[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Wow. Future combat blimp - PICS (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 10/22/2006 5:53:23 AM EDT
Aeros Craft website. This sounds cool. Hope it will have some sort of air-defense capability. The freight model will be able to transport up to 800 tons of cargo, according to the website. That's more than 10 M1 tanks. |
There are certain synergies gained by having complete air superiority. C-5's C-141's, KC135's and C-130's are Big and Slow. How many have been shot down? Also, don't assume it will be defenseless. Imagine it with 20 long range air to air missiles, and laser pod hanging from the bottom. 
|
I think Lockheed Martin's airship looks more intereting. This is an actual photo, not an airtist's conception btw.
|
I do believe that there is something better than the old stealth technology in the pipeline. Now you see me, now you don't. |
we have a commo blimp with a three man crew flying around ft benning. the big joke is all the LT's going to the sgt major over and over and asking "what the hell is THAT thng?" he called a battalion formation just to explain what it was because he was tired of the lieutenaints asking him. 
|
|
We had those back in the early 1900's I believe. Ordered 5, only 4 were delivered as one was lost en route. At the time it had been designated with a military number though so while there were 5 we only had 4 floating around. More things change the more they stay the same. EDIT: 1900'2 not 1800's. So, for bonus points can anyone name the airship that was lost? Extra credit on top of that for listing the year it was bought and year lost.
|
|
This program (Walrus) has already been cancelled. You guys have got to keep up on the Defense journals. www.defensetech.org/archives/002272.html Giant Blimp, Deflated No! Nooooo! Say it ain't so, Darpa! The Walrus program -- the fringe-science agency's awesomely, almost insanely, ambitious plan to build an aircraft carrier-sized blimp -- is over, Defense Technology International discovers. Congress had always been skeptical about the idea of an airship that could schlep 500-1000 tons halfway around the world. (After all, the Pentagon's current go-to airborne hauler, the C-130 Hercules cargo plane, holds about 22 tons.) But blimp-lovers had pushed the "tri-phibian" (air, land, sea) Walrus as a way to make American forces less reliant on deep-water ports, foreign bases, and billion-dollar airports to wage war. But it wasn't meant to be. Darpa took away the fiscal year 2006 funding for the Walrus. And the agency's 2007 budget request calls for "termination of the Walrus effort." Now, the Army's Surface Deployment and Distribution Command had its own plans for a heavy-hauling airship, too. I'm checking to see if they're still interested. Keep your fingers crossed. |
We're talking about strategic airlifts before hostilities commence. Do you know how many months it took to achieve the build-up of forces for OIF? |
Yeah, it might be useful in a situation where you were virtually 100% sure that no ground based AA or air interceptors could get close enough to take a shot at it. but balloons are horribly vulnerable in the air and are just sitting ducks when they're landing or taking off. |
So obviously we should also reload all our aircraft with 8mm and .303 MGs, because they did so well back then. This thing would easily be as survivable as a C-5 in the missions it is designed for. If they hadn't cancelled it. |
Again, this is before hostilities begin. We're talking about brining forces in theater, not right up to the battlefield. |
You must remember that the closest some people on this board have ever gotten to the military has been through Hollywood movies. MEGAFORCE! |
USS Akron, airship #4, lost in 1933 with 73 lives in the Atlantic. Launched in 1931? Next question, please. |
100% confidence that no one will shoot at it is IMO a BIG assumption to make for an unknown war 10-20 years from now. |
Click Not too damn bad I must admit. There was also ZRS-2 which was built in 1919 and crashed in 1921 en route. |
|
Atomic powered blimps were suggested back in the forties, IIRC. Combat blimps could dovetail very nicely into the Pentagon's "outsourcing" and new found love for the "private sector". Just think of the advertising revenue! It could be the first fully economically self-sustainable weapons system EVER. It would also confuse the enemy, as they would wonder what they did to piss McDonalds' and Frito-Lay off. Furthermore, other countries would be forced to produce comparable combat blimps, as they would be suffering a terrible blimp gap. I doubt the chinese could sleep at night with Americans showboating about in their snazzy blimps right offshore! |
+1 The blimp is 7 times faster than a RORO ship. |
|
This is how they should utilize blimp technology They should utilize these blimps as high altitude hunter killer drone carriers. The length of a long blimp could be used as a launching ramp for drones. The launching ramp could be totally contained in the blimp. By building more than one ramp, you could have in theory a station in high altitude that could refuel and rearm hunter killer drones. The load capacity would not have to be as great as 500 tons and you could in theory keep hunter killer drones within theater on the battlefield for a very long time. It would be like an aircraft carrier that could be manned by a small crew. Because the blimps are cheaper than a supercarrier is, you could build entire high altitude stealth blimp fleets that have minimal risk to personnel. |
|
