In a little publicized event, Hezbollah forces downed an
Israeli early warning aerostat. The $230M
aerostat radar system, called Sky Dew, was designed to provide stand off early
warning of drones and aircraft with a claimed detection range of 250 km. The aerostat was located around 21 miles from
the Lebanon border and a Hezbollah drone penetrated Israeli airspace undetected
and, in some fashion, suicided on the aerostat, downing it.[1]
 |
| Israeli Sky Dew Aerostat |
Aerostats are a frequent suggestion from commenters on this
blog who believe it can provide nearly unlimited detection of all enemy assets
in the global hemisphere. Okay, a touch
of hyperbole there but not much.
Proponents ascribe nearly miraculous characteristics to these glorified
blimps.
The incident illustrates a couple of noteworthy points:
By the way, just to illustrate that everyone publishes
propaganda, here’s Israel’s statement about the impact of the aerostat downing.
Clearly, the Israeli admiral was just putting out pure
propaganda. Hey, Ukraine does it. Russia does it. The US does it. China does it. Everyone puts out propaganda. One of the reasons this blog exists is to
analyze these things and separate the propaganda from the facts.
Aerostat … you had one job and you failed miserably.
___________________________
- No technology works as advertised. The aerostat had one job: detect drones … and it failed completely. The claimed detection range is 250 km. Apparently, the actual detection range is about a foot. The reality is that all technology is overhyped and will perform poorly in combat. This emphasizes the necessity for realistic testing … which the Navy steadfastly refuses to do.
- Many people believe radar is a miracle of detection. It is not. It is useful, to be sure, but suffers spectacular detection failures on a regular basis. It is not God’s all-seeing eye as so many believe.
- Aerostats are non-stealthy, non-maneuverable, and utterly defenseless. They are a target waiting to be destroyed unless one provides a robust, layered, defensive support scheme.
“Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, Israel’s military spokesman, confirmed that a Hezbollah drone had scored a direct hit on Sky Dew but added there were no casualties and that it “had no impact to the IDF's aerial situational awareness capability in the area”.[1]Okay … so if the loss of the aerostat ‘had no impact’ then why did you spend $230M on it since, according to you, admiral, its presence, or absence, has no impact?
https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/middleeast/hezbollah-blinds-israeli-defences-with-drone-strike-on-sky-dew-airship/ar-BB1mz3UT?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Well, if it can't see drones, then I guess losing one has no impact on situational awareness. Sorry for the snark, but this is really disappointing.
ReplyDeleteIs this the same system that was deployed on Cudjoe Key?
This week had so many articles that everyone here at CNO joint been talking about FOR YEARS:
ReplyDelete- Russia has been jamming GPS, what a surprise!
- New Constellation FFG will be late, what a surprise!
- USN has ALREADY ordered the next 2 ships before the first one hits the water. WOW, what a surprise.
- Feedback from troops on laser prototypes: kind of meh, probably still not ready yet. Hmm, who knew?
- F35 refresh seems to be pushed back to 2025 and then LMT said it will be "re-imagined"?!? so basically 2030 now...shocker, no one saw that coming.
A peace time monitoring tool may not be good in war time reconnaissance. It will be attacked. The only question is whether the other side can or cannot.
ReplyDeleteLittle is known about technical detail of Israel's HAAS system. From picture showed, I cannot find power system and solar panel to supply radar with electricity. I don't how Israel to keep this airship in the same place against strong wind. Army had a similar program JLENS but failed. Some information of HAAS:
https://www.twz.com/43001/israel-begins-testing-giant-radar-blimp-for-spotting-low-flying-missiles
China has deployed powered airship over the South China Sea. From picture, we can see clearly of power system (likely electrical driven propellers) and solar panel. China can keep it on the same place.
https://www.twz.com/was-a-high-altitude-airship-spotted-recently-near-the-south-china-sea
Of course, if a war breaks out, Navy will shot it down with SM-3 missile.
"I cannot find power system and solar panel to supply radar with electricity"
DeleteMy guess/assumption is that power is delivered through the tether cable from a ground power source.
It's tethered? Hard not to chuckle.
ReplyDeleteWhat's funny about that?
DeleteThe drone had "Frank Luke" painted on the side.
DeleteShooting down observation balloons is a sport
as old as air combat. Doesn't make them worthless.
There seems to be a cost explosion with size/capability as is often the case. This one and the failed JLENS program are really expensive given the range they want to detect small targets. The aerostats the Border Patrol uses are less than $10 million upfront, similar to the Army ones used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteAs you say it comes back to CONOPS. If the goal is a low cost supplementary system that provides a few extra minutes of warning/coverage for a cruise missile attack on a base then it’s probably a good deal. But if you want a giant radar to provide wide area coverage then it’s probably not a good deal given the extra cost.
"Okay … so if the loss of the aerostat ‘had no impact’ then why did you spend $230M on it since, according to you, admiral, its presence, or absence, has no impact?"
ReplyDeleteRedundancy. If they have other assets that can also cover the area then there shouldn't be any loss. If you can't sustain any losses then you have a problem even before the shooting starts. As for the price tag everything is too expensive when it's for the military. As for vulnerablity is that much more than a fixed radar on the ground? I also wonder if they used any decoy balloons?
"Redundancy"
DeleteI think you're attempting to apply your own view to the situation rather than the reality of the situation. From the linked article,
"Israel has been developing the Sky Dew project since 2022, giving its forces an advanced observation system for drones and cruise missiles striking from Iran and Syria, as well as Lebanon, by picking up smaller targets that are harder to detect in northern Israel's valleys."
It's clear from that statement that Sky Dew was not merely some redundant system. Instead, it was a system that offered an otherwise unavailable capability.
Apply some logic. If it was merely a redundant system, why would Hezbollah have gone after it instead of whatever the primary system was?
Here's another statement from the article:
"“What it is clear is that Hezbollah are trying to make the northern Israel detection defences go blind,” said Sarit Zehavi, a former lieutenant colonel in Israeli military intelligence."
Again, this was not a takedown of a redundant system. It was a takedown of a primary system that offered a unique capability. Note the use of the word, 'blind'. You can't blind something that is merely a redundant system.
There is no doubt in my mind that Sky Dew, due to its elevation, offered a unique 'look down' radar view that was not otherwise available. It was a one-of-a-kind capability rather than a one-of-many-redundant assets.
The real questions are why the radar failed utterly to do what it was intended to do and why did Israel not have a layered defensive system in place to protect the obviously high value asset?
"I think you're attempting to apply your own view to the situation rather than the reality of the situation. From the linked article,"
DeletePretty much. More an observation of what the situation on the Isreali side. As for why Hezballah would go after it, to impose costs and hopefully degrade the system over time. At least that's what I would be doing on the other side of the table.
Sorry about not being clear about the should instead of is.
I agree with alot of your analysis. However, it is unclear if there was detection and the failure was further down the kill (hopefully) chain. Small (how small was this, might have been farily short range) drones are hard to hit. Was the response air defense bird unable to launch, or was there a missed communication between the air defense organizations. We missed a drone due toa
ReplyDeletefailure of the delousing protocol in Syria I believe not too long ago.
You are correct to say this points out issues with Aerostats and propaganda. But I would like to know where the breakdown was in the defense chain. It might be in the perfect (chuckling) radar system that they bought.
Yes, there are reports of multiple drones attacking, one of which was shot down.
DeleteAnd at least one report that the aerostat was on the ground at the time.
There aren't any pictures of the damage that I can find.
In the air or on the ground, it demonstrates the vulnerability of aerostats (or any gigantic, non-maneuverable, non-stealthy object!). You may recall that one of the Allies counters to the German Me262 German jet fighter was to attack it while it was landing and helpless.
DeleteA radar, used in wartime without defenses, is just a targeting beacon for an attacker.
DeleteAn aerial view (Bing) of the site shows no apparent defenses.
It would be interesting to know if it was of use during the April attacks.
The drone attack just before the current (June 2024) attacks suggests that Hezbollah (Iran) thinks it is of value. Did intelligence tell them it was on the ground for maintenance or whatever, and vulnerable?
Aerostats are nothing more than a less expensive way to expand the horizon of a radar in a persistent way than rotating several AWACS 24/7. It's also more vulnerable to attack than aircraft, but it's not clear that they are more vulnerable than ground based radars. I wouldn't write them off just because the of the failure in Israel.
ReplyDeletePoland seems to see some value in them - they just signed a $1B contract to get four. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/05/22/poland-spends-1-billion-on-us-made-surveillance-aerostats/
"Poland seems to see some value in them"
DeleteJust a caution ... Every country in the world saw value in battleships immediately prior to WWII ... and they were all wrong. Follow-the-leader is just as powerful a force in military acquisition as it is in kids playgrounds. Unfortunately, following the leader does not guarantee you're on a correct path. In fact, history strongly suggests that the leader's path is probably wrong!
Unmanned, minimal manning, no armor, COCRAPENGINES, no large caliber naval guns, etc. are trends that are being religiously followed by countries and they are all wrong. Follow-the-leader simply ensures that you'll have lots of company when you fail.
The way you avoid follow-the-leader is to apply rigorous, realistic testing to see what actually works (almost nothing) and what doesn't (almost everything) under realistic combat conditions. Of course, the Navy's policy is to avoid testing like the plague.
Poland is special case for aerostats, they need to be able to tell the difference twixt a Russian drill and a Russian attack.
DeleteSo when the aerostat goes down, the balloon has gone up.
I see what you did there... ;)
DeleteJust a quick bit of anecdotal hope- I just attended my daughters graduation in Great Lakes this morning. Seeing the change, the pride, and the professionalism thats been instilled in her in the past months was almost amazing. The speakers were quite direct about calling out the future threat in China, as well as the ongoing Middle East issues. Now, we ALL are aware of the massive current shortcomings, top to bottom, in the Navy. But I have to say, regardless of all that, they're doing good work with new sailors, and although I was quite sceptical, I have to admit that I don't feel I was any better of a new sailor back in '89 than she is today. Now this is just a "vibe", but I felt it strongly enough to share it... So maybe, just maybe...theres hope.
ReplyDelete