nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 15, 2008 12:55 AM

Check out the StratoComm Corporation @ www.stratocommcorporation.com. They have patents in this area of technology and have recently gone public.

Posted by: Stephen at January 20, 2008 02:06 PM

I can't see that it would be any bigger on radar than a C-5. After all, the gasbag probably wouldn't show up on radar.

Probably we should be comparing this with Cargo ships and C-5 rather than a tactical transport.

Posted by: Strabo the Lesser at December 21, 2006 05:45 PM

Sorry to pour very cold water on you pessimist's but the British Millitary has been using an airship on counter insurgency operations for many years, having the ability to move silently above a battle field, be it Urban or Rural, equiped with a number of hightec survalance devises, day or night it can track possible targets and relay that info to ground troops.
If you cant hear it & you cant see it why would you think you can shoot it down? But then America dident invent it so it probably dosent even exist does it! best we keep it that way.

Posted by: John J at December 20, 2006 10:15 AM

I'm sure that some of you must know about Nikola Tesla and his ideas regarding Zepplins, as well as Particle Beam Weapons. I guess his ideas were not as eccentric as once thought..or perportedly thought. In 1990, I was walking home and I thought I heard the faint sound of a jet engine of some type. I looked up and to my suprise I saw the Infamous Cigar Shaped UFO! It was on an easterly track towards Omaha. I was in the Ralston/La Vista area, not too far from the Air Base there (SAC HQ). It had the bright firey tail eminating from the back...it also had at least 2 fighter escorts. Must have either have been the actuall Tesla invention reported to have touched down several times in the 1890's in Iowa and places or it was a prototype for the refueling platform we saw in the movie Stealth. Interesting to say the least. I'm guessing Tesla had a lighter than air drive of some sort. Maybe not true Anti-Gravity but something no doubt.

Posted by: Mark Million at December 7, 2006 08:56 AM

Actually, Roger, that's not a bad idea. You could park over a city and scan troublespot areas with your cameras. Any explosion would trigger the camera to "zoom in" and record the area.

Posted by: Brian at March 6, 2006 04:59 PM

Would it be possible to have a strato-cam, a high res video camera mounted on a High Altitude Platform, cabable of recording the goings on of a city using many recording cells with the purpose of watching the tape "backwards" when situations such as car bombs, IED's, or what ever should happen? Every time something happens, somebody did it, but know body seems to know where "they" came from. Now the "eye-in-the-sky" so to speak has recorded the whole thing and all that is needed is for intel to watch the tape backwards and track the bad guys to their holes. This idea won't stop an IED but it can place where the folks that did it came from and that could stop others.
Real quick, has any one heard of Skystation International? They were working on a HAP for communications and I haven't heard from them for a while. Their founder is Gen Alex Haig.

Posted by: Roger at February 24, 2006 11:37 PM

First and formost let us assume that our military arm isn't a bunch of idiots. They have technology, manpower, and brains enough to determine whether or not it is safe to fly a blimp in. I doubt the goliath would be used in an aggressive stance unless in a well guarded corridor. Most likely beyond the transport of humanitarian aid and resupply to established stronghold locations, its primary mission would be to move vehicles, ammunition and artilary. Which most people who have read a history book around here would agree is far from the nitty gritty and would be relatively safe travel, especially with gunships running interferance with any ground retaliation. I say ground because the airforce is second to none and would be responsible for keeping the air passage clear. But if you want to say that our military hierarchy is going to put an expensive and highly useful piece of hardware in to harms way, I believe the only appropriate response would be to say, sit down, be quiet, and read a book.

Posted by: Paul at January 30, 2006 12:45 PM

A cheaper more effective machine of war whether it's weapons systems or blimps is critical for our evolving military. Military Sealift Command can then free up a vast majority of its cargo ships for profit transport and help offset the costs of research and development. Yes that's right, the US Navy does make money too. Ever see a pirate ship go after a US Naval vessel? N O P E This is why companies pay the higher transport prices of MSC ships... instant insurance. ;-)Hope you learned something today.

Posted by: Gambino at January 30, 2006 08:03 AM

I suggest some of you take a look at the Feb. issue of Pop Sci. It explains that this craft is not a "big balloon" like a blimp or derigible. It is a composit-based solid structure craft which uses small wings, six jet engines, three turbo props, and its own body's shape to creat lift. It will more likely carry 400 tons of payload and travel at a speed of 174 mph with a range of 6,000 miles. Also, its naturally bouyant so it can land on water also.

