Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

New Gen AirShips - Hybrid Air Vehicles, UK

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

New Gen AirShips - Hybrid Air Vehicles, UK

Old 15th Feb 2012, 19:11
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: warwickshire
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
These aircraft are not airships, 40% of lift comes from the shape of the craft, as well as having directional fans. So the ballast thing is much less of an issue. I am guessing that they can move the shape of the ship to reduce the lift in cruise mode.

Darpa has also successfully demonstrated a system (known as COSH) which compresses and decompresses the Helium to reduce/ increase buoyancy.

Though I am sure in Kandahar they might be able to source some sort of heavy material, like earth, presume they have some of that there.

As for the wartime aspect, as fin1012 stated, you probably would not use it in contested airspace.
giblets is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2012, 19:58
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,333
Received 80 Likes on 32 Posts
There's no probably about contested airspace- it would be a sitting duck and if carrying the massive load, potentially a loss that could lose a conflict (remember the Atlantic Conveyer lost nearly all of our heavy helo lift and critical stores). So why buy it if you can only use it on low wind days, with no enemy forces lurking about, with a Helium supply chain, with a large hangar to support and at a quarter of the speed of a C5 or C17?

If its endurance you want then the fixed wing Rutan Voyager flew for 9 days at 100kts and circumvented the Globe - it doesn't need Helium, runs on petrol and it has a 110ft wingspan so it doesn't need a special hangar. It carried 2 blokes, their food and water, their kit and that could be a big ISTAR payload.

Or the Rutan GlobalFlyer that Steve Fosset flew around the world in just shy of 3 days with an average speed of ~300kts. So who needs unweildy lighter than air vehicles for endurance?

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2012, 20:55
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: England
Age: 32
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Many of these problems would be sorted by treating them as ships. I'm sure the only way they will come to fruition in a transport role is if they are SIGNIFICANTLY bigger than even the heavy conventional lifters. Traditionally Airships have been operated by the Navies of the world, and I'd always propose that something of that scale ought be operated by the RN, for obvious reasons, if not tradition.

As with most maritime vessels, a great deal more forward planning would go into the operation of an airship. If the weather was to get particularly bad, It could always bugger orf to happier climes. Big hangars other than for maintenance seem wasteful.

The ballast issue is just trivial. Dirt/Rocks/Other cargo would be your simple answers. How many maritime freighters do you see with no containers on the top? More or less none. In this financially concious age, the RN/RAF airships could drop the troops off, then take on the civilian freight coming the other way- Partially paying for themselves. Logically the efficient way to use these vehicles would be for them to be fully loaded on every leg.

For airships to be of any use in the real world, they would have to carry significantly more cargo than any existing aircraft and be faster than a ship even in bad weather. 100/200 tons of payload is hardly what I would describe as significant, considering that a 'fleet' of 8 C-17's could deliver that kind of package in a day if it was called for. A payload of a few thousand tons however would fill the gap between sea and existing air transport.

When you think that Concorde died and the A380 flew, you see where the benefits of mass transport like this exist.
Jollygreengiant64 is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2012, 21:00
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
I'd love to fight the war that has troops and tanks going in one way and civilian freight coming the other!!
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2012, 21:00
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Banging my head against a wall
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I can think of all sorts of circumstances where kit we've got now wouldn't do very well in a hurricane. The UK's air ASW capability is provided by RW at the moment - guess they aren't going to be much help some of the time then. I'm ex Nimrod (hence the handle) so I'm realistic about what even FW can achieve in 80kt winds and SS6+. It became traditional that at some point in every JMC the weather would become so bad that ships would run for the Minches and MPA wouldn't fly. SSK's and SSN also struggle to do their jobs in those conditions, so everyone takes a break until conditions improve. I don't recall the Nimrod fleet being scrapped because it couldn't do ASW in a hurricane.

Having already made the point that you wouldn't consider using these in a contested air environment, I'm a little nonplussed by the immediate replies along the lines of 'yeah useless in a contested environment - it would just get wasted' We've already agreed that so why repeat the point? Mind, the ACC owns the risk, if he felt certain HAV tasks were important enough he might think it worthwhile dedicating defensive assets for the short time needed - in the same way as he would protect, say tac mobility, or conventional ISR. I repeat, beyond possibly the first few days of future campaigns we simply will not be operating in a contested air environment (well, not for long anyway )

I agree that Rutan achieved amazing things, but that platform could not, for example, replenish a ship at sea, operate off water, snow or a swamp, or carry some of the large aerials that would allow future HAV to do some interesting things (like the entire skin acting as an aerial etc). Most readers seem to think that HAV equals airship which is just not correct. Ballast is not the issue it is for lighter than air craft, aerodynamic lift is part of the design. Yes, Helium is an issue, but partly because the US stopped managing it as a strategic asset between 1996 and 2005 because they had too much to store it economically. There is plenty to go around if we are sensible and as long as we are producing natural gas (it is a by product of the extraction process). Like all resources, cost may become an issue.

I had to do some research on these platforms a while ago and while there are obvious limitations I think they have considerable potentially for certain tasks. There is also a growing amount of work going on at the moment to address the issue of realism in UK defence. This involves a lot of soul searching and an honest appreciation of what we can afford, what capabilities we really have, what we really need and what an 80% solution actually looks like. For the first time that I've seen in my 29 years, there is a sense in some areas that we might be learning the lesson that we cut our cloth according to resources.

So. being the hypocrite I am, I repeat my earlier points despite castigating others for the same failing: ( )

These platforms have no utility in several potential scenarios, they may have great utility in several others. They might even be the sole means of providing some capabilities.

I understand (from open source - I haven't looked at this for 'work' for nearly a year so am not in the loop any more) that the LEMV programme is about 3 months late and has either just started flying in Afg or is about to. On my planet, from order (Jun 10) to first flight in about 18 months is simply stunning. I cannot think of any other similar size/complexity air platform that has done anything like that in the last 20 years.

So, very shortly we will get real performance and operating data from real operations in Afghanistan. Lets look for the positive, ditch some pre-conceptions and look at the real data when it comes in. If it works as some hope, there will be a great British success story to tell that doesn't involve the usual suspects.

Before anyone accuses me of being a shill for HAV or NG I am not. I just had cause to look at this a year ago as part of another project and became intrigued by it.

Standing by for the inevitable flames
fin1012 is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2012, 22:23
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
This utter crock is a total sham!

Its protagonists have completely overlooked the issue of wind. At many times of year, this POS would barely make any headway on many occasions.

Forget the ridiculous claims - these gas bag things are a total waste of time as far as serious military applications are concerned.

It carried 2 blokes, their food and water, their kit and that could be a big ISTAR payload.
Leon, one of them, the petite Jeanna Yeager, was hardly a 'bloke'.
BEagle is online now  
Old 15th Feb 2012, 22:40
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"40% of lift comes from the shape of the craft"

So 40% of lift is from air movement over the craft, indicating it won't be able to hover at full load. Which rules out the idea of ship replenishment - there is no way its going to land / take off from a carrier if it has to be moving to generate lift. No room unless you take another look at Pyecrete and iceberg carriers

As for the idea of loading it with rocks as ballast - I can really see that happening: quick delivery of goods to some base in Afghanistan followed by hours of JCB work to fill it with stones.....
Milo Minderbinder is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2012, 23:06
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Banging my head against a wall
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BEagle,

'Its protagonists have completely overlooked the issue of wind. At many times of year, this POS would barely make any headway on many occasions.'

Evidence please.

Where, when and for how long. Then we can have a useful debate. I have seen one met study that suggests these systems would have limited utility in Afg and a number of other places, yet the US Army is in the process of testing one now, in Afg. Either they have taken a massively foolish punt or our operating assumptions are wrong. We will know soon enough. Perhaps only being available for 28 days out of 30, or having to operate for a couple of days at suboptimal altitudes is good enough, or not the problem some think.

'these gas bag things are a total waste of time'

As I have already tried to explain, comparing HAV to a gasbag is simply wrong - and assertions such as this are all the harder to understand when even a simple google search throws up loads of relevant detail.

Finally, it's disappointing to see what could be an interesting argument descend into baseless assertions and poor language. In any serious discussion the use of emotive terms such as 'POS' doesn't add anything and simply indicates an inability or unwillingness to construct a reasoned argument.

Milo

My understanding is that the 40% of lift from the body is in the cruise and gives much greater efficiency. Take off and landing uses vectored thrust and/or helium volume management and isn't dependent on aerodynamic lift. Might still be an issue with heavy loads but I don't have the exact figures. No reason why it can't operate from a carrier or tag along in the overhead

Last edited by fin1012; 15th Feb 2012 at 23:14. Reason: to answer another point that popped up while I was crafting my masterpiece....
fin1012 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2012, 07:08
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
It simply isn't worth bothering to respond to the claims of the gas-bag snake-oil salesmen yet again.

One hopes that the MoD ensures that the previous "Don't waste our time with your rubbish" report is PA'd (or whatever the electroninc version is), so that it pops up every 5-10 years when the next airship idiot tries to convince the MoD that these things have any genuine value.

As for proposing the use of gas-bags in the South Atlantic........
BEagle is online now  
Old 16th Feb 2012, 07:13
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Banging my head against a wall
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Beagle

so no evidence then
fin1012 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2012, 07:20
  #51 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 81
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It simply isn't worth bothering to respond to the claims of the gas-bag snake-oil salesmen yet again.

There were similar things said about the claims of the Wright brothers BEagle
green granite is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2012, 10:33
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
...so no evidence then...
Well, actually I had a quick look at FL200 W/Vs in the Afghanistan area using NOAA statistical met in the range 50%-85% for 4 specific dates at 3 monthly intervals. There are many times of year when the W/V is significantly greater than the values the snake-oil gas-baggers are looking at. But hey, let them find that out the hard way if they wish.

green granite, the airship has already been invented, whereas the Wrights were the first to be successful with heavier-than-air flying machines. So your comment is rather irrelevant.

