New Gen AirShips - Hybrid Air Vehicles, UK
Predicting the failure of people who attempt something new is a nice safe thing to do because failure is common and hard to avoid. There are lots of perfectly sensible and ordinary, even good sounding businesses that fail all the time. How much more difficult is it to do new things? And doing them in the UK? Thank goodness that doesn't put everyone off trying.
T43562
"Something new"? Now that makes me laugh. The snake oil salesmen have been doing this for well over 40 years and fleeced various investors of their cash - Aerospace-Developments, Skyship, Wren Skyships, SkyCat or Thermoskyships*, anyone? No, I thought not
LJ
* These are all the same company over the past 40 years and are now the latest - Hybrid Air Vehicles...
"Something new"? Now that makes me laugh. The snake oil salesmen have been doing this for well over 40 years and fleeced various investors of their cash - Aerospace-Developments, Skyship, Wren Skyships, SkyCat or Thermoskyships*, anyone? No, I thought not
LJ
* These are all the same company over the past 40 years and are now the latest - Hybrid Air Vehicles...
PS Seeing as Northrop Grumman and the US Army spent $297,000,000 on it, why do you think they walked away?
They woke up and found themselves in the Snake Oil salesman's caravan with the feeling of being duped and fleeced!
(just like the USN with "Sentinel")
LJ
They woke up and found themselves in the Snake Oil salesman's caravan with the feeling of being duped and fleeced!
(just like the USN with "Sentinel")
LJ
Regurgitated from Post #9:
18 months before it's shelved (again!)
iRaven
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)
iRaven
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From the BBC article, a quote from a 'high profile' investor, Iron Maiden's lead singer, Bruce Dickinson
(My bold)
I'd like to see you 'plonk' it at Combat Outpost Zerok, of Restrepo fame, let's see how it holds up to a hot LZ @ 7000' surrounded by mountains, in an Afghan winter.
A ridiculous claim that would make even Snake oil salesmen blush.
It is 70% greener than a cargo plane, he says. It doesn't need a runway, just two crew. And it can plonk 50 tonnes anywhere in the world you like, which is 50 times more than a helicopter.
I'd like to see you 'plonk' it at Combat Outpost Zerok, of Restrepo fame, let's see how it holds up to a hot LZ @ 7000' surrounded by mountains, in an Afghan winter.
A ridiculous claim that would make even Snake oil salesmen blush.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Having heard about this very recently, my first thought was: "Hope it succeeds".
Second thought, after reading more about it, was: "Oh, dear....!"
(as memories of the Lilo lost on the windy beach came flooding back...).
It will need the specialist infrastructure and backup to support it, literally. Because of it's sheer size, one must ask: How? Where?
If it can fly non-stop for 21 days (and at those speeds it will need to, to get anywhere), and this seems to be the 'raison d'etre', it certainly can't come back to Cardington sheds every night.
Second thought, after reading more about it, was: "Oh, dear....!"
(as memories of the Lilo lost on the windy beach came flooding back...).
It will need the specialist infrastructure and backup to support it, literally. Because of it's sheer size, one must ask: How? Where?
If it can fly non-stop for 21 days (and at those speeds it will need to, to get anywhere), and this seems to be the 'raison d'etre', it certainly can't come back to Cardington sheds every night.
I see that the technology strategy board have just given them £2.5m for 'engineering, various' (it seems to me) as part of a public/private £4m fund.
That'll get 'em over the the hump that $297m didn't.
That'll get 'em over the the hump that $297m didn't.
As I understand it Northrop is whom one should ask how the money was spent. It's not clear at all what HAV received but they did have to build the vehicle, pay suppliers for one-off production runs and to cancel any other work they were doing so that this project could be done quickly. I would imagine that they also had to order parts for the 3 airships they were to build and what happened when that had to be cancelled?
The new ideas in this airship have not had their chance to be tested. It's pretty common in history for people to dream of things they can't quite achieve and then for new ideas and technology to make it possible later on. I admit I'm only a programmer and a civilian but this is something I see very often in my field due to the mind-blowing increases in performance that have been achieved. Lots of people said "X" or "Y" will never happen and it has so I sort of disrespect that attitude now because it is regularly disproved in my area of experience.
Essentially I like people who persist because in my experience that's what leads to success. You can roughly speaking do almost anything you think of eventually although there are usually lots and lots of people who delight in telling you that you can't. One could laugh at Leonardo da Vinci for being so foolish as to think of tanks and helicopters and parachutes in 14XX when it was "clearly" snake oil. In a sense perhaps it was for him but those old ideas got dusted off and used. What would the world be like if someone had given him the equivalent of XXX million pounds to pursue it all? Possibly not filled with helicopters but he might have realised that he needed some better mathematics, lighter materials and a computer to help him and that could well have changed the world.
So I'm very happy with this little use of my tax:
The new ideas in this airship have not had their chance to be tested. It's pretty common in history for people to dream of things they can't quite achieve and then for new ideas and technology to make it possible later on. I admit I'm only a programmer and a civilian but this is something I see very often in my field due to the mind-blowing increases in performance that have been achieved. Lots of people said "X" or "Y" will never happen and it has so I sort of disrespect that attitude now because it is regularly disproved in my area of experience.
Essentially I like people who persist because in my experience that's what leads to success. You can roughly speaking do almost anything you think of eventually although there are usually lots and lots of people who delight in telling you that you can't. One could laugh at Leonardo da Vinci for being so foolish as to think of tanks and helicopters and parachutes in 14XX when it was "clearly" snake oil. In a sense perhaps it was for him but those old ideas got dusted off and used. What would the world be like if someone had given him the equivalent of XXX million pounds to pursue it all? Possibly not filled with helicopters but he might have realised that he needed some better mathematics, lighter materials and a computer to help him and that could well have changed the world.
So I'm very happy with this little use of my tax:
Today’s grant announcement will help HAV create a detailed model of the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft and its engines using wind tunnels and CFD simulations; a methodology for engineering the largest composite structures used in aviation; and to develop the software that will control and monitor the hull pressure system.
But the inescapable fact is that this pointless windbag is trying to offer a solution to a problem which doesn't exist.
I strongly object to any public funds being wasted on this nonsense.
I strongly object to any public funds being wasted on this nonsense.
Lots of basic research gets done that has a lot less predictable practical outcome than this. Heck - there are arts projects with more funding. What's the cost of a single F-35?
@LJ, you could be right if the trials end up as a flop 
Hybrid Air Vehicles expects UK MoD trials in 2015 - IHS Jane's 360
Hybrid Air Vehicles expects UK MoD trials in 2015 - IHS Jane's 360
Reinventing the wheel again! In summer 1984, I was attached to the AEW group at RSRE, as was. It was decided to fly the Skyship 600 against one of the East coast radars to see what it looked like. I was sent to Cardington, armed with a Clansman, and another engineer went to the radar site. I spent an enjoyable day flying up and down the coast in the Skyship.
We concluded that, with more consideration given to construction, less metal and properly cowled engines, the signature would be tiny. Then someone remembered the wind problems and it all went away.
We concluded that, with more consideration given to construction, less metal and properly cowled engines, the signature would be tiny. Then someone remembered the wind problems and it all went away.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see that the first lecture of the Cambridge RAeS 14/15 lecture season is the people from HAV at Cardington. Having read all the comments on here I don't think I shall bother going. - perhaps I should so I can make my own mind up.
Sorry I did not get Oberons point about RCS. I did not see stealth as a KUR.
Perhaps t45321 has a point about the technical advances in materials, powerplants, and aerodynamics making this project more viable. I saw an interesting MDBA promo showing the airship being used as a launch vehicle for guided weapons.
Sorry I did not get Oberons point about RCS. I did not see stealth as a KUR.
Perhaps t45321 has a point about the technical advances in materials, powerplants, and aerodynamics making this project more viable. I saw an interesting MDBA promo showing the airship being used as a launch vehicle for guided weapons.
I would have thought that low observability and RADAR stealth would be a must for a lumbering beast like this. Even if it has a tailwind it would be lucky to make 150kts ground speed whilst carrying critical items like F35 engines or an AEW capabilty - it doesn't really make military sense, does it?
Whilst we're on the subject of loads, I think a Herc can carry 20t and the C17 closer to 50t. So why they are pushing this as such an amazing cargo-lift capability, I have no idea - plus the fixed wing aircraft could have made the trip 4 times over in the time it would take a HAV to amke a single journey!
LJ
Whilst we're on the subject of loads, I think a Herc can carry 20t and the C17 closer to 50t. So why they are pushing this as such an amazing cargo-lift capability, I have no idea - plus the fixed wing aircraft could have made the trip 4 times over in the time it would take a HAV to amke a single journey!
LJ
Leon,
Because it can carry, potentially, outsize loads that the C17 can't at 5 times the speed of a ship, in a straight line without the need for a port or airstrip...ie almost to the logistically hard 'last mile'.
Think of it more as a very fast naval freighter and it makes more sense. It's also a lot more sensible than using a RW for ASACS.....
Because it can carry, potentially, outsize loads that the C17 can't at 5 times the speed of a ship, in a straight line without the need for a port or airstrip...ie almost to the logistically hard 'last mile'.
Think of it more as a very fast naval freighter and it makes more sense. It's also a lot more sensible than using a RW for ASACS.....
I don't know the proposal but one possibility that I can imagine is that a C-17 couldn't deliver loads directly onto the carrier no matter how many times it could fly back and forth. That's not to say that an HAV could do it - I don't know.
I think the argument given for its appeal in terms of cargo is related to being able to collect and drop off point to point. There is the added claim that those points possibly lack the infrastructure that even military transports require.
I presume (because I have no right to claim knowledge) that rough-field landings aren't free of cost for large transport aircraft - there must be maintenance issues. Perhaps the equation is different for an HAV?
A consideration for the future is that the 20t and 50t HAVs are minnows compared to the 1000t version but a start has to be made somewhere.
I think the argument given for its appeal in terms of cargo is related to being able to collect and drop off point to point. There is the added claim that those points possibly lack the infrastructure that even military transports require.
I presume (because I have no right to claim knowledge) that rough-field landings aren't free of cost for large transport aircraft - there must be maintenance issues. Perhaps the equation is different for an HAV?
A consideration for the future is that the 20t and 50t HAVs are minnows compared to the 1000t version but a start has to be made somewhere.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Now that would be a thing to see, an airship, which has trouble manouevering in high winds, trying to land on a carrier. Would the carrier have to run down wind in order to reduce the wind over the deck? Would a 1000t airship even fit?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 79
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because it can carry, potentially, outsize loads that the C17 can't at 5 times the speed of a ship, in a straight line without the need for a port or airstrip...ie almost to the logistically hard 'last mile'.
Think of it more as a very fast naval freighter and it makes more sense.
Think of it more as a very fast naval freighter and it makes more sense.