Airship Acquired To Boost Security Measures In The Deep South

[webfact]

SKY DRAGON

Floating target

By Thanapat Kitjakosol

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Army defends controversial airship bought to boost security in deep South as senior officer denie it is being grounded due to safety concerns

The Royal Thai Army yesterday came out in defence of the controversial Bt350-million airship acquired to boost security measures in the deep South - and even if the "Sky Dragon" has not been grounded as reported, it will fly into an uncertain future.

The senior officer in charge, Lt Gen Kasikorn Kheereesri, denied the newly bought airship was being sidelined due to safety concerns.

However, criticism has been widespread over its suitability for the nature of anti-insurgency work in the region. Moreover, its needs are substantial - a back-up system requiring a helicopter, a land vehicle, a ground command station and 55 officers.

The officer said no order had come from the Army grounding the airship.

Yesterday high-power zoom cameras were being installed on it in preparation for a number of tests, including a possible flight today to check its engines and wireless signal connections between the cameras and ground control.

Worrawit Basu, a senator serving on the Senate committee on the military, said he had heard the airship was not fully operational because it still lacked certain key devices. The US had prohibited their hand-over to the Army, he said.

He said no evaluation had been undertaken to determine whether other devices could be substituted, and he questioned the financial wisdom of buying another airship. "Bt700 million [the cost of two] is a lot of money. To build a prolonged peace process, there should be other and better ways to do it on such a large budget," he added.

Srisomphob Jitphiromsri, a lecturer with Prince Songkla University, Pattani Campus, questioned the military value of airships in an insurgency like that in the deep South. He said a single airship designed as an airborne surveillance platform would be useless in offensive operations, because more airships would be needed to ensure its maximum combat efficiency.

He said the public would liken the airship project to the GT200 explosive-detector controversy if it proved inefficient after a few months of use.

"If the number of attacks or ambushes are not reduced, it would raise questions over whether other alternatives or human measures would be more cost-effective and productive in winning over local residents - instead of an airship we pay Bt350 million for," he added.

Army commander Anupong Paochinda paid an inspection visit to the South and observed the flight test. There are no reports about his feedback or opinion about the airship.

A source with the airship's operational support pondered its combat efficiency, saying the local landscapes comprised thick bushes and trees, unlike deserts in Iraq or Afghanistan where the US military used airships effectively in fighting off insurgents.

"The local insurgents in the South employ ambushes and hit-and-run attacks against targets, and they do not converge in large groups long enough to be seen by a wandering airship," he said.

The source claimed that the airship bumped the ground during a recent landing, but there was no damage to its airframe or engines. "The incident may have led to this fresh criticism of the airship," the source added.

-- The Nation 2010-02-04

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[Thai at Heart]

Someone needs to check what these blokes have been doing with their new budgets.

700mn baht on some balloons? Not meaning to be cynical, but this needs to be investigated for the obvious padding of the receipts.

You have got to take your hats off to them, they don't do it by halves. 1mn baht bomb detectors, now 700mn on airships that won't do what they say on the pack......

Worrawit Basu, a senator serving on the Senate committee on the military, said he had heard the airship was not fully operational because it still lacked certain key devices. The US had prohibited their hand-over to the Army, he said.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[David006]

[Reasonableman]

The military drones being used in Afghanistan are tactically far superior, make almost invisible targets, and are not "manned". Wouldn't it be better to spend a few hundred million on those, if we really need neato boy's toys?

[geriatrickid]

Is this a tethered "aerostat" or is it the manned version? If this is a Sky Dragon then it is built in the USA by Worldwide Aeros.

The specs and other info are available at the company website. Absolutely useless for surveillance operations in the deep south.

UNless somebody in the military is going to use it for the original commercial purpose of advertising. Aeros provides the following helpful photo of a Sky Dragon in service.

[harrry]

It may be an easy tarket but given modern surveilance equipment which it could carry the trees would be little barrier to what the ballon could see. It could carry sound infared and radar that would give a good view of what was happening on the ground.

[Trickcyclist]

Good buy and can stay aloft for as long as you like and if coordinated with ground security force's efforts it should get results.

[Thai at Heart]

Good buy and can stay aloft for as long as you like and if coordinated with ground security force's efforts it should get results.

700mn? Can't this stretch to a helicopter perhaps? They do a good job too,

I have even heard that other armies tend to use them for this kind of stuff. In all honesty, to any experts out there, wouldn't this thing be incredibly easy to shoot down?

Where do I download the symbol for sarcasm.

[Jdietz]

They're still waiting for the cauldrons of hot oil to be delivered.

[Reasonableman]

They're still waiting for the cauldrons of hot oil to be delivered.

[jfchandler]

They bought an <deleted> blimp???

