Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Defense Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Aerostats for Patriots Soon?
warpig    8/28/2009 10:09:33 AM
This is like the CLAM SHELL target engagement radar in S-300 battalions, only much taller, and hence potentially much better. An early warning and target engagement radar at 3000ft overhead the Patriot battery should increase its tracking range of very low altitude threats by several times, and would provide the potential of being able to engage even very low flying targets out to the very limit of the missile's theoretical flight envelope. This could be a big boost to air defense of Okinawa and Guam from Chinese land attack cruise missiles, for example. This could take a serious chop at the foundation of some of these error-riddled RAND briefings and similar theories that some people seem to hang all their anti-American hopes and dreams upon. ========================================== Cruise Missile Defense Capabilities Within Reach Aug 28, 2009 The U.S. Army's Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Sensor (JLENS) System, which uses aerostats to elevate sensors for long-range target detection and tracking for superior land-attack cruise missile defense, demonstrated its first flight during a ceremony in Elizabeth City, N.C. This flight reflects the maturity and operability of the JLENS platform - an aerostat platform that features long-duration, wide-area, over-the-horizon detection and tracking of low-altitude cruise missiles. Its capabilities provide battlefield commanders with enhanced situational awareness and elevated communications, enabling sufficient warning to engage air defense systems and defeat threats. The flight demonstration marked the first time a JLENS aerostat was elevated to an altitude of 3,000 feet. "JLENS makes our current weapons systems more effective," said Lt. Col. Steve Wilhelm, project manager for the JLENS program. "Missiles that were once limited by their organic radars can now meet their full kinematic potential because of the extended ranges provided by JLENS radars. This first flight brings us one step closer to providing that capability." Raytheon is the prime contractor and system integrator for JLENS. TCOM, as a subcontractor to Raytheon, manufactures the aerostat. "JLENS' unique capability builds on Raytheon's innovative air and missile defense history integrating SLAMRAAM, Patriot and multiple existing systems to protect our nation and allies from cruise missiles," said Pete Franklin, vice president for Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems' National and Theater Security Programs. "We are confident in the maturity and the agility of the system to adapt to evolving threats as well." The JLENS orbit (system) uses two advanced elevated sensor systems to support surface-to-air missile systems in performing over-the-horizon intercepts of land attack cruise missiles, and detection and tracking of large caliber rockets, surface-moving targets, and theater ballistic missiles in the ascent phase. The surveillance sensor performs wide area surveillance and fire control sensor cueing. A multi-functional fire control sensor then performs sector surveillance, provides combat identification support, and supports intercepts. Each sensor is deployed on a 74M(tm) aerostat tethered to a mobile mooring station and connected to ground-based communication and processing equipment. This provides the warfighter with a low-altitude single integrated air picture and the ability to conduct air-directed surface-to air missile engagements. Earlier this year, JLENS successfully conducted a critical design review (CDR) representing a key milestone in the U.S. Army program. The CDR thoroughly assessed all aspects of the JLENS design maturity and confidence for the $1.4 billion system design and demonstration contract. With this milestone completed, the JLENS program transitioned into the fabrication, assembly, integration and test phase.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
doggtag    I've been hitting on these for some time   8/28/2009 2:37:29 PM
...especially for someone like the US Coast Guard and Customs Service/Border Patrol if they are so resolved on catching drug runners (maritime vessels and small civil aircraft flying in at low altitudes).
 
The only limiting factor here is, aerostats and their aerosonde cousins are fair-weather-only systems: you can't operate these assets under weather extremes due to their generally fragile nature.
But for the on-station persistence they can offer (indefinitely almost, if tethered, only needing to be "hauled down" for maintenance and weatherb issues),
I believe they are worth the investment, especially when one considers how cheap the actual "aircraft part" is in comparison to the sensor capability payloads it can haul aloft.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       8/28/2009 3:21:02 PM

...especially for someone like the US Coast Guard and Customs Service/Border Patrol if they are so resolved on catching drug runners (maritime vessels and small civil aircraft flying in at low altitudes).

 

The only limiting factor here is, aerostats and their aerosonde cousins are fair-weather-only systems: you can't operate these assets under weather extremes due to their generally fragile nature.

But for the on-station persistence they can offer (indefinitely almost, if tethered, only needing to be "hauled down" for maintenance and weatherb issues),

I believe they are worth the investment, especially when one considers how cheap the actual "aircraft part" is in comparison to the sensor capability payloads it can haul aloft.

