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 30th Jan 2019, 05:21
  #481 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 75
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by TURIN View Post
Does being so negative give you pleasure or do you just want to be a miserable bugger?
Someone prick your balloon?

Seriously, whenever anyone points out that the latest airship scam plucky venture is bound to fail, there's a small chorus of people crying "Spoilsport." If anyone wants to spend their own money on a Quixotic hobby, fine, but these outfits are all trying to get investment, and are tying up serious engineering capacity.

The only prospective use case for such a device is as a parking station for flying cars.
FlightlessParrot is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2019, 08:14
  #482 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,480
"If it looks right, it'll fly right"

Never truer!

Quite what practical use this ridiculous gasbag will have to justify the huge amount of funding it needs will be difficult to imagine. Most 'surveillance' tasks can now be covered by drones, which are vastly cheaper and simpler to deploy than a giant gasbag.

"We've designed this thing - now let's find a use for it" seems a weird approach to life.
BEagle is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2019, 09:23
  #483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by Corporal Clott View Post
Unmanned Droid - exactly.

Look at item 1 on my proposed wish list - a new UK basic jet trainer. Well these guys are looking for investors: https://aeralis.com/



I would suggest there is a bigger market for this and a greater requirement. There are only so many investors around, so why waste it on a giant gas bag rather than something else more likely to be a success for GB.
Maybe some people with money will agree with you but if not.....then they prefer gasbags and that's all there is to it. Being negative about airships won't help your favorite project. It's really obvious that instead of spending your time encouraging whatever it is that you *do* believe in, you're wasting it trying to kill your neighbors' cow.
t43562 is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2019, 12:42
  #484 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,528
The Corporal is not being entirely negative.

After all, he's promoting an opportunity to invest in a start-up company. One that's proposing to develop a family of all-new high-performance military aircraft. Which will compete in an already crowded market sector that includes several relatively new products (PC-21, M-345, M-346, Boeing T-X).

A low risk, blue-chip investment, I'm sure.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2019, 15:58
  #485 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by Corporal Clott View Post
Unmanned Droid - exactly.

Look at item 1 on my proposed wish list - a new UK basic jet trainer. Well these guys are looking for investors: https://aeralis.com/




I would suggest there is a bigger market for this and a greater requirement. There are only so many investors around, so why waste it on a giant gas bag rather than something else more likely to be a success for GB.
There have been a number of trainer competitions over the past few years. Indeed a huge competition for USAF's trainer was very recently completed. Did these guys submit a proposal?

KenV is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2019, 16:08
  #486 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 955
"Justify the huge amount of money" - The entire US Army LEMV programme was, at a maximum, $500m including all of the sensors etc. Even assuming that the HAV was even 50% (extremely unlikely) that's a NRE of $250m, plus an estimated £25m per copy. Yes, there have been grants & funds to tick the company over, but, I don't think significant in the big scheme of things. HAV has been run pretty lean, without huge government subsidy. Contrast to, say, the $15Bn development cost of the Airbus A350 (plus subsidies….) and it doesn't seem a "huge" amount of money to me?

"Most surveillance tasks can be covered by drones" - not seen a UAV yet that could haul 8000kg of sensors aloft for 3-5 days; Global Hawk is probably the closest and, IIRC, carries about 2000kg of payload (and at a unit cost of $200m+ per copy with the continued issue of access to airspace…). Doubtless GH is also significantly more expensive to operate.

HAV sits in a hard place. As Liddell-Hart opined "The only thing harder than getting a new idea into a military mind is getting an old one out". This is HAV's problem; the military have some ossified thinkers and thinking. When I was in the mob we did a comparison of the HAV to the P-8 as an MPA; the HAV won on pretty much every aspect except absolute ceiling and speed to a datum. It was cheaper to buy/fly, had longer endurance, could carry vastly more weapons, sensors, sonobuoys, was more spacious and comfortable (we even looked at having two crews aloft - one operating, one resting). At a given distance from shore, the HAV could deliver an effect that would take 4-5 P8s to deliver….once it got there, of course. It became very clear, very quickly, that the Nimrod Mafia wanted a jet so they could ponce off around the world doing Fincastles and visits "just like the old days" and were simply not open to thinking about the needs of the mission.

Yes HAVs have limitations - lots of them. TAS, upper level winds, mooring restrictions etc are all significant issues. But providing infrastructure for "conventional" aircraft isn't cheap, and in times of pinching budgets, sometimes the perceived "best" is unaffordable….
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2019, 20:25
  #487 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,056
As a bit of whimsy.....

https://www.roadlessrevolution.com/2...-trillion.html

Why Giant Airships Could Be a Trillion Dollar Industry


ORAC is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2019, 00:00
  #488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 1,878
Originally Posted by Evalu8ter View Post
"Justify the huge amount of money" - The entire US Army LEMV programme was, at a maximum, $500m including all of the sensors etc. Even assuming that the HAV was even 50% (extremely unlikely) that's a NRE of $250m, plus an estimated £25m per copy. Yes, there have been grants & funds to tick the company over, but, I don't think significant in the big scheme of things. HAV has been run pretty lean, without huge government subsidy. Contrast to, say, the $15Bn development cost of the Airbus A350 (plus subsidies….) and it doesn't seem a "huge" amount of money to me?

"Most surveillance tasks can be covered by drones" - not seen a UAV yet that could haul 8000kg of sensors aloft for 3-5 days; Global Hawk is probably the closest and, IIRC, carries about 2000kg of payload (and at a unit cost of $200m+ per copy with the continued issue of access to airspace…). Doubtless GH is also significantly more expensive to operate.