Posted by: ALong at January 29, 2006 11:00 PM

I see it as a way to relieve the tsunami survivors, or katrina survivors in one transport, instead of a slow trickle of aid. bam! 100 tons of food, and 100 tons of water and red cross personell all in one shot! Or an entire brigade dropped off in a neighboring friendly country...kuait? japan? australia?

Posted by: spedunit at January 29, 2006 04:01 PM

I am dismayed by the number of naive, puerile and even lunatic comments on this subject. But for those of you that have shown you have more than two functional neurons, my greetings, my compliments and my rant:

A modern army depends on vehicles -- LOTS of vehicles. Humvees, 6x6's, fuel trucks, ambulances, etc. Currently, these are usually flown where needed by such as the C-141, C-17, C-130 and the C-5A, (which requires 14 hours of maintenance for every hour of operation, even when it hasn't been shot at).

And these enormous lumbering hulks are, indeed, shot at and hit. There used to be a Victor Charley in a spider hole at the end of the runway at Ton Son Hut, Republic of Vietnam, who shot at all aircraft coming and going. He was killed and another sniper took his place, who was killed and replaced and so on. Then came the replacement who couldn't shoot straight. He was left alone, and our rescue and maintenance, (and graves registration), people finally got to relax a bit.

And therein lies the key: All these cargo ships had to land and take off from runways! The snipers and sappers covered these runways like wool on a sheep. Blimps can land in any big, flat, empty spot. All the airship would need do is deliver its troops and vehicles in-country -- somewhere... quiet:) The unit could then use its own vehicles to proceed to its designated area of operations.

Cargo aircraft will always be shot up and shot down. As a former pilot, I can say that I would rather be hit in a heavily compartmentalized lighter-than-air blimp that could be *settled* to the ground rather than crashing into it. I see that as a far more survivable senario than than having my wing shot off, my aircraft disintegrating around me, or just augering in, (there are no ejection seats in cargo planes).

There are ways of rendering RPG's useless (from a distance), though, maddeningly, these methods are not often employed, and I will not discuss them for obvious reasons, though their use has saved countless lives; in paticular during the Yom Kippur War. There are good counter-measures for shoulder-launched SAM's as well. Again, when these are not employed, you see the results on the news.

Along with these techniques, the proper deployment of helicopter gunships would help assure a safe landing and off-loading, just as it can for the other humongous cargo planes.

And if such a blimp could carry 1000 tons, why, that would be the equivalent of over 30 C-130 flights! An entire unit, with humvees, artillery, etc could be deployed shortly after landing. Hours instead of days or weeks.

This is certainly an idea worthy of consideration.

Posted by: Talion at January 29, 2006 02:11 AM

Perfect use of our defensed budget. Designate billions of dollars to creating and building large and slow method of transportation for the military. I don't see any red flags fo rthis project. I guess they took into account the airship's incredible manuverablilty and speed for its defense form shoulder launched missles.

Posted by: pete at January 28, 2006 10:27 PM

Hey, what if you construct an "aerogel" type material, which is something like 99% air, and replace that air with helium, or if it is compartmentalized enough, hydrogen! that would be safer, and if skinned with some exotic carbonfiber/aramid/spidersilk/kevlar type of material, it can bear a substantial amount of weight without failure. just a thought.

Posted by: spedunit at January 28, 2006 05:39 PM

You people are all retarded. Find something else to do.

Posted by: Boogeyman at January 28, 2006 05:13 PM

I dont know, but just imagining,I would think that finding an area that can be accept the docking of such a large craft would be done more easily and with more geographic flexibility than putting in a new dock for a ship which is limited to coastlines, or making a landing strip for HTA craft. As most are noting, gone are the days of warfare that is fought on a large determined area of land. Future battles will require agility in troop placement to who knows where. But maybe you're right, sounds like you have a lot of technical understanding of this idea. But also dont forget all the great non-military uses that people have been bringing up ... definitely appears like an idea worthy of continued investigation.

Posted by: Enough at January 27, 2006 10:07 AM

A lot of people on here have very little knowledge of airships. Airships get their lift from the helium they use, which is of course inert, therefore will not catch fire! The downside of helium is that it only as about 80% of the lift of Hydrogen (which was used in early airships/zeppelins), but hydrogen is not used for obvious reasons (kaboom!).

The pressure in the helium chamber is fairly low, therefore a small hole or series of holes will not send the airship plummeting back down to earth.

A common practice is to use some dynamic lift (ie wings) as this gives greater control in the airships ascent. A helium vessel (be it a small balloon or large airship) if left to rise will rise until it reaches its level, this is when the atmospheric pressure around it is reduced (at altitude) so that balloon/airship's is no longer 'lighter' than its surrounding atmosphere.

The economics of creating and operating large airships is not favourable. How many people know how much helium costs? To fill a huge airship is a lot of money! Then you need somewhere to land them, imagine a 200m airship with 360 degrees of rotation allowing it to swing into prevailing winds, that is a large area!

It is a fantastic vision but unfortunately the realities do not really allow this to get of the ground.

Posted by: Davetrousers at January 27, 2006 08:30 AM

ummm....lets see....does anyone else see a problem with a 430 billion dollar balloon..what happens if it gets a hole of two??? Didnt we use blimp and zephlins in wwI? has the thought occured to any one that there was a reason we quit using them???

Posted by: shadowen at January 26, 2006 08:54 PM

I suspect that such a launch platform is already in exsistance. There have been hundreds of sightings of huge triangular UFOs over the past few years that I believe are lighter than air launch platforns for either small drone surveliance aircraft or even full size craft such as helicopters and Harriers. Some of these craft have been discribed as the length of 3 football fields (US)and the triangular shapewould offer far greater stability in wind than the classic blimp shape.

Posted by: Richter at January 26, 2006 04:43 PM

It would make a great permanent aerial refueling station. And all along I thought that scene in the movie "Stealth" was fanciful... Spying capabilities go without mention (if it can go high enough).

It would also be fabulous for firefighting. Yes, updrafts would be a problem, but not at a high enough altitude. What if it were to hover, say, 6,000 feet above the fire and "rain" on the fire? One thousand tons is a lotta watta! Sounds feasible to me.

The NASA implications are phenomenal! Stationed at the edge of the atmosphere, it would make a great space launch platform. Considering that NASA has been looking for alternative launch methods, I'm sure they're watching this very closely, if not wholly involved in the development.

But, alas, I doubt this thing will see the light of day for production.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at January 26, 2006 02:35 PM

This is, in my humble oppinion, a terrific idea! I have read so many articles, watched so many programs on channels like The Science Channel, Discovery, and many others..on so many subjects ( I am facinated by just about everything)..I can see unlimited commercial possabilities coming from research done with this project. Any negative oppinions expressed( again my humble oppinion) were made by those who are uninformed and/or unimaginative.

Posted by: T.G.Allen at January 26, 2006 04:34 AM

Opinions are fine, discussions are fine (work on the reading bud). Criticism when not really having all the info (which I assume most on this forum are not on the program) is silly. Yes, have your opinion, present it that way. That leads to discussions and maybe a viewpoint of which you (although with you as a Knowitall it's a fat chance you havent covered all the bases, just bear with me) havent thought. Many great ideas presented relating to this technology and that's what it's about. If you just want to criticize, nobody wants you here (except you fellow Knowitalls). And to address your "viewpoint" on that it would get shot down whether transport or attack or whatever; maybe the thought is that there would be military support to counter, pave the way, and fend off any attacks. Maybe it would even have it's own defense system (wow, all those are good maybes? huh?). I hope those are things they thought of before too, just like you, so that they dont waste all that money and kill all of our truly valiant men and women in the military. Thank you for your input ... oh, gotta go get this blimp back into the sun.

