Forum: Technology

What does everyone think of the use of airships for AWAC's duty?
See http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/30/336682/us-army-revives-hybrid-airship-interest-with-lemv.html
From the page,"The US Army in January (2010) will kick-off a process to buy a long-endurance hybrid airship to deploy within 18 months to Afghanistan for surveillance missions." Called the long-endurance multi-intelligence vehicle ( or LEMV) by the U.S. Army, "the airship is expected to complement unmanned aerial vehicles and manned turboprops performing similar missions."
[img]http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=31076[/img]
Lockheed Martin L.E.M.V. proposal

See also http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/04/lockheed-martin-to-build-the-m.html which refers to this program as a combination of an "E-3 AWACS/E-8C Joint STARS that can remain at 65,000ft for several years."(emphasis mine). I think the technology is ready for such an idea to be exploited (if not the budget) and other than the fact the U.S.A.F. is strapped for cash, how did the U.S. Army get to carry the torch for this one?

F-16.net Sponsor

Good topic!

I think it qualifies as an 'about time', broad type of technology and capacity, far too needed for 'duty' to go-slow on or neglect. Thumb

Being a Blimp-fan for years, I've supported and a couple times contacted various govt reps with requests to study multi-purpose 'air-ship' feasibility - all the way back to '94 after a disastrous California wild-fire (you can guess which sort of variant).

For years I've independently suggested the radical idea for 'look-down' anti-cruise missile Airship capability, perhaps armed with ABL... the list goes on for the potential role and capacity.

The concept which I've most supported however, one far beyond its strategic value, is very very sadly not an option today given the catastrophic tragedy in Haiti - something for which I find no excuse. There absolutely needs to be some form of Rapid reaction capable, heavy cargo transport airship for both military and/or Disaster response. Both evacuating large numbers of evacuees if need be, but delivering heavy equipment, water, personnel, etc. potentially to virtually any point around the globe (given the proper purpose-built mechanisms).

I would support funding for this high prioritized-development. Salute

It is borderline criminal that in the 21st century (and 9 years on now) U.S. troops (90% of the time) don't know what's over the next (or even current) hill in Afghanistan etc... I was shocked when video after video from Afghanistan confirmed that the current manner of detection is waiting for contact and shooting in the general/perceived direction of the incoming. Furthermore, having our troops being observed and hand filmed unaware from as close as several hundred yards away was disturbing, and embarrassing. The current doctrine of patrolling to essentially probe in the dark, blind, is unacceptable. It is ineffective and fatal. It's astonishing how much freedom of movement the OPFOR has in Afghanistan. Allowing them to plant IEDs unnoticed, set up ambushes, coordinate mass attacks on FOBs, and harass the local population at will. The only instance I'm aware of where a balloon/blimp type surveillance airship was deployed in Afghanistan is when high U.S. brass and Afghan governmental big whigs were meeting in Kunar province. I guess they qualify for that type of protection. Rolling Eyes

Every platoon should have man portable UAVs, and every post should have permanent high altitude balloons/blimps with range capacity and sensor capability up the a$$. All linked to a joint command center coordinating numerous patrolling hunter killer UCAVs/fighters/gunships/bombers and strategic ground wide area surveillance aircraft/assets, 24/7/365, period. There is no excuse.

Other uses for such systems should not be the priority, this should be the defining requirement driving sensor development and mission capabilities. All Joint STARS also need to be updated with newer engines and radar to better detect and track human sized targets.

Geogen I like your idea of a heavy lift airship. I had heard that someone was revisiting the idea of the heli-stat (http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/piasecki_helistat.php) which crashed and burned in July 1986 but I can't find any real information on it, just this vague reference http://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/26/nyregion/follow-up-on-the-news-helistat-is-gone-its-concept-lives.html?pagewanted=1

EDIT Found this heavy lifter airship that might fit the bill http://www.skyhookintl.com/

And PhillyGuy I like your ideas as well,

Quote:

Every platoon should have man portable UAVs, and every post should have permanent high altitude balloons/blimps with range capacity and sensor capability up the a$$. All linked to a joint command center coordinating numerous patrolling hunter killer UCAVs/fighters/gunships/bombers and strategic ground wide area surveillance aircraft/assets, 24/7/365, period.

They definitely should be networked, but that might be tricky to work out in practice as today's UAV's and networked battlefield are already straining the network and the electronic "noise" is creating problems as well. And yeah, the J-STAR's engines should be upgraded soon. If only the air force could solve it's fighter gap and Next Generation Tanker problems (to name but two) to free up some funds.

Linked below is one basic concept which has been on the net for at least 9 yrs when I first stumbled upon the company (this one happens to be UK based). I actually emailed various US Federal and state agencies like 8 yrs ago during an intense wildfire season, insisting they study the 'firecat' variant. I've tried as a citizen to promote this generic tech capability, including the 'skypatrol' and 'heavylift/emergency response' to various other reps over the years too (e.g. after Tsunami and Katrina).

I'm not soliciting for this particular company, just the technology... however I use them as a main reference guide only (lol, their site even looks 9 yrs old).

http://www.worldskycat.com/markets/skyfreight.html

This one linked is a 220ton lift capacity, however I'd favor at least a 500 t capacity variant, or the heavier variants they list including 1,000 t and up to 1,500 t even, converted to multi-purpose heavy transport. The 'Skypatrol' speaks for itself as to the iterations which have been advertised since before 9/11 even, yet obviously not effectively marketed/lobbied for. Very unfortunately.

With regards to the 500-1,500 ton transport capacity class, IMHO, there is no excuse that a major Super power should not have such a Strategic, multi-purpose 'emergency response', or peace-time, rapid transport capability. The 1,000t variant proposed apparently would have a 400' length cargo bay. Within 24hrs of call, a company of Airborne or Marines could be deployed anywhere in-hemisphere to secure and distribute hundreds of tons of rushed food/water/survival supplies per trip. Smaller 220 t variants could maneuver and land on ground or water for evacuations.

It's pretty depressing really, to think what effects 'any' of these variants could have been brought to bear in response to recent crises.

God speed.

Talk about scramble the ready fighters, can we put a pair of F-35's on one?

Putting Lightning II's ON a blimp do you mean? Reminds me of the U.S.S. Macon see <a href="http://www.unrealaircraft.com/forever/skyhook.php">here</a> and <a href="http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/flying-aircraft-carrier-3772">episode on National Geographic.</a>
But I don't think that's ready for prime time yet (episodes of Robotech not withstanding)! Wink

In the 1980s, and non-rigid airship flown at one of the European air shows (Farnborough?) had an air-surveillance radar mounted within its body. Nothing seems to have come of the project.

Forum: Technology

Rebirth of Airships