It's an airborne JHSV....you can send it anywhere where there is shooting going on, but you can send it nearby.
If you could buy a hundred and send over a Heavy BCT that would arrive within 96hrs, it would be useful.
The problem with strategic transport is that for all of the service except the Army, it's an afterthought. Perhaps it is time to look at a command that specializes in strategic transport or just give the ship, planes and airships to the Army.
we have the US transportation command. the old sealift command was folded into it. explain what you mean that for all the services except the Army that strategic transport is an after thought! i don't get that. all the services have pre-positioned ships at locations all over the world that can arrive at a trouble spot (or near enough) within a week or so.
This ship looks like a good solution to the problmen of moving heavy materials from the continental US to problem areas in Europe and Japan as Solomon mentioned below.
Why did they put in the M60 tanks in the picture ?
I seen much of the in depth engineering for these types of "lighter than air" lift vehicles. They can move and incredible amount to tonnage from A to B. They are being considered for various large scale construction projects where extreme heavy lift is required.
The challenge is that they do not move very fast at 100 knots, making them easy targets in contested air space.
a transoceanic flight would be a chore then. the jet stream can get up and move and if you're flying toward Japan you might face headwinds going that fast.
are they manned or unmanned? i'm not clear on that.
currently manned, though there have been unmanned proposals as well. Manning right now is primarily due to their proposed use in situations where there isn't much infrastructure which makes having eyeballs on the controls rather useful.
As far as transpacific or transatlantic, yes they'll be slower than airplanes by roughly 5x but they will also be faster than ships by roughly 5x.
The Hindenburg was able to make the trip from Germany to Rio de Janeiro in just 4 days. Versus 10-20 days for modern cargo ships. That's really not a bad speed.
neither stealth nor LO. defense against MANPADS, they aren't currently being designed for insertion into hostile areas. They are designed to be able to move payloads that are unmovable by helo to areas that aren't easily accessible by ship/plane. To which there is actually considerable interest, esp in construction/mining areas. They will have the volume/lift to move vehicles and equipment that previous had to be moved in pieces and re-assembled. Or that required extensive planning and significant time delays.
An example would be, for instance, a heavy lift crane. Right now they spent as much time moving between locations as they are actually at a given location. This is because they have to be disassembled into smaller parts, ferried to the next location using a small army of trucks (many of which are oversized loads), and then reassembled and tested at the new location. One of these airships would be able to load the crane whole, transport it to pretty much any locations, and deliver it faster that any other method. Same thing applies with a lot of the other big mining/construction equipment.
So the goal in the commercial sector is to steal heavy outsized loads from both airplane transport and ship transport. In many cases because it will get there both faster and be cheaper than any other alternative.
The military angle is that it will eventually provide a logistics options that currently isn't available.
Outside of the obvious engineering challenges to build these things and the cost. The other issue is the regulatory environment. Think of one these things carrying 50 or 100 tons of cargo over a populated area. From commercial perspective it's really about the authorities getting their head around the method. Planes carry cargo on pre-determined air routes then the cargo is trucked to location. Imagine moving an entire "large assembly". The best route is as the crow flies.
that should be no more dangerous than a 747, C-5, or C-17 at max load flying over a populated area. if they're fully fueled i would imagine that a jumbo jet is potentially more dangerous than one of these.
Your friends back in 2010 Lockheed Martin tried this airship out have not herd anything more about it since. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isJRgEu7DQo
Well, they can be defended same way as helos. Countermeasures. Also, don't sure what in case of hit this thing will go down rapidly: zepellins over Lodon were hard to shot down till appearence of API. But this won't work against hellium. Problem what they were zepellins(i.e. independent tanks), and this is half-soft as i understand.
We're not seeing them because... Hindenburg. There's little money available for investment. One company in Germany failed right after they built a proper airship hanger. Now it's an indoor all-season beach resort with its own micro-climate.
Installing defences against manpads shouldn't be too hard, they are big enough and can carry enough weight to do so, besides modern MANPADS might not be very effective, especially if they lockon via IR.
Solomon, because they haven't been built yet. They are in the process of building and funding the initial fleet.
