Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
"Raytheon has a contractor in theater with that level of "knowledge without being dark level...it would be a serious intelligence misstep IMO."
What the heck are you talking about? What level of knowledge?
RAID systems have been around a few years - regular announcements have been posted, so I have no idea why you say LMT is the only publicly visible supplier of stationary platforms.
http://www.msl.army.mil/Fact_Sheets/RAID.pdf
http://www.bizjournals.com/masshightech/stories/2007/05/14/daily33.html
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=149999&TICK=RTN&STORY=/www/story/06-....
I think you're reading way too much into it and making associations that don't exist.
"Remote operation" as used in the contract announcement, refers to logistical and maintenance support (parts and service) for units operating in remote locations - which can be very costly.
A program manager is responisble for identifying associated life cycle costs, and developing a funding strategy for POM/PR budget cycles. This news announces receipt of life cycle support funding - which is likely a different color of money (Operational Support), and cannot be used to buy new systems (Procurement).
Sky
I beg to differ. I think some of the tech/cost dialogue going on here is a good thing. Detailed - yes, sometimes mind numbing. But in the end, we all learn something...which should help us collectively recognize when we're being fed BS.
Have a great day. Sky.
International waters are 12NM.
Exclusive Economic Zone extends to 200NM
"And then in brackets they make reference to the SkySat being able to do that too...IMO"
I don't believe that is what they mean.
IMO, they are merely citing Sanswire and Skysat as their examples of mobile platforms in which Hotzone can be easily configured/installed.
"The systems are easily transported, set up and used in both fixed and mobile configurations (such as GlobeTel's Sanswire Networks subsidiary's proposed SkySat and Stratellite products)."
Flying isn't the problem at those altitudes - stationkeeping is.
Notional conops using only free-floating balloons have been developed...they can be released 100's of miles upwind, with spacing (based on windspeed) to maintain constant coverage over a particular geographic area. If the transceivers are cheap enough (a few hundred $$$ and disposable or recoverable) the cost per hour of service can be a couple of magnitudes cheaper than conventional UAV's. This might be what Sanswire has in mind for Skysat (if it is similar to Combat Skysat).
15k for airships is not for the faint hearted - esp if winds exceed 30 kts for significant duration.
Careful guys - Globetel/Sanswire doesn't have an airship that offers competition...yet.
The silence from my last post was deafening....who can define what Skysat is? Have I missed something?
I'm hopeful Sanswire will lease a commercial blimp readily available in the SD area and temp install their net gear for demo.
Can anyone point to the GTEL definition of Skysat? I loosely tracked development of a balloon based transceiver system called Combat Skysat while working in the Pentagon a few years ago and am wondering if it's the same thing....
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/05/combat-skysat-cheap-nearspace-communications-relay-at-je...
Sky
Hey everybody - have you seen the news about DHS looking for drones to provide airport security? Now's our chance.
Start writing DHS/Congressmen/newspapers to consider airships/strats, not fixed wing drones...Big gov't should at least throw some R&D money toward it.
Bottome line - LTA is the most affordable way to post the high ground 24/7. The taxpayers deserve to know.
Don't waste your time replying with something smart about a big airship over an airfield....it's no big deal (pun intended)...pilots can easily can see (and avoid) it, even at night. It doesn't need to be there in foul wx (restricted visibility).
Have a great day. Sky
You're giving me a headache.
What are you saying?
1. That Raytheon might be interested in buying the Sanswire platform? Or...
2. A potential business partership?
Raytheon already has partnerships with LTA manufacturers. I can't imagine they would be seriously interested in S2 unless S2 demonstrated capability not yet communicated to us (doubtful). IMO, it is reasonable to assume that Raytheon assesses many new companies and products for future potential. Raytheon might have been on-scene with wares simply by personal request from Murch (he probably has former Air Force colleagues working there).
I'm not an ISIS expert - but from what I read, the radar system is phased array. I don't know if it touts SAR capability or not, or whether it would be needed/feasible with such a large array. Interestingly, SAR capability is a cutting edge developement for electronically steered radar systems.
I commend our audience for thinking "unmanned airship" as part of the UAV family of systems, but unfortunately, alot of DoD doesn't think that way.
Most of the RFP's you see out there will contain performance thresholds (e.g. responsiveness) that cuts airship out of the competition right from the start because it requires speed. It isn't fair in the sense that (take surveillance for instance)there are supporting CONOPS for airship to deliver similar desired effects without having to fly fast...i.e. a constellation of surveillance platforms.