In reading thru the article, they kept referring to "airship"...so I wasn't sure if they were referring to a helicopter of some kind, or a blimp (or the various other names for the same thing..)

I'd assume the Thai Army/Air Force already has a fair supply of various helicopters.... So just what of real value do they gain with a blimp that a suitably equipped (FLIR, infrared, etc) helicopter doesn't give them???

Unless, of course, the Army is planning to provide aerial TV coverage of local soccer (football) matches... They do have their own broadcast TV station, after all...

BTW... just how fast do those things fly...and how long would it take the thing to travel from one part of the south to another.... It's a pretty big swath of problematic territory we're talking about there...

[Steve2UK]

Is this a tethered "aerostat" or is it the manned version? If this is a Sky Dragon then it is built in the USA by Worldwide Aeros.

The specs and other info are available at the company website. Absolutely useless for surveillance operations in the deep south.

UNless somebody in the military is going to use it for the original commercial purpose of advertising. Aeros provides the following helpful photo of a Sky Dragon in service.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thailand-Bli...t&p=2595878

http://asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pund...-and-blimp.html

http://asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pund...s-arriving.html

[Meridian007]

The military drones being used in Afghanistan are tactically far superior, make almost invisible targets, and are not "manned". Wouldn't it be better to spend a few hundred million on those, if we really need neato boy's toys?

That would be a superior option, but I doubt that the States is selling them, as they are relatively new tech. I wonder if something similar could be reverse-engineered here. It would simplify much of Thailand's military action, which is primarily border defence and surveillance.

[DP25]

The military drones being used in Afghanistan are tactically far superior, make almost invisible targets, and are not "manned". Wouldn't it be better to spend a few hundred million on those, if we really need neato boy's toys?

That would be a superior option, but I doubt that the States is selling them, as they are relatively new tech. I wonder if something similar could be reverse-engineered here. It would simplify much of Thailand's military action, which is primarily border defence and surveillance.

Thailand already has small military drones and are researching to manufacture more. Lots of countries are making them these days, although most aren't nearly as high tech as the American ones. A dirigible can stay up much longer, has a far longer range, can carry sophisticated equipment, and there are people inside of it. Right now Thailand is mainly using propeller driven plans as aerial surveillance, this could be a big improvement.

[isanbirder]

Has this anything to do with Gen Chaovalit's appointment?

[ilyushin]

A better choice would be medium endurance UAVs and stablized payloads for observation purposes.

[IMA_FARANG]

I was going to comment on this with the previous posting before, but the topic got closed before I could post.

If you want to debate the advisability of this system in the south as an anti-insurgency purcahse, feel free to do so.

But stop calling it a ballon. It is no more a "balloon" than Manchester United is a "bunch of guys kicking a football around on weekends".

It flies at up to 10,000 feet in height. There is no rifle that could shoot it down at that height.

You could stand 50 feet away with a M-16, fire off two whole clips of ammo at it, and you still wouldn't deflate the aircells inside. (it's not a "balloon"). It doesn't and won't burn like the Hindenburg did.

If they have the full military surveilance system, you would see images so clear from that 10,000 foot height you could litterly read the name tags on the Thai army uniforms on the ground. (If the U.S. military will allow this to be transfered to Thailand is another question.)

No its not a tethered Aerostat, because it has a range of nearly 100 miles and flies at 50 miles an hour. It can patrol and survey an wide area, not just one spot on the ground.

So if you want to criticise the price and whether or not it is the best system to use....go right ahead, feel free.

But it is not a BALLOON.

A further comment: the 56 officers involved seems excessive to me also. But then maybe the Thai military has a bunch of officers doing nothing else at the time.

And yes, it is a unmanned system, with a ground station to control it. As a civilian contractor who works for the U.S. military I feel that the military routinely has 2 to 3 tmes the personnel they really need to operate that type of system. I don't see the Thai military being much different in that matter.

Edited February 4, 2010 by IMA_FARANG

[Steiner]

I can see the muslim fundamentilist revised shopping list now;

1 x job lot helium balloons, 1 x pack razor blades, 1 x pack of large pins, 1 x roll of sellotape...

Seriously, these airships cannot fly in high winds and are grounded in weather other types of aircraft can easily cope with.

I can see a windy day being added to morning prayers as soon as this blimp becomes operational...???

What use is a survelience platform that will be grounded by the weather???

Even Richard Branston wouldn't go up in this one...

[thaihome]

Has this anything to do with Gen Chaovalit's appointment?

The airship was purchased last May. Apparently the issue now is with the cameras and related gear. I think there are issues with the export license from the US.

TH

[Asa]

The military drones being used in Afghanistan are tactically far superior, make almost invisible targets, and are not "manned". Wouldn't it be better to spend a few hundred million on those, if we really need neato boy's toys?

