Very interesting. Thank youGarlath wrote:For those who (understandably) weren’t convinced at the possibility of radar on HAPS...
Read More: https://thewest.com.au/news/the-kimberl ... 881347715zA state-of-the-art drone owned by one of the world’s biggest aeronautical companies has crashed in the remote Kimberley for the second time this year, after it lost control during a test flight.
The Airbus Zephyr pseudo-satellite, while being launched from Wyndham Airport on September 28, encountered “clear turbulence” during the ascent, causing the aircraft to depart from controlled flight.
An Airbus spokesperson said the company have informed the relevant authorities and initiated an investigation.
There was no damage to people or property and the aircraft was recovered.
Absolutely.cockneyjock1974 wrote:I always saw this and Airlander as great maritime overwatch platforms.
At the price it would be mad not to. Over 4-5 years they would literally pay for themselves with the flight hour cost on helos alone, let alone the 24 hour coverage.Dahedd wrote:I was, thinking that a carrier group deploying with 1 or 2 HAPS equipped with an EO or radar package would be a good match. Never thought about assigning one to a frigate
Directional antenna tracking on the ship and HAPS, chances of interception of that are very slim, also cuts down on the amount of power required for re-transmission.Ron5 wrote:Wouldn't they advertise the carriers location to anyone in radio range? All that EO video, radar, data links, being transmitted from 30,000 feet would be rather noticeable. Line of sight radio horizon from that height is over 250 miles.
The E/O set up is worth the price of admission alone, add in comms rebroadcast (inc data links) and ESM (including emitter location via triangulation from multiple platforms) and its a massive bonus. Would a radar emit? Yes. But it would be comparatively low power and could frequency hop. There is also the potential for passive scanning via the E/O system, but that would rely on decent conditions.Ron5 wrote:and the HAPS radar? without it, the HAPS has very little value right?
Err, is that the maths of having several of them, on the outer perimeter of 250 nm?Timmymagic wrote: multiple HAPS radars and get their location they're still encircling an area of 196,000 sq miles.
Yep, on the assumption that an enemy could work out the circle that the HAPS were orbiting at 250 miles from the carrier the circle would cover 196,000 square miles.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Err, is that the maths of having several of them, on the outer perimeter of 250 nm?
- I couldn't do it; only asking
I've never said the HAPS would go undetected, but directional datalinks are a thing and they're incredibly hard to intercept or detect, even if you can get between the 2 communicating stations.Ron5 wrote:Sorry to be such a skeptic but if there are all those reasons why the HAPS cannot be detected, why do navy ships go radio silent?
And now it is kites... trials successful, as far as I can decipher from the reportsRon5 wrote: A couple decades ago it was going to be balloons that flew over warships to provide
Kites being trialled at the moment (TALONS), but the most recent trend seems to be tethered large quadcopters carrying sensors up.Ron5 wrote:A couple decades ago it was going to be balloons that flew over warships to provide ISTAR.
Haha. You're right to be sceptical, there have been lots of false dawns of lots of technology before. But at the rate that companies are piling into this space, which tends to drive innovation and development, this does look like a technology whose time has (almost) come.Ron5 wrote:Anyhoo, I will go sit in the corner and write a thousand lines "I will not be a Debbie Downer on new technology".