Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   Cruise missiles vs. blimps. The Pentagon is betting on blimps   (cbsnews.com) divider line 101
    More: Fail, war on poverty  
•       •       •

5561 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jan 2014 at 8:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



101 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-24 09:01:14 AM  
They will just be deployed to monitor the US population, because this country doesn't have enough cameras.
 
2014-01-24 09:02:09 AM  
images.dailyfill.com
 
2014-01-24 09:02:26 AM  
If only we had some sort of boat with weapons and radar that we could put out at sea encircling the waters around the Capital.
 
2014-01-24 09:03:47 AM  

Carn: If only we had some sort of boat with weapons and radar that we could put out at sea encircling the waters around the Capital.


perhaps some sort of satellite in space with cameras, radar, and dog
 
2014-01-24 09:03:56 AM  

Carn: If only we had some sort of boat with weapons and radar that we could put out at sea encircling the waters around the Capital.


boat? pfffft... the idea will never float.
 
2014-01-24 09:07:08 AM  
Ringing the capital with barrage balloons is plan B
 
2014-01-24 09:07:40 AM  
Looks like they'll also come in handy to protect Washington from cruise missile attack from Canada, Cleveland, Kentucky, and South of the Border.
cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com
 
2014-01-24 09:10:09 AM  
www.kviff.com
 
2014-01-24 09:10:13 AM  

Prey4reign: Looks like they'll also come in handy to protect Washington from cruise missile attack from Canada, Cleveland, Kentucky, and South of the Border.
[cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com image 220x140]


And, er. The Ocean?

Don't cruise missles have a rather short, limited range? Which is why we might have a harder time detecting them in time? If they fire from farther off, we'll be more able to see them coming with stuff we already have.
 
2014-01-24 09:11:46 AM  
and in Baltimore

Blimplike surveillance craft set to deploy over Maryland heighten privacy concerns

The prospect of military-grade tracking technology floating above suburban Baltimore - along one of the East Coast's busiest travel corridors - has sparked privacy concerns at a time of rising worry about the growth of government eavesdropping in the dozen years since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
 
2014-01-24 09:15:26 AM  
Well, the pentagon would know the most about cruise missiles, wouldn't they? After all, a cruise missile hit the pentagon back in 2001.
 
2014-01-24 09:17:31 AM  
oh, really? a blimp. no cameras here.
 
2014-01-24 09:17:53 AM  

 cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com



blog.zap2it.com



Hey Beavis, check it out.



That blimp has a boner



Yeah! .. huh huh huh

 
2014-01-24 09:18:15 AM  
img.fark.net

Oh sweet I'm just inside the cruise missile protection zone, all you farkers outside will just have to continue to suffer those constant cruise missile attacks we have been plagued by, I feel sorry for you that our federal tax money is only going to protect us here in the CMPZ, we will sing songs about your sacrifices and how you went down in a hail of cruise missile bombardment.
 
2014-01-24 09:21:29 AM  
Officials insist they have no plans to put cameras on the blimps,

Bullshiat.
 
2014-01-24 09:21:58 AM  
www.pipsqueakfilms.com

An artist rendering of what life will be like inside and outside the CMPZ 10 years in the future.
 
2014-01-24 09:22:33 AM  
Good thing we have the NSA and the Army watching out for us.  It would really suck if someone invaded us, and turned the nation into a surveillance state.
 
2014-01-24 09:22:48 AM  

diaphoresis: They will just be deployed to monitor the US population, because this country doesn't have enough cameras.


This.

Besides which, you can rather easily stealthify cruise missiles, which have a small radar cross section to begin with.  Plus, if I were a Russian strategic planner, I'd just use sea launched ballistic missiles anyway.   Even if the launch is detected immediately and a warning sent without a delay, flight time is just a few bare minutes from beyond the continental shelf (ie., the kind of deep water that ballistic missile submarines love to hide in) to Washington DC.

Plus, if you weren't embarrassed to use them, you can build cruise missiles that fly so slowly that any algorithm designed to actually detect them would fail.   A "missile" doesn't travel at 60 knots, for example, but you could build a stealthy missile that does just that, so the low RCS combined with the low speed means it would look like some kind of sea bird to the blimp radar.

Then too, you could always just dog-leg the missiles anyway. This is the potential coverage:

cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com

So fire the missile from south of Cape Hatteras, and dog-leg it up the Appalachians, following valleys, until it's close to DC.

The coverage wouldn't be a perfect circle like the picture, either.  A 140 mile range implies that the blimp would be at (140/1.415)2 = ~10,000 feet in altitude. [Duh, says so in TFA]

Once I get all the digital elevation models downloaded, I'll come back with a more realistic depiction of the coverage.
 
2014-01-24 09:23:24 AM  

Felgraf: Prey4reign: Looks like they'll also come in handy to protect Washington from cruise missile attack from Canada, Cleveland, Kentucky, and South of the Border.
[cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com image 220x140]

And, er. The Ocean?

Don't cruise missles have a rather short, limited range? Which is why we might have a harder time detecting them in time? If they fire from farther off, we'll be more able to see them coming with stuff we already have.


Boldened text so you can see I allowed the point about coverage from the ocean.  Actually, some cruise missiles have ranges close to 700 miles with excellent accuracy.

www.mediabistro.com
 
2014-01-24 09:24:18 AM  
As cruise missiles can be fired from "over the horizon" and are frequently programmed to fly as low as possible to avoid radar (or other types of) detection, having an air-borne system that can see over the horizon and scan the ocean's surface makes sense.

One could simply have an AWACS orbiting the DC area 24/7/365, but that can get a little expensive.
 
2014-01-24 09:29:30 AM  
A) This isn't a bad idea.  I'm betting cost of blimp radar vs. alternative is actually pretty good.
B) Yes, there absolutely is a danger of overreach.
C) The American public will be ambivalent towards the danger, as they didn't seem to mind the prevanlence of cameras in Boston used so quickly to identify the bombers.
D) There are a lot of risks and rewards on all aspects, and I honestly don't know which are best.
 
2014-01-24 09:31:59 AM  
TFA: Radar-equipped blimps

You morons: THERE PUTTING CAMERAS ON BALLONS TO WATch ME!@!1!!
 
2014-01-24 09:32:01 AM  
Well, steampunk is very hip right now.
 
2014-01-24 09:34:02 AM  
Another Chris Christie thread?
 
2014-01-24 09:34:48 AM  
It's not a blimp, it's a rigid air ship!


img.fark.net
 
2014-01-24 09:35:08 AM  

ToastmasterGeneral: A) This isn't a bad idea.  I'm betting cost of blimp radar vs. alternative is actually pretty good.
B) Yes, there absolutely is a danger of overreach.
C) The American public will be ambivalent towards the danger, as they didn't seem to mind the prevanlence of cameras in Boston used so quickly to identify the bombers.
D) There are a lot of risks and rewards on all aspects, and I honestly don't know which are best.


Consider that sneak attacks very rarely happen without some heightened awareness of danger.

For example, Pearl Harbor was preceded by a long period of increasing tensions.

So build the blimp, test it out, deploy it occasionally for exercises, and most of the time just leave it in a hanger.

Problem solved.

/Still downloading DEMs.  It's a big area.
 
2014-01-24 09:35:48 AM  
Maybe instead of wasting money on this crap you could just stop doing things that might make Russia want to shoot missles at you.
 
2014-01-24 09:36:11 AM  

Carn: If only we had some sort of boat with weapons and radar that we could put out at sea encircling the waters around the Capital.


If only boats float at 50,000 ft.

It does not take 400 men to run a blimp.
 
2014-01-24 09:36:15 AM  

diaphoresis: Carn: If only we had some sort of boat with weapons and radar that we could put out at sea encircling the waters around the Capital.

boat? pfffft... the idea will never float.


Goes over like a lead balloon.
 
2014-01-24 09:37:35 AM  

Prey4reign: Looks like they'll also come in handy to protect Washington from cruise missile attack from Canada, Cleveland, Kentucky, and South of the Border.
[cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com image 220x140]


If only there was a way to get more than one blimp in the air at the same time......
 
2014-01-24 09:39:14 AM  

NutWrench: Officials insist they have no plans to put cameras on the blimps,

Bullshiat.


Why do that when they can just add a pinhole camera on to the Amazon.com delivery helicopters?
 
2014-01-24 09:39:38 AM  
They just bought 80,000 Blackberries. I'm sure they know what they are doing.
 
2014-01-24 09:41:13 AM  

snowybunting: It's not a blimp, it's a rigid air ship!

[img.fark.net image 271x282]


Hello, blimps?  Yeah, it's cruise missiles.  You win.  Bye.
 
