USA Army Airship for Afghanistan ISR

[ORAC]

FlightGlobal/Flight International: US Army revives hybrid airship interest with LEMV (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/30/336682/us-army-revives-hybrid-airship-interest-with-lemv.html)

Reviving interest in untethered lighter-than-air technology after a half-century hiatus, the US Army in January will kick-off a process to buy a long-endurance hybrid airship to deploy within 18 months to Afghanistan for surveillance missions.

Space and Missile Defense Command will issue a request for proposals for the long-endurance multi-intelligence vehicle (LEMV) contract on 29 January, the agency says.

An acquisition notice posted on 29 December describes the command's requirements for the airship. LEMV will be optionally manned, fly for up to three weeks, carry multiple intelligence payloads weighing up to 1,134kg (2,500lb), provide 16kW power and reach speeds up to 80kt (148km/h).

The army will test the airship's performance during the first 18 months, then deploy the airship into combat service in Afghanistan for the next 3.5 years, says the notice.

The LEMV programme has received interest at high levels of the Department of Defense and the US defence industry.

The National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) has formed a consortium to support the LEMV project. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works division has demonstrated a prototype hybrid airship called the P791. Another company, Hybrid Air Vehicles, plans to adapt its Skycat hybrid airship for military use.

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=31076

LEMV also figures prominently in the army's new strategy for a multi-layered fleet of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft. As a medium-altitude asset with ultra-long-endurance, the airship is expected to complement unmanned aerial vehicles and manned turboprops performing similar missions.

According to budget justification documents released in May, the army plans to spend up to $76 million on the LEMV acquisition process in Fiscal 2010.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Does anyone remember when the AAC tried using an airship over Ulster, sometime late 90s/early 00s? (Can't remember exact year, getting on a bit you know....)

[andyy]

Can't help with that but the FAA trialled an Airship 500 extesively in the Offshore Patrol role in the 1980s. A much larger version was proposed, the Airship 5000, with several day endurance and ASW sensor outfit.

[ab33t]

Amazing how things have gone a fullcircle and returned to airships, this was the first proposed airwar machine, balloons and blimps

[chevvron]

I remember the AAC had one at Boscombe Down for evaluation; they managed to puncture it quite badly!!

[SASless]

Lessee here....AC-130's can only operate in the night as they are too vulnerable in the daytime. So we are going to put up an airship of immense size for multi-day long missions.....hummmmmmmmm?

Just call me Doubting Thomas on this one!

[chopper2004]

Sounds like a lot of hot air :ok:

Looks like a good idea but wouldn't it be vulnerable to MANPADS?

If the competition goes ahead then looks like Cardington shall be busy :ok:

[dead_pan]

Various LTA vehicles have/are being proposed as high flying relays to supplement cell + sat telecomms e.g. Lindstrand's HALE airship.

I reckon this vessel would fly at sufficiently high altiutude to be safe from MANPADs - that said it would be pretty vulnerable when taking off & landing.

[L J R]

and reach speeds up to 80kt


....and the prevailing wind at (say) 20,000 over the Stan is.....?

[RotaryWingB2]

Does anyone remember when the AAC tried using an airship over Ulster, sometime late 90s/early 00s? (Can't remember exact year, getting on a bit you know....)

Yes, and if I recall correctly, it used so much fuel just to stay in one place it was deemed as non-viable.

[Sentry Agitator]

My 'bandar' essay considered this option as more cost effective than a low orbit radar/imint/elint equipped sat solution. I tied the main aspects of ISR into a single airship platform (akin to the E-10 concept) with remote datalink & comms connectivity to allow for unmanned operations and to promote a degree of persistence. There are obvious performance limitations to overcome but unmanned and pushed up high enough to avoid any gnd based threat has some merit IMHO.

That said though, I didn't win! So I was obviously talking complete 'horlix'

SA

[Lima Juliet]

Take a look at this...

http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/maps/2010010412.500oa.africa.gif

75kts at FL240 over Afghanistan today - they'll be able to make a massive 5kts of headway into wind! Also, if you've seen the hangars in Cardington then you'll have some pretty big real-estate to build in Bastion or KAF (a great IDF target!). Finally, the top speed of 80kts is not sustainable for the 3week flights.

I THINK THIS IS A TRULY DUMB IDEA

I understand that the British Army are also asking for the same thing! :ugh:

LJ

[The Helpful Stacker]

Yes, and if I recall correctly, it used so much fuel just to stay in one place it was deemed as non-viable.

Thats the picture we got from chatting to the guys operating it from Ballykelly when it returned very late one night, apparently quite literally running on fumes.

:ugh:

[Buster Hyman]

US Army has just released images of the pilot...

http://www.foxnews.com/images/578456/1_64_balloon_320.jpg

[Two's in]

Sounds like a great idea but;

1. Takes a whole bunch of groundcrew to get it on/off the mooring mast or ground handle it in any way.

2. It doesn't often travel faster than the prevailing weather.

3. When moored it needs a constant pressure watch and ballonet balancing to stop it becoming erect or flaccid as ambient pressure changes.

4. Max wind speed limits are limiting, especially when Point 2 applies.

5. Loading/Unloading payloads requires water ballast or helium gas transfer, so FBO infrastructure is not trivial or small.

Maybe nothing there insurmountable, but not easy over the 'stan or anywhere else remote and sandy.

PS. Think the UK Army learned all this in the early nineties, and yes they did stick theirs onto the mast at Boscombe during the trial.

