Balloons in T2k

[Raellus]

As with most things military-related, the recent hoopla surrounding the Chinese spy balloon shot down just off the Carolina coast got me trying to make connections with T2k.

First off, high altitude spy balloons were a part of of the Cold War cat-and-mouse game between the USA and USSR. And nuclear-Armageddon preoccupied pop culture. What 1980s kid can forget this little bi-lingual pop nugget?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpu5a0Bl8eY

Apparently, US spy balloons were such a concern that the Soviets designed and built balloon killer planes.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/the-soviets-built-bespoke-balloon-killer-planes-during-the-cold-war

High altitude spy balloons most likely wouldn't be a feature of the later years of the Twilight War. Even if one or two were still floating around in the upper atmosphere, would data they collect be accessible to the owner-operators on the ground? But, militarized hot air balloons could be.

Hot air balloons were used during the American Civil War as primitive aerial reconnaissance platforms and for artillery spotting. Helium-filled observation balloons were also used during WWI.

Would HAB's make a come back late in the Twilight War? I think yes. The technology really isn't that complicated. Also, optical enhancement devices have improved by leaps and bounds, meaning that HAB's could observe enemy positions from beyond effective small arms range (most if not all MANPADs would have been expended by 2000).

Imagine a militarized balloon c.2000. The balloon itself could be a repurposed civilian model (I'm not sure what a bespoke balloon would be made of c.2000- parachute silk, perhaps?). The basket would be very lightly armored (Kevlar would be good for that). A field telephone wire would run down the tether rope to a relay team on the ground, who could pass intel to HQ. The crew would be equipped with parachutes, in case the OPFOR managed to get close enough to shoot the balloon down.

Have any of you ever used or encountered HAB's in your T2k campaigns? Developed rules for HAB's? Are there any mentions of HAB's in canon*, or articles about them in Challenge Magazine.

*The closest thing that I'm aware of are the blimps in Air Lords of the Ozarks, but that's not the same thing.

-

[Bulldog1972]

Never thought of it, but could be an interesting "What the hell is that?" twist.

Approach a village that's a bit standoffish with a sniper/FO up there ready to direct mortar fire....

Or even a compound with a field hospital that's on the lookout for refugees.

Marauders/slavers using a balloon for recon.

All sorts of uses, both malevolent or benevolent.

And all it might take is some nylon (Should work, right?) and a heat source.

[Vespers War]

Helium-filled observation balloons were also used during WWI.
-

Hydrogen-filled. In 1917, helium sold for $2,500 per cubic foot, and filling a small blimp would have cost $1,000,000 in 1917 dollars (a little over $25,000,000 today). The first flight of a helium airship was in December 1921, when the Navy blimp C-7 flew from Norfolk. The first helium dirigible was 1923's Shenandoah.

For hot air balloons, the most common fuel currently is propane. Typical fuel on board a "sport" balloon is 75 to 170 liters, and fuel consumption for a 4-hour period is roughly 450 liters. This is for an average-sized balloon of modern construction (so something like polyurethane sealed nylon for most of the envelope and Nomex for the section closest to the burner). Heavier or more permeable materials will need more fuel, as will sustained high-altitude (~10,000 foot) flight as opposed to the 2,000 or 3,000 foot flight of "entertainment" HABs.

I am curious how much a Kevlar basket would weigh, since they're typically wicker to reduce weight and remain flexible enough to land safely. A 5-person Sport basket from Cameron Balloons weighs 140 pounds empty while an 8-person Aristocrat basket is 210 pounds.

Replacing passengers with fuel tanks could extend flight. Using Cameron's tank information, steel tanks are 37.2 kilograms for 41.6 liters, 49.9 kilos for 56.8 liters, or 61.2 kilos for 72.3 liters. Aluminum tanks are 32.7 kilograms for 37.7 liters, and titanium tanks are 41.3 kilos for 56.8 liters or 55.8 kilos for 75.7 liters.

And while observation might be possible outside of small arms range, a balloon would still be vulnerable, either to small cannon (25-30mm) or ultralights or sport planes equipped with improvised weaponry. Shooting from an ultralight would be difficult, but something like Ranken Darts (a 1-pound black powder and phosphorous bomb with spring-loaded arms to snag Zeppelin fabric) would be rather unpleasant.

