OSD Eyes Near-Space UAVs

OSD Eyes Near-Space UAVs

The enormous need for overhead reconnaissance to combat IEDs and to track terrorists and insurgents over large areas for long periods is driving at least one part of the Pentagon to develop so-called stratospheric UAVs that can hover above the Jet Stream for several months or more.

And that may be the harbinger of a long-term shift in the UAV market, according to one advocate of the concept, Ed Herlik. He’s the lead author of a market forecast report titled “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for Counter-Insurgency Global Market & Technologies Outlook 2010–2015,” produced by Market Intel Group, where Herlik is a partner.

The report predicts persistent stratospheric UAVs will significantly change the marketplace for both platforms and payloads in less than five years. “Persistent surveillance (months or a year on-station above the Jet Stream) is the one capability that will significantly enhance the ability to combat an insurgency while minimizing troop risk and ground commitment,” the report says.


Aerostats are tied to the ground and so don’t rise high enough. Balloons float with the wind and so can’t persist over a target. Air ships, blimps or whatever you want to call them are driven by propellers and so can sometimes hold position against the wind.  Near-Space UAVs will sail above the Jet Stream, between 50,000 and 70,000 feet, where there is relatively little wind — around 30 knots on average.

Herlik has been here before. He pushed the concept of near-space UAVs when he was at Air Force Space Command. He was pushed out and the concept, which had had support from top service leadership, pretty much died.

But he says that a part of OSD, which he would not identify, is eager to go ahead and build at least one of these ships. The “entity” likes the UAVs because they of two compelling qualities; they can produce a great deal of solar-generated electric power to ensure lightweight sensors can operate for very long periods and they can stay on station for a hell of a long time at pretty small cost. It would not surprise me if it’s the “entity” is JIEDDO, given the increasing deaths this year from IEDs and its relative freedom from service constraints. Herlik told me the entity, whatever it is, does not plan to go through the Air Force. “They’re not waiting for a ride on someone else’s UAV given that the usual acquisition process will take years longer to do what can be done now,” he said. As Herlik reminded me, the Air Force — aside from its brief flirtation with the concept when he was there — has either been disinterested or in outright opposition.

Pentagon acquisition czar Ash Carter has voiced very public support for aerostats as an affordable tool for IED detection and more general ISR work, most lately in early April at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “We are going to be this summer increasing manifold the number of aerostat-borne cameras,” Carter said. They provide “the same functionality as a UAV would have, but it’s something we can afford to get in there this summer.”

Herlik believes a near-space UAV can be built from start to prototype in six months, with a deployable version six months after that for $3 million to $5 million. The Southwest Research Institute has built HiSentinel [pictured] and tested it. Lockheed Martin has been working on aerostats and various other types of blimps and airships for almost a decade. One of their most recent entries is the DARPA program known as Integrated Sensor Is Structure ((ISIS).

Join the Conversation

Seems like they would be a good way to augment field radios also — maybe acting as communications relays.…

Ah yes the romance of lone nutter’s ceaseless struggle to get the world to accept his failed concept.

I’m just surprised he hasn’t suggested mounting a rail gun and the airborne laser on it for good measure.

They have been using them on our boarders for years and they dont work, have one right over Yuma proving ground and the illegals still sneak past it unchallenged daily until they are on the firing range and the military rounds them up. If they are no good tethered at a few thousand feet then how are they going to be any better up higher.

This is one of those cost versus benefit things. Just because its technologically possible, doesn’t mean you should do it. Think about it. Do we really want to pay $3M to $5M (and it’s more likely going to be $8M when everything else is added), just to focus on a gap in the non-existent border fence so we can catch a few people? Why not just use the money to pay for more border guards — with weapons? It would be more cost effective and have a bigger impact.

This is something that could support our folks on the ground by providing a persistent reconnaissance capability. It could (at a later point) support entities like the border patrol, if there were also a suitable number of agents available to respond to illegal entry attempts. The ability of a high-altitude platform and the operational use of same are two separate issues. If a private entity uses it’s money or other R&D funds for a proof of concept, I think we’re on the right track.

I have heard all cutting edge technology goes through 3 phases:
I) It’s impossible to do
II) It’s possible to do, but it is not worth doing
III) It’s what we should have been doing all along
Looking at the the comments, I would would say that high-altitude UAV is at the second phase.

Let’s see.retired in 1993. I was in charge of supporting the Aerostats for a year or so some time before that and they were a mess. We were using them for drug interdiction. Went up fast — down slow. Real good at a p;lace where the thunderstorms come pout of nowhere, or where the enemy comes out of nowhere. Couldn’t keep helium from leaking out of them — I was constantly getting barges sent down from cape Canaveral. There are lots of small cameras and processors, also aircraft that are solar powered that stay up for months — why are we going back to WWI barrage balloons?

If you run the numbers, a force large enough to patrol the same area cost significantly more. The current DOD planning figure is about $1m/Soldier (all war costs divided by all soldiers).

The next questions are if the platform is feasible and maintainable. Lots of smaller questions.

Actually putting a laser designator on it is a great idea.

In some cases, the solution is to simply build one and prove the concept. Given the costs of competing platforms, this is a bargain at 5x the price. Since some of these cameras can run very high, $8m might be low.

Reaad the last 3 paragraphs, and if you can still call him a “lone nutter”…

Another extravagant waste of money. Tracking insurgents ( that have no clear identification criterion) that travel in groups less than 20 at a price of a few million dollars just seems to be wasteful, If they want to park something; turn Hubble upside down and point toward earth. These projects are getting to be foolish waste of tax dollars..

The problem isn’t the platform. it is the politics. Each of those wetbacks is a soon-to-be-demoncrapic voter.

Gee… more insightful comments from the “smartest guys in the room” crowd. Let’s see. We have; 1. it can’t be done, and 2. it’s too expensive, and 3. I don’t like balloons, and 4. my <blank> hurts. Taxpayer… how long has the border with Mexico gone without enough U.S. border agents? You think there might be a story to that? Or do we keep wishing we’d put more Americans on the border with Mexico and hope the illegal aliens don’t cross it?

What none of you idiots understand is that 3 or 5mil. is not alot of money by any standard other than your hourly wage of $7/hr at McDons. Also considering that fueling up a helicopter costs about +100k a go.

I suggest you sheep stay out of the way of the big guys, you’ll just end up hurting yourselves

Taxpayer: ‘Do we really want to pay $3M to $5M (and it’s more likely going to be $8M when everything else is added), just to focus on a gap in the non-existent border fence so we can catch a few people?’

What, has nobody informed you of the current costs of UAVs? The MQ-1 predator costs 4.5 million, while the MQ-9 reaper costs 10.5 million with all its bells and whistles, and they don’t perfom as well as this thing will. They can’t relay communications, won’t have its endurance (hell, this thing floats, its a lighter than air craft and it runs off solar power, it can stay up there for months, if not years!), and they won’t have its observation height. Trust me, at the low altitude the predator operates, its like looking through a fucking straw.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement