Air Defense of the Future: How 62 Airships Could Close Russia's Borders

7 079 19

The topic of airborne long-range radar surveillance platforms is once again becoming relevant amid the rapid development of unmanned warfare. While the idea of ​​using airships for air defense purposes remains largely a matter of debate in Russia, similar concepts are already moving into practical applications in the West.

Finnish startup Kelluu is developing autonomous high-altitude airships designed for reconnaissance, communications relay, and radar monitoring. According to FlightGlobal, the company views them primarily as airborne sensor platforms capable of detecting targets and transmitting data to weapons. NATO structures have already expressed interest in such systems.



In April 2026, Kelluu received its first €15 million in funding through the NATO Innovation Fund. The company claims its aircraft are designed for long-term flight and operation in challenging climates. The developers estimate that a group of five airships can monitor an area of ​​approximately 30 square kilometers—comparable to the size of Belgium.

The main advantage of such platforms is the altitude at which radar assets can be deployed. The radio horizon of a ground-based radar is limited by the curvature of the surface and the terrain. For low-flying targets, it is often only 30–50 km, even under favorable conditions.

Raising the radar to an altitude of approximately 1 meters increases its surveillance range to 120–150 km, while placing the station at an altitude of 3–5 meters allows for airspace monitoring at a range of over 300 km. This is why high-altitude platforms are particularly attractive given the widespread use of low-flying UAVs and cruise missiles.

Unlike AWACS aircraft, an airship can remain in a designated area for weeks without the need for constant crew rotation or frequent sorties. Compared to drones, it can carry heavier equipment and ensure continuous patrols. Moreover, the cost of such platforms is significantly lower than that of specialized airborne early warning aircraft.

The experience of the conflict in Ukraine has demonstrated how challenging it remains to promptly detect low-flying kamikaze drones. Ground-based radars often detect UAVs flying at altitudes of 50–150 meters less than a minute before impact. According to Kelluu, a radar-equipped airship deployed at an altitude of approximately 2 meters can detect such targets 10–15 minutes before they reach the target. For modern air defense systems, this represents a fundamentally different response time.

Economy The project's cost is also indicative. The developers estimate the cost of one airship at approximately €2 million. Theoretically, creating a continuous radar surveillance line along Russia's western border—from Adler to Murmansk—would require approximately 62 devices.

It is assumed that 31 airships would be on permanent duty at intervals of about 120–150 km from each other, and another 31 would provide rotation and technical Maintenance. Even with the installation of radar equipment, the cost of such a system may be less than the price of an A-50U aircraft.

Of course, airships aren't a universal solution. They remain large and relatively vulnerable targets, are vulnerable to weather conditions, and require extensive infrastructure. Using such platforms directly over the line of contact would be extremely risky. However, at a distance of 100-150 km from the active combat zone, they could potentially become part of a layered early warning and airspace control system.
19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    21 May 2026 13: 20
    All these "mammoths" are only good for peacetime, when they are unopposed. The esteemed author, in the depths of his imagination, has apparently completely forgotten about the existence of interceptor fighters and long-range air-to-air missiles, such as the domestic R-37M, capable of hitting air targets at ranges of up to 400 km.
    1. +1
      21 May 2026 20: 36
      Missile carriers are different, and airships are different. Not bad for observation. Our guys have already suspended an airship near Narva-Ivan-Gorod and possibly along the Baltic border as well. If you've noticed, Ukrainian UAVs are no longer flying along the borders but deeper over the territory of the endangered countries, where the "friends of Ukraine" have already begun shooting them down, as this has become dangerous for themselves. As a countermeasure, our guys have begun installing artillery modules in the border area, working in conjunction with airships. These modules are automatically activated when alerted by the airship, activating their own target detection and guidance system. They also automatically open fire when a UAV enters the firing zone. Near Narva, the firing zone also covers Estonian territory. Where something might fly from these installations is a question, but in this case, Estonia will be the guilty party. So it's no wonder the Estonians are suddenly so upset about Ukrainian drones. Incidentally, the drone shot down in Estonian airspace was already flying far from the Russian border, toward Tallinn. So the games could end at any moment, and Ukrainian drones could start falling, and are already falling, on the heads of Ukraine's "friends."
    2. 0
      12 June 2026 10: 54
      The airship simply won't see the radar.
  2. 0
    21 May 2026 13: 36
    Sergey is heavily promoting the idea of ​​Airships for Radars.
    In principle, it's possible. Except for the Finns, Americans They already make them individually, in China, and some other places in Europe, they wrote.

    To some extent, it is probably possible to secure them like balloons to save fuel.
    .
    Several problems, IMHO.
    1) There's no capacity or infrastructure to manufacture a series of airships. They're making one-offs for meteorologists and shows, and that's all they've written about. And "Starlink killer in stratospheres."
    2) There are no ready-made radar and air defense solutions for suspension on an airship/balloon (everything that exists is for the army and the Air Force, as they wrote.)