That would be a superior option, but I doubt that the States is selling them, as they are relatively new tech. I wonder if something similar could be reverse-engineered here. It would simplify much of Thailand's military action, which is primarily border defence and surveillance.

Thailand already has small military drones and are researching to manufacture more. Lots of countries are making them these days, although most aren't nearly as high tech as the American ones. A dirigible can stay up much longer, has a far longer range, can carry sophisticated equipment, and there are people inside of it. Right now Thailand is mainly using propeller driven plans as aerial surveillance, this could be a big improvement.

Don't see why a drone need people inside, passengers? Anyway, the cigar-on-air is not a regular balloon, and I think it will be useful for many tasks, of course it can do live football broadcast as well as surveillance. What is worriesome is what spec was chosen by Thai forces, adn if the expected result can be delivered?

[Ricardo]

Is there a 'Colonel Blimp', in the Thai military ?

[Gobbledoc]

"Is there a 'Colonel Blimp', in the Thai military ?"

The Navy has Khun Shooter, a master based in Pattaya.

*Master Seaman Shooter*

[hawthorne]

More likely than not the system that is being used is the Eagle Eye System produced by Raytheon from the states. It has been used in Iraq and Afghanistan since about 2005. They are getting better.

The systems are really phenomenal. Laser technology, motion sensors, same type cameras that can see pimples on a teenager from thousands of feet up. The can see through cloud cover. There are being deployed in various ally countries for the US by Raytheon. Mostly as border patrol.

[rakman]

They bought an <deleted> blimp???

In reading thru the article, they kept referring to "airship"...so I wasn't sure if they were referring to a helicopter of some kind, or a blimp (or the various other names for the same thing..)

I'd assume the Thai Army/Air Force already has a fair supply of various helicopters.... So just what of real value do they gain with a blimp that a suitably equipped (FLIR, infrared, etc) helicopter doesn't give them???

Unless, of course, the Army is planning to provide aerial TV coverage of local soccer (football) matches... They do have their own broadcast TV station, after all...

BTW... just how fast do those things fly...and how long would it take the thing to travel from one part of the south to another.... It's a pretty big swath of problematic territory we're talking about there...

Maybe the Army is going "green". Less fossil fuel consumed..

[jackspratt]

I was going to comment on this with the previous posting before, but the topic got closed before I could post.

If you want to debate the advisability of this system in the south as an anti-insurgency purcahse, feel free to do so.

But stop calling it a ballon. It is no more a "balloon" than Manchester United is a "bunch of guys kicking a football around on weekends".

It flies at up to 10,000 feet in height. There is no rifle that could shoot it down at that height.

You could stand 50 feet away with a M-16, fire off two whole clips of ammo at it, and you still wouldn't deflate the aircells inside. (it's not a "balloon"). It doesn't and won't burn like the Hindenburg did.

If they have the full military surveilance system, you would see images so clear from that 10,000 foot height you could litterly read the name tags on the Thai army uniforms on the ground. (If the U.S. military will allow this to be transfered to Thailand is another question.)

No its not a tethered Aerostat, because it has a range of nearly 100 miles and flies at 50 miles an hour. It can patrol and survey an wide area, not just one spot on the ground.

So if you want to criticise the price and whether or not it is the best system to use....go right ahead, feel free.

But it is not a BALLOON.

A further comment: the 56 officers involved seems excessive to me also. But then maybe the Thai military has a bunch of officers doing nothing else at the time.

And yes, it is a unmanned system, with a ground station to control it. As a civilian contractor who works for the U.S. military I feel that the military routinely has 2 to 3 tmes the personnel they really need to operate that type of system. I don't see the Thai military being much different in that matter.

Will you please desist from adding facts and common sense to this thread.

[nasajsc]

great big fat target floating slowly in the sky! awesome for sniper target practice

[animatic]

One SAM and it's toast yep.

[AliasJohn]

Good for Taksin...put a screen up there and do live broadcast to his dedicated fans.

[JAG]

One SAM and it's toast yep.

I don't think it would be too vulnerable to a SAM. They are basically two types, heat seeking and command guided. Heat seeking, well a blimp does not have a significant Infra Red Signature, like a jet or helicopter, and the missiles can be fooled by flares. Command guided would involve the operator exposing himself to the surveilance devices on the blimp in order to fire and control the missile in flight-short cut to 72 virgins. It will fly high enough to be safe from rifle and RPG fire.

It is an eye in the sky, and allows surveillance of a relatively large area over a sustained period, if it's got the right kit by day or night. That makes it harder for the insurgents too move around, set up snipes or lay IEDs. Quite a good idea I would suggest.

[thepodest]

Is it just me? Or Thaivisa is full of military experts