tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post5745938857484345136..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: A 6th generation combat aircraft for EuropeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-53700364918428676202023-02-12T14:06:08.882+01:002023-02-12T14:06:08.882+01:00Aerostats were used by the US in Afghanistan and I...Aerostats were used by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe not in the frontline, but further back there might be a space for such systems.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-92024062845341942672023-02-12T12:56:26.371+01:002023-02-12T12:56:26.371+01:00The main advantage of airships is their endurance ...The main advantage of airships is their endurance (they don't need power to keep their altitude), putting a long-range radar with high power consumption on an airship doesn't make any sense, it will quickly run out of fuel for the electrical generator for the radar, and then it will take forever to get back to base to refuel (airships are very slow, in a headwind they may not be able to move at all).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-79814678214768626742023-02-12T01:13:21.623+01:002023-02-12T01:13:21.623+01:00Balloons are nonsense. The cheap ones can be kille...Balloons are nonsense. The cheap ones can be killed with a single howitzer shot. The ultra high-flying ones need sensors of more than 30 km range against car-sized land targets, and that means the payload costs millions - they're worth a missile that goes that high. And that's before taking into account that even a moderately powerful laser can easily pierce a balloon.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-85970027824298116562023-02-11T23:12:16.932+01:002023-02-11T23:12:16.932+01:00I was wrong about the use of airships in the Atlan...I was wrong about the use of airships in the Atlantic, but I like where the discussion goes, unmanned miniature balloon/airship systems for surveillance and as decoys. They won't look far, but can be a persistent presence of surveillance combined with loitering munitions. The problem is about making this solution cheap and tiny.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-66450871880259605942023-02-11T20:44:54.589+01:002023-02-11T20:44:54.589+01:00A high performance aircraft may survive within 100...A high performance aircraft may survive within 100 km of hostile area air defences, and in absence of powerful jamming it would be able to see up to 250 km behind those powerful air defences.<br />A flimsy low cost balloon would struggle to make use of a 20 km radar. And cheap decoys don't emit like a high quality radar, so they wouldn't be convincing.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-20216762008682041082023-02-11T20:43:09.598+01:002023-02-11T20:43:09.598+01:00Blimbs were used in WW2 in the Caribbean (NOT in t...Blimbs were used in WW2 in the Caribbean (NOT in the Atlantic), but they were rather inconsequential, as they only mattered in daylight and German submarines did not attack convoys in daylight anyway.<br />Balloons, blimps and Zeppelins were little more than targets by WW1 already. The only balloons in widespread WW2 service were tethered barrage ballons, which were rather ineffective.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-36548494104294772132023-02-11T19:57:03.037+01:002023-02-11T19:57:03.037+01:00If you're just using them over your own territ...If you're just using them over your own territory it makes it easier to use decoys Most of them should be just ballons toting mock up equipment. Other balloon decoys to tote threat emitters. The emitters may be expensive but they'll still be cheaper than an actual sensor setup. Extensive use of decoys uses up enemy missile stocks and over time forces them to accept a certain amount of survellience (due to missile depletion).Trondude 5952https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625187976091596494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-4481432883537306902023-02-11T16:39:24.676+01:002023-02-11T16:39:24.676+01:00I beg to differ. Balloon based systems in the form...I beg to differ. Balloon based systems in the form of airships did play a role in the battle of the Atlantic in WWII and I think they can again in modern times provide surveillance to far greater areas than aircraft, everything but the frontlines. I think in a hypothetical war between Russia and NATO, most of the Atlantic and Europe would be observed by unmanned balloon systems, some of them solar powered airships.<br /><br />The balloons will have to be small and inexpensive to be used in frontline service. Miniaturization might provide some difficulties, but I don't consider it impossible. Take a transparent party balloon or a condom, inflate it with hydrogen, give it a sky hook, and you have a nice resting place for small drones to observe and where from to detach in case of danger or on a mission to drop ordnance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-73747898223425042222023-02-11T13:32:02.939+01:002023-02-11T13:32:02.939+01:00"balloons" as a word simply doesn't ..."balloons" as a word simply doesn't belong into a conversation that's about survivability in conventional warfare.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-35238412179058790872023-02-11T13:07:41.527+01:002023-02-11T13:07:41.527+01:00Surveillance doesn't seem to need human input ...Surveillance doesn't seem to need human input and rather looks like something that could be automated with a cheaper system. Part of the coverage might be done via balloons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com