Posted by: Enough at January 25, 2006 05:45 PM

I have read with great interest all the comments re the LTA's mentioned. Three years ago I inquired Cargo Lifter of the status of their program so a fire fighting apparatus could be fitted to the under carriage. ( California was burning brightly). Only a proto type being built, etc, etc...Long story short, they gave it up and the hanger built for it in Germany is now a tropical amusement park. That being said,
I find it encouraging that a Russian immigrant is here and competing with Lockheed for the BUCKS needed to get this LTA ship in the air. It will not be wasted ( the money) as this will be developed and investor money will and is coming in for this project and many want to see a good result. Without doing a study, the amount of money lost in our natural forest lands/ homes / lives / resources / economies/, far outweighs the cost of this project.. Our Department of the Interior should be pushing the Pentagon so this craft can be used to fight forest fires and also be used in rescue efforts related to other natural disasters.
If the Wright brothers did not push forward, we would be driving from NEW YORK to Los Angeles,
no thanks, we need the pioneers.

Posted by: LStanley at January 25, 2006 05:21 PM

A BLIMP!!!!! Ha Ha Ha. Let's tie a string around it and let my three year old pull it around the sky.

Posted by: Daniel at January 25, 2006 02:43 PM

Actually the potential of this craft in both military and commercial applications is great. As a commercial vehicle I think most get it. From a military perspective can you say "Anti Submarine Warefare (ASW), troop transport or long range missile platform"? Just to name a few. Also, as NASA unfolds it's plans for moon colonization (yes, folks, it's really happening) look for hybrids to emerge that can be used to haul customers to the new Hyatt and other planned space hotels or as a cruise ship in low orbit. People tend to focus on the evolution of fighter craft (by the way, we'll have lasers on them by 2007) but forget that cargo craft evolve too. Personally I'm excited about it and would like to talk stock opportunities. My 2 cents.

Posted by: Kevin Oaks at January 25, 2006 12:53 PM

Many of the comments here are typical of people with zero military experience. "Give me the perfect weapon, and put me in the perfect location, and I'll blow up/shoot down/destroy anything you want." Yes, you can shoot a blimp down with the right anti-aircraft assets. Hooray. The point behind superblimp here is to make transoceanic crossings more efficiently than naval transports. It's not designed to be anywhere near a combat zone.

Posted by: Michael T. Vawter at January 25, 2006 09:23 AM

Interesting, but really dumb for use by the Military! A guy with an auto-gyro and an SA-7 could turn the whole thing to toast! It would be a better idea indeed for use to supply Canadian Oil fields. Fire fighting is soooo out of the question because of the strong and violent updrafts, not only from the fire, but also native to the Rockies! Would be great to use for exploreing Mars!

Posted by: Eugene Smith at January 24, 2006 11:46 PM

The best use of this airship would be to use it in the role of firefighting the large brush fires
and forest fires. It could carry large amounts of
water and could be used as waterdrops or fitted with directional spray in vast quantities.

Posted by: Ernie at January 24, 2006 11:18 PM

Hello im Mr.Knowitall.
I would first like to state the obvious that we all know it is a transport vehicle.
Secondly, when a potential enemy see's this thing on their radar, they are going to shoot it down regardless of whether it is an attack craft or not.
I am not part of the team who is putting this together but we all have an opinion and if you have a problem with that "Enough" then you can stuff the blimp where the sun dont shine.

Posted by: Mr.Knowitall at January 24, 2006 10:54 PM

Charles, please give Mr. Bernoulli more respect and spell his name with at least phonetic accuracy.

Anyone who thinks this would serve in a combat role, well, it's a good thing you are not part of the program. It's a transport, not a fighter or attack vehicle. Second, if you have not been involved with the actual program, you cannot possibly have the insight required to make critical/insulting comments. Questions and discussions are what it's all about, but those who shoot an idea down with such haste and lack of awareness are really just armchair QB's and hopefully not in a position that will have an effect on our lives.

Posted by: Enough at January 24, 2006 10:43 PM

Im sure it wont be as vulnerable as blimps in the past but the fact that a blimp is so easy to spot on radar makes it somewhat pointless, but thats assuming the enemy even has radar installations.
I think it will see action in the middle east more than anywhere else due to the fact that most middle east countries have seriously outdated technology and even if they could track it, they probably could do little to stop it.
But then who knows, maybe it will employ technology that is similar to the stealth bomber, and while it will not disappear from radar completly, it will appear much smaller than it really is.
I agree that the technology for this would have to be well thought out or else there would be another hindenburg.

Posted by: Jason at January 24, 2006 10:39 PM

Modern airships use a compartmentalized gas (or other) containment system. The people who make these things aren't stupid. Don't you think that may have come up?

Posted by: Hobbes at January 24, 2006 09:53 PM

but its a blimp what if some one pokes a hole in it?

Posted by: Justin at January 24, 2006 09:24 PM

This reminds me a lot of all the other LTA craft that have been built. Our research group has been talking about this stuff a lot in the last year. Remember the "Magnusphere" back in the 80's built by the SDI ? Seems like that was faster and could generate more lift than this design. Of course this will generate more money flow...

Mystery

Posted by: James stevenson at January 24, 2006 06:38 PM

The blimp sounds great, but why is what I have-to ask. Why not a hovercraft?
But to blimp would sound nice as a sky cruse ship.
(Tickets please...)

Posted by: Stuart at January 24, 2006 06:12 PM

It's a shame they continue to hide the true state of technology in order to protect big oil and energy concerns. Field propulsion has been around for at least 20 years as seen in the "black triangle" ships the military possesses.

Posted by: Angus MacPherson at January 24, 2006 01:13 PM

I love it! If this gets funded for battlefield uses, we can add another chapter to the hisory of stupidity. Yea, let's cram troops and materiel into a huge blimp so that a lone enemy soldier (regular or irregular)can blow a hole through it with a $3 high calibur round, or a cheap shoulder fired weapon like an rpg.

Posted by: Horse at January 24, 2006 12:06 PM

Dear Shadoan - as soon as you can get the bad guys to spend their days "composing designs for technology that made us more alive", I'll be happy to do the same. Unfortunately, without military applications you would probably not be alive or free to respond to this article.

Posted by: sensorguy at January 24, 2006 11:31 AM

I've seen a similar troop delivery system here:

http://home.tiscalinet.ch/tgschwind/swarma/screenshots/scene043j.jpg

Posted by: GeorgeG at January 24, 2006 11:13 AM

Read the history of Airship use in WWl - They do tend to come down rather quickly when improperly deflated and they are larger than the broadside of a barn.

Posted by: prying1 at January 24, 2006 11:06 AM

I think that the real shame of this article is that airships are being utilized for military operations. The posibilities of civilian use are phenomenal. I believe I heard that Charlotte NC was getting a proposal for a large cargo shipping industry near the airport for airships. Have any of you all read much about Buckminster Fuller? He has a proposal for lighter than airstructers which create a lowpressure in their cavities by being proportionally larger than the structure's overall air-displacement shadow. Basically, with new polymers, see through metals with really thin shell composites, and nanomaterials emmerging we are all going to see so many technologies emmerging from the recesses of imagination. For example: Robotech/ biobots extensions of humans held in a virtual suit, M.E.C.H.A. in other words.
As humans becom more and more powerful, silly little articles like this, which only talk about the more recent military uses of new materials are going to be lamentable. We as humans have to talk about what we are going to be like, as sentient beings which are extensions of mother nature, and how we can exist on this Earth leaving only footprints and taking only photographs. Have any of you readers ever thought about the enormous damage that the world wars must have wreaked upon the earth? All the sunken vessels on the ocean, all the poison gases' on the ground? What if we all became more interested in spending our days composing designs for technology that made us more alive? Defense is only defense if you are not creating enemies with a fence!

Posted by: Shadoan at January 24, 2006 10:36 AM

Howard Stern Rules! Baba Booe

Posted by: Howard Stern at January 24, 2006 08:06 AM

blimps in the blue sky,
troops wait guns clenched inside,
landing time kick ass!

Posted by: nooper at January 24, 2006 06:31 AM

There sure are a lot of arm chair generals around here.

If the air ships have a cruise speed of 100mph it will be much faster then cargo ships that are used to move a lot of troop supplies and heavy equipment. Nowadays there are tons of cargo ships strategically placed around the world in case something happens.

With something like this you could probably reduce that a bit. Moreover, you could have weapons on the air ships things that protect against airplanes, cruise missles and other littoral defenses. Not to mention you would use air escorts. Furthermore, you could just secure a coast line and inland defenses for about a small distance, 20 miles, and move in with the airships to drop off a heavy force.

I don't doubt that there are weaknesses that need to be worked out. But the airship could be a nice compliment to the US militaries ability to quickly move hardware and troops. People fail to realize that every piece of hardware in the military is one part of the whole that is used to project force. The airship could be a valuable tool in that arsenal and it should be researched.

Posted by: tlann at January 24, 2006 01:37 AM

The real weakness of Blimps is the size. A blimp cannot be that big, as the gasbag will bend when the load isn't distrubited all over.
Distribution for 1000 tons (1.2 million m³ helium for the payload alone ) isn't possible.
In the past semi- rigids and rigids could be way bigger than any blimp.

So, this monster needs to be a semi rigid, a rigid or a "ZMC" - a metalclad.
If the gasbag is stiff enough to carry the load- maybe possible with modern polymers- it's a modern ZMC. Otherwise a semi rigid gives the best opportunity. The keel could be the loading platform.
A rigid has the best "survival capability" , thanks to the multiple gas cells in the streamlined body- lifting or not-
But to constrcut a rigid this size, Technology will have to offer it's very best, and will be stretched.

My idea about it all, but biased as a Zeppelin adept, is to go for a rigid design. The larger size to carry the skeleton could be used to have more CIWS. Attach a few Phalaxs to have a protection agains missiles and you could try a combat zone drop.

On the other side, make it as cheap as possible and use the whole contraption as a disposable. A kind of long distance BIG parachute.

Posted by: maddox at January 24, 2006 01:27 AM

Seems like it would make ideal transportation between, say Los Angeles to San Francisco. You could get yourself and your vehicle from LA to the bay area in about 3 hours, vs the 6 by car and the 12 by train.

Posted by: Leigh at January 24, 2006 12:12 AM

I think this it is a cool idea, but for what? It looks like the slowest, bigest taget I can think of. The enemy would drool over a chance to take that goliath slug out of the air!

Posted by: James at January 23, 2006 11:18 PM

Rather than say "Hey, why don't you guys build us a blimp that can carry 500-1000 tons of hardware?", why don't we say "Hey, why don't your engineers come up with the best design for something that will carry 500-1000 tons of hardware?" ...

A Blimp? Fercrissakes.

Posted by: Eric Blade at January 23, 2006 10:24 PM

Are you kidding me?
Just a few weeks ago the Senate votes to slash more student loans and grants; we're kicking the poor off Medicare, and now I see the Pentagon is spending crazy money on a f'n blimp? idiots. The DOD budget for ONE YEAR is like $430 BILLION DOLLARS. No wonder people hate us all over the world. It's crap like this that proves we, as a country, have seriously messed up priorities.

Posted by: john at January 23, 2006 09:02 PM

Good questions. I think the Walrus would function better as a domestic transport. The USA already has air dominance over the USA, so the only hostile firepower to worry about would be the NRA. There's the safety issue that if a Walrus were to collide with a building, I imagine the impact would be relatively soft.

The article "High-Tech Cargo Airships" on military.com says the Walrus flies "6,000 miles in 4 days". Isn't that the round-trip distance between Miami and Seattle - the major diagonal of the continental USA?

Posted by: Howard Sux at January 23, 2006 05:48 PM

01/20/2006 $8,175,743,292,992.87

Posted by: Randall Spears at January 23, 2006 03:42 PM

Yes it is very cool but my problem with it is this. Why do we need something that can transport that many troops? Do these companies know something we don't? And the excuse of there always being a war to fight is a stupid one. Why do you need something that has that amount of potential destructive power if you don't have a war to fight?

Posted by: Jr at January 23, 2006 09:38 AM

Hi All

Yep. Real airships, not blimps, are near unkillable - even the Hindenberg only burnt because of its aluminum salt soaked fabric outer layers. A lifting body airship makes more sense however as neutral buoyancy makes it the victim of the winds.

Adam

Posted by: Adam at January 19, 2006 05:45 AM

BTW...The company building the commercial Airship I was talking about, scanned the popsci article and put it on there site. (pics included)

http://www.aerosml.com/PopSci.asp

Posted by: Murc at January 19, 2006 01:45 AM

174mph is 280kph & is 151 knots....but whatever, I still think a little rounding is in order.

I have had a PopSci Subscription since December 2003, SO My collection doesn't go back that far. And i've been unable to find it via the web.

Any links or anything?

Posted by: Murc at January 18, 2006 08:51 PM

last comment then, Murc.....check out Pop Sci January 2001. you'll find me and my airship there. Enjoy!

