New Gen AirShips - Hybrid Air Vehicles, UK
Greetings Prrune
At the risk of sticking my head in the lions den (and after hearing Beetlejuice three times and having my professional reputation disparaged in public) I thought I would say hello.
You are correct L-J in my background. I do not have an aviation career/engineering background to draw on.
However, after 15 years reporting and writing about aviation and aerospace at the RAeS (and soaking up information like a sponge) what I do have is the ability to find, talk to and most importantly LISTEN to a wide range of pilots, engineers, scientists and other experts far, far cleverer and vastly more qualified than myself.
It is humbling to be able to consult and draw on people with real operational experience or technical skills to help me understand a complex topic in more detail. Then of course, it is a matter of forming a conclusion and adding the occasional personal insight.
I would therefore take objection to 'regurgitates facts from the snake oil peddlers'. As my article on Airlander makes clear there still remain big obstacles (weather, ground handling etc) and there is a list of failed airship projects (Cargolifter, Blue Devil etc) as long as your arm.
However:
1) They have a fully assembled air vehicle (not a CGI image) ready for flight (and customer demos) - mostly paid for, ironically by Uncle Sam.
2) L-M are now entering this market too. Are they deluded as well?
3) They only need 4-5 orders to be commercially viable, which seems on balance fairly viable. If they get 6, they have beaten Zeppelin NT in numbers built.
3) HAV seen to be taking an approach of 'walking before they run'. They are going after the established aerial sightseeing market (plus government contracts?) first to prove the concept, rather than the far harder aerial cargo idea - which is much more challenging (ground infrastructure etc) to pull off.
So are airships back? The jury is obviously still out until flight trials and customer demos, but you could argue that HAV have at least a fighting chance. As someone else has noted above in this thread, this is absolute peanuts compared to JLENS, so if it doesn't pan out, at least the UK taxpayer is not going to be on the hook for $2bn+.
Genghis - you are also quite correct that this is my opinion and comment alone, not the RAeS's which have to be formally approved.
I note with interest your comments on the Optica. And I restate that I am not a test pilot, nor would claim to be - that was just my simple observations from a short demo flight. However I would take issue with your comment that no test pilots liked it. In fact, in the April edition of AEROSPACE, we have a letter from a distinguished ex de Havilland test pilot who says of the Optica:
"I was impressed. Safe, superb view, stable and quiet. No faults, though I thought the stick force, in rotation a touch high, probably due to tailplane rotation."
The one dissenter?
Finally - if anyone on Prrune does want to respond to articles, or join the debate with informed critiques (not just "your bloody journalist doesn't know anything!") I always welcome contributions for the letters page in AEROSPACE, that help advance the art, science and engineering of flight and contribute to learned debate and discussion under the natural umbrella of the RAeS.
Got article ideas, feedback, or something about aviation you think we should be covering? Drop me a line, DM me, give me a call and help ME be better informed and serve the RAeS better.
At the risk of sticking my head in the lions den (and after hearing Beetlejuice three times and having my professional reputation disparaged in public) I thought I would say hello.
You are correct L-J in my background. I do not have an aviation career/engineering background to draw on.
However, after 15 years reporting and writing about aviation and aerospace at the RAeS (and soaking up information like a sponge) what I do have is the ability to find, talk to and most importantly LISTEN to a wide range of pilots, engineers, scientists and other experts far, far cleverer and vastly more qualified than myself.
It is humbling to be able to consult and draw on people with real operational experience or technical skills to help me understand a complex topic in more detail. Then of course, it is a matter of forming a conclusion and adding the occasional personal insight.
I would therefore take objection to 'regurgitates facts from the snake oil peddlers'. As my article on Airlander makes clear there still remain big obstacles (weather, ground handling etc) and there is a list of failed airship projects (Cargolifter, Blue Devil etc) as long as your arm.
However:
1) They have a fully assembled air vehicle (not a CGI image) ready for flight (and customer demos) - mostly paid for, ironically by Uncle Sam.
2) L-M are now entering this market too. Are they deluded as well?
3) They only need 4-5 orders to be commercially viable, which seems on balance fairly viable. If they get 6, they have beaten Zeppelin NT in numbers built.
3) HAV seen to be taking an approach of 'walking before they run'. They are going after the established aerial sightseeing market (plus government contracts?) first to prove the concept, rather than the far harder aerial cargo idea - which is much more challenging (ground infrastructure etc) to pull off.
So are airships back? The jury is obviously still out until flight trials and customer demos, but you could argue that HAV have at least a fighting chance. As someone else has noted above in this thread, this is absolute peanuts compared to JLENS, so if it doesn't pan out, at least the UK taxpayer is not going to be on the hook for $2bn+.
Genghis - you are also quite correct that this is my opinion and comment alone, not the RAeS's which have to be formally approved.
I note with interest your comments on the Optica. And I restate that I am not a test pilot, nor would claim to be - that was just my simple observations from a short demo flight. However I would take issue with your comment that no test pilots liked it. In fact, in the April edition of AEROSPACE, we have a letter from a distinguished ex de Havilland test pilot who says of the Optica:
"I was impressed. Safe, superb view, stable and quiet. No faults, though I thought the stick force, in rotation a touch high, probably due to tailplane rotation."
The one dissenter?
Finally - if anyone on Prrune does want to respond to articles, or join the debate with informed critiques (not just "your bloody journalist doesn't know anything!") I always welcome contributions for the letters page in AEROSPACE, that help advance the art, science and engineering of flight and contribute to learned debate and discussion under the natural umbrella of the RAeS.
Got article ideas, feedback, or something about aviation you think we should be covering? Drop me a line, DM me, give me a call and help ME be better informed and serve the RAeS better.
Chaps - You're missing an important point. The ability to fly an airplane automatically endows you with universal knowledge, not only of how all airplanes work and how they are designed, but of how airships work and, moreover, of the economics involved in moving things from A to B.
TR
Apologies, I was overly rude - you are purely reporting what you are being told. The problem is the Snake Oil is being peddled with increasing desperation at present.
Originally, in this thread (and others http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...istan-isr.html) we were told that this was going to be an all-seeing uber-persistent ISTAR asset that needed minimal support to operate from austere locations. Now, it is, "we're going to sell 4 day aerial safaris to a dozen people with more money than sense" and that it will need to be moored to a mast and it will now only fly for 4-6 days compared to the bold claims of being airborne for a month. Just how many people are going to want to fly over the Grand Canyon or Serengeti rather than get really up close and personal with the geography and animals by helicopter or 4x4?
Lighter than air (even if it gets 30-40% of its lift by other means) is an utter folly and until we invent anti-gravity drives then the notion of having a machine that can efficiently pick up stuff/people and drop it/them elsewhere without support is going to remain a pipedream. The helicopter and tiltrotor are our best hope at the moment to get anywhere near this dream. The balloon (or if you must HAV) does not have a wide enough spectrum of speed, reach and cargo carrying capability to ever be viable as a mainstream vehicle - niche capabilities tend to cost a fortune and then whither and die!
Source: http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-to...630679/?page=2 posted by John Wood in 2009
$2Bn - what a waste...
LJ
Apologies, I was overly rude - you are purely reporting what you are being told. The problem is the Snake Oil is being peddled with increasing desperation at present.
Originally, in this thread (and others http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...istan-isr.html) we were told that this was going to be an all-seeing uber-persistent ISTAR asset that needed minimal support to operate from austere locations. Now, it is, "we're going to sell 4 day aerial safaris to a dozen people with more money than sense" and that it will need to be moored to a mast and it will now only fly for 4-6 days compared to the bold claims of being airborne for a month. Just how many people are going to want to fly over the Grand Canyon or Serengeti rather than get really up close and personal with the geography and animals by helicopter or 4x4?
Lighter than air (even if it gets 30-40% of its lift by other means) is an utter folly and until we invent anti-gravity drives then the notion of having a machine that can efficiently pick up stuff/people and drop it/them elsewhere without support is going to remain a pipedream. The helicopter and tiltrotor are our best hope at the moment to get anywhere near this dream. The balloon (or if you must HAV) does not have a wide enough spectrum of speed, reach and cargo carrying capability to ever be viable as a mainstream vehicle - niche capabilities tend to cost a fortune and then whither and die!
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)
$2Bn - what a waste...
LJ
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 1st Apr 2016 at 18:35.
Welcome to PPrune Tim.
Detailed discussion of the Optica probably might be better done over a beer at some suitable occasion, and I'll make sure I join up Genghis and real life next we meet - but in general terms...
Is almost certainly true, not far off my own experiences of the type, but says absolutely nothing about its suitability as a police observation aircraft. At that point, it becomes altogether more interesting. I know several TPs whose opinions about its fitness for role are somewhat unflattering - which didn't stop any of us enjoying the flight.
Regarding the HAV airship - I know a few people on the inside and personally, I'm pretty optimistic about it also.
G
Detailed discussion of the Optica probably might be better done over a beer at some suitable occasion, and I'll make sure I join up Genghis and real life next we meet - but in general terms...
Safe, superb view, stable and quiet. No faults, though I thought the stick force, in rotation a touch high, probably due to tailplane rotation.
Regarding the HAV airship - I know a few people on the inside and personally, I'm pretty optimistic about it also.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 1st Apr 2016 at 18:45.
Leon,
I don't know if you'd remember way back when we discussed the subtle differences between a 747 and a Canal Barge. And later we discussed trips across the Atlantic on Ships. I'm sure you'd agree that even the likes of the barges and the QE3 could not be considered mainstream as you seem to understand it.
I believe you are the first and only to mention 'airships' being mainstream.
Niche capability vehicles like the Land Rover, Jeep and Islander seem to make a good living in their non-mainstream long-endurance lives.
We, neither of us, know what the actual operating costs or performance figures are for this design, or even will be as development continues. The 'designed' factors have yet to be proven. We may be seeing something akin to the Harrier being developed - a strange and un-conventional machine that doesn't appear to have any particular purpose at its start....or not, as the case may eventually prove.
Your unqualified opinions on performance are at the very least annoying, and portray you with a closed mind to anything you don't like or understand.
I don't know if you'd remember way back when we discussed the subtle differences between a 747 and a Canal Barge. And later we discussed trips across the Atlantic on Ships. I'm sure you'd agree that even the likes of the barges and the QE3 could not be considered mainstream as you seem to understand it.
I believe you are the first and only to mention 'airships' being mainstream.
Niche capability vehicles like the Land Rover, Jeep and Islander seem to make a good living in their non-mainstream long-endurance lives.
We, neither of us, know what the actual operating costs or performance figures are for this design, or even will be as development continues. The 'designed' factors have yet to be proven. We may be seeing something akin to the Harrier being developed - a strange and un-conventional machine that doesn't appear to have any particular purpose at its start....or not, as the case may eventually prove.
Your unqualified opinions on performance are at the very least annoying, and portray you with a closed mind to anything you don't like or understand.
I wonder whether an HAV equipped with a good sensor package and able to stay on station potentially for days (even if it's only 4 or 5 rather than 20) wouldn't be a vastly better option than some old Merlins for Crowsnest!
Roland
Adding another large and unwieldy, defenceless and key radar capability to the QE/PoW Task Force is not the best idea is it? Take out the large blimp that is too expensive to replace and the whole fleet loses its AEW capability with one low-tech attack. Having a fleet of small AEW helicopters builds in redundancy and the ability to look over the horizon in several sectors.
Rigga - do you work for HAV or have shares? You seem to be a bit too pasionate to be viewed as open minded!
The B Word
Adding another large and unwieldy, defenceless and key radar capability to the QE/PoW Task Force is not the best idea is it? Take out the large blimp that is too expensive to replace and the whole fleet loses its AEW capability with one low-tech attack. Having a fleet of small AEW helicopters builds in redundancy and the ability to look over the horizon in several sectors.
Rigga - do you work for HAV or have shares? You seem to be a bit too pasionate to be viewed as open minded!
The B Word
It's a very vulnerable military target, that is undeniable.
I think that there are valid civil uses for a system like this, with a suitable electronics payload. For example - sat with a lot of mobile telecons and emergency management infrastructure over the Olympics or World Cup - bring it in quick(ish!) overhead a disaster zone with something similar.
Not far from the projected military role, just without anybody shooting at it.
G
I think that there are valid civil uses for a system like this, with a suitable electronics payload. For example - sat with a lot of mobile telecons and emergency management infrastructure over the Olympics or World Cup - bring it in quick(ish!) overhead a disaster zone with something similar.
Not far from the projected military role, just without anybody shooting at it.
G
The B Word
Blinkered thinking I think. Why is it vulnerable? To what? Is it any more expensive than a single Merlin? How many Merlins do you need clattering around at 6, 7 or 8k vice one unmanned HAV at say 15 or 20k?
Take out the large blimp that is too expensive to replace and the whole fleet loses its AEW capability with one low-tech attack.
Your first lesson in Air Defence V1.01 would tell you that a large lumbering beast like this HAV would be vulnerable to fire from:
1. Pretty much any aircraft fitted with a gun(s) and missiles - remember sniping the engines or cupola (or whatever they've called it) would be the aim. Here is a picture of the tragic loss of the Goodyear blimp, filled with Helium I hasten to add, that had a fire in one of its engines I believe?
2. Any ship with a big enough gun (like the RN's ubiqitous 4.5" gun that can hit targets at 15miles away up to 40kft) or a ship launched surface to air missile system could whack this lumbering beast at 20kft with ease.
3. Small vessels with MANPADS capable of reaching the HAV's altitude.
Every man and his dog that can get something onto the HAV would have a go. Being a High Value Air Asset, then the AEW capability would feature as one of the first aircraft to have a go at. Don't get me wrong, Crowsnest would be just as valuable a target for a Fleet attack - it's just a lot harder to spot visually or on radar plus its a damn sight harder to bring down than a massive great behemoth like HAV.
I would suggest that trying to use a HAV in any defence related role without total Air Supremacy would be a massive tactical and strategic blunder. We just don't have enough F35s and Typhoons to provide Air Supremacy for HAV to oprate in. Furthermore, flying escort and sweep for such a massive behemoth with such limited capabilities is not a smart use of high-end air dafence capabilities.
By the way, I always thought the use of the words 'blinkered thinking' as the epitome of L'esprit de l'escalier...
The B Word
1. Pretty much any aircraft fitted with a gun(s) and missiles - remember sniping the engines or cupola (or whatever they've called it) would be the aim. Here is a picture of the tragic loss of the Goodyear blimp, filled with Helium I hasten to add, that had a fire in one of its engines I believe?
2. Any ship with a big enough gun (like the RN's ubiqitous 4.5" gun that can hit targets at 15miles away up to 40kft) or a ship launched surface to air missile system could whack this lumbering beast at 20kft with ease.
3. Small vessels with MANPADS capable of reaching the HAV's altitude.
Every man and his dog that can get something onto the HAV would have a go. Being a High Value Air Asset, then the AEW capability would feature as one of the first aircraft to have a go at. Don't get me wrong, Crowsnest would be just as valuable a target for a Fleet attack - it's just a lot harder to spot visually or on radar plus its a damn sight harder to bring down than a massive great behemoth like HAV.
I would suggest that trying to use a HAV in any defence related role without total Air Supremacy would be a massive tactical and strategic blunder. We just don't have enough F35s and Typhoons to provide Air Supremacy for HAV to oprate in. Furthermore, flying escort and sweep for such a massive behemoth with such limited capabilities is not a smart use of high-end air dafence capabilities.
By the way, I always thought the use of the words 'blinkered thinking' as the epitome of L'esprit de l'escalier...
The B Word
Last edited by The B Word; 2nd Apr 2016 at 06:55.
Airship vulnerability
The MOD conducted a large study into the vulnerability of non-rigid airships in the mid 90's.
A full scale airship (Skyship 600) was repeatedly shot at, and blasted at with different charges.
You would be VERY surprised at the results. Dig out the report and have a read.
A full scale airship (Skyship 600) was repeatedly shot at, and blasted at with different charges.
You would be VERY surprised at the results. Dig out the report and have a read.
From Jane's in 2011. Perhaps the same tests to which you refer Sky Sports?
Survivability
Given the relatively large size of airships and the 'low and slow' environment in which they chiefly operate, it is often suggested that they are vulnerable to ground fire. However, HAV spokesperson Gordon Taylor says that in the case of hybrid airships this perception could not be more wrong.
Taylor tells Jane's that the US and UK militaries have fired rounds of varying calibres - up to and including 20 mm - into HAV-made vehicles and have even tested the effect that a surface-to-air missile (SAM) might have, in a bid to determine their vulnerability. In each instance, he says, the airships survived, in most cases so well that, faced with similar ammunition in combat, the crew probably would not notice that they had been the subject of an attack.
There are several reasons for this, explains Taylor, chief among them the fact that helium is an inert gas and so incapable of igniting even when exposed to a tracer round or missile detonation. While the hull's fabric was pierced by both the entry and exit passage of the round, the gas inside was contained under such a low pressure (1/10th of 1 lb per square inch) - and there was so much of it - that although the hull was riddled with holes it took hours to deflate significantly.
According to Taylor, it was concluded that a SAM would pass straight through without detonating, leaving two relatively small holes. Tests established that it would take the vehicle three and a half hours to deflate with these two holes in the skin,
A warhead was also strapped to the inside of a fully inflated test hull and detonated to test the airship's behaviour if a SAM were to explode inside the envelope. The results of the experiment were somewhat surprising, says Taylor. "[The explosion] blew the windscreens out of the testers' cars, but the hull just went 'boing' and came back out again. [And although] the casing from the explosive made a number of shrapnel holes, they were irrelevant."
Even if such holes were numerous, they would have little effect on the vehicle as the helium would not be escaping under pressure. As a result, the damaged fabric skin has a natural tendency to seal itself. Also, as there is no internal structure to the envelope (it is fully supported by the pressure of the gas], there are no parts to damage.
Yes, but that's true of a great many platforms in service throughout the world today, including with the RAF. I don't think that even the most die-hard enthusiasts, here or elsewhere, are suggesting that airships be flown in contested environments.
Survivability
Given the relatively large size of airships and the 'low and slow' environment in which they chiefly operate, it is often suggested that they are vulnerable to ground fire. However, HAV spokesperson Gordon Taylor says that in the case of hybrid airships this perception could not be more wrong.
Taylor tells Jane's that the US and UK militaries have fired rounds of varying calibres - up to and including 20 mm - into HAV-made vehicles and have even tested the effect that a surface-to-air missile (SAM) might have, in a bid to determine their vulnerability. In each instance, he says, the airships survived, in most cases so well that, faced with similar ammunition in combat, the crew probably would not notice that they had been the subject of an attack.
There are several reasons for this, explains Taylor, chief among them the fact that helium is an inert gas and so incapable of igniting even when exposed to a tracer round or missile detonation. While the hull's fabric was pierced by both the entry and exit passage of the round, the gas inside was contained under such a low pressure (1/10th of 1 lb per square inch) - and there was so much of it - that although the hull was riddled with holes it took hours to deflate significantly.
According to Taylor, it was concluded that a SAM would pass straight through without detonating, leaving two relatively small holes. Tests established that it would take the vehicle three and a half hours to deflate with these two holes in the skin,
A warhead was also strapped to the inside of a fully inflated test hull and detonated to test the airship's behaviour if a SAM were to explode inside the envelope. The results of the experiment were somewhat surprising, says Taylor. "[The explosion] blew the windscreens out of the testers' cars, but the hull just went 'boing' and came back out again. [And although] the casing from the explosive made a number of shrapnel holes, they were irrelevant."
Even if such holes were numerous, they would have little effect on the vehicle as the helium would not be escaping under pressure. As a result, the damaged fabric skin has a natural tendency to seal itself. Also, as there is no internal structure to the envelope (it is fully supported by the pressure of the gas], there are no parts to damage.
I would suggest that trying to use a HAV in any defence related role without total Air Supremacy would be a massive tactical and strategic blunder.
I think you need to read my post again - when trying to bring one of these down you would aim at the engines and cupola, not the envelope and main structure. Knocking out an engine on a HAV that relies on 30-40% lift from its shape is a serious design flaw for survivability - take out the engine or its fuel supply or controls and the HAV will go down.
As for proximity detonation of surface or air to air weapons, then there are many weapons out there that would not 'pass right through' the HAV. If you look at something like ASRAAM (Matra-BAe AIM-132 ASRAAM ASRAAM - The RAAF's New WVR AAM) that has many transputers on board, it could be programmed to to recognise the shape of a HAV and then aim at the vulnerable points - plus even if the impact fue failed the EMI laser proximity fuse would do its job. ASRAAM is not the only missile with this type of technology.
A FROGFOOT, FULCRUM, FLANKER, Mirage or other FJ with gun(s)/missiles would make mincemeat of a HAV. As would a fighting warship.
Finally, what is the point of an AEW and Comms capability if you can't think of using it in a contested environment?
The E-3 AWACS, in the same role as is being proposed by some on here, relies upon speed and an ability to run away from any adversary at least at one third the speed that the advervesary bears down on them. So a FULCRUM approaching at 16miles a minute can have its progress cut down to 8 miles a minute by the E-3. At the range that the E-3 would detect/recognise the adversary FULCRUM that buys it a good 20 minutes for friendly fighters to be vectored in (plus it can descend and hide behind terrain/clouds quickly). 20 minutes is a lot of fuel to a fast jet and so the difference between an E-3 retrograding at 8 miles a minute and a HAV at 1.5 miles a minute is HUGE when it comes to survivability.
Sorry, but using a HAV for AEW and C2 is absolutely crazy!!! Indeed, buying it for anything military related seems dumb: as strategic airlift the C17 can carry more (at least 5 times as much) and get it there faster (at least 7 times as fast which is key to strat airlift), for tactical airlift the Chinook is quicker and likely to be far more survivable, for ISTAR/C2 then I have already made my points and I can't think of any other use that the HAV could realistically find a niche. Flying for 3-4 days is also a fallacy, 3 platforms fkying 'Relief in Place' provides far greater flexibility when it comes to servicibility and ability to switch the capability's effect in various areas of the battelspace.
Sorry, I want to believe this is a great idea but I have come to the same conclusions as the post made by John Wood (former Airship Industries) in 2009.
The B Word
As for proximity detonation of surface or air to air weapons, then there are many weapons out there that would not 'pass right through' the HAV. If you look at something like ASRAAM (Matra-BAe AIM-132 ASRAAM ASRAAM - The RAAF's New WVR AAM) that has many transputers on board, it could be programmed to to recognise the shape of a HAV and then aim at the vulnerable points - plus even if the impact fue failed the EMI laser proximity fuse would do its job. ASRAAM is not the only missile with this type of technology.
A FROGFOOT, FULCRUM, FLANKER, Mirage or other FJ with gun(s)/missiles would make mincemeat of a HAV. As would a fighting warship.
Finally, what is the point of an AEW and Comms capability if you can't think of using it in a contested environment?
The E-3 AWACS, in the same role as is being proposed by some on here, relies upon speed and an ability to run away from any adversary at least at one third the speed that the advervesary bears down on them. So a FULCRUM approaching at 16miles a minute can have its progress cut down to 8 miles a minute by the E-3. At the range that the E-3 would detect/recognise the adversary FULCRUM that buys it a good 20 minutes for friendly fighters to be vectored in (plus it can descend and hide behind terrain/clouds quickly). 20 minutes is a lot of fuel to a fast jet and so the difference between an E-3 retrograding at 8 miles a minute and a HAV at 1.5 miles a minute is HUGE when it comes to survivability.
Sorry, but using a HAV for AEW and C2 is absolutely crazy!!! Indeed, buying it for anything military related seems dumb: as strategic airlift the C17 can carry more (at least 5 times as much) and get it there faster (at least 7 times as fast which is key to strat airlift), for tactical airlift the Chinook is quicker and likely to be far more survivable, for ISTAR/C2 then I have already made my points and I can't think of any other use that the HAV could realistically find a niche. Flying for 3-4 days is also a fallacy, 3 platforms fkying 'Relief in Place' provides far greater flexibility when it comes to servicibility and ability to switch the capability's effect in various areas of the battelspace.
Sorry, I want to believe this is a great idea but I have come to the same conclusions as the post made by John Wood (former Airship Industries) in 2009.
The B Word
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B Word
For the last 15 years, we could have used them for ISR/C2 with total impunity. The cost savings relative to all the other assets doing the job over that time would have paid for them 1000 times over. Relief in place is all very well, but the assets to actually achieve that are something we never had in theatre. Sentinel, shadow, SK7 never ever achieved anything like it.
For the last 15 years, we could have used them for ISR/C2 with total impunity. The cost savings relative to all the other assets doing the job over that time would have paid for them 1000 times over. Relief in place is all very well, but the assets to actually achieve that are something we never had in theatre. Sentinel, shadow, SK7 never ever achieved anything like it.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L-J - apology accepted.
I agree that there have been earlier 'second comings' that never panned out - so it is wise to treat all claims with caution. The HEMV/Blue Devil concept of a high-alt airship trying to keep on station over mountainous Afghanistan with high-speed winds to fight against, seemed flawed to begin with.
Talking to experts today, they see to indicate a lower flight profile would be better. The above comments about survivability are v interesting and one ISR industry source I spoke to recently thought that with payload of 10tonnes you could put a phenomenal sensor package on AND the world's best DAS/jammer/ECM on it.
Presumably in some fleet overwatch super-Crows-Nest role it would be operating under (or v v close) to the SAM umbrella of Type 45s/Aegis anyhow - and it might be able to be part of a CEC/Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air—or NIFC-CA network to extend the reach of Sea Viper (or long naval range SAMs).
Again, don't take this as 'snake oil' regurgitation - just a couple of observations from talking to people far smarter than me (and without a vested interest in HAV). Food for thought anyhow.
Genghis - beer sometime to discuss Optica (or other aviation topics) sounds good.
As always, welcome a thread like this with illuminating discussion.
I agree that there have been earlier 'second comings' that never panned out - so it is wise to treat all claims with caution. The HEMV/Blue Devil concept of a high-alt airship trying to keep on station over mountainous Afghanistan with high-speed winds to fight against, seemed flawed to begin with.
Talking to experts today, they see to indicate a lower flight profile would be better. The above comments about survivability are v interesting and one ISR industry source I spoke to recently thought that with payload of 10tonnes you could put a phenomenal sensor package on AND the world's best DAS/jammer/ECM on it.
Presumably in some fleet overwatch super-Crows-Nest role it would be operating under (or v v close) to the SAM umbrella of Type 45s/Aegis anyhow - and it might be able to be part of a CEC/Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air—or NIFC-CA network to extend the reach of Sea Viper (or long naval range SAMs).
Again, don't take this as 'snake oil' regurgitation - just a couple of observations from talking to people far smarter than me (and without a vested interest in HAV). Food for thought anyhow.
Genghis - beer sometime to discuss Optica (or other aviation topics) sounds good.
As always, welcome a thread like this with illuminating discussion.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When driving around in Israel, about 5 years ago, I noticed a tethered kite, which may have been inflated, holding position about 1500'. It was holding its heading.
When close enough, we could see its tether, and that it was some sort of surveillance platform. It was overlooking an 'occupied territory'.
I remember thinking that compared to any aircraft or chopper, it must be very inexpensive.
Also, because it was there all the time, not intrusive at all.
I wonder what it would have cost the IDF/ AF to gather that same intel by any other means?
When close enough, we could see its tether, and that it was some sort of surveillance platform. It was overlooking an 'occupied territory'.
I remember thinking that compared to any aircraft or chopper, it must be very inexpensive.
Also, because it was there all the time, not intrusive at all.
I wonder what it would have cost the IDF/ AF to gather that same intel by any other means?
Aerostats have been used for surveillance for many years now. Those in the Florida Keys keep watch for drug smugglers and also for broadcasting US propaganda to Cuba.
But this worthless gasbag at Cardington is simply a snake oil salesman's solution looking for a problem which probably doesn't exist.
But this worthless gasbag at Cardington is simply a snake oil salesman's solution looking for a problem which probably doesn't exist.
whilst I do not see this as a sensible military proposition it might well have recreational/commercial potential. If people are prepared to invest......................
Hope we don't have a diet of hats in 5 years time, or maybe we do...............
Hope we don't have a diet of hats in 5 years time, or maybe we do...............
Tourist
How many times do we have to go over this? Using a HAV in Afghanistan would have been a complete disaster:
1. The Seistan is a 4 month long wind averaging 100mph at lower levels and upwards.
2. The Taliban have DShK and ZPU-2 capable of hitting things at medium level (especially if slow) aand the second national sport, after kite flying, is kite (or large balloon) shooting. They might even field something bigger for such a large slow-moving target.
3. Above the AAA the medium level winds are regularly 80kts or so.
4. Force Protection of such a large blimp on the ground would be an utter disaster.
Utter folly believing that HAV would have been a silver bullet for Afghan ISR...
The B Word
How many times do we have to go over this? Using a HAV in Afghanistan would have been a complete disaster:
1. The Seistan is a 4 month long wind averaging 100mph at lower levels and upwards.
2. The Taliban have DShK and ZPU-2 capable of hitting things at medium level (especially if slow) aand the second national sport, after kite flying, is kite (or large balloon) shooting. They might even field something bigger for such a large slow-moving target.
3. Above the AAA the medium level winds are regularly 80kts or so.
4. Force Protection of such a large blimp on the ground would be an utter disaster.
Utter folly believing that HAV would have been a silver bullet for Afghan ISR...
The B Word