HAV sits in a hard place. As Liddell-Hart opined "The only thing harder than getting a new idea into a military mind is getting an old one out". This is HAV's problem; the military have some ossified thinkers and thinking. When I was in the mob we did a comparison of the HAV to the P-8 as an MPA; the HAV won on pretty much every aspect except absolute ceiling and speed to a datum. It was cheaper to buy/fly, had longer endurance, could carry vastly more weapons, sensors, sonobuoys, was more spacious and comfortable (we even looked at having two crews aloft - one operating, one resting). At a given distance from shore, the HAV could deliver an effect that would take 4-5 P8s to deliver….once it got there, of course. It became very clear, very quickly, that the Nimrod Mafia wanted a jet so they could ponce off around the world doing Fincastles and visits "just like the old days" and were simply not open to thinking about the needs of the mission.

Yes HAVs have limitations - lots of them. TAS, upper level winds, mooring restrictions etc are all significant issues. But providing infrastructure for "conventional" aircraft isn't cheap, and in times of pinching budgets, sometimes the perceived "best" is unaffordable….
And Evalu8ter is only one of quite a few folk worldwide doing that sort of job....trying to displace entrenched thinkers!
Rigga is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2019, 19:03
  #489 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by Evalu8ter View Post
"Justify the huge amount of money" - The entire US Army LEMV programme was, at a maximum, $500m including all of the sensors etc. Even assuming that the HAV was even 50% (extremely unlikely) that's a NRE of $250m, plus an estimated £25m per copy. Yes, there have been grants & funds to tick the company over, but, I don't think significant in the big scheme of things. HAV has been run pretty lean, without huge government subsidy. Contrast to, say, the $15Bn development cost of the Airbus A350 (plus subsidies….) and it doesn't seem a "huge" amount of money to me?

"Most surveillance tasks can be covered by drones" - not seen a UAV yet that could haul 8000kg of sensors aloft for 3-5 days; Global Hawk is probably the closest and, IIRC, carries about 2000kg of payload (and at a unit cost of $200m+ per copy with the continued issue of access to airspace…). Doubtless GH is also significantly more expensive to operate.

HAV sits in a hard place. As Liddell-Hart opined "The only thing harder than getting a new idea into a military mind is getting an old one out". This is HAV's problem; the military have some ossified thinkers and thinking. When I was in the mob we did a comparison of the HAV to the P-8 as an MPA; the HAV won on pretty much every aspect except absolute ceiling and speed to a datum. It was cheaper to buy/fly, had longer endurance, could carry vastly more weapons, sensors, sonobuoys, was more spacious and comfortable (we even looked at having two crews aloft - one operating, one resting). At a given distance from shore, the HAV could deliver an effect that would take 4-5 P8s to deliver….once it got there, of course. It became very clear, very quickly, that the Nimrod Mafia wanted a jet so they could ponce off around the world doing Fincastles and visits "just like the old days" and were simply not open to thinking about the needs of the mission.

Yes HAVs have limitations - lots of them. TAS, upper level winds, mooring restrictions etc are all significant issues. But providing infrastructure for "conventional" aircraft isn't cheap, and in times of pinching budgets, sometimes the perceived "best" is unaffordable….
I sincerely hope these guys are successful. Really. But realistically, I just don't see it happening. It seems to me that an airship is just that: an airSHIP. It seems to have most of the disadvantages/limitations of both and few of the advantages of either.

KenV is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2019, 09:49
  #490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,652
Was there a Kardashian floating over Bedfordshire yesterday or was the Airlander back in the skies? Of course, it could have been a tethered blimp over B&Q (other DIY shops are available)!
LowNSlow is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2019, 13:49
  #491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 315
The buoyant craft over Cardington yesterday was an aerostat. Nothing to do with HAV. Probably Met' Office.
JOE-FBS is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2019, 18:20
  #492 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,652
Thanks JOE-FBS I thought it wasn't moving much!
LowNSlow is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2019, 18:50
  #493 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 70
Posts: 1,390
"Aerostat " has a specific definition , independent of whether the craft is tethered or not. . ( as distinct from "Aerodyne")
Haraka is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2019, 18:52
  #494 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,652
Haraka, thanks for the clarification!
LowNSlow is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2019, 19:03
  #495 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 70
Posts: 1,390
LowNSlow I wasn't joining the pedant police and meant no offence, so thank you for your kind response. In other places I have had conflict on these fundamental definitions,especially from some agencies in the U.S.A. who really should know better. Confusing these particular basic terms causes potential ambiguity which I fear , from experience , will one day bite operators.
Haraka is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2019, 18:30
  #496 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 1,878
From the look of the rig beneath the envelope it seems to be a Long-Line Parachute Rig - perhaps a new MOD training ‘device’.
Rigga is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2019, 17:59
  #497 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 315
I was wrong, not Met' Office but Linstrand:

https://www.lindstrandtech.com/what-we-do/skyflyer/
JOE-FBS is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2019, 15:08
  #498 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,086
Zeppelin

Happy Easter all ...took this fortnight ago at Aero Expo 🇩🇪

Cheers


chopper2004 is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2019, 07:25
  #499 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Only occasionally above FL50
Age: 67
Posts: 119
A new contender in the airship market? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48013519

Perhaps a first in being solar powered and driving itself along by climbing and sinking “like a porpoise “.
Andrewgr2 is online now  
Old 23rd Apr 2019, 13:13
  #500 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The sky mainly
Posts: 240
Perhaps a first in being solar powered
Not really. Hybrid Air Vehicles came up with this concept 18 years ago and built a large scale model. Just google 'Stratsat'.
Sky Sports is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.