[Homer]

There were already tethered Aerostat air search radars operating in the late 80s, out of Fort Huachuca among other places. The PTDS system used existing technology from the aerostat program plus existing EO and other sensors.

I wonder if something similar might have been devised in T2K for fixed site security and slowly make its way forward as other assets become inoperable?

[Desert Mariner]

I am curious how much a Kevlar basket would weigh, since they're typically wicker to reduce weight and remain flexible enough to land safely. A 5-person Sport basket from Cameron Balloons weighs 140 pounds empty while an 8-person Aristocrat basket is 210 pounds.

Replacing passengers with fuel tanks could extend flight. Using Cameron's tank information, steel tanks are 37.2 kilograms for 41.6 liters, 49.9 kilos for 56.8 liters, or 61.2 kilos for 72.3 liters. Aluminum tanks are 32.7 kilograms for 37.7 liters, and titanium tanks are 41.3 kilos for 56.8 liters or 55.8 kilos for 75.7 liters.


You could also replace the wicker basket with a Chariot seat. Basically, a 2-person bench seat (Cameron Duo Airchair) with a fuel tank on either end. This wouldn’t provide any protection to the occupant(s) but does save weight and I suppose the seat itself could be covered in Kevlar. Balloon components shown are from Cameron’s UK site (they had everything listed in kg).

Note: Cameron's UK site lists the 5-person Sport basket at 78kg (172 lb) which differs from what you found. The largest Aristocrat shown on the UK site only holds 5; in order to get to 8-person capacity, you’d have to move up to the Single ‘T’ Partition-Solid Floor, which weighs 210kg or the ‘TT’ Partition-Woven Floor which weighs 240kg, both carry 8 plus the pilot.

Alternative transport could be a set of two (2) motorcycles or mountain bicycles with trailers.

Bicycle 1 Qty Weight(kg) Gross
Mountain Bike 1 13 13
Trailer 1 12 12
Basket - Cameron Duo Airchair 1 38 38
Burner - Mini Double Neo 1 18 18
Envelope - O-42 (42k) 1 60 60
Fuel Tank - Stainless (72L) Master 1 63 63
Fuel Tank - Stainless (72L) Slave 1 62 62
Sledgehammer 1 4.5 4.5
Total 245.5kg


Bicycle 2 Qty Weight(kg) Gross
Mountain Bike 1 13 13
Trailer 1 12 12
Tether Rope 14mm 500m 0.080/m 40
WD-1 Commo Wire 600m 0.014/m 8.4
Hand Crank Capstan Winch 1 50 50
Tie-down Rods (2.4m x 3.1cm D) 6 23 138
Tie-down Rope 12mm 100m 0.065/m 6.5
Sledgehammer 1 4.5 4.5
Total 247.4kg

Another basket alternative is a ‘cloudhopper’, basically a bosuns chair (modern rigs use a paragliding harness) attached to the balloon with the fuel tank strapped to the back.

And I don't have any weight figures handy for field telephones but you'd need two (2). Tie-downs are only needed for captive (tethered) use.

[chico20854]

There were already tethered Aerostat air search radars operating in the late 80s, out of Fort Huachuca among other places. The PTDS system used existing technology from the aerostat program plus existing EO and other sensors.

There were also ship-mounted tethered radar aerostats deployed in the Caribbean in the 80s for anti-drug duties. I figure they could have been used on convoy escort duties to the extent that they could keep up with the convoys (the host vessels were former offshore oilfield support vessels that came into US government possession after defaulting on their federal loans).

A photo is here. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l0te2Bcf8PPEIW6sL-7e1nb1yNpQGu7W/view?usp=share_link)

[Raellus]

Apparently, the Soviet Union developed combat balloons during the early years of the Cold War. I was aware of Imperial Japan's largely unsuccessful attempts to attack the USA with free-floating incendiary device-armed balloons during WW2, and assumed that no other country ever tried to repeat the failed experiment but it turns out I was wrong.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russia-also-has-a-fleet-of-spy-balloons

The article includes photos of a helium generating trucks for filling free balloons. Such a vehicle could make for an unusual T2k encounter.

-

[kato13]

helium generating trucks-


Hydrogen generating, from the article. Only fission (including spontaneous), fusion or the "Big Bang" can generate helium. :)

[Raellus]

Hydrogen generating, from the article. Only fission (including spontaneous), fusion or the "Big Bang" can generate helium. :)

:o

-

[Homer]

One factoid about JLENS, PTDSS, and other US (and probably foreign) modern tethered aerostats is they are pressurized to the ambient pressure at their operating altitude. This makes them less vulnerable to battle damage (SAF, frag, etc) by minimizing loss of buoyancy. It also means their ground sites are normally collocated with a Field Artillery Met section or USAF Combat Weather.

[bobcat]

i could also see barrage balloons being brought back since they do work against low altitude aircraft/helicopters. especially anti-aircraft munitions start to dry up. it's easier to make a bunch of steel cable and mylar ballons than a surface to air missile.

[Homer]

i could also see barrage balloons being brought back since they do work against low altitude aircraft/helicopters.

And they can also be used as obstacles by shaping air avenues of approach to either deny routes or altitude bands turning aircraft into preplanned air defense engagement areas where massed AAA or older generation SAMs can be more effective.

[Raellus]

And they can also be used as obstacles by shaping air avenues of approach to either deny routes or altitude bands turning aircraft into preplanned air defense engagement areas where massed AAA or older generation SAMs can be more effective.

That's a really interesting point- one that I'd never considered. Barrage balloons always seemed so quaint and not particularly useful. I'd come to think of them as akin to today's "Cope Cages"- more something to make one feel safer from air attacks rather than actually protecting against them. However, now that you mention it, I'm quite surprised barrage balloons didn't have a resurgence during the Cold War.

Given that most NATO tactical strike aircraft of the late Cold War (namely the Tornado IDS, F-111 Aardvark, and F-15E Strike Eagle) were optimized for low level attacks, barrage balloons could actually be useful when employed in the ways that you mentioned. In addition, I can't imagine that they'd be particularly expensive, especially compared to ground-based active air defense systems. Yeah, now I'm quite surprised the Soviets didn't field them. NATO, on the other hand, has always been too enamored with high tech to go for something so primitive.

-

[Desert Mariner]

I’ve been doing some spring cleaning in the attic and came across a box of gaming references that I’d forgotten about many moons ago (or maybe just mislaid them during our last move). Among them is a copy of an April 1988 Air University, Air Command & Staff College student report (#88-1225), titled “When The Balloon Goes Up: Barrage Balloons For Low-Level Air Defense” by USAF Maj Franklin J Hillson.

It makes for an interesting read on this subject.

I’m in the process of replacing my 12+ year-old PC and can’t access my scanner right now. Based on the markings on the report, you might be able to find it at DTIC. If no one can find it, I can scan and post once I get the new PC fully up and running.

[chico20854]

I’ve been doing some spring cleaning in the attic and came across a box of gaming references that I’d forgotten about many moons ago (or maybe just mislaid them during our last move). Among them is a copy of an April 1988 Air University, Air Command & Staff College student report (#88-1225), titled “When The Balloon Goes Up: Barrage Balloons For Low-Level Air Defense” by USAF Maj Franklin J Hillson.

It makes for an interesting read on this subject.

I’m in the process of replacing my 12+ year-old PC and can’t access my scanner right now. Based on the markings on the report, you might be able to find it at DTIC. If no one can find it, I can scan and post once I get the new PC fully up and running.

It's here (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA192618.pdf)!

[Desert Mariner]

It's here (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA192618.pdf)!

Bonus!! I'm operating on my phone and really don't like web surfing on it.

[Raellus]

I haven't read the report yet, but it occurred to me that barrage balloons might fudge with air defense radars so maybe that's why they fell out of favor?

-

[CraigD6er]

Many years ago, back in the mid-late eighties, there was a suggestion for a containerised defence system for airfields and other priority targets. Bear in mind that munitions weren’t as smart as now and you still expected the enemy to overfly, or at least get very close, to launch an attack. The idea, as far as I can recall, was a number of containers scattered around the likely approaches and linked into a control centre. Being little more than shipping containers they could be moved around to prevent their coverage being plotted and thus avoided. When 1 or more containers were activated, they would launch flares, smoke cannisters and radar reflective balloons to decoy munitions and obstruct visual sighting. I presume that the balloons could also have acted as mini barrage balloons as well if they were tethered.
I'd guess that the smoke and flare launchers were little more than the same types of launchers fitted to AFV's, and the balloons were perhaps pre-inflated and ready to be released so that they would be in the air immediately.