2014-01-24 09:41:57 AM  

Felgraf: Prey4reign: Looks like they'll also come in handy to protect Washington from cruise missile attack from Canada, Cleveland, Kentucky, and South of the Border.
[cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com image 220x140]

And, er. The Ocean?

Don't cruise missles have a rather short, limited range? Which is why we might have a harder time detecting them in time? If they fire from farther off, we'll be more able to see them coming with stuff we already have.


float the missile on a boat, and launch from the bay
 
2014-01-24 09:49:53 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: Carn: If only we had some sort of boat with weapons and radar that we could put out at sea encircling the waters around the Capital.

If only boats float at 50,000 ft.

It does not take 400 men to run a blimp.


Good thinking, that way we can protect against cruise missles shot at us from space!
 
2014-01-24 09:50:33 AM  

Carn: Nutsac_Jim: Carn: If only we had some sort of boat with weapons and radar that we could put out at sea encircling the waters around the Capital.

If only boats float at 50,000 ft.

It does not take 400 men to run a blimp.

Good thinking, that way we can protect against cruise missles measles shot at us from space!


FTFM
 
2014-01-24 09:53:26 AM  
A Chinese C-802 cruise missile goes at 685 MPH, it would cover the 140 miles in under 15 minutes. An F-16 at Andrews on +5 would need 5 minutes to get airborne and get with in missile range, likewise the Avenger batteries they sometimes have in DC have a 3 mile range.

Do we still have fixed SAM emplacements along the coast? I think they ended those with the Nike program
 
2014-01-24 09:53:26 AM  

Felgraf: Don't cruise missles have a rather short, limited range?


The Tomahawk, which you've probably heard of, has a variant with a 1,500-mile range. The shortest range listed on Wikipedia is 810 miles. The Russians have a missile with a 1,800-miles range. They call them cruise missiles because they launch and cruise for a long time. On the other hand, there are cruise missiles with a range of less than 100 miles.
 
2014-01-24 10:02:23 AM  

Carn: If only we had some sort of boat with weapons and radar that we could put out at sea encircling the waters around the Capital.


Yeah, because shipborne radar has no problem seeing through the curvature of the earth to detect low flying objects.

Lesson for the day - the effective range of a surface mounted radar is limited by mast height and target altitude.  The best radar in the world only has a 20-30 mile range against a sea skimming aircraft or missile.

www.rfcafe.com

An airborne radar (AWACS) does not have the same problem and can thus cover a large area much more effectively.  A blimp can simply float around all day for no cost whereas having an AWACS flying 24/7 is expensive as hell.  Combine that with the new SM-6 series Standard (which has an active seeker and doesn't require target illumination by the launch vessel) and you've got an extremely effective and inexpensive air defense network.

The SM-6 also has a 100+ mile range so a Burke destroyer sitting docked at the Washington Navy Yard could hit a target detected by airborne radar well before it reached DC.

This is actually a very good idea.
 
2014-01-24 10:04:58 AM  
Outfit these babies with Tesla Death Ray devices and we'll really have something.
 
2014-01-24 10:05:02 AM  

neversubmit: and in Baltimore

Blimplike surveillance craft set to deploy over Maryland heighten privacy concerns

The prospect of military-grade tracking technology floating above suburban Baltimore - along one of the East Coast's busiest travel corridors - has sparked privacy concerns at a time of rising worry about the growth of government eavesdropping in the dozen years since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.


That's the same story.
 
2014-01-24 10:06:13 AM  
OK, this is what the actual coverage of the blimp at 10,000 feet would have against a cruise missile flying at around 300 feet AGL:

i39.tinypic.com

You could fire the missile from south of the coverage area, and using the very same publicly available digital elevation models I used guide it up through the Appalachians to about Winchester, VA, all in the shadow of the mountains, and that brings you to about 65 miles away from Washington DC.

At a typical subsonic cruise missile speed of 450 MPH, that would essentially give Washington DC about 9 minutes warning.

Even at maximum range, though, the warning is still less than 19 minutes.
 
2014-01-24 10:07:07 AM  

JustGetItRight: Carn: If only we had some sort of boat with weapons and radar that we could put out at sea encircling the waters around the Capital.

Yeah, because shipborne radar has no problem seeing through the curvature of the earth to detect low flying objects.

Lesson for the day - the effective range of a surface mounted radar is limited by mast height and target altitude.  The best radar in the world only has a 20-30 mile range against a sea skimming aircraft or missile.

