New Gen AirShips - Hybrid Air Vehicles, UK
"Poised" is a very useful and flexible word.
Mind you, I always thought that nighttime airborne s--g* cruises around the world's scenic wonders would be a good choice as an early accessible market, Quiet and roomy and easy to fit the gondola with big picture windows.
* that's "snog", you naughty boy
Mind you, I always thought that nighttime airborne s--g* cruises around the world's scenic wonders would be a good choice as an early accessible market, Quiet and roomy and easy to fit the gondola with big picture windows.
* that's "snog", you naughty boy
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 78
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TURIN
Does being so negative give you pleasure or do you just want to be a miserable bugger?
Seriously, whenever anyone points out that the latest airship
The only prospective use case for such a device is as a parking station for flying cars.
"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.
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.
Originally Posted by Corporal Clott
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 69
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Corporal Clott
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.
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.
"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….
"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….
Originally Posted by Evalu8ter
"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….
"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….
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 69
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Evalu8ter
"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….
"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….
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Just South of the last ice sheet
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)!
( as distinct from "Aerodyne")
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.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Only occasionally above FL50
Age: 70
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
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 “.
Perhaps a first in being solar powered and driving itself along by climbing and sinking “like a porpoise “.