[West Coast]

to stop it becoming erect or flaccid

Know where this thread is heading.

[BEagle]

Every so often someonw comes up with this great idea to use blimps for some purpose - and somehow persuades the military to try their idea....:hmm:

But early Zeppelins (no, I don't remember them :p ) flew fairly low, to avoid high winds at altitude.

Tethered aerostats carrying radar seem to be successful in the war against drug smuggling, but attempting to fly an airship at the high altitudes required in Afghanistan seems doomed to failure.

Is that 80KIAS - or 80KTAS? Does the US Army understand the difference, particularly where altitude is significant?

[t43562]

1. Takes a whole bunch of groundcrew to get it on/off the mooring mast or ground handle it in any way.
The Skycat designs for blimps were heavier than air (bodies were shaped as wings) and used a kind of suction skirt (opposite of a hovercraft) to suck themselves onto the ground. The idea was that they didn't need lots of people.

[higthepig]

LEMV will be optionally manned, fly for up to three weeks

The thing would never get off the ground with 3 weeks worth of rations, especially those fantastic 'London Crisps', where would you store all the white boxes?

[L J R]

Why not 10000 agl?

...maybe because ISR is generally done 'on the quiet....' :ok:

[trap one]

Also 10,000 AGL in quite a few parts of the Northern Stan is above FL240. And is close to it in the rest of the country. Add in the better performance with the colder/thiner air and MANPADs envelope will expand.

[Tourist]

"...maybe because ISR is generally done 'on the quiet...."

because luckily ginormous airships miraculously become invisible above FL240.:hmm:

"Also 10,000 AGL in quite a few parts of the Northern Stan is above FL240. And is close to it in the rest of the country"

Bollocks

[SASless]

The whole thing stinks....the Greeners and Radicals would be up in the rafters screaming about biological warfare!:uhoh:

Three weeks of poop and pee has to go somewhere as they certainly could not keep it onboard for the duration.:=

On second thought.....fill it up with very senior commanders....that way they could see war at second hand and crap on the troops from a really great height!:oh:

[The B Word]

Tourist

I suggest you read this:

The Hindu Kush reaches a height of 7,492 m (24,580 ft) at Noshaq, Afghanistan's highest peak. Of the ranges extending southwestward from the Hindu Kush, the Foladi peak (Shah Fuladi) of the Baba mountain range (Koh-i-Baba) reaches the greatest height: 5,142 m (16,870 ft). The Safed Koh range, which includes the Tora Bora area, dominates the border area southeast of Kabul. Important passes include the Una i Pass across the Sanglakh Range, and the Salang Pass, connecting Kabul with central and northern Afghanistan, respectively.

Furthermore, read this from a post on Boxing Day 2009:

The tired old carousel of Lighter-than-air (LTA) continues to revolve, on average once every twenty years or so. Is that an Aereon or a Megalifter? In a poor light a Skyship looks much like a Dynairship. Whatever virtues LTA once possessed have now been overtaken by the enrmous reduction in payload size and power consumption and the ready availability of uav's of all sizes, from Globalstar downwards, with which to deploy them. Time on station has been a red herring for years, the area to focus on being "on station" LTA has never been any good at this, a twenty knot headwind reduces your speed of advance by 40%, and is likely to result, if prolonged for anytime, in the vehicle being as likely to be found in Alabama as Afghanistan. In the trophosphere the situation gets worse! The main attraction of LTA lies in the fact that those seeking investment in such crackpot schemes know that investors have no reliable database of what the build or r&d costs for such turkeys ought to be, it's rich picking time for the snake oil salesmen when an air ship project hits town. Luckily, the tired old carousel at DARPA and similar institutions revolves at about the same speed, whenever anybody at such government offices wants a little extra cash for themselves, why not flag up a new "Walrus" or "Skycat"? It like goldfish, a short attention span means you can re-introduce the same nonsense time and again and wait hopefully for the cheques to drop through the letterbox! It is just possible that a conventional blimp of about 100 metres, approximately similar to a "K" class but with advanced glass cockpit and lightweight diesels, could make headway in the coastal surveillance/anti piracy field, but its a small r&d task, no money in it for the speculators you see. I know what I am talking about, invest at your peril! John Wood (Ex Chief Exec and co-founder of Airship Industries)

So if you want to support this so-called "Snake Oil" capability then please go ahead - just make sure that it is the British Army that waste their budget on it and not the RAF.

Finally, who would want to join the "Women's Auxilliary Balloon Corps" anyway? ... Hang on? You might have a point... :ok:

The B Word

[Tourist]

I am all too painfully aware of the terrain levels in Afghanistan. Throughout almost the entire area of British interest, ground level is between 3000-4000 amsl, giving a very pleasant 13000ft viewing platform with a 10000ft buffer from AAA. It should be easy to make the heat signature negligible, thus negating manpads.
You could sit stationary over the centre of Kabul (6000amsl ish) and be in no threat from the surrounding high ground.

"Whatever virtues LTA once possessed have now been overtaken by the enrmous reduction in payload size and power consumption and the ready availability of uav's of all sizes, from Globalstar downwards, with which to deploy them"


Totally specious argument. You can never carry enough wiggly-amps kit, and kit always expands to fill both the weight and power consumption available.
Even if it were true, then it would mean that you just need a smaller airship.

The big advantage you are missing is the ability to sit in exactly the optimum spot for your task.
All the orbiting UAVs etc are only occasionally exactly where the operator would actually like to be. A lot of the time they are blanked by trees, buildings etc.
I do not suggest they are the answer to all problems, but they certainly have advantages in certain scenarios

[The B Word]

Mate, you've missed the bit saying...

Time on station has been a red herring for years, the area to focus on being "on station" LTA has never been any good at this, a twenty knot headwind reduces your speed of advance by 40%, and is likely to result, if prolonged for anytime, in the vehicle being as likely to be found in Alabama as Afghanistan. In the trophosphere the situation gets worse!

The problem is that airships are "draggy" which means they need lots of "oomph" to move them about - especially at speed. Lots of "oomph" equals lots of fuel and then also the cross-section of the airship means that it is more affected by winds than conventional aircraft. This all adds up, IMHO, that airships may have "the ability to sit in exactly the optimum spot for your task", but only in uber-light winds or still-air.

Finally, the author of the article tried his product doing exactly this - using his airships as "on station assets" for prolonged periods. He couldn't manage the claims that the program initially promised - hence his somewhat negative outlook for airships in this role. In fact, it was trying to achieve this goal that bankrupted his company as they couldn't get it to work.

[The B Word]

Here is some more info:

THE BATTLE TO BUILD THE NAVY'S BLIMP - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/22/business/the-battle-to-build-the-navy-s-blimp.html?pagewanted=all)

This was the original article promising all.

Then here is an article describing the efforts in the late 80s:

Airshipsonline : Airships : SkyShip 5000 (http://www.airshipsonline.com/airships/Sentinel_5000/index.html)

Finally, here is a quote from another forum:

I can add some information...

The U.S. Navy had been interested in LTA technology since the early 1980s. This led to the Patrol Airship Concept Evaluation (PACE) ca. 1983, and some tests of a Skyship 500. In 1985, NAVAIR commissioned design studies for an AEW airship to work with surface action groups. Boeing, Goodyear, and a Westinghouse/Airship Industries team made proposals. These studies were for vehicles running ~3,000,000 cubic feet.

In 1986, the program was redirected toward an Operational Development Model - basically a proof-of-concept vehicle with an E-2 radar suite. Boeing dropped out, Goodyear bid a ZPG-3W with turboprop engines, WAI bid the Sentinel 5000. WAI won. A mockup of the gondola was built at the Weeksville, NC, hangar.

The USN pulled out in 1988, IIRC. Part of the A-12 eating all of Naval Aviation. But DARPA was interested in the airframe as a carrier for low-frequncy radars and pressed on with the program as funding permitted. Development went slowly, and the fire in the Weeksville hangar in 1994 (IIRC) pretty well killed the program off.

The performance numbers are off...the endurance was 60 hours, not 60 days. But it was planned to refuel at sea, making a 30-day patrol practical.

The politics of the program were very interesting. Within the Navy, the problem was that the YEZ-2 did not have a pointy nose or fire belching out the back. Not to mention that it was a direct challenge to the E-2, and a possible challenge to the P-3...and in the platform-centered communities of that era, this was politically very dangerous.

On top of that, WAI made some politically tone-deaf moves. Most of the subcontractors were in the UK...useful for the Airship Industries design team, bad for Congressional support. The Goodyear design might have been more successful, despite being technically outclassed, on that point alone.

The link is: Westinghouse Airship Industries SkyShip 5000 and Sentinel 5000 (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=7391.msg76200)

What comes out of it is 60 HOURS between refuels - that is 2.5 days not WEEKS!

The B Word

[aztruck]

Folks, I'm one of the shareholders, so you can call me nuts if you like but this is not a blimp, it is a heavier than air lifting body shape with VTOL auto take off and land capability. It requires minimal ground crew as its landing gear hover taxies and then uses its bow thruster to turn in its own length.
It does not need masts, ropes, 16 blokes dragging from pillar to post etc etc.
The 80 knot cruise will keep it stationary with a 75 knot wind(at fl240 mind you) and at 20,000 feet it is out of effective range unless you want to start talking radar.
The payload at 20k is 3.5 metric tons for a 3 and a half week sortie. Thats a lot of surveillance and whatever else you want to put on it.
The same chassis also works as an unmanned skytruck at lower altitudes, but this time the payload increases to 20 metric tonnes.
It is effectively a roll on roll off ferry that flies. it uses 80% less fuel than fixed wing yet offers equivalent transport flexibility to a helicopter at a fraction of the risk. You can fill it full of small arms fire holes and it flies just fine, and if it does get shot down, nobody dies. It is in many ways more surviveable than a helicopter.
The 20 tonne version is the initial prototype, but payloads up to 1000 tonnes are possible with 4 day endurance and transatlantic range, cruising at around 8000 feet.
The basic company website is Hybrid Air Vehicles ltd, and we are in direct competition with Lockheed Martin for the contract.
Boeing are trying to develop a similar vehicle.

[TheTiresome1]

It's all so good I'm amazed that Military haven't been screaming "We Want Some Laboons" since WW2.

I have a faint suspicion that the concept has been examined on a 3-year cycle since 1949, which is precisely why the Women's Balloon Corps was secretly disbanded in 1950.

Basic physics rules - and the laboon is the victim on several counts.

[The B Word]

Aztruck - top tip for you buddy, is don't start your posts with "I'm one of the shareholders". Don't you think you might be indicating a slight financial bias?? :ugh:

Had a look at the wind data for Afghanistan from one of my flight planning guides and it shows that the FL240 winds are less than 40kts for only 4 months a year - they are also averages, so there must be days at 75kts+ and days of 10kts or less.