Tasman, this design has little in common with the Lockheed P-791 which was a hybrid airship. The critical difference is that the P-791 cannot regulate its own ballast and relies on lifting forces and vectored thrust to fly/move. The Aeroscraft designs however CAN regulate their own ballast which enables them to rise/lower without external propulsion. This is a major advantage as far as hauling cargo. Their main breakthrough is CoSH system (Control of Static Heaviness) which effectively consists of a computer controlled system to compress and expand the helium within the airship. This allow fine grained regulation of vehicle weight and also allows regulation of distribution of weight. It function very much like a cargo ship or submarines's ballast system that allows them to handle different level of cargo weight and compensate for uneven weight loading(and in the case of a submarine change its buoyancy as well).
Igor, these are fully rigid hulled vehicles like Zeppelins. Internally they have multiple independent helium volumes each with independent pressure controls. The ballast volume can be independently filled and emptied into compressed helium containers with the diaphragm like system that allows the unused volume to be filled with normal air.
Sandwyrm, these are very different vehicles than any other airships out there. The biggest difference being that they can regulate their own buoyancy which opens a lot of new use cases.
Jacobite.NZ, yes, IR would be kinda hard. The whole thing is nominally the same temp as the outside environment. And propulsion is based around standard diesel engines.
i never get why there seems to be so much emphasis from some on trying to put these things into surveillance roles or trying to put them into combat scenarios. Yes I get that long loiter time is good for observation but you don't need anything so large for that. These designs have logistics written all over them and just the possibilities for that are exciting. They carry more than a C-5 and can land nearly anywhere there is room even on water i've heard (though I'm not certain how they could offload on water some sort of connection to a mobile landing platform? I'm just throwing ideas at the wall to see what sticks there.) Why would it need defenses beyond what is on a C-5? Neither would be sent through contested airspace. You could resupply a force with out even capturing an airfield, build new facilities where there is no infrastructure, skip the ship to move large goods directly across continents, put down for disaster relief within a click or two of where the supplies are needed most. I would jump at the chance to fly one of these things. And come on, would would love to see airships moored to tall buildings again like in the 30s, it would be awesome!
This invites new possibilities for strategic airlift in permissive environments. I like the idea. Apparently the "ML868" depicted in the illustration would be able to carry 250 tons.
It's an airborne JHSV....you can send it anywhere where there is shooting going on, but you can send it nearby.
ReplyDeleteIf you could buy a hundred and send over a Heavy BCT that would arrive within 96hrs, it would be useful.
The problem with strategic transport is that for all of the service except the Army, it's an afterthought. Perhaps it is time to look at a command that specializes in strategic transport or just give the ship, planes and airships to the Army.
we have the US transportation command. the old sealift command was folded into it. explain what you mean that for all the services except the Army that strategic transport is an after thought! i don't get that. all the services have pre-positioned ships at locations all over the world that can arrive at a trouble spot (or near enough) within a week or so.
DeleteThis ship looks like a good solution to the problmen of moving heavy materials from the continental US to problem areas in Europe and Japan as Solomon mentioned below.
DeleteWhy did they put in the M60 tanks in the picture ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b-qBoFku_o
DeleteI seen much of the in depth engineering for these types of "lighter than air" lift vehicles. They can move and incredible amount to tonnage from A to B. They are being considered for various large scale construction projects where extreme heavy lift is required.
ReplyDeleteThe challenge is that they do not move very fast at 100 knots, making them easy targets in contested air space.
a transoceanic flight would be a chore then. the jet stream can get up and move and if you're flying toward Japan you might face headwinds going that fast.
Deleteare they manned or unmanned? i'm not clear on that.
currently manned, though there have been unmanned proposals as well. Manning right now is primarily due to their proposed use in situations where there isn't much infrastructure which makes having eyeballs on the controls rather useful.
DeleteAs far as transpacific or transatlantic, yes they'll be slower than airplanes by roughly 5x but they will also be faster than ships by roughly 5x.
The Hindenburg was able to make the trip from Germany to Rio de Janeiro in just 4 days. Versus 10-20 days for modern cargo ships. That's really not a bad speed.
Deleteis this stealth / LO blimp ? what kind of defense if have against MANPADS?
ReplyDeleteneither stealth nor LO. defense against MANPADS, they aren't currently being designed for insertion into hostile areas. They are designed to be able to move payloads that are unmovable by helo to areas that aren't easily accessible by ship/plane. To which there is actually considerable interest, esp in construction/mining areas. They will have the volume/lift to move vehicles and equipment that previous had to be moved in pieces and re-assembled. Or that required extensive planning and significant time delays.
