USA Army Airship for Afghanistan ISR
 

FlightGlobal/Flight International: US Army revives hybrid airship interest with LEMV

Reviving interest in untethered lighter-than-air technology after a half-century hiatus, the US Army in January will kick-off a process to buy a long-endurance hybrid airship to deploy within 18 months to Afghanistan for surveillance missions.

Space and Missile Defense Command will issue a request for proposals for the long-endurance multi-intelligence vehicle (LEMV) contract on 29 January, the agency says.

An acquisition notice posted on 29 December describes the command's requirements for the airship. LEMV will be optionally manned, fly for up to three weeks, carry multiple intelligence payloads weighing up to 1,134kg (2,500lb), provide 16kW power and reach speeds up to 80kt (148km/h).

The army will test the airship's performance during the first 18 months, then deploy the airship into combat service in Afghanistan for the next 3.5 years, says the notice.

The LEMV programme has received interest at high levels of the Department of Defense and the US defence industry.

The National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) has formed a consortium to support the LEMV project. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works division has demonstrated a prototype hybrid airship called the P791. Another company, Hybrid Air Vehicles, plans to adapt its Skycat hybrid airship for military use.

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/g...x?ItemID=31076

LEMV also figures prominently in the army's new strategy for a multi-layered fleet of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft. As a medium-altitude asset with ultra-long-endurance, the airship is expected to complement unmanned aerial vehicles and manned turboprops performing similar missions.

According to budget justification documents released in May, the army plans to spend up to $76 million on the LEMV acquisition process in Fiscal 2010.

Does anyone remember when the AAC tried using an airship over Ulster, sometime late 90s/early 00s? (Can't remember exact year, getting on a bit you know....)

Can't help with that but the FAA trialled an Airship 500 extesively in the Offshore Patrol role in the 1980s. A much larger version was proposed, the Airship 5000, with several day endurance and ASW sensor outfit.

Amazing how things have gone a fullcircle and returned to airships, this was the first proposed airwar machine, balloons and blimps

I remember the AAC had one at Boscombe Down for evaluation; they managed to puncture it quite badly!!

Lessee here....AC-130's can only operate in the night as they are too vulnerable in the daytime. So we are going to put up an airship of immense size for multi-day long missions.....hummmmmmmmm?

Just call me Doubting Thomas on this one!

Sounds like a lot of hot air :ok:

Looks like a good idea but wouldn't it be vulnerable to MANPADS?

If the competition goes ahead then looks like Cardington shall be busy :ok:

Various LTA vehicles have/are being proposed as high flying relays to supplement cell + sat telecomms e.g. Lindstrand's HALE airship.

I reckon this vessel would fly at sufficiently high altiutude to be safe from MANPADs - that said it would be pretty vulnerable when taking off & landing.

....and the prevailing wind at (say) 20,000 over the Stan is.....?

Yes, and if I recall correctly, it used so much fuel just to stay in one place it was deemed as non-viable.

My 'bandar' essay considered this option as more cost effective than a low orbit radar/imint/elint equipped sat solution. I tied the main aspects of ISR into a single airship platform (akin to the E-10 concept) with remote datalink & comms connectivity to allow for unmanned operations and to promote a degree of persistence. There are obvious performance limitations to overcome but unmanned and pushed up high enough to avoid any gnd based threat has some merit IMHO.

That said though, I didn't win! So I was obviously talking complete 'horlix'

SA

Take a look at this...

http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/map...0oa.africa.gif

75kts at FL240 over Afghanistan today - they'll be able to make a massive 5kts of headway into wind! Also, if you've seen the hangars in Cardington then you'll have some pretty big real-estate to build in Bastion or KAF (a great IDF target!). Finally, the top speed of 80kts is not sustainable for the 3week flights.

I THINK THIS IS A TRULY DUMB IDEA

I understand that the British Army are also asking for the same thing! :ugh:

LJ

Thats the picture we got from chatting to the guys operating it from Ballykelly when it returned very late one night, apparently quite literally running on fumes.

:ugh:

US Army has just released images of the pilot...

http://www.foxnews.com/images/578456...alloon_320.jpg

Sounds like a great idea but;

1. Takes a whole bunch of groundcrew to get it on/off the mooring mast or ground handle it in any way.

2. It doesn't often travel faster than the prevailing weather.

3. When moored it needs a constant pressure watch and ballonet balancing to stop it becoming erect or flaccid as ambient pressure changes.

4. Max wind speed limits are limiting, especially when Point 2 applies.

5. Loading/Unloading payloads requires water ballast or helium gas transfer, so FBO infrastructure is not trivial or small.

Maybe nothing there insurmountable, but not easy over the 'stan or anywhere else remote and sandy.

PS. Think the UK Army learned all this in the early nineties, and yes they did stick theirs onto the mast at Boscombe during the trial.

Know where this thread is heading.

Every so often someonw comes up with this great idea to use blimps for some purpose - and somehow persuades the military to try their idea....:hmm:

But early Zeppelins (no, I don't remember them :p ) flew fairly low, to avoid high winds at altitude.

Tethered aerostats carrying radar seem to be successful in the war against drug smuggling, but attempting to fly an airship at the high altitudes required in Afghanistan seems doomed to failure.

Is that 80KIAS - or 80KTAS? Does the US Army understand the difference, particularly where altitude is significant?

The Skycat designs for blimps were heavier than air (bodies were shaped as wings) and used a kind of suction skirt (opposite of a hovercraft) to suck themselves onto the ground. The idea was that they didn't need lots of people.

The thing would never get off the ground with 3 weeks worth of rations, especially those fantastic 'London Crisps', where would you store all the white boxes?

...maybe because ISR is generally done 'on the quiet....' :ok: