New Gen AirShips - Hybrid Air Vehicles, UK
Originally Posted by The Helpful Stacker
Does anyone remember the airship trials by the AAC in NI?
How did that go?
How did that go?
Last edited by diginagain; 15th Oct 2011 at 13:05.
NorthGrum cancelled its LEMV press conference at the AUVSI show in August at the last moment, and did not brief at the Association of the US Army show this week in DC.
So what we have is a radically new air vehicle,
designed by a UK team,
that includes some people from a defunct company that flew a small-scale mock-up,
with an envelope fabricated by a textile company in the US,
integrated by NG's surveillance radar division,
managed by Army missile defense people,
and planned and funded on a very tight schedule.
What could possibly go wrong?
//weeps softly, bangs head on desk
So what we have is a radically new air vehicle,
designed by a UK team,
that includes some people from a defunct company that flew a small-scale mock-up,
with an envelope fabricated by a textile company in the US,
integrated by NG's surveillance radar division,
managed by Army missile defense people,
and planned and funded on a very tight schedule.
What could possibly go wrong?
//weeps softly, bangs head on desk
LEMV pitched to MoD
Not sure which thread to put this on but I have to pick one so here goes:
21st century airships may join Navy fleet - Telegraph
The story is obviously mainly hot air but it indicates that some sort of pitch has been made without any indication of how it was received.
21st century airships may join Navy fleet - Telegraph
The story is obviously mainly hot air but it indicates that some sort of pitch has been made without any indication of how it was received.
Ah more airship snake oil. Comes around every few years before someone gets the job of pointing out how vulnerable they are, then it all goes quiet again.
I bounced off the corners of DEC(DSR) as it was then when someone pitched a wonderful idea of having MBTs and 100's of infantry plodding across the globe at 40 to 80kts before the bleeding obvious was pointed out.
I bounced off the corners of DEC(DSR) as it was then when someone pitched a wonderful idea of having MBTs and 100's of infantry plodding across the globe at 40 to 80kts before the bleeding obvious was pointed out.
Hybrid Air Skyship 3000 Airship Industries Vehicles - coming to visit a poor unsuspecting kn0b in a MoD Capability branch job soon. Jeez, you can almost set your watch by the regularity 
Warning! Warning!
Warning! Warning!
Take a look at http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y..._4_PB_2012.pdf
In it you'll find the line:
what a crock of expensive cr@p
In my humble opinion of course
In it you'll find the line:
The LEMV Prototype is expected to achieve 21 days endurance in 20 knots continuous winds...operate at a maximum altitude of 20,000 feet...
what a crock of expensive cr@p In my humble opinion of course
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: England
Age: 32
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are airships that much more vulnerable than, say, a marine ship? Much in the same way that marine ships would be protected by the RN, would the airships not have fighter escorts/CIWS/AMRAAMs?
In the case of some of the designs proposed over the years, payloads of 1000 Tons are achievable, If you believe those figures. Surely the value in these aircraft is in their use as AIR SHIPS? Faster than maritime shipping, and much bigger payloads than conventional aircraft. Not of much great benefit in the 'present' wars, but then what is? Something like these would give you the option to bring back a lot of the stuff that will be inevitably left in the middle east when we leave. Call me old fashioned, but I've always believed options were a good thing.
There may always come a time when expedient shipping of a task force comes necessary in a short period of time, especially when the future of warfare is revolving around the notion that future conflict will involve smaller clashes with less prominent militaries.
These vehicles were never really destined for the battlefield after the invention of the Fighter.
In the case of some of the designs proposed over the years, payloads of 1000 Tons are achievable, If you believe those figures. Surely the value in these aircraft is in their use as AIR SHIPS? Faster than maritime shipping, and much bigger payloads than conventional aircraft. Not of much great benefit in the 'present' wars, but then what is? Something like these would give you the option to bring back a lot of the stuff that will be inevitably left in the middle east when we leave. Call me old fashioned, but I've always believed options were a good thing.
There may always come a time when expedient shipping of a task force comes necessary in a short period of time, especially when the future of warfare is revolving around the notion that future conflict will involve smaller clashes with less prominent militaries.
These vehicles were never really destined for the battlefield after the invention of the Fighter.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JollyGreen
The problem is that these machines are being envisioned for high risk roles as replacements for AEW platforms, for MPA use, for use as pickets in a similar way as HMS Sheffield and Coventry were...
In the air for weeks, away from any chance of fighter support (unless you were to hang F-35B off them with a skyhook, but I don't think anyone has proposed that ....yet...)
If you just wanted to use them as simply cargo vessels, then yes there may be a case. Maybe a fleet would come in handy when we finally want to evacuate Afghanistan given the Pakistani road blockade. But you have to consider the slow speed, the height restriction vs the local mountains, and most importantly, for all the hype, no-one has yet demonstrated a way for a large lighter than air vessel to overcome the issue of loss of mass due to fuel burn. No one has yet come up with a pump that will liquify the gaseous helium enough to reduce lift significantly as mass decreases.Even these hybrid ships are going to hit that brick wall when they try to do it for real
The problem is that these machines are being envisioned for high risk roles as replacements for AEW platforms, for MPA use, for use as pickets in a similar way as HMS Sheffield and Coventry were...
In the air for weeks, away from any chance of fighter support (unless you were to hang F-35B off them with a skyhook, but I don't think anyone has proposed that ....yet...)
If you just wanted to use them as simply cargo vessels, then yes there may be a case. Maybe a fleet would come in handy when we finally want to evacuate Afghanistan given the Pakistani road blockade. But you have to consider the slow speed, the height restriction vs the local mountains, and most importantly, for all the hype, no-one has yet demonstrated a way for a large lighter than air vessel to overcome the issue of loss of mass due to fuel burn. No one has yet come up with a pump that will liquify the gaseous helium enough to reduce lift significantly as mass decreases.Even these hybrid ships are going to hit that brick wall when they try to do it for real
Perhaps before anyone places an order then they read this:
Why the world is running out of helium - Science - News - The Independent
Why the world is running out of helium - Science - News - The Independent
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: warwickshire
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think the aircraft would be a great solution RN or RAF. In both its' proposed roles would give great capability.
Could be used as an AEW for the RN, to replace the Sea King, 5-21 days endurance, 20,000ft ceiling, and much cheaper to operate
Might even be possible to base one on Mt Pleasant.
As a heavy lifter too. Can imagine on a Operation Corporate type mission, being able to bring heavy last minute items to the fleet would be invaluable. Or dropping off heavy munitions to Gioia del Colle in the recent Libya conflict.
Could be used as an AEW for the RN, to replace the Sea King, 5-21 days endurance, 20,000ft ceiling, and much cheaper to operate
Might even be possible to base one on Mt Pleasant.
As a heavy lifter too. Can imagine on a Operation Corporate type mission, being able to bring heavy last minute items to the fleet would be invaluable. Or dropping off heavy munitions to Gioia del Colle in the recent Libya conflict.
" Can imagine on a Operation Corporate type mission, being able to bring heavy last minute items to the fleet would be invaluable"
Given the 80Kph speed and issued raised by people far more clever than myself, perhaps it would be easier if we relied on these boring things called 'ships' and 'cargo planes' to acheive this effect?
Given the 80Kph speed and issued raised by people far more clever than myself, perhaps it would be easier if we relied on these boring things called 'ships' and 'cargo planes' to acheive this effect?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: warwickshire
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Believe it is 80Knots, not Kph (or 150KPH), so triple the speed of one of these 'ships', which also have to go around land (depending on the destination somewhat relevant).
As for cargo planes, although the USN navy got a C-130 down on a carrier, I'm not sure I would want to be doing it all the time!
Will also cost 1/3 of commercial air cargo.
As for cargo planes, although the USN navy got a C-130 down on a carrier, I'm not sure I would want to be doing it all the time!
Will also cost 1/3 of commercial air cargo.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Banging my head against a wall
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...but in the future small-scale campaigns that will soon be all that we are capable of, these could be incredibly useful, particularly in the maritime environment. Why does everyone always go straight to right of arc high end warfighting? Air brings so much more to the party than just combat power. These things could revolutionise the ISR and Mobility roles and could save the RN from all sorts of embarrassing situations. Agreed, in contested airspace I wouldn't want to be in one - but we tend not to get too involved in that sort of thing nowadays and that isn't how we would use them. To be honest, I'm still on the fence over this capability, but I would far rather see it succeed and be useful (and cheap) than fail. We don't have to wait long to find out the truth - we should be able to see how they cope with and contribute to Afghanistan fairly soon.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
giblets, fin1012
You're both missing a couple of key points
First if you used these as cargo movers, you hit the fundamental problem that for every tonne of freight delivered, you have to pick up a tonne of ballast - or else your vessel is going to float away. You may be able to pump up 500 tonnes of water if carrying out replenishment at sea (assuming you have collapsing tanks to store it in|) but I suspect finding that much water in the middle of Khandahar may cause problems.
The other point is that if the Navy couldn't protect Sheffield and Coventry from attack at sea level, what chance have they of stopping something at 20,000 feet? You would need a T45 or carrier on station to protect the airship
And where does it go in a hurricane?
You're both missing a couple of key points
First if you used these as cargo movers, you hit the fundamental problem that for every tonne of freight delivered, you have to pick up a tonne of ballast - or else your vessel is going to float away. You may be able to pump up 500 tonnes of water if carrying out replenishment at sea (assuming you have collapsing tanks to store it in|) but I suspect finding that much water in the middle of Khandahar may cause problems.
The other point is that if the Navy couldn't protect Sheffield and Coventry from attack at sea level, what chance have they of stopping something at 20,000 feet? You would need a T45 or carrier on station to protect the airship
And where does it go in a hurricane?
Seeing as the average winds on route to the FIs could be 50-70kts headwind, then you're probably quicker by boat anyway. I also remember seeing Mt Byron's golfball laying at the bottom of the Mount having been subjected to 100kts+ gusts of wind - it would funny to watch a blimp working in the South Atlantic's somewhat harsh weather system 
Finally, I contest that this is significantly cheaper than traditional fixed wing air freight. Yes, in terms of fuel it might be cheaper, but you have to add in all the extra costs:
1. Helium is getting 'kin expensive.
2. Wherever you regularly operate you need access to Helium.
3. You need a mahoosive hangar for repairs or getting out of the weather (or poke off elsewhere when the storm threatens).
4. Outlay in buying and setting up another aircraft type (remember we canned the Harrier because we couldn't afford to support so many FJ types?) - also, I suspect that this would be a very small fleet of blimps and that attracts high running costs.
5. You either need to ditch Helium after dropping off mahoosive loads (see para 1 on Helium cost) or you have to carry ballast back and forth with the reduction in performance and increase in cost.
The quote from the previous CE of Airship Industries in the first posts is as true now as it has ever been - snake oil it is. If it was such a great idea then we would have been using Helium ballons in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s - the technology was there, but we didn't bother because the idea is looked at on a 10 yearly basis with the same conclusion "too slow, too expensive to support and not worth the effort".
LJ
Finally, I contest that this is significantly cheaper than traditional fixed wing air freight. Yes, in terms of fuel it might be cheaper, but you have to add in all the extra costs:
1. Helium is getting 'kin expensive.
2. Wherever you regularly operate you need access to Helium.
3. You need a mahoosive hangar for repairs or getting out of the weather (or poke off elsewhere when the storm threatens).
4. Outlay in buying and setting up another aircraft type (remember we canned the Harrier because we couldn't afford to support so many FJ types?) - also, I suspect that this would be a very small fleet of blimps and that attracts high running costs.
5. You either need to ditch Helium after dropping off mahoosive loads (see para 1 on Helium cost) or you have to carry ballast back and forth with the reduction in performance and increase in cost.
The quote from the previous CE of Airship Industries in the first posts is as true now as it has ever been - snake oil it is. If it was such a great idea then we would have been using Helium ballons in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s - the technology was there, but we didn't bother because the idea is looked at on a 10 yearly basis with the same conclusion "too slow, too expensive to support and not worth the effort".
LJ