Bottom line - while most of us recognize the inherent qualities of LTA based radar, it is the most likely the furthest thing from Navy's mind when contracting for SAR capability. Maybe for good reason if SAR and LTA are not a good match due to affordability and/or performance. Hybrids air vehicles also hold promise, but that is another story.
You are generally correct, although SAR does not have to space based based.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_aperture_radar
Tactical aircraft and spaced based systems move in the 100's to 1000's mph. I submit that a strat's groundspeed may not be enough to get good SAR performance (if station keeping).
Lower altitude ships may achieve some performance as they potentially have the power to produce greater speed, but still not faster than a helo - and I don't know of any helo's with SAR. ISAR may be effective.
Airship proponents recognize the utility of a large envelope to house a truly wide aperture radar that can't be housed in conventional aircraft, or in the case of ISIS, the envelope becomes a wide-aperture radar.
There is a UWBSAR application I hve read about used on an airship to find land mines, but I think it has to be relatively close to ground (few hundred feet?).
As I posted previously - SAR and airships don't go together....you need significant airspeed.
So, are you saying Raytheon needs a strat?
Globetel doesn't have stratospheric capability yet, so I certainly hope any potential contract isn't prediated on that.
Who will verify the realtionship - Globetel or Raytheon?
Thanks, Poke.
I'll be the first to say I'm no expert, but from the little I do know about basic shielding principles, I believe the holes in the lath used for stucco are bigger than the wavelength of most wireless devices. I don't have the energy tonight to research or the math....maybe someone else can.
Still - this is a very interesting topic and worth our collective understanding. Thanks again, Pokestake - great info.
I agree. I think the concern/impact regarding wire mesh behind stucco is overstated.
Thanks Nerd. There appears more to this than just another study. I thought all the posters would be interested by the fact it has an assigned project name (LUMINA), was posted this month, and that it specifically calls out a blimp...although we all know it could be the wrong term ;)
Sky
Does anyone have more/related info on this?
LUMINA (Long Endurance Unmanned Multi INT Airship)
http://www1.fbo.gov/spg/USA/DSS-W/DASW01/USA-SNOTE-070502-004/Synopsis.html
Thanks Nerd. I guess I've dropped synch somewhere.
What is Raytheon's need? Would it be accurate to state that there is a military requirement Raytheon has been contracted to fulfill? If so, can someone direct me to the language....I've prob already seen it, but I see alot.
My earlier post was pointing out a company that has a legacy with tethered aerostats that can easily accomodate a wide variety of payloads (to meet customer requirements)...and they have a long history with Raytheon.
As much as I hate to say it...If the objective is to put comm/networking gear at medium altitudes for a long time at minimal cost, I fail to see what S2 offers over the competition (tethered or otherwise).
A well known aerostat company already in business with Raytheon.
http://www.tcomlp.com/airships.html
http://www.tcomlp.com/3%20jan%202007.html
You will find that newspapers, websites, reporters and TV shows frequently get the terminolgy wrong - and contribute significantly to the confusion factor in and out of the Pentagon.
Thanks Nerd - I understand - and wasn't taken as an attack....no worries! My comments were for the audience, as are the following comments.
Vendors won't necessarily state what is within their technical reach. They're in business today with designs that make them money.
If someone holding the pursestrings says, "we want the ability to do this, this and this..." and will pay the developmental cost, then we can expect competition to emerge from companies with commercial designs from which they can deviate.
DoD has to express its needs in terms capability requirements -it is not allowed to say I want brand X, Y, or Z.
I've written more than a month's worth of posts this morning, so I'll sign off. However, if you re-read my history, you'll see some of the technical/physical reasons I belive SANS2 will have to overcome to be competitive at less that Stratospheric altitudes. But I hope I'm wrong!
Yes, they may appear dissimilar in a side by side capability review. Two key points I would like to make:
1. Sans II is not there yet. The capability they are touting remains notional.
2. We shouldn't underestimate the ability of current airship vendors to innovate in expectation of a Gov't contract - and we can't expect them to announce their progress to that end.
For the record, I am a long and want Sanswire to win, BIG. I invested in GTEM because of the Strat/Hotzone commercial opportunity. I know better than to count on the military to make the airship business profitable. I realize both are risky, and I'll take a win in either case. As I've said before, I'm not trying to dash anyoone's hopes, I'm merely relating the landscape as I see it.
100% accurate. Thanks Vern.
Affordability is huge when you're the bill payer, and encompasses not only the widget you're buying but the caring and feeding it will require over 20+ years.
If two alternative designs provide essentially the same capability, the one with lower overall life cycle cost will usually win.
I would be grateful if you would send or point me to pertinent reference material.
My gosh. Now I know how Risk and Sam feel!
The design that is chosen depends on the purpose. Generally speaking, a blimp (yes, that means non-rigid) is cheaper to manufacture.
I agree with Vern, that a rigid design made sense for the Stratospheric application. For lower altitudes, however, other designs may be more affordable to manufacture and support.
You guys go ahead and believe what you want.
Sky out.
You guys are cracking me up!
For the benefit of all readers:
To be classified an airship or dirigible, the lighter than air craft must be controllabe. Throughout history, that has required propulsion and steering mechanisms (fins and/or vectored thrust).
Airships fall into 3 broad categories, rigid, semi-rigid, and non-rigid.
The most recognizable form of rigid is the classic Zeppelin.
The most recognizable form of non-rigid is the classic Goodyear blimp.
A tethered aerostat usually has a tear-drop shape (like a blimp) to reduce tether-slant.
I believe S2 is something if a semi-rigid, but I haven't seen the engineering drawings to be sure -- has anyone else?. Note: I never said S2 was a blimp - I was saying that blimps can/will compete with S2.
Main Entry: air·ship
Function: noun
Date: 1819
: a lighter-than-air aircraft having propulsion and steering systems
Main Entry: dirigible
Function: noun
Etymology: dirigible (balloon)
Date: 1885
: airship
Main Entry: dirigible
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin dirigere
Date: 1581
: capable of being steered
Main Entry: zeppelin
Function: noun
Etymology: Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin
Date: 1900
: a rigid airship consisting of a cylindrical trussed and covered frame supported by internal gas cells; broadly : airship
Main Entry: blimp
Function: noun
Etymology: imitative; perhaps from the sound made by striking the gas bag with the thumb
Date: 1916
1: an airship that maintains its form by pressure from contained gas
aerostat
Main Entry: aerostat
Function: noun
Etymology: French aérostat, from aér- + -stat
Date: 1784
: a lighter-than-air aircraft (as a balloon or blimp) — compare aerodyne
I've been managing airship programs for the military.
I'm done with you today. Do your research.
OK - educate me - what is the difference?
A blimp is an airship.
So what are you trying to say? That they need greater altitude than the altitudes you see blimps ordinarily operating?
Advertising blimps are optimized for lower altitiudes (5k and below), and can be optimized for higer altitudes as well (15-20k). I'll bet money that a number of companies can beat S2 hands down in cost, perfomance, reliability. I'm not championing company X, Y or Z, I'm just saying that from what I know of the industry, we're getting set up for failure -- which is why I've said all along that Sanswire should stick to strat development as part of the overall Globetel vision. Strat development = Risky? Yes... Competing for mid altitude with established companies = arguably more risky.
I for one will be very surprised if the military latches onto SANSII because, IMO, Sanswire is WAY behind the commercial blimp industry when it comes to conventional LTA platform capability.
An example of a very capable platform already designed to be containerized and inflated in the field:
http://www.americanblimp.com/findex.htm
That said, it is manned. The military could convert it to unmanned operation with a modest investment. Keep in mind, this is a robust ship with significant payload capability. This company (and others) offer smaller ships as well.
It's obvious to me that Sanswire cannot finance the R&D necessary for strat capability, and are desperately searching for a method to recoupe sunk cost in S2.
My opinion, Sanswire whould partner with someone who really knows the industry or get out of the airship business entirely.
Risk - please give me a vector to the company(ies) you're referring to. I would like to review their technical approach and proposed timelines. Thanks in advance.
"what will be carrying the Hotzone system for the trial?"
How about the Navy airship? Yes, there is one - presently located in Lakehurst.
"It did not state anything other than something we already knew was supposed to happen."
OK. As we all know from the old regime that there were a lot of things "supposed" to happen, yet we never received status.
"It did not produce revenue..." What, the PR? Isn't that supposedly what's got the company in hot water in the first place?
I for one think this is a nice change...regardless of PPS.
So let me get this straight...are you saying that the delivery should not have been announced?
As a shareholder, I appreciated the PR for what is was, an update.
Concur. Business must continue.
Wouldn't you agree that we've gotta start somewhere?
CNN Satellite Internet Article
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/05/09/rural.internet.service.ap/index.html
I have not read the full transcript, so the excerpt doesn't provide needed context. I'm confused between "the money" and "the $300 million letter of credit."
What was it - cash or a credit promise the Russians were trying to negotiate with?
Also - did Huff have teh authority to act alone - or did the BOD tell him to back away from the table?
I've met many Russians in my travels - my impressions are similar to Vern's (especially after I caught one of their naval officers steal our stainless steel dinnerware believing it to be silver!)
Don't waste too much of your time on my account - it's history.