PS: "174" mph? instead of simply 175? because they are converting knots or kilometers into mph

Posted by: campbell at January 18, 2006 03:13 PM

POPULAR SCIENCE

I dont know if any of you have a subscription to it...but I do, and this months issue has a good couple page article on the future of Commercial Airships. Basically talking about them as cruise ships in the sky. Ans how they will fly around 8,000ft so pressurization wont be needed, which means they can/will have HUGE windows on it so you get a great view...Who knows...in future airships you might even have a balcony area to go outside on a little deck or something. Anyways...It says the max speed they are shooting at is 174mph (I know what your thinking"why not 175mph",??? and only they know that one), soooo, they are planning on jet engines at the top of it, it will have a aerodynamic lifting shape, and have 3 large props on the back. And it will hold like 200+ people, The company is expecting the demonstator protptype in 2010.

Posted by: Murc at January 18, 2006 02:55 PM

Interesting. Noah, did I not contact you just two days ago about writing about OFFENSIVE capability of airships? (heh, heh...love it when that happens)alright people, listen up:

If it is a BLIMP, which is what Lockcompany and others are proposing for Walrus, it is failure waiting to happen. A blimp only maintains its' shape if the pressure inside of the envelope is higher than that outside. Multiple, large, punctures would/could hurt it. No, missle attack cannot (sam7)....because, even if an engine is taken out (where an infra red missile goes folks), it does not mean that the airship will fall like an airplane, since it is not dependant upon aerodynamics and thrust to keep it airborne. If it is constructed, as likely, out of plastic laminates, it is then largely stealthy because radio passes through it rather than bounce off. I say largely, not totally. But it can be made that way.

Utility? None whatsoever. If the thing "hybrid airship" needs a runway, it is no more than a huge, very light airplane. Even heavy airplanes are subject to crosswind difficulties. Airships are many many more times susceptible to these.

Naysayers......you have to leave behind the old fabric concept of a blimp or a zeppelin. so far, not even lochHEAD or DARPA seems able to do that, so, naysayers, you are absolutely RIGHT!

But.....it can be done. switch to a hard shelled craft, use carbon fiber so it is strong, use that strength to carry multiple jet engines, totaly abandon any idea of using aerodynamic lift generated by a lifting body shape to "offset the load", in other words, to REPLACE the vtol capability of a TRUE Lighter-than-Air craft....although "supplement" that aerostatic lift would be acceptable.

survivability? airships are EXTREMELY hard to bring down with ANY fire.....why? because (hey, were not talking WWI hydrogen zeppelins here, or even WWII blmps)....because, it takes HUGE catastrophic holes, in multiple cells, to lose enough lifting gas. typical ground fire is not enough to do it, shrapnel from a proximity missile is not enough, even ramming with a large aircraft might not be enough...

weather? we have capability to foresee weather that did not exist in 1930's....and engines that are far more capable to deal with weather...and measuring tools that can determine altitude/pitch far more accurately than in 1930s

Its' been over 60 years folks.....time to let the past go, and build decent airships, NOT BLIMPS

Posted by: Campbell at January 18, 2006 12:05 AM

Yeah that last bit about the floating fire base is more wishfull thinking than not.

But a Cargo hualer has real potential. The weakness to fire is debatable, gas divided up into cells, planning, altitude, speed, and flight path. not to many byplanes around with F-22's running cap either.

The old air ships are bad examples, from what I have read they are going to fly like aircraft using the gas mainly to help offset the load (think airplane with gas offseting the airframe and gas weight, maybe some cargo). Hopefully that will add up to speed, altitude, and control, maybe even swooping in like a huge turkey.sacrism. or preferably going in slow out in the middle of a secure strip of desert, lake, bay, corn field.

Bottom line I think its got potential how much will depend on what the final product delivers as in specs. To early to tell now just ruff thoughts on paper.

Posted by: C-Low at January 17, 2006 04:41 PM

Matt - This thing wouldn't land in bagdad, maybe in another town though, but probably Kuwait.

I always love it when attention is given to Airships.

I cant wait to see finsihed products (a few years from now) of the WALRUS & the HAA.

Posted by: Murc at January 17, 2006 03:22 PM

Hawhaw, Hindenburg without the hydrogen!

