Thursday, July 31, 2025

Large, Slow, And Non-Stealthy Is No Way To Go Through Life

There are many naval observers who espouse the idea of balloons of some type (aerostats, for example) as a means of providing long range surveillance.  ComNavOps has scoffed at those ideas as being devoid of realistic usefulness and, worse, a detriment to surrounding forces due to being easily detected.  Well, here’s further evidence of the impracticality of such aerostats.  Israel, who famously implemented the Sky Dew aerostat system amid much fanfare and proclamations of miraculous capabilities, is now leaning towards abandoning the entire concept due to unaffordable repair costs, questionable usefulness, and demonstrated vulnerabilities following a Hezbollah suicide drone strike that hit the balloon and rendered it inoperable (see, “You Had One Job”).
 
Israeli defense officials are reevaluating the future of the military’s Sky Dew project, a high-altitude balloon system designed for aerial threat detection, following a series of setbacks including weather damage and an attack by the Hezbollah terror group.[1]
 
In light of these repeated setbacks, defense officials are now seriously considering terminating the project. The vulnerability of the system, its high costs, and the excessive time required for repairs have all factored into this revaluation of a program that has already consumed millions in defense spending.[1]

It’s not just enemy actions that threaten the aerostat;  weather is also a threat.
 
… severe weather had rendered the system inoperable months earlier.  After a protracted repair process, the balloon was redeployed in January [2024] … [1]

Setting aside the actual performance failure of Sky Dew in failing to detect a drone which was its exact intended function, the aerostat has been found to be vulnerable to weather and highly susceptible to enemy attack.  Is this surprising?  No!  Any large, slow (non-mobile, in this case), non-stealthy object is easily detected and simply waiting for the enemy to get around to it on their ‘items to destroy at leisure’ checklist.
 
So, what does this mean for us?
 
This is yet another example demonstrating that large, slow, and non-stealthy aircraft such as AWACS, E-2 Hawkeye, P-8 Poseidon, all large non-stealthy UAVs (Predator, Global Hawk, Reaper and the like), etc. are simply not survivable on the modern battlefield.  It doesn’t matter whether it’s a balloon tethered to a ship or a P-8 Poseidon lumbering around looking for things, large, slow, and non-stealthy is simply not viable.
 
 
 
_______________________________
 
[1]JNS website, “Israel weighs shutting down multi-million-dollar ‘Sky Dew’ project”, Lilach Shoval, 29-Aug-2024,
https://www.jns.org/israel-weighs-shutting-down-multi-million-dollar-sky-dew-project/

Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

30 comments:

  1. AnonymousJuly 31, 2025 at 9:24 AM

    Don’t shoot me because I am trying to learn here…but isn’t the point of having those large, slow, and non-stealthy aircraft to meet a use case to have a cheap airframe that can carry large loads, have long loiter time and generate lots of electrical power for their sensors? Or is the point of this post to highlight this use case is not applicable on the modern battle field?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsJuly 31, 2025 at 10:59 AM

      "Don’t shoot me because I am trying to learn here"

      You're good! I love discussing with people who sincerely want to learn.

      I'm not exactly sure what you're asking but I'll try to offer an answer and then you clarify if I've missed your point.

      The post referred specifically to the proposals to use aerostats operated from ships as extended sensor range platforms and, more generally, to the use of any large, slow, non-stealthy aircraft anywhere near potential combat.

      "having those large, slow, and non-stealthy aircraft to meet a use case to have a cheap airframe that can carry large loads, have long loiter time and generate lots of electrical power for their sensors"

      What is the point of such an airframe if it helps the enemy pinpoint your own location (large and non-stealthy) and can't survive long enough to accomplish its task (long sensor loiter time)?

      Did that kind of clarify things and answer your question? If not, ask me again.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJuly 31, 2025 at 11:52 AM

      Okay, now I fully understood what points you are are trying to make. Thanks.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsJuly 31, 2025 at 1:02 PM

      Okay, understanding is good. The next question is do you agree with the points or do you see it differently?

      Delete
    4. Don McCollorJuly 31, 2025 at 4:21 PM

      Similar objections were raised by Dan Galley when his new carrier was to have a blimp escort from WA to CA. He thought that its only usefulness would be to mark the position of his carrier for the enemy.

      Delete
    5. ComNavOpsJuly 31, 2025 at 5:24 PM

      "Dan Galley"

      I'm not familiar with whatever person/incident you're referring to. Fill me in.