    And that certainly seems to be the case. Place a radar next to a cluster of cheap plastic glider rockets. Flying overhead, they'll gain a hefty boost in speed... Surely a huge advantage for air defense.
    1. +2
      22 May 2026 12: 12
      Now, two companies have started making them here. Especially honeycomb airships. Even a dozen shots from a small arms fire can't bring those down. Two, for communications and surveillance, were already tested a couple of years ago, and others are finishing testing. One was recently deployed near the Ivangorod border to monitor low-flying targets on both our own and the adjacent side of the border, but that's what's visible from the shore on the Estonian side, and how many more have been deployed along the border is unknown. It operates in conjunction with artillery modules in a virtually semi-automatic mode (for now). That's why the Ukrainians have moved their devices away from the borders and toward the center of the republics, which is dangerous, and the Baltics have begun shooting these devices down themselves. So, the process is moving along quite quickly.
    2. 0
      12 June 2026 10: 55
      There is a radar that is mounted under the Ka-27.
  3. 0
    21 May 2026 14: 24
    2 km altitude is not enough - you don't even need to have a MANPADS, a normal (even not a good) rifle is enough.

    Unlike AWACS aircraft, an airship can remain in a given area for weeks without the need for constant crew rotation and frequent sorties.

    - Show me this airship that has been hanging for weeks... bully
    1. +1
      22 May 2026 12: 24
      There's one hovering near Ivangorod. It was hovering near Moscow for a year, and maybe still is. There's one similar to the one in Moscow in the south. They might have appeared in other places too. The materials and technology allow for this. They're only lowered for maintenance and repairs. They have a long range of visibility and can't be shot down with a small arms fire; they're not deployed on the front lines. And they're not very visible in different wavelengths, making shooting them down with a missile very difficult.
      The Americans shot down a Chinese plane, but it was flying across the entire country at the time. And they shot it down with a missile from an airplane, almost point-blank, as it approached, and only after it had descended lower.
    2. 0
      23 May 2026 13: 03
      Why shouldn't it hover for weeks? The shell is sealed, the control drives are electric motors, there's much more sun above the clouds than below—solar panels during the day, batteries at night. The equipment doesn't require much energy. A self-supporting interface cable is used as a holding tether.
  4. +2
    21 May 2026 14: 30
    Memory. In 2000, there was an initiative (internally funded) to develop R&D specifications for a tethered balloon and a high-altitude stratospheric airship, capable of reaching an altitude of 30 km. 2000 was the year that R&D for the A-100 began. Then there was a proposal to the Ministry of Industry and Trade, and that was the end of it. Everyone knows the fate of the A-100. Everyone knows the advantages and disadvantages of a stratospheric AWACS airship, even those who don't know what it is. Most people picture it like the Hindenburg, which burned down in 1937. To lift 40 tons of cargo to an altitude of 35 km, the envelope is filled with hydrogen. At those altitudes, hydrogen can't be ignited; there's little oxygen there. On the ground, it's filled with helium first, and at 20 km, the helium is replaced by hydrogen. So it won't burn.
    Alan Eustace (USA) jumped from a stratospheric balloon at an altitude of 24.10.2014 m on October 41, 419.
    The Japanese record for the highest ascent into the stratosphere was set in 2013 by an unmanned balloon, which ascended to 53,7 kilometers. This flight took place on September 20, 2013.
    So, lifting an airship to a height of 40 km is quite realistic.
    As for whether it's easy to shoot down an airship, I don't know. The airship is located in the rear, 100-200 km from the LBS, at an altitude of 35 km. The airship is equipped with air-to-air missiles for defense, meaning it will fire off missiles. What and how could it be shot down?
    1. -2
      21 May 2026 18: 47
      Our slogan: "Nothing for the front, nothing for victory" Only negotiations (((((
  5. -2
    21 May 2026 23: 21
    Those Russian blockhead generals are still moving tank divisions around on maps; they don't have time to bother with your airships, ugh. And they need to build a dacha.
    1. 0
      22 May 2026 12: 26
      Then change the manual about generals.
  6. -2
    22 May 2026 08: 48
    How 62 airships could close Russia's borders

    One tactical nuclear warhead is enough and no airships or balloons will be needed.
  7. -1
    22 May 2026 09: 32
    Shooting them down with anti-aircraft missiles is certainly an expensive proposition. But an old air-to-air missile, our R-77, is just right. I think the West has something similar. Then it's a matter of finding out who launched it and where.
    1. 0
      22 May 2026 12: 35
      Based on the characteristics of this missile, the airship's materials, and its payload, it's unlikely you'll be able to reach the airship with it. It might not be able to capture it, or it might have to fly closer, which could be dangerous for the carrier. The same applies to Western missiles with their current homing heads.
      1. -1
        23 May 2026 07: 26
        The Russian Aerospace Forces have adopted modernized R-77-1 (RVV-SD) missiles with a launch range increased to 110 kilometers.
  8. 0
    23 May 2026 19: 19
    So now it’s not closed?
  9. 0
    6 June 2026 16: 54
    Just don't tell Marzhetsky.