With all their considerable experience, if the folk at Zeppelin NT, Friedrichshafen cannot find a 'killer application' for the airship beyond advertising and (very expensive) joyrides around the Bodensee,


then why should anyone listen to the wild claims of these snake-oil salesmen?
BEagle is online now  
Old 16th Feb 2012, 10:37
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The sky mainly
Posts: 343
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
One hopes that the MoD ensures that the previous "Don't waste our time with your rubbish" report is PA'd (or whatever the electroninc version is), so that it pops up every 5-10 years when the next airship idiot tries to convince the MoD that these things have any genuine value.
So it didn't work in N.I. then? Why was that?
Was it because it was shot down? - No
Couldn't do the tasking? - No
More expensive than the R.W.? - No

The only thing that stopped the planned 3 airships replacing the 20 Gazelles was the peace process !?!

P.S. For those that keep banging on about the ballast problem, google 'Ballonets'
P.P.S. Do you honestly think the Americans thought of throwing $500M at this project without first asking, "What about wind?" "What about ballast?" "What about the threat?"

Time will tell, but I'm not betting the house on it f**king off into space the first time it drops off a big load!
Sky Sports is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2012, 10:59
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Banging my head against a wall
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BEagle,

Great, real data, can you post a link. TVM

Edit, Just pulled 1984 data as a random sample and actually it was much more benign than I'd expected. (No doubt that will turn out to be the lowest year on record for upper wind speeds) A lot of time the wind looks to be around 35 - 40 kts at the altitudes I think HAV would operate. I guess the fact that Hermes/Watchkeeper and Reaper type platforms, operating at not too dissimilar speeds and altitudes, seem to be able operate without too many wind limitations indicates that it is not such a problem. Post 2015 withdrawal from Afg and the US swing to Asia, we need to be more interested in conditions around Europe, Africa and the near Middle East as that is probably where we will be operating.

Last edited by fin1012; 16th Feb 2012 at 11:16.
fin1012 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2012, 11:15
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 35,000ft
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Aerostats at least do what is written on the packet and serve a purpose
Vizsla is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2012, 11:29
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
Great, real data, can you post a link. TVM
No, sorry. The data I use is from the NOAA global stat met database embedded in an AAR mission planning system. I created a short route around the area in question, changed a few dates and cruising levels and found that the wind was well in excess of 20 kts at many points.

Against an enemy armed with anything more lethal than sharpened guava halves, gas bags would be a sitting duck. Or rather, turkey.

Radar-equipped aerostats do indeed do a good job for the US DEA though.
BEagle is online now  
Old 16th Feb 2012, 12:18
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the Rutan Voyager was capable of the extraordinary feat of "circumventing the world" (sic) I doubt that a gasbag would have the least trouble in circumventing a mere hurricane...
I think we've got it sorted!
Agaricus bisporus is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2012, 12:59
  #58 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 81
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
green granite, the airship has already been invented, whereas the Wrights were the first to be successful with heavier-than-air flying machines. So your comment is rather irrelevant.
Oh dear BEagle stop being deliberately obtuse, despite the first aircraft being flown in 1903 the war office, apart from a flirtation with Cody in 1908/9, resisted all the snake-oil salesmen as you call them until 1911 when they formed the first 'heavier than air' squadron hence my comment was perfectly relevant to the current situation with the Hybrid Air Vehicles. The only real proof of a concept is to build it and see it it can perform to the specifications promised, if it can then it's money well spent if it can't then at least the knowledge gained will prove useful in the future. If you don't then you'll never know.
green granite is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2012, 16:04
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
green granite.

Sorry to be pedantic, but the Wrights were not the first to fly an "aircraft". They probably flew the first "aeroplane".

Sir George Cayley built a full sized glider (an aircraft) and had a 10 year old boy fly in it for at least one flight in 1849. A bigger version had his coachman fly in it for at least one flight in 1853. There is no report of whether he stayed in Cayley'd employ thereafter.

Cayley also designed and built a gas bag flying machine (an aircraft) in 1816, but I don't think it was manned.

Never thought my Cranwell thesis would come in useful after all these years.
Wwyvern is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2012, 16:48
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Uranus
Posts: 958
Received 11 Likes on 9 Posts
For data, I posted this about 18 months ago...

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.

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.
Says it all about wind for me - it'll be lucky to fly for 6 months a year and even then the endurance will be about 2-3 days rather than 21 days. Why, well read below. Plus for the "give it a try" brigade, err, we already have...and it didn't perform as expected...

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.
Have a look at the posts here about it 2 years ago - I see no evidence to change my mind. http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...istan-isr.html

I'm with BEagle on this one

The B Word
The B Word is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.