# U.S. air giant woos Ottawa with twin deal for planes



## JasonH (7 Dec 2003)

By a journalist
CanWest News Service

Province Paper (Page A21c)
Sunday, December 7th, 2003.

OTTAWA -- A U.S. aerospace giant is proposing to the federal government that Canada replace it‘s ageing hercules transports and its search-and-rescue aircraft at the same time with similar plane to save money.

  Lockheed Martin is lobbying government officials to not only buy new versions of the Hercules from it‘s assembly line, but also buy a smaller aircraft that uses many of the same parts.

  That smaller plane, the C-27J, is being offered from a program that would replace the military‘s ageing buffalo search-and-rescue aircraft from Comox, as well as station aircraft at other key locations across the country for such mercy missions.

  The Canadian Forces want to buy up to 15 new search-and-rescue planes.

  Defence Minister John McCallum says replacing the buffaloes is a priority since not only are the planes old, but the purchase of new aircraft would give Hercules transports, sometimes called in for search-and-rescue, a break from that role.

  But European competitor to LockHeed is also pushing hard to win the contract and it‘s officials say they can offer a wide range of innovative financial arrangements that might be attractive to the cash-strapped Canadian Forces.

There‘s 2 more paragraphs but I‘ve typed this up from hand from the newspaper and my necks killing me heh.


----------



## Slim (7 Dec 2003)

Good post. Is there any other info available and what is the verdict ( if known)?


----------



## holywars33 (7 Dec 2003)

Competition is always good.  I would rather the Canadian government go for the lowest bidder (without sacrificing utility and safety) over any Canadian manufacturing/design.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Dec 2003)

I doubt they‘ll go with either as there not made in Canada and make too much sense.  They‘ll probabley go with a Bombardier Lead weather balloon instead.


----------



## JasonH (7 Dec 2003)

Well wouldn‘t the new cargo planes be able to hold the Leapord Tanks?  If so we wouldn‘t hafto phase them out.


----------



## JasonH (7 Dec 2003)

Oops, think I mixed up the Hercs with the AC130‘s


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Dec 2003)

A Herc is a C130 is it not?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Dec 2003)

See this site:
 http://www.directory.net/Society/Military/Aviation/Aircraft/Airlifters/


----------



## JasonH (8 Dec 2003)

Heh, whoops.

What can I say, I‘m a grunt not some fly boy


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Dec 2003)

Same here, but they are our only air lift


----------



## RCD (9 Dec 2003)

It sounds nice. but let‘s see what other offers are out there.

www.airforce.technology.com


----------



## Brock (12 Dec 2003)

The Lockheed Martin offer of a mix of C-27J and C-130J aircraft to replace the 35 plus year old C-130E is a great option. a mix of 12-16 C-27J and 12-16 C-130J would fit perfectly to replace the oldest Hercs in service.  They use the same engines and most of the avionics and electronics are the same so cost will be substantially reduce, furthermore it is a more cost fleet for whatever mission they need to perform.  For example, for a short range fixed SAR mission why fly a large C-130 when an aircraft half the size ---see C27J--will do.  Competitors to the C27J are a little cheaper initially, but in the longer term the C-27J will have a lower cost.  Furthermore, the remainder of C-130 aircaft could be replaced by A400M or more C-130J, although the latter are not suited for strategic airlift.


----------



## Bert (12 Dec 2003)

In an earlier thread, "C-27J Spartan",  
2003-10-13, in Off Topic, Ring_Mountbatten made an interesting post>

"The C-27J is based upon an Italian aircraft, the G222, the only difference is that there are new engines. The same emgines that are on the C-130J.
Since Canada is expected to ultimately acquire the C-130J the commonality between the two would be helpful for maintanance. However, the C-27J will be up against the C-295 from Spain which has one big thing going for it which is Pratt and Whitney Canada engines. They are both good aircraft and either one can do the job of the Buffalo."

and Zoomie wrote>

"The big problem that the Airforce has with aircraft such as the C-27J and J-model Hercs is those fancy propeller blades. In order for that particular design to hold up to the rigors of flight, it had to be made from composite materials. Present-day propeller blades on tactical airlifters are made from metal. If a composite blade were to be nicked by a rock, the entire propeller blade would have to be replaced. Metal blades are simply sanded smooth, and the plane keeps flying. Since these types of aircraft will be landing on gravel strip runways and the like, the chances of a rock nicking the blade is high."

(I added these posts for info because I haven‘t seen these guys on for awhile.)


----------



## JasonH (12 Dec 2003)

Good post bert   

Thanks for the info too, good read.


----------



## Brock (16 Dec 2003)

Bert.  You are wrong about the propellers.  Composite propellers are actually easier to maintain than the old normal metal; compostite does not necessarily mean plastic.  Check out some research, not sarcastic, on the CH-47D Chinook.  The CH-47D model upgrade includes new composite rotor blades as do all modern helicopters, becuase they are less prone to damage and easier to maintain and last longer.  The same is true for airplane propellers.   Both the C-295M and C-27J have composite propellers, becuase they are much better than old style propellers.

In addition, the C-27J is not just a G222 with new engines.  It is true that the C-27J aircraft built so far have been G222 aircraft that were completely and then refurbished with new engines.  The C-27J are outside of the refurbished airframe totally different aircraft under the skin.  The reason the "new" C-27J were built this way, becuase it cost less and offered no disadvantages to the buyer.  Indeed, some of prototype C-130J models were built this way and it appears Lockheed Martin has offered to build refurbished C-130 aircraft this way too.

I do wholeheartedly agree that the C-295M‘s link with the Pratt & Whitney engines will make the competition a tight race, but unless some strange amount of politicking goes on the C-27J will win.  I think Lockheed Martin Canada has a far bigger political voice than Pratt and Whitney in Canada, engines are a small cost of the overall aircraft.


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (14 Feb 2004)

I didn‘t mean to say that the C-27J were just remanufactured G222s, just the fact that the airframe was the same.  As for the C-295 what might push it forward is that is has been ataining a lot more overseas orders than the C-27J at this point and obviously the more orders from other countries drives down the price per aircraft in the end.  Just on a side note the current Spanish defence attatche in Ottawa was the project manager for his Air Force‘s C-295 program.  As for politics, Lockheed knows that it will eventually recieve a C-130J contract.  As for politics, jobs in Canada are always a big concern for Canadians and the government, especially if those people lose their jobs because the military didn‘t purchase a locally.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (18 Feb 2004)

go to AeroVehicles just type that in on google or whatever there is another site for something called SKYCAT, these are new technology the smallest is capable of 45 ton load the largest is SKY CAT they have a ship capable of several hundred tons and one on the drawing of 1000ton ability these things are able to take loads so big you could haul an entire Bn in the big one. I am familiar with these, have been trying to get them for northern diamond exploration and fuel hauls my coy is called HeAT for helium assisted transport they are able to operate with no infrastructure ie: no airports etc, land on water reasonablly flat ground etc. Now if there were any brains atall in Ottawa they would see that the British Co. is run by a Canadian, build the **** things here and sell them around the world.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (18 Feb 2004)

Almost forgot, these ships are state of the art, yes new, but you usually bet on horses before a race not after. Testing has these in about 100km per hr but given the range capabilities and fuel all weather not to mention about one hundred times the tactical advantage of anything else, the powers to be probably will not even look. Which usually means they have not been adequately greased, as yet!
helium is not a flammable gas and Canada can produce lots of it , because they are aero dynamically designed they are no more affected by winds etc than is a Herc, you could park a couple of hercs inside on 1000ton jobby


----------



## tmbluesbflat (18 Feb 2004)

As for Helicopters one called the KAMOV several of which are being utilized by VAN ISLE Helicopter for logging and heavy lift, they lift 5 long or metric tonnes, they can operate nicely in Arctic conditions. I will post the specs when I locate them in my office, no secretary. These choppers are of Russian design, but the whole crew of engineers and designers etc are now here in Canada, operating and maintaining these for Van Isle. Do we hear oportunity knocking or what?


----------



## Garry (18 Feb 2004)

We‘ve made this mistake before, hope we don‘t do it again: buying from anywhere other than North America results in poor quality goods, lost time in parts and repairs, and tough to maintain on exercise with our main defense partner.

We‘re (Canada and the States) so far ahead of the rest of the world in aircraft design and manufacture that it boggles my mind why we even look elsewhere.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (18 Feb 2004)

not when it comes to heavy lift, in choppers the russians are at least equal to anybody and right as we speak the US is investigating the counter rotate props of the Kamov that negate the need for a tail rotor.
The US gov stopped a company called Skycat of Santa Maria California from dealing with anybody except US companies they did that right after 9/11, stopping the potential deals with my company. 
However the technology is actually British. Much intrigue!


----------



## tmbluesbflat (18 Feb 2004)

a lot of American technology comes from sources other than US, metallurgy for example is largely overlooked in north america these days, at one time Canada was a leader in the field, but after the Arrow disaster it went by the board. It was the fact that we had great metalurgists that made that craft viable. Recently it was shown how two US companies were to compete for the next generation of fighter aircraft. Only because of Russian metallurgy were either manufacturer able to reach the required specs. Do not sell other nations manufacture and design etc short, but rather look to those Canadian companies chosen to utilize the foreign design. The FN rifle is a classic example as is the current little jeep sized vehicle and of course there are not to my knowledge any example of any successes when we do business like that. Is there anybody out there familiar with the original concepts of NATO when it came to arms and equipment etc?


----------



## Garry (19 Feb 2004)

The Russians have made some amazing things fly- but don‘t confuse their ability to fly with their ability to fly safely.

Yes, the Russian twin-counter rotating helo‘s used for logging in BC carry huge loads- but they do not have an enviable safety record. 

The MIG fighters have tremendous airframes and some neat designs (like being able to operate off of gravel!) but they cannot carry fuel for extended missions, their flight controls are very heavy inducing fatigue, their engines are replaced after 100 hours...some of their missiles are truly amazing, but generally Russian avionics are horrid.

Not my intent to bore you with a litany of facts, suffice it to say I am convinced that the efficacy and safety of North American airspace products are clearly superior to any other continents production.

Chers-Garry


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Feb 2004)

Didn‘t Russia make the largest cargo plane in the world?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Feb 2004)

I would prefer not to rely on the Russians for any equipment especially down the road when spare parts might be an issue and trying to get spare parts from our allies might be a problem in times of crisis.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (19 Feb 2004)

the point is this first the Sky Cat and Aerocat are North American and British design! The Kamov with , a little effort could be Russian design Canadian built. I am unaware of any unfavourable safety factors in regard to the Kamov. I am however familiar with the fact that the agencies responsible are at odds when it comes to certifying some uses, but that of course is what happened to the Arrow Jetliner as you may recall.
I mentioned Vancouver Island Helicopters in an earlier comment, they have used this craft in very heavy work for a couple of years now. They are a rather large company, if there is a better craft out there they would most likely not use Kamov!


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (19 Feb 2004)

It would be next to impossible for the Canadian military to buy Russian.  It is a political nightmare waiting to happen.  The logistics of training among many other things, precludes any purchase anyways.  We are a NATO country and that means most of the equipment that we purchase should be interoperable within the alliance.  Either way the type of Kamov used for logging is just not a wise choice for military operations anyway.  The fiscal reality that the lilitary faces would not allow them to buy a helo that had no real troop carrying capacity.  For the suggestion that the helo could be produced in Canada, so can any other that Canada choose to operate, thanks to a Canada being a technolgically advance country.  One need only look as far as Montreal and see Bell Textron to see how easy it would be.  

As for the airship, the only thing I could see that replacing is sea going vessels.  The speed of the machine alone does not allow for it to be used as a airlift platform.  The bigger one is probably years away anyway and will spend years in research and devolpement, if it even gets to the production stage.  To get in on the ground floor of unproven projects is just another way DND waste it‘s precious budget.  Why should the Canadian soldier be the one who loses out if this project does not pan out?


----------



## tmbluesbflat (20 Feb 2004)

Please read and try to understand, I believe that I am using relatively unsophisticated English, I said tha the entire engineering and design team of Russians with one or two exceptions, is now resident in Canada, do you understand, need I elaborate???


----------



## tmbluesbflat (20 Feb 2004)

I believe the Kamove rigged for passengers could handle I think 20. 
If you pay attention, I said that the various airships can travel at around 100 kilometers per hour, do not require a runway etc, can land anywhere, land, sea you name it. They are immense enough to carry a battalion (the 1000 Tonner) in comfort wth all their gear etc, they can be rigged to cover 8000 miles at a jump and can go further by adding more fuel a little les cargo. they can be totally self sufficient supprt wise ie; they can be used as temp living quarters etc etc. You would require more than twenty hercs to even come close to filling the bill. By the way they have been cleared to build by the US Military.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (20 Feb 2004)

The only real objection some people will have about the Kamov is that the grease coming from the current target choppers in just enormous, the Feds have already put up 1/2 billion when Chretien got elected and cancelled the previous order. The other is that the Kamov is vastly superior in so many ways, but guess what? It would come in at about 10% of the cost of the junker they trying to get the country to accept. Several stakeholders in that multinational company have expessed misgivings, and the craft has had an enormous number of "incidents"


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (20 Feb 2004)

Plain and simply airships are not viable solutions for an air force.  Airships have always been used as a second option to seacraft.  They are too slow and too big to be used as anything less than a replacement for a ship.  They hold no tactical value whatever to the air force due to that size and speed.  The air force is in the business of getting cargo to their destinations fast not in a week.  As for your asertion that the US military is interested in them, that is not a surprise considering their defence budget and ours.  They can afford to throw away some bucks on a something that might never evolve from the drawing board.  Anyway the US is looking at them to replace their current sealift capabilty and not their airlifters.  

As for the Kamovs I believe my previous posts have said all I need to, but you can add to that, that the infrastructure is just not there in Canada to support them, no matter how many Russian engineers are in Canada.  They are just not an option for the Canadian military.  Ask any military helo pilot if they think that Kamov is a viable solution for Canada.  I am sure their answers would be very much the same.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by tmbluesbflat:
> [qb] I believe the Kamove rigged for passengers could handle I think 20.
> If you pay attention, I said that the various airships can travel at around 100 kilometers per hour, do not require a runway etc, can land anywhere, land, sea you name it. They are immense enough to carry a battalion (the 1000 Tonner) in comfort wth all their gear etc, they can be rigged to cover 8000 miles at a jump and can go further by adding more fuel a little les cargo. they can be totally self sufficient supprt wise
> ie; they can be used as temp living quarters etc etc. You would require more than twenty hercs to even come close to filling the bill. By the way they have been cleared to build by the US Military. [/qb]


I have watched these helicopters at work and am truely impressed by them, i don‘t believe any have been lost in this very dangerous work. these helo‘s have been a big worry to the US helicopter companies as they are direct competation and do many of the jobs better and cost less. Russian Helo‘s being run under North American safety standards have done very well, can‘t say the same of the Griffion.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (21 Feb 2004)

The man says the airforce needs airplanes that cannot handle one tank and its equip, let alone 20 tanks etc one herc loaded might handle a coy and some equip, not a battalion, it takes longer to load and stow gear on a herc than it would be to load, (drive on drive off) gear up and fly 500 miles with the Skycat 1000, The herc would be just getting of the ground with part of what would be needed. The reason I am familiar with these figures is that I had been in the process of bidding on contract with companies such as BHP Billiton in the northern diamond play where they spend months building airports and highways etc etc costing billions, most of which is wasted, and they can‘t build one just anywhere, right now there are probably a dozen sites they would love to drill, but can‘t get to with either trucks or aircraft except of course choppers but then they have to carry equipment like cats etc in pieces. The logistical advantage with this technology is so great as to be no contest, the best aircraft can do is fly the distance quicker, with some of the load. This has been dicussed at some length by senior executives of some of the worlds largest mining companies whose experience in transport and heavy lift leave most military people in the dust, don‘t forget many are ex service people themselves and understand all to well the current shortcomings!


----------



## tmbluesbflat (21 Feb 2004)

I spoke to a fellow today who is familiar with the Kamov, he told me it is a pilots dream come true to fly and is vastly superior to anything else that he‘s flown. He is currently flying in Alaska doing survey for oil companies and told me the yanks are obssesed with aquiring this technologie., to the point of offering big bucks to the designers and engineers to move to US and build them. Another point no accidents with the craft to date, none! Can‘t say that about almost any other chopper made!


----------



## Infanteer (21 Feb 2004)

Out of interest, and a bit of a curve ball, but how would you evaluate the purchase of the Cormorant...it is a very snazzy airframe, yet its European.

Does its non-Continental status mean future problems for our potentially growing Cormorant fleet?


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (21 Feb 2004)

I done trying to explain why airships are not a feasible solution for the air force‘s transports woes.  I have explained that it is a rememdy for the future Navy sealift requirement...if it comes to fruition, but that is a big if.  As for Kamovs they are not and will not be in the running for any future Canadian helo purchase for a while, they might someday, but not while the political landscape is the way it is.  

As for the Cormorant, there is a big difference between built to NATO specs for other allies and Russian built equipment.  When it was designed it was the only helo that had everything Canada needed in one airframe.  Of course now there are other options from the US and Europe that might be selected to replace the Sea King.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (22 Feb 2004)

the point is that the Kamov can be built in North America to Nato specs.
Ships don‘t do well in the Arctic Nor do Hercs They need landing strips!, they are only marginal in desert, and rough field conditions, this is not Naval shipping it is Military transport for and from anyplace on Earth, with all the load and 100kph is not bad!


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (22 Feb 2004)

This is really a waste of my time to keep posting, you just don‘t get what I am saying at all.  You obviously do not understand  tactical and strategic airlift and why airships are not part of that no matter how much I post that airships are not a replacement for airlift, especially hercs.  I understand you think that these airships would be a good replacement because you look at specs and are wowed by them, however, it will be years before they are even off the drawing board, if at all.  Canada simply does not have the finacial wherewithal to invest a sum of defence dollars for something that might never come to fruition.  Diamond companies and the US military obviously have more bucks than Canada has to throw around.  

As for the Kamovs just because they are good logging company helos it does not mean they would be good for Canadian military use.  Secondly it is not politically feasible for Canada to purchase Russian helos for the military.  Any helo Canada buys can be built in Canada, the Kamov is not special in that regard.  I don‘t think that comfort level of the military to buy Russian is all that high and that it would be met with a great enthusiasm is wrong.  Pilots like to fly things they trust, and generally they trust things used by their allies, and helos built by people who were not there enemies 20 years ago.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (22 Feb 2004)

Canadian military Brains are why we have inadequate equipment today. We have paid far higher prices for absolute junk from our so called allies. Who generally smile in our faces and piss on our boots! The money wasted on things like redesign on the new destroyers, the so called economical jeep type vehicle. to name just a couple, the list however is large! The fact that minig companies have money for this sort of thing demonstrats the wisdom of having intelligent people making these kind of investments decisions, they have no cash or time to waste!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Feb 2004)

> As for the Kamovs just because they are good logging company helos it does not mean they would be good for Canadian military use.  Secondly it is not politically feasible for Canada to purchase Russian helos for the military.  Any helo Canada buys can be built in Canada, the Kamov is not special in that regard.  I don‘t think that comfort level of the military to buy Russian is all that high and that it would be met with a great enthusiasm is wrong.  Pilots like to fly things they trust, and generally they trust things used by their allies, and helos built by people who were not there enemies 20 years ago. [/QB]


Well I do agree with your points on the political level and concede that it is unlikely for us to buy a Russian design. The Kamov design is based on the counter roatating blade concept, which does away with the tail rotor and all of it‘s issues and removes the loss of some 15% of the total engine shaft horsepower required to run the tail rotor. Besides being used in the heavy lift helicopter, the Russians also use this in their KA-50 & 52 attack helicopter. the KA-52 is the only helicopter in the world to be equipped with ejection seats! Another benifit of this design is the reduced width of the rotor, allowing it to operate in more confined spaces. Canada would do well to bring this technolgy into the North American market, it certainly isn‘t the first Russian helicopter design to make the transition!