Again, Ben Rich's bio has a small part about giant megablimps. Back then they thought they were a bit nutty and that hasn't changed. There is a limit to how much weight you can carry, it's based on the weight difference between whatever's in the gas bag and ambient atmosphere. You can increase the difference with ultra-light gases (hydrogen or helium) or getting a huge bag. At one point your blimp is going to be huuuge, and cost way too much per unit of weight.

C-Low says:

"The Air ship Blimp idea is awesome. I can imagine alot of different uses for these beast from of course the cargo aspect to strapping all manner of weapons on em from JDAM's to 155m cannons think of the range of a 155 firing @ 20-30k feet using them as ultimate close air support."

In WW1 biplanes shot down blimps all the time. The only safety for these blimps is high altitude, thus against a "modern" opponent they will be blasted out of the sky like Army 8th in WW2. The larger Russian SAMs, either on ships, or deployed on land or on static emplacements, or air to air interceptors would make mincemeat of these. While the Iraqi insurgents may not have capability to engage these blimps if you work at 20k feet, they will be in our inventory for at least two decades. Thus they better not come down like flies.

With regards to a weapon station, they would make potent symbols as well, relating to divine retribution. Float a blimp over Fallujah at altitudes beyond SAM range and throw down bombs in coordination with a AF controller team.... :)

(I figure someone who /isn't/ armchair [or just better at it] will tell me that the above is infeasible)

"I think the cutting the gasses up into pockets and I saw somewere no link sorry but a mix idea that would create a soap sudz type mix that wouldnt just blow out a pin hole."

Huh?

-End responses to previous comments.

But yes, it appears I am not alone in questioning safety. The blimp would have to operate at high altitude in combat. To act as a transport it'd have to land way back in the rear. For example, in Iraq you couldn't even land it in country. A mortar would shred it from a few miles away, or MANPADS would and you'd be screwed (picture a giant deflated balloon billowing out all over a giant blimp-field). You'd have to land somewhere in Kuwait and ship stuff overland to keep your precious blimp safe; thus you've wasted your money (sealift would have transported more for much less cost).

A better idea would have been one of those Burnelli-body airplanes, which use a lifting body to maximize the amount of plane devoted to carrying stuff. Instead of a tiny tube with giant wings, it's a bigger rectangle with wings.

Posted by: Charles at January 17, 2006 03:01 PM

What a nice big target in the sky. SA-7s (1950s technology) are taking out Apaches, C-130s and other tactical aircraft in Iraq equiped with IR jammers. C-17s drop flares and descend like a eagle on a rabbit when they land in Baghdad. You think as soon as they dream this thing up that someone isn't figuring out how to drop one out of the sky.

I understand that it would be a strategic cargo mover, but I don't believe there's an aircraft in the inventory that hasn't crashed. Lose one of these that's fully loaded and you lose a Battalion of Light Armor?

How about a tactical radio that makes sense (doesn't require a PHD to operate or also function as a satelite launch computer)?

Posted by: Matt at January 17, 2006 02:24 PM

I simply have to ask- how vulnerable are these proposed aircraft to weather, specifically strong winds? I recall weather being a leading factor in several catastrophic 20th-century LTA crashes, such as the Macon and the R101. And what would the per-unit cost be versus an equal amount spent on acquiring more C-17s? (Not that current Air Force budget trends give much hope for this.)

Posted by: TrustButVerify at January 17, 2006 01:58 PM

Competition is always a good thing betters odds and keeps price more reasonable.

The Air ship Blimp idea is awesome. I can imagine alot of different uses for these beast from of course the cargo aspect to strapping all manner of weapons on em from JDAM's to 155m cannons think of the range of a 155 firing @ 20-30k feet using them as ultimate close air support.

I think the cutting the gasses up into pockets and I saw somewere no link sorry but a mix idea that would create a soap sudz type mix that wouldnt just blow out a pin hole.

One very interesting thing that will happen shortley after this tech comes to fuition will be the Air Force / Navy war over who will control these things. The mission overlap potential is huge.

its goining to be interesting

Posted by: C-Low at January 17, 2006 01:30 PM

The world would be a much cooler place were it to be inhabited by airships, well, airships and beanstalks, well, okay, airships, beanstalks, flying cars, freedom ship(s), etc, etc, etc...

Posted by: JSAllison at January 17, 2006 12:05 PM