Also had a look at this video from Lockheed Martin, who have built a full-sized air vehicle compared to the small scale model of Hybrid Air Vehicles:

YouTube - Lockheed-Martin "Skunk Works" P791 LTA ACLS dynmicpara (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3n5cUaG5fg&feature=fvw)

It looks pretty unsteady on its feet doesn't it? Also, because it is "heavier than air" (about 80% is lifted by gas and the rest by aerodynamic lift) take a look at the runway it needs. Also, without propulsion its going to crash like any other "heavier than air" aircraft!

Here is the UK's Hybrid Air Vehicle's website with a video of a model of what they might produce if they manage to get money out of the cash-strapped MoD:

Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd, SkyCat (http://www.hybridairvehicles.net/index.html)

When you take a look at the company's heritage, it has been trying to peddle the "snake oil" of airships for the past 35 years (Airship Industries via Westinghouse Airships Inc via Advanced Technology Group (ATG) to Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV)). I'm sorry to say, that I believe Mr John Wood; at least he had the sense to call it a day after so many companies have gone into recievership over this continuing debacle.

If you need persistence and want to buy British then let's fork out for satellites. Surrey Satellite Technology are building 14 GALILEO GPS space vehicles for £510M - that's about £36M a copy. Halve the order to cover the launch costs (about £10M per shot), infrastructure and operations and now you're talking!

If we're going to invest in this folly, then please make it another Army folly - just like the Phoenix UAV.

http://www.offthemarkcartoons.com/cartoons/1993-05-03.gif

[drustsonoferp]

Now that we are operating in areas where the roads are deadly, and the skies distinctly less so, with long and fragile supply routes, the airship could have a role to play.

Being able to move a significant cargo out of range of IED or SMARMS is a good start, though naturally t/o and landing are the times of risk. In comparison to the numbers of people with near misses and injuries in convoys on a daily basis it has a potential selling point. There is little public or political will to endure great numbers of casualties, and the airship offers a potential way to reduce casualty rates.

[aztruck]

yep, got it in one. The Lockheed ship alluded to with regard to stability problems...erm...far be it from me to say that they dont have it cracked, but a small portakabin in Cardington says that stability and control are well established in the UK vehicle.
Skykitten is actually seen flying in a 30 knot wind as a small scale demonstrator...so you can scale that up accordingly.
It also had an engine failure when demoing its water landing ability to the pentagon and still came through with flying colours.
To restate for the benefit of jokers about gasbags, Hindenburgs, R101 etc
This is a heavier than air hybrid flying machine, combining lighter than air technology, fly by wire and lifting body shape, with the ease of loading of a roro ferry and VTOL take off and landing.
I'm sure a couple wouldnt go amiss hunting pirates with an SBS fast boat aboard........

[SASless]

An AC-130 with a 105mm aboard would work just fine for Pirate popping....with no need for rubber boats!

[Mechta]

The B Word
Also, without propulsion its going to crash like any other "heavier than air" aircraft!

What do you fly? A flying bedstead or a jet pack? :}

[aztruck]

Actually it doesnt crash like any other aircraft. It has a unique and very survivable engine out(although there are 4 of them) scenario, including total power failure at a critical height after a vtol lift off with insufficient altitude to enter a glide. The worlds biggest flying umbrella will deposit itself back on terra firma unharmed.
A C130 with a big cannon ...yep...that would blow up ye pirates, but it couldnt stay on station 24/7 for several days, and couldnt take prisoners, or transfer them to naval vessels. A manned HAV with the appropriate radars at 5000 feet and 100 knots could detect and close/interdict with either its own weaponry or via fast boat launched out of the back at sea level and then recovered.
Or it could phone a friemd.
Dont lets get started on its famine relief /aid applications/evacuation abilities.
Its not all about shooting at things.

[West Coast]

and couldnt take prisoners

I think that's the inferred point. There's an occupational hazard associated with being a pirate.

[MarkD]

How much IR/radar return would an airship present if constructed/coated with suitable materials? To shoot it down, you have to know it's up there, right? Presumably a big ass Goodyear logo wouldn't be giving it away.

One approach could be to base it at a friendly spot in the Gulf, fly it with the jetstream to the Afstan border then drift eastward over Afstan at 70-80kt and recover to either (a) an airstrip in Pakistan from which it can be flown back or more likely (b) a landing platform outside Pakistani territorial waters which could then shuttle it back to the main base. Some of the many container ships clogging up the harbours near Singapore could be refitted for that role (could also serve in the role of pirate bait) :E

The tricky part would be avoiding an propulsion failure which would cause overflying Pakistan into Indian airspace...

[t43562]

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=b870ce19f1a30ff711ada7f74781ffaf&tab=core&_cview=0

[The B Word]

The anticipated LEMV OTA will be for a five year technology demonstration inclusive of the fabrication of a LEMV airship, integration of payload and ancillary systems, test, and support for five years. The schedule requires performance testing within 18 months followed by additional test and demonstration conducted in Afghanistan over the remaining OTA term.

A FIVE year OCD! :}

The basic performance requirements for the LEMV airship include: optionally unmanned; 3 week endurance; 2500 pound payload capability; operating altitude of 20,000 feet above mean sea level, 16 kilowatts of payload power ; multi-intelligence capable; supportable from austere locations; 80 knot dash speed and 20 knot station keep speed.


Good luck with the winds!

[TREVOR HUNT]

Hi chaps,
There are very few designers that understand how to design a hybrid airship that will fly right. The only company that knows how is HAV in cardington. See www.hybridairvehicles.com (http://www.hybridairvehicles.com) If you take a look at the video the Skycat it is very stable although the gain setting on the pitch control was a bit high at the time. Now go take a look at the Lockeed Martin P 791 in flight and it is all over the place even on a calm day.
The reason is simple, they have got a serious yaw/roll coupling problem with the design of the fins / aft envelope section and C of G. This is an inherent risk with flat body envelopes unless you really know your LTA designs. It is similar to dutch roll but gets worse as you increase the envelope volume. LM have no clue what they are doing in reality. partly because the designer of the Skycat, Roger Munk did some of their early design work on the fins, but as a result of a breach of contract lawsuit against the old ATG he stopped helping them and although I dont know who is now LMs aerodynamics man, but unfortunately I can tell you he really has got something horribly wrong with the basic design.
Regards
Trevor.
See my company web site: www.airshipblimp.com (http://www.airshipblimp.com) and please use the contact form on the homepage if required.

[The B Word]

So this would be the Roger Munk that used to work in previous companies that failed with this gentleman (at least the latter woke up, smelt the coffee and gave up!):

The tired old carousel of Lighter-than-air (LTA) continues to revolve, on average once every twenty years or so. Is that an Aereon or a Megalifter? In a poor light a Skyship looks much like a Dynairship. Whatever virtues LTA once possessed have now been overtaken by the enrmous reduction in payload size and power consumption and the ready availability of uav's of all sizes, from Globalstar downwards, with which to deploy them. Time on station has been a red herring for years, the area to focus on being "on station" LTA has never been any good at this, a twenty knot headwind reduces your speed of advance by 40%, and is likely to result, if prolonged for anytime, in the vehicle being as likely to be found in Alabama as Afghanistan. In the trophosphere the situation gets worse! The main attraction of LTA lies in the fact that those seeking investment in such crackpot schemes know that investors have no reliable database of what the build or r&d costs for such turkeys ought to be, it's rich picking time for the snake oil salesmen when an air ship project hits town. Luckily, the tired old carousel at DARPA and similar institutions revolves at about the same speed, whenever anybody at such government offices wants a little extra cash for themselves, why not flag up a new "Walrus" or "Skycat"? It like goldfish, a short attention span means you can re-introduce the same nonsense time and again and wait hopefully for the cheques to drop through the letterbox! It is just possible that a conventional blimp of about 100 metres, approximately similar to a "K" class but with advanced glass cockpit and lightweight diesels, could make headway in the coastal surveillance/anti piracy field, but its a small r&d task, no money in it for the speculators you see. I know what I am talking about, invest at your peril! John Wood (Ex Chief Exec and co-founder of Airship Industries)

So which expert should we believe?

[t43562]

Roger Munk died on Sunday (21st) of a heart attack.

I don't think he was rich off the profits of his airship work. It would appear that what blimp industry there is owes quite a lot to him - his designs are flying out there right now.

I am amazed at the scorn people pour on any attempt at doing something different. It's so incredibly unintelligent and yet the people on this forum cannot be stupid.

Designing aircraft is not a job for idiots who can't work out the average wind speed in Afghanistan. What they do is risky because you start out not knowing everything and the job is to learn (that's what design really is). So it's risky to do anything new but people do anyhow and despite the odds they win sometimes and we are riding around in the refined results of those successful ventures of the 1940s, 1960 etc.

What are *we* doing now, about the things people will be relying on in the 2020s, other than sitting back and feeling smug?

People who take risks and fail and try again have my respect.

[chopper2004]

Cardington is going to get real busy shortly

Photo Release -- Northrop Grumman Awarded $517 Million Agreement for U.S. Army Airship With Unblinking Eye (NYSE:NOC) (http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=194252)

News Releases

http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/v2/lg-share-en.gif (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=northropgrumman)
Photo Release -- Northrop Grumman Awarded $517 Million Agreement for U.S. Army Airship With Unblinking Eye

MELBOURNE, Fla., BETHPAGE, N.Y., and LONDON, June 14, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A new hybrid airship weapons system, just larger than the length of a football field, will take to the skies in just 18 months to provide an unblinking, persistent eye for more than three weeks at a time to aid U.S. Army troops in Afghanistan, according to Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC (http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/headlines.html?symbol=NOC)) officials.
The company today announced it has been awarded a $517 million (£350.6 million) agreement to develop up to three Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle (LEMV) systems for the U.S. Army. Northrop Grumman has designed a system with plug-and-play capability to readily integrate into the Army's existing common ground station command centers and ground troops in forward operating bases—the main objective to provide U.S. warfighters with persistent ISR capability to increase awareness of the ever changing battlefield.
A photo accompanying this release is available at Northrop Grumman - Photo Gallery (http://media.globenewswire.com/noc/mediagallery.html?pkgid=7613)
"This opportunity leverages our longstanding leadership positions in developing innovative unmanned air vehicles, C4ISR weapon systems, and leading edge systems integration, and moves Northrop Grumman into this rapidly emerging market space of airships for the military and homeland defense arenas," said Gary Ervin, corporate vice president and president of Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems sector.
Under the agreement, awarded by the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command, Northrop Grumman will design, develop and test a long-duration hybrid airship system within an 18-month time period, and then transport the asset to the Middle East for military assessment.
"It is critical that our warfighters are equipped with more enabling integrated ISR capability to tackle today's and tomorrow's conflicts," said Alan Metzger, Northrop Grumman LEMV program manager. "Our offering supports the Army's Joint Military Utility Assessment that this disruptive innovation must meet the Army's objective of a persistent unblinking stare while providing increased operational utility to battlefield commanders. Part of our innovative offering includes open architecture design in the payload bay to allow sensor changes by service personnel in the field."
LEMV will sustain altitudes of 20,000 feet for a three-week period, and it will operate within national and international airspace. It will be forward-located to support extended geostationary operations from austere operating locations using beyond-line-of-sight command and control.
Northrop Grumman has teamed with Hybrid Air Vehicles, Ltd. of the United Kingdom using its HAV304 platform, Warwick Mills, ILC Dover, AAI Corporation, SAIC, and a team of technology leaders from 18 U.S. states to build LEMV. Northrop Grumman will provide system integration expertise and flight and ground control operations to safely take off and land the unmanned vehicle for worldwide operations.
Northrop Grumman Corporation is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide. Please visit www.northropgrumman.com (http://www.northropgrumman.com/) for more information.

[Lonewolf_50]

Compare this to Global Hawk ... which, if you outfit (X) of them in an operational theatre, are able to relieve on another and remain on station for quite a long time ... and at a somewhat higher alt then 20K.

The US Army, however, appears to want such a blimp to be controlled by the Ground Commander, rather than having to share it with the Joint Forces Air Commander, and for that matter, National Agencies, who all vie for mission priority on such birds as Global Hawk.

I am modestly surprised that this got funding, as it seems to me a turn away from Joint Force Capability and looks more like single-service-blinders-on-stovepipe-acquisition.

That said, a three week dwell time for your eye in the sky sure sounds sweet, if it's achievable.

[Tourist]

There are many advantages of a blimp platform over Global Hawks doing a rip. Not least payload and the ability to be stationary, which would be very useful.

[Lonewolf_50]

Global Hawk flies pretty slow. If you consider the altitude it flies in mission, the difference between that and a stationary blimp at 20K doesn't strike me as great enough to matter.

Total mission payload is a huge advantage for the blimp.

[Green Flash]

Where would it be based? I mean, it's OK whilst it's at FL200 but sooner or (alot) later it will have to land and a football pitch is one juicy big IDF target.:hmm:

[Lonewolf_50]

Green, I suspect they first need to prove the concept at a practical level, then they'll figure out the deployment wrinkles. Rather tough to hide a balloon that big, unless you deflate it between missions.

Which they might do.

[Tourist]

Lonewolf,
Pretty slow makes no difference at all. The problem is the need to orbit, thus losing the required aspect. Many times you would wish to maintain a certain viewpoint, and that is very tricky with a uav. Also, an orbit, which generally has to be around the target of interest does give away what you are looking at, whereas a stationary position leaves a much larger area of possible interest for the ememy to wonder about.

[JASO]

Although an orbit is pretty handy if you want to look at all sides of your site of interest; even from 20,000' plus.

[Lonewolf_50]

Tourist, that's a good point (aspect) depending on what the collection requirement is.

[c130jbloke]

Can anyone tell me where on JPA the application form to transfer to the Women's Royal Ballon Corps is located :p

[Tourist]

JASO,
yes, but a blimp can orbit if required. A UAV cannot stop. (at least not Global Hawk)

[The B Word]

JASO,
yes, but a blimp can orbit if required. A UAV cannot stop. (at least not Global Hawk)

Yes, and a blimp will go backwards in 60-70kts of wind!

I reckon the verdict in 18 months time will be "snake oil" (see above) and the US Army will be $517M worse off.

'Nuff said...

[Lonewolf_50]

There was a piece in Economist recently (or was it Scientific American?) about blimps waaaaaaay up there (considerably above 20K) and how the normal problem of pressure differential leading to baloon failure was being approached, and possibly resolved. The sketch in the article showed a cigar/lozenge shaped, twin hull looking thing.

The air currents up there (plasma currents) are not quite the problem one experiences at the lower altitudes.

Be interesting to see if that is one of the solution sets the Army tries for this program.

[Tourist]

Where does this 60-70 kts rubbish come from?
I'm not saying it never happens out there, but rarely in my experience, and all aircraft have their weather limitations. At least the blimp won't have to worry about bad weather for landing. It'll just stay up till it gets better.

"runway black, say endurance?"
"about another week....."

[Lima Juliet]

Where does this 60-70 kts rubbish come from?


Err? The Upper Air wind charts?

See post #12 of this thread and you will see that the wind on 4 Jan 10 at FL240 was 75kts (I know because I posted it!). Today, at 12Z 16 Jun 10, it was 45kts at FL240. Having flown for 6 weeks over AFG between FL240 to FL290, I know that the wind varies from 10kts to 75kts. Also, if you want to know how much the wind varies in AFG, and how difficult it is to forecast, ask the C-130J mates about their para-supply drops and the use of PADS. I've seen local winds 180degs out from the forecast in the USV and UGV areas due to topography and thermal effects.

Take a look at this website over a year or so and you will soon pick up the trend... Constant Pressure Maps (http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/uamap.html)

(By the way, you need to select 400hPa for FL240 and the SE Asia chart).

On the endurance argument the LEMV needs fuel to stay up - If you run out of fuel then you go down - simples! To stay at "max chat" (70kts) then you run out of fuel fast and your 3 week endurance reduces to less than 3 days!

This is exactly what the US Navy found out when they tried to make lighter-than-air work last time this idea was "dreamt up", this time for maritime surveillance.

"Snake Oil", I say again "Snake Oil"...Warning!

LJ :ok:

PS. Here's a video on PADS - YouTube - WatchBFBSReports's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/WatchBFBSReports#p/u/0/f3p4nbsaBbI)

[The B Word]

As a "Tourist" I'm surprised you've never heard of the "Seistan" or "the winds of 120 days" that can blow up to 100mph for up to 4 months between May and Sep in Eastern Iran and South West Afghanistan - all at ground level :eek:

Here's a picture

http://www.onemarinesview.com/.a/6a00d83452137a69e201347fcc9a24970c-800wi

The B Word

[BEagle]

So to recap:

These blimps are supposed to stay on station in the same place for about 3 weeks at a time?

They are unmanned?

They only fly at about FL200?

What juicy targets - even easier for an enemy armed with something more than IEDs and RPGs to knock down than drone-swatting.

Snake oil indeed!!

[The B Word]

Good point BEagle - "Taliban Scrapheap Challenge" here we come!!!

"Colonel Dick" (see below - it was far funnier when he was a Major!) could compete with a Team to stop them...

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01146/arts-graphics-2004_1146693a.jpg

For our Colonial Cousins "Scrapheap Challenge" is the UK version of "Junkyard Wars".

The B Word :ok:

[Buster Hyman]

I gave it away after Lisa Rogers left.

[Lima Juliet]

Oh yes, Lisa Rogers, she went on to present a Ch4 show called "The Perfect Vagin@"

I think I've met a few of those in the Army :eek:

[Dengue_Dude]

This is the sort of technology the UK Police Force will soon be using to monitor important stuff like illegal parking, parking on double yellow lines and fly tipping.

It won't of course fly anywhere near Birmingham in case it's spotted from the top of one of the mosques and upsets one of the settlers in our once Green and Pleasant Land.

[The B Word]

Right, just to finish off the "there's no wind in Afghanistan" debate, I've been to the Met Off and got the following data from their MIDAS database on average wind speeds:

Location: KANDAHAR
Lat/Long: 3133N 06551E
Elevation: 1010 Metres

300MB/30000ft

Month Wind(Kts) Temperature(C)
Jan 270/60 -41.3
Feb 270/63 -39.8
Mar 270/51 -39.7
Apr 270/41 -37.9
May 270/41 -34.5
Jun 270/28 -26.3
Jul 270/14 -23.5
Aug 270/16 -24.5
Sep 270/24 -28.1
Oct 270/44 -34.5
Nov 270/51 -39.3
Dec 270/52 -39.9

Now these are "average winds", so I'm expecting about +/- 30kts on a daily basis as the normal for these wind ranges over the 28-31 day months. Also, as I stated before, "the 'Seistan' or 'the winds of 120 days' that can blow up to 100mph for up to 4 months between May and Sep in Eastern Iran and South West Afghanistan, all at ground level", will account for the months of May to Sep when the wind isn't blowing at height. :ugh:

Luckily for the Americans they have much money to waste on this, which is another mad-cap and already proven unwise venture such as this. We, however, in the UK do not. I understand that Mr Gerald Howarth MP may have been already been briefed on the HAV/LEMV and been given the Company "Sales Pitch" (which gets the wind prediction quite wrong or ignores them!). If that is true, then please Minister, leave this scheme well alone as there is a long and distinguished line of others that have been taken in by the airship notion over the past 40 years.

Sorry to resurrect the thread but it has taken a while to get the stats from the Met Off.

"Tenacious, Moi?" :E

The B Word

[t43562]

This link has some details that I have not seen before:

Northrop Grumman To Fly Surveillance Airship | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2010/07/05/AW_07_05_2010_p42-237672.xml&headline=Northrop%20Grumman%20To%20Fly%20Surveillance%20Airs hip&channel=awst)

"Maximum transit speed is 80 kt., the vehicle slowing to 30 kt. for station-keeping"

[Lima Juliet]

Looking at the winds above I cannot see how it can station keep at 30kts - it would be going backwards!!!!

I guess this is the start of the realisation process that the concept is flawed?!!

Luckily, the US have only signed up for concept demonstration phase - Cardington will be under new ownership (again!) in 3-5 years time.

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

"The Army wanted a vehicle that could be delivered within 18 months, so Northrop Grumman looked for a low-risk design and an experienced partner, says Metzger. The companies that preceded HAV developed the Skyship 500 and 600 commercial airships and the Sentinel 1000, a half-scale demonstrator for a U.S. Navy airborne early-warning airship that never materialized."

Says it all really. Abridged version should say "tried it didn't work and 3 companies later we're back again to ask for more wonga"!

Complete poppycock on MQ-9 needing 12 aircraft to provide 24/7 coverage for 3-4 weeks. They've been doing 24/7 with 2 aircraft and a spare for over 9 months - now that is persistance and its still going!!! You'll need the same amount of people to man an unmanned baloon for a 24/7 single orbit shift pattern as you would for MQ-9.

POPPYCOCK!

LJ

[Tourist]

B word

"up to 100mph" is a totally meaningless figure and absolute rubbish.
For example - "my knob is up to 10 inches long"
factually correct, but totally misleading.

And why did you use 30000ft? If you know anything about the role, then you know that is not suitable. Why not give the figures all the way up to 30000ft?

t43562 posted
"Maximum transit speed is 80 kt., the vehicle slowing to 30 kt. for station-keeping"


Leon Jabachjabicz posted
"Looking at the winds above I cannot see how it can station keep at 30kts - it would be going backwards!!!!"

erm....I was never very good at maths but no, not really.