By the way I agree with your comments on airships, when viewed as a whole the concept does not work well, remember the R101?


----------



## jrhume (23 Feb 2004)

I don‘t know anything about the Kamov, but I did some extensive research into the newest generation of airships for a story I wrote some time back.

Forget dirigibles and blimps; these new semi-rigid airships are very different.  I think we will see them deployed for strategic airlift operations into areas difficult for conventional aircraft to get into or too far from friendly bases for helicopters.

I agree with ringo_m that tactical airlift is not an option for an airship.  It might take ten C-130s to carry the same number of men and supplies that could go on one airship, but a Herc can get into and out of high-threat environments and no airship (as presently constructed) could do that.

However, semi-rigid airships have great promise.  I think we will see extensive utilization of them in both civilian circles (already being done for heavy lift of all sorts) and for military uses.

Stay tuned.  The technology is fantastic.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Feb 2004)

I have spoken to the boys that fly Sea Kings and they would rather stay with the Sea King then fly any Russian stuff. Sorry TM I think your out to lunch saying what our air crews would like to fly...


----------



## Korus (23 Feb 2004)

I think we should replace the C7 with the AK-74.   
(ducks)

(Ok, before someone flips out at that, I‘m trying to make it as painstakingly obvious as possible that that was SARCASM)


----------



## tmbluesbflat (23 Feb 2004)

I am not talking Force Aircrews but senior civilian most of whom were once military and flew Sea Kings and everything in the book. Your "BOYS" that fly for the military are probably very young and have not had the thousands of hours that these chaps have, both military and civilian.
Also I was refering to semi rigid airships as noted in a previous post. Currently being manifactured in Great Britain a 30 tonne is operating and a 220 is slated for delivery next year and a 1000 tonne is to start building this year. Go to google then type Skycat, and check out the specs


----------



## Korus (23 Feb 2004)

Allrighty, I‘ve actually gone ahead and done some research (what a concept) on the "Kamov"
First, Kamov is a company name, not a helicopter, so lets try and talk specifics.

The stats on the Kamov made choppers used in logging in Canada...
  http://www.aeroworldnet.com/6tw02249.htm  

They are KA-32s, and KA-32s are the transport version of the KA-27/29

KA-32 Helix:
  http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/ka-29.htm  

KA-32A Helix:
  http://www.bearcraft-online.com/museum/museum.htm?mid=30  
According to this one, it can carry 13 passengers, and other websites state that as well.

Also note that it was first developed in the mid-70‘s.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Feb 2004)

Again you assume too much TM as the people I talk to are majors and senior captains that have been in for 12 plus years and have 1000s of hours on the Sea King airframe.


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (23 Feb 2004)

Old Guy, I do not dispute that that the airship has a lot of potential, however, due to it‘s speed it just cannot be used as a stategic airlift platform.  When outsize equipment is needed quickly it would just take too long to get there.  That is why I have been saying that the most logical use for them is to supplement current and future sealift capabilities.  They are faster than ships obviously, but are just as vulnerable to very basic threats.  I have also pointed, especially in the US case, that the Navy has always operated airships.  To unload an airship that big you would also need a area the size of a port just to be able to not turn the entire process into a logistical nightmare.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (24 Feb 2004)

The point is it can carry outsized equipment lost of it, it can put down anyplace needed complete with shops spares and other support. It is impervious to small arms fire, kevlar low pressure shock absorbing and can otherwise sustain major damage and still function. The fact that it is roll on roll off front and rear loading makes it‘s strategic advantage even better. At 100kph it is not terribly fast but it is quicker than any ground transport, since your not restricted to roads and mountains etc. That they require no infrastructure, no runways no tarmac, they can land on water, ice and snow, or a farmers field, they can vertical lift, hover etc I would think that an infantry battalion and it‘s vehicles etc could be loaded in about thirty minutes and unloaded as quickly, this is however just a guess, but I do have some experience at expiditing. I think my guess would hold up!