http://www.defense-update.com/products/h/HALE-airship.htm Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors, is developing a High Altitude Airship under a technology demonstration program funded the US Missile defense Agency. The unmanned, untethered solar powered prototype airship with be able to remain on station for 30 days at a cruise altitude of 60,000 feet. With a minimum payload capacity of 500 pounds and on-board supply of 3 kW of power the airship will be able to carry a missile detection and warning equipment augmenting current ground- and space-based capabilities. The current program cost is estimated at US $149 million with completion expected by November 2010. Lockheed Martin is already developing a larger prototype airship expected to carry 4,000 pound payloads and 10 KW power. The High Altitude Airship (HAA) is developed under advanced technology concept demonstration (ACTD) $40 million design and risk reduction program. This prototype is expected to be completed in 2006. Once successfuly demonstrated in flight testing, the HAA is expected to provide a test bed for the Ballistic Missile defense Agency. The HAA will be about 500 feet long, 160 feet in diameter and have a volume of 5.2 million cubic feet. The target HAA will be even larger. According to Lockheed Martin, the unmanned HAA 'blimp' is designed to operate for extended durations at an altitude of 65,000 feet, well above the flying altitude of aircraft or air defense missiles. The blimp's sensors will cover a ground and airspace footprint of at least 700 miles in diameter and more than 4 million cubic miles of airspace. HAA will be capable of lifting various mission-specific payloads, including radar, communications and passive electronic and imaging (EO/IR) sensors. Unlike satellites, HAA will be able to return to its base for resupply and refitting with different payloads, to accommodate evolving mission requirements. Using helium for lift and four electric-powered propulsion systems for directional flight and control, the HAA would maintain a quasi-geostationary position and have capacity to relocate. The ground-based command and control system will communicate with the airship via line-of-sight and beyond line-of-sight methods. Its vehicle management system will use autonomous, manual and remote-piloted modes, and will monitor vehicle health, perform systems diagnostics, control the system's operating environment at the equipment bays, and evaluate the hull structure. |
That is a great idea. If the fleet is attacked, just launch 50-100 drones and give the OPFOR a heart attack. |
|
A blimp is not in any more danger than any other cargo aircraft or ship. Anything can be sunk or shot down if someone is willing to try. A blimp does not need a harbor or airport which are in short supply in most of the third world shit holes we work in these days. When the french wont let you overfly their airspace you just keep driving down the coast. The cost in fuel and time is not as bad as a C-5 and the crew can live on board so nobody has to stop for a nap. It is still far faster than a ship and the cost per ton/mile should be far lower than an airplane. I think something that could haul 25 helicopters or a million pounds of supplies into the remote parts of the world is worth looking into. |
|
I don’t know that it would be any more or less vulnerable that a carrier fleet but I do know that high altitude winds (especially during storms) tend to be a little tough on those big bloated bastards. If y’all wanna see what kind of flight envelope a modern blimp has, take a look at when Goodyear allows theirs to fly. ... My admittedly ignorant WAG is that this came out of DARPA’s often hallucinogenic fueled “grant gristmill.” |
 The lack of perspective with regards to aviation warfare history combined with the lack of creativity and imagination displayed in this thread is pathetic. Are airships large targets? --Are aircraft carriers large targets? Yes they both are, but only if the enemy is close enough and has the means to take them out. And even so, the mere fact that they are "large targets" is in no way a reason not to pursue the construction and implementaion of such vessels. Especially since they could provide us with a whole new level of domination over a battlefield. These dirigibles/airships/blimps have the potential to support and sustain a number of new (and unforeseen) aeronautical missions that are absolutely impossible for aircraft or spacecraft currently in our military's inventory. The abilty to lift 500-2000 tons (or greater --think cargo ship size, not C-5 size...!) of vehicles and equipment in a single aircraft, fly anywhere in the world, and deploy to virtually any terrain without an airstrip is not outside the possibility for these airships. There is the potential for these aircraft to perform recon, forward air control, bombing, radar sweeps, and many other forms of aerial domination that are significantly larger in scale than anything we deploy in a single aircraft (of group of aircraft) today. Also, airships are not nearly as restricted in size by materials as convential heavy airplanes are. The possible sizes and configurations are limitless. Ignorance, lack of vision, and lack of money (stemming from the former two) are the only reasons these aircraft will not contribute to our success in battle in the near future. |
I wouldn't be too pessimistic, the DOD--particularly DARPA--is pouring tons of money into this. If this is a success, the implications would be enormous. Just imagine the capability to move entire corps into theater over night, with just a few airships. Can someome say projection of force? |
I had a flashback of Sky Captian and the World of Tomorrow and that big ass floating carrier 
|
Might seem rediculous, but if it can carry more cargo than current transports and can do so consuming less energy (oil) and do so safely.... Why the heck not? For those worried about shooting these things down....This ain't 1910. The blimps would most likely be handled a lot like cargo planes today are, only flown in areas secured or reasonably secured by our other air assets. |