[Thomas Wells]

The "Achilles class" blimps are sitting ducks. They are the equivolent of the battlewagons of another era. Many relatively easy and inexpensive procedures can defeat them. Billy Mitchell,call your office.:cool:

[planetom]

the airship was tethered in ballykelly for awhile,the rumour at the time was that Mo Molam was against the idea,so they waited till she went on holiday

[iRaven]

Baloons are a bad idea as demonstrated by a very brave pilot in the Goodyear Blimp 4 days ago...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/06/14/t1larg.blimp.fire.afp.gi.jpg

A very sad story indeed :sad:

Pilot killed after Goodyear blimp plunges to the ground in flames in Germany | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002935/Pilot-killed-Goodyear-blimp-plunges-ground-flames-Germany.html)

[Tourist]

...cos planes never crash....:rolleyes:

[Lima Juliet]

But aeroplanes normally still create lift when they're burning, fabric covered gas bags do not - as is proven with the tragic picture above. Those ducted fan cars, tiltrotors and the Tarantula-Hawk UAS have similar issues when things go wrong - the Isaac Newton theory takes hold pretty soon after at 9.8 ms2.

My admiration for the blimp pilot goes out though, he sounds like a very brave man indeed. :D

LJ

[iRaven]

The chart below says it all really (sorry about the size). For the past 40 years, with the same regurgitated idea, they have been trying to do this. "Snake Oil" indeed.

http://www.hybridairvehicles.com/images/aboutuschart.gif

[jamesdevice]

fundamental design flaw
if the motors and fuel tanks had been arranged for easy jettisoning the weight reduction would lift the envelope and passenger cell away from the fire.
Of course you then have the problem of getting back down again - you'd either have to have a preplanned helium venting procedure, or else a recovery parachute system


n this particular case you could do the reverse: if the passenger cell had also been fitted with a quick release then the envelope would have lifted taking the motors and fuel away from the crew

either way, its do-able as long as the passenger cell is separate from the propulsion systems

[The B Word]

Fundamental design flaw, yes, someone didn't put wings on the "passenger cell", instead they attached it to a fabric gas bag!!

[iRaven]

GAPAN recognises Airship Captain's bravery :D

Captain Mike Nerandzic was one of the most experienced airship pilots in the world. His career in aviation began in 1977 when he learned to fly following studies in Aeronautical Engineering at the University of New South Wales. He worked as an instructor at the Navair Flying School, before flying a range of single and twin engined aircraft, as a corporate pilot, amassing some 4,800 fixed wing hours, and then joined Airship Industries in 1986 to fly airships, completing training in the USA in February 1987. In 1991, he transferred to the Lightship Group, where his wealth of experience and easy management style led to him becoming Assistant Director of Operations in Europe, and later in Australia and Asia. He continued to fly the A60 and A150 class airships on contract deployments across 23 countries, amassing nearly 10,000 airship hours over 25 years.

On Sunday 12 June 2011, Captain Mike Nerandzic was Pilot in Command of the A60 Lightship ‘Spirit of Safety 1’, one of two airships leased by Goodyear for marketing flights throughout Europe. He had taken off at 18.00 hrs, with one photographer and two television reporters on board, to film and photograph the Hessenfest festival in Germany. On return to Reichelsheim Airfield at 20.30 hrs that evening, for an as-yet unclear reason, the airship made a very firm landing and stopped abruptly and uncharacteristically short of the ground crew – the type of airship being flown has no braking capability and normally relies on ground friction to slow its progress towards the groundcrew on landing. The single undercarriage leg had collapsed and a fuel line was ruptured.

One of the passengers, photographer Joachim Storch, reported a strong smell of petrol in the cabin area, followed almost immediately by a fire. The television reporter in the front right seat, panicked at the sight of flames, tore off her seat belt, and jumped out through the open starboard window of the gondola - which is the emergency exit – and causing an immediate loss of ‘total weight’ in the airship.

With both engines stopped, the airship was still on the grass field, well short of the groundcrew and the essential ballast shot-bags, vital to offset the weight loss of any exiting passengers. As the fire began to take hold, however, it must have become evident to Captain Nerandzic that urgent action was required if he was to save the lives of his two remaining passengers.

According to Joachim Storch, rather than continue to complete the emergency flight procedures, Captain Nerandzic then turned and reached behind to open the single door on the port side of the gondola, which was locked for flight, and helped to move the camera equipment that partially blocked this exit. Unlocking this door would - and did - allow both remaining passengers to jump clear, but the weight loss would immediately cause the burning airship to rise into the air; it caused it to rise to a height of 150 feet. Captain Nerandzic would have been fully aware that this would be the result of his action and, irrespective of the circumstances that led to the predicament of the airship, this conscious, selfless act to save the lives of others, before thinking of his own, was a highly courageous act.

As the fire slowly engulfed him, Captain Nerandzic remained at the controls and continued to attempt to bring the aircraft to earth using free-ballooning techniques, which included operating the gas valves to vent helium, and then ultimately the envelope rip-line to tear open the airship. He did not survive.

In deliberately assisting his passengers to jump clear of the airship, without any vital exchange of ballast, Captain Mike Nerandzic knowingly and selflessly put his passengers’ lives before his own. He is accordingly, posthumously, recognised for this ultimate act of bravery with the Guild’s Award for Gallantry.