Its cheap and it works. Be HAPPY! I'm just surprised it took so long. Score one for RAYTHEON.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       8/29/2009 3:33:20 AM

...especially for someone like the US Coast Guard and Customs Service/Border Patrol if they are so resolved on catching drug runners (maritime vessels and small civil aircraft flying in at low altitudes).

The only limiting factor here is, aerostats and their aerosonde cousins are fair-weather-only systems: you can't operate these assets under weather extremes due to their generally fragile nature.

But for the on-station persistence they can offer (indefinitely almost, if tethered, only needing to be "hauled down" for maintenance and weatherb issues), I believe they are worth the investment, especially when one considers how cheap the actual "aircraft part" is in comparison to the sensor capability payloads it can haul aloft.


I believe that the Customs Service tried something like this before.  They had a variety of problems including sabotage of the base station/anchor and sniper fire aimed at the aerostats when it was hauled down due to weather or for maintenance.
 
Not sure what their conclusions were.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       8/29/2009 4:47:52 AM




...especially for someone like the US Coast Guard and Customs Service/Border Patrol if they are so resolved on catching drug runners (maritime vessels and small civil aircraft flying in at low altitudes).



The only limiting factor here is, aerostats and their aerosonde cousins are fair-weather-only systems: you can't operate these assets under weather extremes due to their generally fragile nature.



But for the on-station persistence they can offer (indefinitely almost, if tethered, only needing to be "hauled down" for maintenance and weatherb issues), I believe they are worth the investment, especially when one considers how cheap the actual "aircraft part" is in comparison to the sensor capability payloads it can haul aloft.







I believe that the Customs Service tried something like this before.  They had a variety of problems including sabotage of the base station/anchor and sniper fire aimed at the aerostats when it was hauled down due to weather or for maintenance.

 

Not sure what their conclusions were.

The sites have to be defended. The sensor masts they used had much the same problem along the border.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    crap ROE's for the USCG and Border/Customs?   8/29/2009 9:50:49 AM
Yeah, I'm with Herald on this one, too.
You don't put an important sensory asset somewhere you can't defend it.
 
And if you have just such a sensory asset in a place where it's coming under sniper fire, why the hell aren't you firing back?
Because obviously, any such aerostat/sonde/blimp in range of small arms fire from the ground, that small arms fire itself should more than amply be in range of small arms and HMG fire from surface friendlies (ESPECIALLY if you're on a ship).
 
The whole sad state of the US/mexico border is the pisspoor Escalation of Force and Rules of Engagement bullsh*t.
Any other theater where US service personnel (USCG and Border/Customs ARE in service of their country, and legally allowed to detain people, no less), when you come under fire, you can return fire.
 
Same thing goes for many of the surveillance equipment along the border: we have the technology to have zoom optics in both low light level television (LLLTV) cameras (Starlight scopes for lack of a better word) and thermal/IR viewers that can surely verify that questionable sorry-excuse-for-a-human-being out there is or isn't pointing a real weapon at said sensor network, guard tower, or patrol agents, so someone needs to get off their hearts-and-minds high horse and allow the border units to forcibly engage when they feel threatened, rather than the castrating we do now in allowing them only minimal response conditions to the point they have to physically capture someone and prove they truly possess dangerous weapons.
Obviously the whole border patrol thing now is more for political show than for practical purposes.
I'm sure there isn't a single agent down there who will say, "yeah, we have all the assets, capabilities, and authority we need to do this job" (maybe they only say that in the surveys to make the department look good...).
 
If someone is shooting at your sensors, SHOOT BACK.
It's an example of dumb-assedness if you put those sensors where someone CAN shoot them and you can't get there in time to detain them first or deter it from even happening by whatever means necessary.
(If he/she DOES shoot your sensors, then you have every reason to shoot first once you DO get there, providing you've had the means to keep track of where that person proceeded next.)
 
But then again, politicians don't REALLY want to clamp down on border security for fear of losing that hispanic vote back home, do they?
 
Yet again, technology comes to a point where an obvious mission enhancer is available, but given enough time, the current political atmosphere will find enough reasons to the contrary as to why we can do without it after all.
 
As for being in a maritime environment: if someone in a boat, or especially a small civilian aircraft, is physically shooting at something such as your sensor assets (or even tries to seize some stationary unattended system), that could almost be construed along the lines of an act of piracy.
That alone should be grounds to engage with force as needed.
(Even if it is just a few drunken fishermen out having some immature wreckless "fun", they still need to be brought to justice and made an example of  if any damage is done, just like you're not allowed to go around shooting at telephone poles, electrical transformers, and high voltage powerlines,...which in this day and age could technically be seen as an act of terrorism.)
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics