at 12:25

Amp34 said:
Sorry but £350m for 3 small automated airships? Someone's been had!

You seem to be forgetting the vast array of comms and surveillance equipment onboard as well as ground support equipment

wilko49 · 13 Jul 2010 at 12:30

Still cheaper than a predator drone... Just like the predators, they will probably be launched from outside the conflict zone (ie, predators often launched from US air space) and flown over.

Judgeneo · 13 Jul 2010 at 12:33

Thats some impressive tech... Images from that height through cloud aren't easy. and your likely to be buffeted by a lot of wind which isn't an ideal for long range images... Maybe thats why they are $350million for 3

markweatherill · 13 Jul 2010 at 12:44

Stretch said:
Haven't we already stated we plan to leave Afghanistan by 2014?

Horse, door, bolted.

In December 2013, we'll still have the option to 'turn it into glass'.

Citizen420 · 13 Jul 2010 at 12:58

markweatherill said:
In December 2013, we'll still have the option to 'turn it into glass'.

No we don't, that would destroy our brand new pipeline!

Amp34 · 13 Jul 2010 at 13:00

Squark said:
You seem to be forgetting the vast array of comms and surveillance equipment onboard as well as ground support equipment

Well yeah...

eatcustard · 13 Jul 2010 at 13:02

Minstadave said:
Won't this be totally useless on a cloudy day if it's sat at 20k?

Spy satellites seem to get around that problem.

phil675 · 13 Jul 2010 at 13:08

These things are more likely to be used domestically rather than overseas, as they can't be seen from the ground.

Citizen420 · 13 Jul 2010 at 13:10

phil675 said:
These things are more likely to be used domestically rather than overseas, as they can't be seen from the ground.

Already happening, in the USA. The police and homeland security blimps are tethered to the ground above major cities and have Kodak or Fujitsu as a sponsor!

The Funktopus · 13 Jul 2010 at 13:16

I've often wondered why there's never been a radar carrying barrage balloon developed for use at sea to counter skimming antiship missiles such as Exocet. It would in effect raise the ships radar horizon and give more early warning of an attack, and obviously give the ship a better chance of defending itself.

Charlie Bravo · 13 Jul 2010 at 13:18

Good news for the small UK based company that will be building them http://www.hybridairvehicles.net

KaHn · 13 Jul 2010 at 13:24

The Funktopus said:
I've often wondered why there's never been a radar carrying barrage balloon developed for use at sea to counter skimming antiship missiles such as Exocet. It would in effect raise the ships radar horizon and give more early warning of an attack, and obviously give the ship a better chance of defending itself.

I think the problem with that is still the missiles are so close to the waves which interfere with the radar signal, its why small boats are so hard to detect approaching tankers and stuff off Somalia.

KaHn

wilko49 · 13 Jul 2010 at 13:40

yep, there is almost no way for classic radar to tell the difference between waves and small boats/missiles - radar usually just picks up any objects between the deck and ceiling. Detecting small vessels is usually handled by passive sonar.