[www.rfcafe.com image 350x136]

An airborne radar (AWACS) does not have the same problem and can thus cover a large area much more effectively.  A blimp can simply float around all day for no cost whereas having an AWACS flying 24/7 is expensive as hell.  Combine that with the new SM-6 series Standard (which has an active seeker and doesn't require target illumination by the launch vessel) and you've got an extremely effective and inexpensive air defense network.

The SM-6 also has a 100+ mile range so a Burke destroyer sitting docked at the Washington Navy Yard could hit a target detected by airborne radar well before it reached DC.

This is actually a very good idea.


So, regardless, it still would make sense to put the blimps out at sea where they can be early warning detectors, versus over land where they will just be used as another means to spy on the general public, eh?
 
2014-01-24 10:09:55 AM  
 
2014-01-24 10:10:39 AM  

JustGetItRight: The SM-6 also has a 100+ mile range so a Burke destroyer sitting docked at the Washington Navy Yard could hit a target detected by airborne radar well before it reached DC.

This is actually a very good idea.


See my post with the radar coverage map above.

You'd be able to deploy against missiles coming in from the sea, but I'm betting the Russians (or Chinese, or whoever) wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, unless they planned on deploying enough to overwhelm the defenses.
 
2014-01-24 10:16:05 AM  

loonatic112358: Felgraf: Prey4reign: Looks like they'll also come in handy to protect Washington from cruise missile attack from Canada, Cleveland, Kentucky, and South of the Border.
[cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com image 220x140]

And, er. The Ocean?

Don't cruise missles have a rather short, limited range? Which is why we might have a harder time detecting them in time? If they fire from farther off, we'll be more able to see them coming with stuff we already have.

float the missile on a boat, and launch from the bay


Or just smuggle some in (or build them from commonly available materials), and launch them from a remote area in the interior of the US.
 
2014-01-24 10:17:07 AM  
What about protection from a launch near or inside the beltway delivered by us?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7WpFOxdRu4

I predict our undoing will come at the hands of multiple EMP strikes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse
Nothing like a NK weather satellite that floats over our heads and takes out every integrated circuit in north America.

/tinfoil hat in play
 
2014-01-24 10:19:12 AM  

dittybopper: JustGetItRight: The SM-6 also has a 100+ mile range so a Burke destroyer sitting docked at the Washington Navy Yard could hit a target detected by airborne radar well before it reached DC.

This is actually a very good idea.

See my post with the radar coverage map above.

You'd be able to deploy against missiles coming in from the sea, but I'm betting the Russians (or Chinese, or whoever) wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, unless they planned on deploying enough to overwhelm the defenses.


I know Fark doesn't have a large well of respect for people who live in West Virginia, but I'm pretty sure even they would notice a truck carrying a 40 foot missile.  And since a single non nuclear cruise missile wouldn't do much damage, they would certainly notice a whole bunch of them.
 
2014-01-24 10:19:22 AM  

dittybopper: OK, this is what the actual coverage of the blimp at 10,000 feet would have against a cruise missile flying at around 300 feet AGL:

[i39.tinypic.com image 639x294]

You could fire the missile from south of the coverage area, and using the very same publicly available digital elevation models I used guide it up through the Appalachians to about Winchester, VA, all in the shadow of the mountains, and that brings you to about 65 miles away from Washington DC.

At a typical subsonic cruise missile speed of 450 MPH, that would essentially give Washington DC about 9 minutes warning.

Even at maximum range, though, the warning is still less than 19 minutes.


They can't even stop idiot pilots from flying over DC's restricted airspace. By the time they get fighter jets there at top speed the planes are long gone. If they can't prevent senile old men from getting lost and flying over the White House they aren't gonna be able to stop cruise missiles which go a bit faster.

Want to spy on us? Cool. Those blimps look like they could easily be taken down by a drone or gunshot.
 
2014-01-24 10:19:57 AM  

dittybopper: JustGetItRight: The SM-6 also has a 100+ mile range so a Burke destroyer sitting docked at the Washington Navy Yard could hit a target detected by airborne radar well before it reached DC.

This is actually a very good idea.

See my post with the radar coverage map above.

You'd be able to deploy against missiles coming in from the sea, but I'm betting the Russians (or Chinese, or whoever) wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, unless they planned on deploying enough to overwhelm the defenses.


If it did happen it would be a one off attack, remember Hezbollah has demonstrated C802/C701 capability. But really if you are going to attack a boat with Katusha style rockets will be more likely to succeed. I doubt they would be going for accuracy anyway
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report