DeleteAn example would be, for instance, a heavy lift crane. Right now they spent as much time moving between locations as they are actually at a given location. This is because they have to be disassembled into smaller parts, ferried to the next location using a small army of trucks (many of which are oversized loads), and then reassembled and tested at the new location. One of these airships would be able to load the crane whole, transport it to pretty much any locations, and deliver it faster that any other method. Same thing applies with a lot of the other big mining/construction equipment.
So the goal in the commercial sector is to steal heavy outsized loads from both airplane transport and ship transport. In many cases because it will get there both faster and be cheaper than any other alternative.
The military angle is that it will eventually provide a logistics options that currently isn't available.
so if all that's true then why aren't we seeing them moving cargo and outsized equipment now?
DeleteOutside of the obvious engineering challenges to build these things and the cost. The other issue is the regulatory environment. Think of one these things carrying 50 or 100 tons of cargo over a populated area. From commercial perspective it's really about the authorities getting their head around the method. Planes carry cargo on pre-determined air routes then the cargo is trucked to location. Imagine moving an entire "large assembly". The best route is as the crow flies.
Deletethat should be no more dangerous than a 747, C-5, or C-17 at max load flying over a populated area. if they're fully fueled i would imagine that a jumbo jet is potentially more dangerous than one of these.
DeleteYour friends back in 2010 Lockheed Martin tried this airship out have not herd anything more about it since.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isJRgEu7DQo
Well, they can be defended same way as helos. Countermeasures.
DeleteAlso, don't sure what in case of hit this thing will go down rapidly: zepellins over Lodon were hard to shot down till appearence of API. But this won't work against hellium. Problem what they were zepellins(i.e. independent tanks), and this is half-soft as i understand.
@Sol
DeleteWe're not seeing them because... Hindenburg. There's little money available for investment. One company in Germany failed right after they built a proper airship hanger. Now it's an indoor all-season beach resort with its own micro-climate.
Installing defences against manpads shouldn't be too hard, they are big enough and can carry enough weight to do so, besides modern MANPADS might not be very effective, especially if they lockon via IR.
DeleteSolomon, because they haven't been built yet. They are in the process of building and funding the initial fleet.
DeleteTasman, this design has little in common with the Lockheed P-791 which was a hybrid airship. The critical difference is that the P-791 cannot regulate its own ballast and relies on lifting forces and vectored thrust to fly/move. The Aeroscraft designs however CAN regulate their own ballast which enables them to rise/lower without external propulsion. This is a major advantage as far as hauling cargo. Their main breakthrough is CoSH system (Control of Static Heaviness) which effectively consists of a computer controlled system to compress and expand the helium within the airship. This allow fine grained regulation of vehicle weight and also allows regulation of distribution of weight. It function very much like a cargo ship or submarines's ballast system that allows them to handle different level of cargo weight and compensate for uneven weight loading(and in the case of a submarine change its buoyancy as well).
Igor, these are fully rigid hulled vehicles like Zeppelins. Internally they have multiple independent helium volumes each with independent pressure controls. The ballast volume can be independently filled and emptied into compressed helium containers with the diaphragm like system that allows the unused volume to be filled with normal air.
Sandwyrm, these are very different vehicles than any other airships out there. The biggest difference being that they can regulate their own buoyancy which opens a lot of new use cases.
Jacobite.NZ, yes, IR would be kinda hard. The whole thing is nominally the same temp as the outside environment. And propulsion is based around standard diesel engines.
i never get why there seems to be so much emphasis from some on trying to put these things into surveillance roles or trying to put them into combat scenarios. Yes I get that long loiter time is good for observation but you don't need anything so large for that. These designs have logistics written all over them and just the possibilities for that are exciting. They carry more than a C-5 and can land nearly anywhere there is room even on water i've heard (though I'm not certain how they could offload on water some sort of connection to a mobile landing platform? I'm just throwing ideas at the wall to see what sticks there.) Why would it need defenses beyond what is on a C-5? Neither would be sent through contested airspace. You could resupply a force with out even capturing an airfield, build new facilities where there is no infrastructure, skip the ship to move large goods directly across continents, put down for disaster relief within a click or two of where the supplies are needed most. I would jump at the chance to fly one of these things. And come on, would would love to see airships moored to tall buildings again like in the 30s, it would be awesome!
DeleteDangit, "who wouldn't" is what i meant to type towards the end there.
DeleteThis invites new possibilities for strategic airlift in permissive environments. I like the idea. Apparently the "ML868" depicted in the illustration would be able to carry 250 tons.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.airships.net/us-navy-rigid-airships/uss-akron-macon
ReplyDeleteIt would be cool if they would try something like these again.