New Gen AirShips - Hybrid Air Vehicles, UK
 

A very interesting story about a UK company that's been given a US Military contract to build new generation air ships. They reckon they'll be able to carry 1000 tons in the not too distant future if all goes well:

Airships: Pioneering Brits heralding dawn of new Zeppelin age | Mail Online

I think they have huge potential for military use, air transport and eventually passengers but I can't get over how they'll cope with some of the weather I've certainly experienced around the world. They obviously got around this earlier last century but safety records were not what's expected these days in aviation.
I was after any more info or discussion on this topic from those interested or in the know.
I wouldn't mind a punt on HAV shares when they eventually float.. Parden the pun!

Does anyone remember the airship trials by the AAC in NI?

How did that go?

That was predicted 30 years ago when Airship Industries first started up.

Hybrid Air Vehicles
 

The latest little bit of news from them is here:

http://hybridairvehicles.com/pdf/HAV...e24Aug2011.pdf

The text of it is:

Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd today announced the commencement of its Commercial Heavy Lift
programme with its launch customer Discovery Air Innovations.

LONDON, United Kingdom and Pointe-Claire, Quebec, Canada – 12th August 2011 – Discovery Air
Innovations (DAI), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Discovery Air Inc. and Hybrid Air Vehicles Limited
(HAV) have signed an agreement under which DAI will be the first customer for HAV’s Commercial
Heavy Lift programme.

Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd is a pioneer and world leader in the design, manufacture and support of
innovative Lighter-Than-Air (LTA) aircraft products, known as Hybrid Air Vehicles. The company has
brought together a long legacy of LTA design and delivery experience and combined it with modern
technologies to create a major new, cost effective, low carbon emission aerospace business,
focusing initially on the surveillance and heavy lift markets.

Based in Cranfield, UK, the HAV team has more than 1,000 years of combined aerospace experience
in building and certifying LTA aircraft. Recent improvements in technology, such as advanced
fabrics, control technology and simulation have enabled the team to build a hybrid air vehicle that
has significant advantages over the original airship concept. The “hybrid” principle utilizes both
aerodynamics and lighter-than-air technology to generate lift - about 60% of the lift is aerostatic
(from helium buoyancy) and the remaining 40% is aerodynamic, generated from the vehicle’s shape.
Additionally, powered lift is used during take-off and landing by vectoring the thrust from four
ducted propulsors.

The result is a range of revolutionary products with global market potential. In 2010, partnering
with Northrop Grumman, HAV Ltd. won a $517 million U.S. Army contract to develop the Long-
Endurance Multi-intelligence Vehicle (LEMV) for deployment into theatre in 2012. This vehicle is
able to operate above 20,000 feet (MSL) with up to 21-days endurance.

Discovery Air is a specialty aviation company based in Canada, with operations around the world.
Their service offering includes cargo transport, rotary wing, fire services, logistics and military
aviation services. DAI President, Paul Bouchard, has stated HAV’s heavy lift and cargo vehicles have a payload capacity ranging from 20 to 200 tonnes, with
future development potential of up to 1,000 tonnes. The helium-filled hull creates aerodynamic lift,
which when combined with the vectored thrust engines enables vertical takeoff / landing (VTOL), as
well as precision hover. The hovercraft landing system’s “suck down” allows for multi-surface
operation and load transfer - on land, water, ice and snow.
The hybrid air vehicle is also one of the most environmentally-friendly modes of transport. Its
flexibility reduces or eliminates transshipments and fuel consumption is equally impressive, saving
up to 75% on equivalent payload alternatives. The ability to launch, land and load from gravel
airstrips, water, snow or ice surfaces with no preparation or specialist handling equipment saves
end-users both time and investment in infrastructure. Ground loading offers roll-on-roll-off
capability, while the precision hover allows pick-up and delivery of cargo from ships or other austere
locations.

The Heavy Lift Programme is currently in its detailed design phase, with construction planned for
2012. The first vehicle is scheduled to enter commercial service in 2014.

For further details please visit Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd - For Persistent Surveillance and Heavy Lift Logistics

Interested readers might like to use their Interweb Search Engine of Choice to see what a trawl for "shortage of helium" throws up. I remember reading not long ago (in New Scientist, story then picked up by the Independent) how many quids it would cost (dozens) for one of those fairground/party balloons if the US Govt didn't artificially fix the price of the gas (couldn't work a joke on 'inflation' there, sadly) so low.

Helium is the new gold in Afghanistan with lots of tethered balloons needing refilling (and emptying of lead!) every fortnight or so.

Anyway we discussed this last year at http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...istan-isr.html

Airships are 'snake oil' that get invested in every 10-20years and find they need too much infrastructure and can't deal with medium level winds. I await the cancellation of the program when they (re) discover this.

LJ

Slowly. :E

LJ

What rubbish!!

Airships and UAV are the answer to everything. Maritime Patrol, Close Air Support, Airborne Early Warning, Heavy Lift, Global Warming, The Credit Crunch, Teenage Acne, Non Specific Urethritis....

I believe they have developed a UAV that can play left wing for England and an airship has been widely touted to win the next X Factor. Oh no...that already happened.

Nice one LJ - enough said in the thread in the link you posted. This says it all really from the ex-exec of what became Hybrid Air Vehicles:

I thought I'd read somewhere that the only supply of Helium was in yankeeland and it was running low.

If true, surely the Americans would either make it prohibitively expensive or simply keep it for themselves.

Hasn't technology advanced sufficiently since the R101 and Hindenburg era to allow safe usage of hydrogen with it's greater lifting power?

I wonder how much an aluminium piano would cost nowadays? :hmm:

Hasn't technology advanced sufficiently since the R101 and Hindenburg era to allow safe usage of hydrogen with it's greater lifting power?

Don't think so.

Furthermore, it's not only a question of safety. The need to refill, at least partially refill the gasbags with helium or hydrogen before each takeoff is a big drawback.

In regard to the helium problem: the only airship proposals I can take seriously are ones which don't require helium to be dumped in order to descend and land.

There have been proposals -- Russian, I think-- for airships that would chill and compress their helium to descend, so as to -reuse the helium.

Also, Lockheed and others have mooted hybrid large aircraft/airships which would not dump any helium and would remain somewhat heavier than air even when empty of cargo.

The “hybrid” principle utilizes both aerodynamics and lighter-than-air technology to generate lift - about 60% of the lift is aerostatic (from helium buoyancy) and the remaining 40% is aerodynamic, generated from the vehicle’s shape.

Make that about 65%-70% aerodynamic lift and 30%-35% aerostatic, and the proposal might be viable.

Even Helium won't save you with a fire in an airship...:sad:

http://images.smh.com.au/2011/06/14/...main-420x0.jpg

This sadly happened this year. Witnesses reported hearing the pilot screaming as it went in - horrific!

Airships? No thanks! :yuk:

CPL Clott

At least he got his pax out.

RIP Mike. A top bloke.

500 above

I read that. That he swooped down whilst on fire to get his pax out, who duly jumped. Sadly, the loss of the pax's weight meant that the airship went up again with him in it. In my opinion the guy deserves a George Cross as he could have just bailed when close to the ground and left his pax to it.

I never new him but I do admire his courage.

CPL Clott

Here ya go..



http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/anderson/t...underbird2.jpg

Thunderbird 2 was a pure lifting body design, no lighter than air component at all.
The plans show that main thrust was from a nuclear reactor which used liquid sodium (or maybe Sodium-Potassium alloy) as a heat exchanger to superheat the air flow through the ramjets. Liquid fuel rockets were in the two tailpipes and provided extra/initial takeoff thrust, while there were four turbofans in the tail cross section for low speed cruise. (i.e. below 2000mph). Max speed was 5000mph

The VTOL lift was provided by another set of liquid fuel rockets

You may laugh, but its as credible as a functional LTA machine

Gakkg651
 

A lot does come from the USA - it is actually a by product of oil exploration/production. At one time it came out of the ground so fast, it was necessary to fit silencers to the He vents.

However, we get most of our LHe - liquid Helium - via our suppliers who get it from Algeria. Even so, you are right, it isn't getting any more common and its price has risen steeply over the years I been using it.

LHe is weird stuff and even though I have used hundreds of thousands of litres, I have never seen it. It never comes out of the end of the pipe, only as vapour. It has incredibly high surface tension and will climb the walls of any container to an extraordinary degree. It can also boil locally, that is to say, unlike water where the whole volume of water must be raised to 100C before it will boil, Liquid helium can boil in one small part of its volume. This will usually cascade into a generalised state of boiling if the pressure is not maintained.

It goes without saying that if is incredibly cold - about 4K or -269 C.

Roger.

Landroger.

Thanks for the interesting info.

Love to know what you use hundreds of thousands litres of He for.

You're not one of those saturation diver chaps per chance?

From New scientist:

Sign in to read: Nobel prizewinner: We are running out of helium - opinion - 18 August 2010 - New Scientist

Nobel prizewinner: We are running out of helium

• 18 August 2010 by Clint Witchalls

Robert Richardson worked on the superfluid properties of helium – now he worries that we are squandering our supplies of the gas
Most of us think of helium as something to fill balloons with or that makes your voice go funny when you inhale it. Why does it matter that helium supplies are running low?
There are some substitutes, but it can't be replaced for cryogenics, where liquid helium cools superconducting magnets for MRI scanners. There is no other substance which has a lower boiling point than helium. It is also used in the manufacture of fibre optics and liquid crystal displays.
The use of helium in cryogenics is self-contained, in that the helium is recycled. The same could be done in other industries if helium was expensive enough that manufacturers thought recovering it was worthwhile.
Surely industry must be paying more and more for helium if it is in short supply.
No, the price is dictated by a calendar. The US government established a national helium reserve in 1925, and today a billion cubic metres of the gas are stored in a facility near Amarillo, Texas. In 1996 Congress passed an act requiring that this strategic reserve, which represents half the Earth's helium stocks, be sold off by 2015. As a result, helium is far too cheap and is not treated as a precious resource.
Oil companies such as Exxon have invested heavily in extracting fossil fuels from shale, which may also contain helium. Could this come to our rescue?
The so-called Eastern oil shale in Kentucky and Ohio, which is also a source of natural gas, contains only trace amounts of helium, not the relatively large 0.5 to 2 per cent found in natural gas reserves in the American West. The same is true of North Sea gas and wells in Europe.
Say we do run out of helium - can't we just make the stuff from something else or purify it from the air?
There is no chemical means to make helium. The supplies we have on Earth come from radioactive alpha decay in rocks. Right now it's not commercially viable to recover helium from the air, so we have to rely on extracting it from rocks. But if we do run out altogether, we will have to recover helium from the air and it will cost 10,000 times what it does today.
The shortage of helium has been talked about for a while. Are things really getting that urgent now?
Maybe in Europe there has been a conversation, but not in the US - and the US supplies nearly 80 per cent of the helium used in the world. The problem is that these supplies will run out in a mere 25 years, and the US government has a policy of selling helium at a ridiculously low price.
What should the US government do instead?
Get out of the business and let the free market prevail. The consequence will be a rise in prices. Unfortunately, party balloons will be $100 each rather than $3 but we'll have to live with that. We will have to live with those prices eventually anyway

LEMV readied for November flight
 

LEMV readied for November flight

"LEMV is now running more than a month behind its scheduled first flight, which was revealed in June at the Paris Air Show. The delays have not been publicly explained.
The hybrid airship is now in a hangar, with all 19 sections inflated and sensors integrated, according to sources with knowledge of the programme."

Very well, apparently, although there were complaints from certain sectors of the populace about the covert markings, and Durex wanted royalties.

NorthGrum cancelled its LEMV press conference at the AUVSI show in August at the last moment, and did not brief at the Association of the US Army show this week in DC.

So what we have is a radically new air vehicle,
designed by a UK team,
that includes some people from a defunct company that flew a small-scale mock-up,
with an envelope fabricated by a textile company in the US,
integrated by NG's surveillance radar division,
managed by Army missile defense people,
and planned and funded on a very tight schedule.

What could possibly go wrong?

//weeps softly, bangs head on desk

Personally, I think Lighter Than Air vehicles are over inflated...

Oh Buster, you let yourself down with that comment...

:ok:

LEMV pitched to MoD
 

Not sure which thread to put this on but I have to pick one so here goes:

21st century airships may join Navy fleet - Telegraph

The story is obviously mainly hot air but it indicates that some sort of pitch has been made without any indication of how it was received.

Ah more airship snake oil. Comes around every few years before someone gets the job of pointing out how vulnerable they are, then it all goes quiet again.

I bounced off the corners of DEC(DSR) as it was then when someone pitched a wonderful idea of having MBTs and 100's of infantry plodding across the globe at 40 to 80kts before the bleeding obvious was pointed out.

They might Make good MPAs. :E

Hybrid Air Skyship 3000 Airship Industries Vehicles - coming to visit a poor unsuspecting kn0b in a MoD Capability branch job soon. Jeez, you can almost set your watch by the regularity :ugh:

http://saleskick.me/wp-content/uploa...snake-oil2.jpg

Warning! Warning! :eek:

Still it will make an interesting update to this book :ok:

http://covers.openlibrary.org/w/id/888028-L.jpg

Take a look at http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y..._4_PB_2012.pdf

In it you'll find the line:

:eek: what a crock of expensive cr@p :eek:

In my humble opinion of course :ok:

Why are airships that much more vulnerable than, say, a marine ship? Much in the same way that marine ships would be protected by the RN, would the airships not have fighter escorts/CIWS/AMRAAMs?

In the case of some of the designs proposed over the years, payloads of 1000 Tons are achievable, If you believe those figures. Surely the value in these aircraft is in their use as AIR SHIPS? Faster than maritime shipping, and much bigger payloads than conventional aircraft. Not of much great benefit in the 'present' wars, but then what is? Something like these would give you the option to bring back a lot of the stuff that will be inevitably left in the middle east when we leave. Call me old fashioned, but I've always believed options were a good thing.

There may always come a time when expedient shipping of a task force comes necessary in a short period of time, especially when the future of warfare is revolving around the notion that future conflict will involve smaller clashes with less prominent militaries.

These vehicles were never really destined for the battlefield after the invention of the Fighter.

JollyGreen
The problem is that these machines are being envisioned for high risk roles as replacements for AEW platforms, for MPA use, for use as pickets in a similar way as HMS Sheffield and Coventry were...
In the air for weeks, away from any chance of fighter support (unless you were to hang F-35B off them with a skyhook, but I don't think anyone has proposed that ....yet...)

If you just wanted to use them as simply cargo vessels, then yes there may be a case. Maybe a fleet would come in handy when we finally want to evacuate Afghanistan given the Pakistani road blockade. But you have to consider the slow speed, the height restriction vs the local mountains, and most importantly, for all the hype, no-one has yet demonstrated a way for a large lighter than air vessel to overcome the issue of loss of mass due to fuel burn. No one has yet come up with a pump that will liquify the gaseous helium enough to reduce lift significantly as mass decreases.Even these hybrid ships are going to hit that brick wall when they try to do it for real

Perhaps before anyone places an order then they read this:

Why the world is running out of helium - Science - News - The Independent

Think the aircraft would be a great solution RN or RAF. In both its' proposed roles would give great capability.

Could be used as an AEW for the RN, to replace the Sea King, 5-21 days endurance, 20,000ft ceiling, and much cheaper to operate

Might even be possible to base one on Mt Pleasant.

As a heavy lifter too. Can imagine on a Operation Corporate type mission, being able to bring heavy last minute items to the fleet would be invaluable. Or dropping off heavy munitions to Gioia del Colle in the recent Libya conflict.

" Can imagine on a Operation Corporate type mission, being able to bring heavy last minute items to the fleet would be invaluable"

Given the 80Kph speed and issued raised by people far more clever than myself, perhaps it would be easier if we relied on these boring things called 'ships' and 'cargo planes' to acheive this effect?

Believe it is 80Knots, not Kph (or 150KPH), so triple the speed of one of these 'ships', which also have to go around land (depending on the destination somewhat relevant).

As for cargo planes, although the USN navy got a C-130 down on a carrier, I'm not sure I would want to be doing it all the time!

Will also cost 1/3 of commercial air cargo.

...but in the future small-scale campaigns that will soon be all that we are capable of, these could be incredibly useful, particularly in the maritime environment. Why does everyone always go straight to right of arc high end warfighting? Air brings so much more to the party than just combat power. These things could revolutionise the ISR and Mobility roles and could save the RN from all sorts of embarrassing situations. Agreed, in contested airspace I wouldn't want to be in one - but we tend not to get too involved in that sort of thing nowadays and that isn't how we would use them. To be honest, I'm still on the fence over this capability, but I would far rather see it succeed and be useful (and cheap) than fail. We don't have to wait long to find out the truth - we should be able to see how they cope with and contribute to Afghanistan fairly soon.
:8

giblets, fin1012

You're both missing a couple of key points
First if you used these as cargo movers, you hit the fundamental problem that for every tonne of freight delivered, you have to pick up a tonne of ballast - or else your vessel is going to float away. You may be able to pump up 500 tonnes of water if carrying out replenishment at sea (assuming you have collapsing tanks to store it in|) but I suspect finding that much water in the middle of Khandahar may cause problems.

The other point is that if the Navy couldn't protect Sheffield and Coventry from attack at sea level, what chance have they of stopping something at 20,000 feet? You would need a T45 or carrier on station to protect the airship

And where does it go in a hurricane?

Seeing as the average winds on route to the FIs could be 50-70kts headwind, then you're probably quicker by boat anyway. I also remember seeing Mt Byron's golfball laying at the bottom of the Mount having been subjected to 100kts+ gusts of wind - it would funny to watch a blimp working in the South Atlantic's somewhat harsh weather system :)

Finally, I contest that this is significantly cheaper than traditional fixed wing air freight. Yes, in terms of fuel it might be cheaper, but you have to add in all the extra costs:

1. Helium is getting 'kin expensive.
2. Wherever you regularly operate you need access to Helium.
3. You need a mahoosive hangar for repairs or getting out of the weather (or poke off elsewhere when the storm threatens).
4. Outlay in buying and setting up another aircraft type (remember we canned the Harrier because we couldn't afford to support so many FJ types?) - also, I suspect that this would be a very small fleet of blimps and that attracts high running costs.
5. You either need to ditch Helium after dropping off mahoosive loads (see para 1 on Helium cost) or you have to carry ballast back and forth with the reduction in performance and increase in cost.

The quote from the previous CE of Airship Industries in the first posts is as true now as it has ever been - snake oil it is. If it was such a great idea then we would have been using Helium ballons in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s - the technology was there, but we didn't bother because the idea is looked at on a 10 yearly basis with the same conclusion "too slow, too expensive to support and not worth the effort".

LJ