      Delete
    6. Don McCollorJuly 31, 2025 at 6:32 PM

      Daniel V. Galley. Rear Admiral, USN. Commanded a four-destroyer hunter-killer ASW group centered on his CVE carrier USS Guadalcanal in the Atlantic in WW2. Pioneered night carrier operations from a CVE. His task group boarded and captured the German U-505 in June 1944 (the first foreign enemy vessel captured on the high seas since the War of 1812. Later, he was instrumental in getting U-505 to the Chicago Museum, where it still reposes). Commanded a task group in the Med in the 50s/60. Later, on active duty, he also wrote humorous navy short stories as well as his experiences. His autobiography is almost as funny as his naval tales (sorry to be so lengthy). One of a kind.

      Delete
    7. ComNavOpsJuly 31, 2025 at 6:51 PM

      You threw me off a bit there. Unless you're talking about someone else, his name is Gallery, not Galley. That's why I was drawing a blank.

      I'm familiar with his story but I've never heard the carrier/blimp incident.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousAugust 1, 2025 at 3:46 PM

      My apologies - missed the "r". The blimp episode is in chapter 4 'Shakedown cruise' of his book "Clear the Decks" (the nonfiction one).

      Delete
  2. AnonymousJuly 31, 2025 at 10:00 AM

    I myself wonder if the Poseidon would be useful in peacetime role as a patrol asset. But I see the point of the P8 not being survivable during war. ( It can be armed for ASW & with Harpoon) but the platform is not survivable in a wartime scenario ! PB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJuly 31, 2025 at 10:23 AM

      In my opinion ,a modified stealthy B21 could fill the role of the P8 in wartime ( plus in another role as ComNavOps has proposed. ) PB

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsJuly 31, 2025 at 10:52 AM

      "a modified stealthy B21 could fill the role of the P8 in wartime"

      Before I either agree or disagree with that idea, consider the role of the PBY in WWII. It, too, was a large, slow, non-maneuverable, defenseless aircraft and yet it filled vital roles. What were those roles and how do they relate to today and how does that relate to your idea? Think about it and let me know your thoughts and we can go from there.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsJuly 31, 2025 at 11:01 AM

      "I myself wonder if the Poseidon would be useful in peacetime role as a patrol asset."

      ANYTHING will work in peacetime! Of course, for peacetime work you'd like an asset that doesn't cost $200M each or whatever the P-8 costs.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJuly 31, 2025 at 11:25 AM

      The vital role of the PBY was reconnaissance due to it's long range with surveillance of enemy ship movements. The stealthy modified B21 should be able to surveill enemy wartime assets with a much less detection & response from surface targets. ( at times the PBY filled an ASW role against subs of the era. & the P8 was designed for this role as well, against modern subs, but as you say it is not survivable in the modern battle space with modern AA assets present. ( not sure if the B21 would make a good ASW air asset but this is just a thought.)

      Delete
    5. AnonymousJuly 31, 2025 at 11:42 AM

      Also the PBY was used for search & rescue . PB

      Delete
    6. ComNavOpsJuly 31, 2025 at 12:58 PM

      The PBY wasn't really intended for surveillance of enemy ship movements. It couldn't survive long enough in that role to be effective. It was actually more of a 'see where they aren't' surveillance asset although, sure, if it happened to see an actual enemy vessel and lived long enough to get a report out, then great. The point being that it was a guard against the unexpected, determine where the enemy ISN'T, and do other jobs like ASW and S&R. That's why it could survive. It's main task was NOT active enemy surveillance.

      Are you beginning to see the similarities and possible misuses, now, of the PBY and the P-8 (and, maybe, B-21)? Are you seeing how this impacts the idea of using a B-21 as a P-8?

      Delete
  3. G2milJuly 31, 2025 at 3:09 PM

    These mini-blimps don't do well in bad weather. They forced the Border Patrol to buy some. Smugglers just shot a few bullet holes in them from miles away.

    ReplyDelete
  4. hokie_1997July 31, 2025 at 4:07 PM

    I would say your assessment depends (a lot) on the mission and geography.

    The P-8 is an antisubmarine warfare (ASW) patrol aircraft. Not a strike fighter. The ASW role calls for large payload and long loiter times both of which drive you to a larger aircraft.

    Submarines historically tend to operate along enemy sea lines of communication. Not at the front lines. They also don't have a lot of sensors that can detect an aircraft, or weapons that can touch them.

    If your assumption is that were going to throw P-8s unprotected into the teeth of enemy integrated air defenses, then yes they'll probably get shot down. But that would be a fairly idiotic CONOPS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsJuly 31, 2025 at 5:22 PM

      "that would be a fairly idiotic CONOPS."

      And that's EXACTY what the Navy plans to do. You might want to read up on BAMS and the many articles that strongly suggest that the Navy's plan for anti-surface targeting IS the P-8. If you're a P-8 and you're in range to find enemy ships, you're probably already dead.

      The P-8 as a PERIPHERAL ASW patrol plane is perfectly fine (though hideously expensive) but that's not how the Navy intends to use it.

      Finally, consider ... if the Navy doesn't use the P-8 for anti-surface detection, what will they use? We've got hundred-to-thousand mile anti--surface missiles and what's our anti-surface detection/targeting platform?

      Delete
    2. hokie_1997July 31, 2025 at 7:43 PM

      BAMS and P-8 are not the same platform. The BAMS mission is being filled by the MQ-4C Triton.

      The primary mission of the P-8 is ASW. There are plenty of other systems that can do anti-surface targeting.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJuly 31, 2025 at 8:17 PM

      BAMS pairs the P-8 and Triton. Here’s a typical quote,

      “ The Navy plans to integrate the Poseidon with its Broad Area Maritime Surveillance unmanned aircraft platform … “

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJuly 31, 2025 at 8:25 PM

      From the Navair site, “ The P-8A Poseidon, the U.S. Navy's maritime patrol aircraft, is capable of broad-area, maritime and littoral operations, and search and rescue.”

      Delete
  5. ComNavOpsAugust 1, 2025 at 6:52 AM

    "Sophisticated airships"

    Comment deleted. This is not a China propaganda site.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousAugust 3, 2025 at 4:42 AM

    #ComNavOps
    my comment containing RQ-180, F-47, B21 is not visible
    can you check why ?
    Thanks in Advance

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsAugust 3, 2025 at 6:08 AM

      Your comment was deleted. It offered nothing of value. No analysis. No data. No logic. It was just a listing of three aircraft, one a rumor, one a concept, and one in development/early construction. If you'd care to offer something worthwhile, your comment would be welcome. Feel free to repost with something useful and substantive.

      Delete
  7. AnonymousAugust 3, 2025 at 11:42 AM

    Off topic:
    https://www.defensedaily.com/trump-admin-says-house-defense-spending-bills-f-a-xx-increase-risks-delaying-higher-priority-f-47/congress/
    " The Trump admin wants to delay the FA-XX fo the navy & prioritize the F47.
    The White House has urged Congress not to include an increase in funding for the Navy’s F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter aircraft program, stating that doing so may risk delaying the Air Force’s F-47 future fighter effort. As the House has begun floor consideration of its $831.5 billion defense appropriations bill, the Trump administration has also detailed concerns with the legislation’s support for the E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning aircraft that had been targeted for a cut and for not fully funding…"
    My take: There very well could be a huge cost overrruns with both 6 gen fighter programs( due to the complexity of the systems) As far as the carrier airwings go the super hornets air frames have aged & based on reporting here sometime ago, the F35Cs have a readiness issue. The FA-XX my take some time to . At least the AF has the F15EX as a stop gap fighter and has been praised for its availibility.
    The navy has a huge conundrum on its hands and is of the Navy's making for lack of planning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousAugust 3, 2025 at 11:44 AM

      Above thread from PB

      Delete
    2. AnonymousAugust 3, 2025 at 12:20 PM

      Here is the counter argument as to why we need the FA-XX
      https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/no-f-a-xx-fighter-could-mean-the-end-for-u-s-navy-aircraft-carriers/
      My take : The FA-XX will be many years way from operational service. But DOD wants the development cost halted. PB

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsAugust 3, 2025 at 12:22 PM

      The admin's decision to deemphasize the Navy's aircraft is not a cost issue. It's recognition of the fact that the US defense industry cannot support two major programs due to sub-contractor limitations. There are only a very few specialty aircraft parts suppliers and they don't have the manufacturing capacity to support two simultaneous, major new aircraft programs. The admin has decided to prioritize the AF. Whether you agree or disagree, it's important to understand the reasoning.

      Of course, the obvious solution is to increase our defense industry capacity but that will take significant time and service leadership that doesn't continually make the wrong decisions about manning, program size, force structure, etc.

      Delete
  8. AnonymousAugust 4, 2025 at 8:24 AM

    Marines tried Aerostat in Afghanistan. Winds damaged them regularly. They are also a large radar reflector.
    Marines gave up and replaced them with GBOSS cameras on a stick.

    If even the Taliban has drones that can take out blimps, what makes anyone think that they will survive against a peer enemy?

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)