----------



## tmbluesbflat (24 Feb 2004)

I don‘t think I assume to much, most of the people I‘m refering to have thousands of hour on a variety of craft, their experience is not limited to one or two craft the military may have. One chap I have flown with here on the west coast (The most treacherous flying conditions) is 64 and has flown just about everything that can fly. His impression was that the Kamov was ten years ahead of anything in anybodies bag of tricks. The other point he made was this, with all the Yank engineers and mechanics looking things over, that it would not take long for the American Choppers to have a few new features.


----------



## jrhume (24 Feb 2004)

Mr. tmbluesflat,

You‘re so caught up in the enthusiasm for semi-rigid airships that you‘re forgetting to apply common sense.

No infrastructure?  Any complex machine will require service and support.  The thing has engines, electronics, control systems, etc.  It will need an infrastructure.

No hard surfaced landing area?  While it‘s true that airships can operate in unimproved areas, the fact is that the most efficient loading and unloading will happen on improved surfaces.  Helos can operate practically anywhere, but I can tell you that any movement of troops and supplies is best done from a hard surface.  I was in Vietnam with a Chinook company, so I have a little experience at that sort of thing.

The other issue is one of exposure.  Even in fairly low-risk environments a commanding officer will be reluctant to load an entire unit in one airship.  For example, a Marine Amphibious Unit is carried aboard a helo/troop carrier built for that purpose, but that ship never goes in harms way without a powerful escort.  A semi-rigid airship carrying a battalion of troops and equipment would have to be escorted with conventional aircraft and armed helos.  It‘s not as simple as just loading everyone on board and heading off for your destination.

I am very interested in semi-rigid airships and believe they offer advantages we can only imagine at this point.  But, I also understand that melding that technology with existing transport is not easy.


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (24 Feb 2004)

Old Guy these are all very good points, however, from the debate I have been having this gentleman over airships, I am sure that the logic you have provided to the conversation will fall upon deaf ears.  I can only hope that your points will help to enforce the point that these machines do have logistical needs and simply cannot put down in a convienent empty space and unload just like that.  As well I do hope that he does not respond that they have kevlar protection and that will save it from foes, as he tried to point out to me that they might need some sort of escort and protection.  Thank you for your insight into this topic.


----------



## jrhume (24 Feb 2004)

Mr. Ringo_m,

I‘m not so sure logic always falls on deaf ears.  Bureaucrats often ignore objective reality until they manage to get some poor saps killed.  Then, they often survive to plague future generations of soldiers by writing books about the ‘lessons‘ they learned by way of other people‘s blood.

Semi-rigid airships will likely make an appearance in US forces before long.  I hope they get a fair trial, in spite of bureaucrats.

In this case, I think whatever tempests rise up on these pages will have little practical effect on the decision of what transport Canada ought to buy.  I lean toward the C-130/C-29 combo myself, but that‘s only because they are proven platforms.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (24 Feb 2004)

Quite correct about the technology and the intigration of same. But think of this, load battalion in Edmonton off load in Afgahnistan three days later, rested, fed, and ready to go! This is what the US is thinking, according to test pilot Bob Fowler of AreoCat of Santa Maria California. He has been in on the development of these craft from the beginning!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Mar 2004)

Airship to keep eye on Mideast


By Abraham Rabinovich
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


JERUSALEM â â€ Israel has begun development of a 200-yard-long airship that would remain stationed at almost 70,000 feet above Earth for years and permit tracking of aircraft and missile firings as far as 600 miles away, a distance covering most of the Arab world. 
"It will be an airship the size of a football field, nothing like it in the world," engineer Avi Baum told the Ha‘aretz newspaper. Mr. Baum is head of research for the Malam branch of Israel Aircraft Industries. 
In addition to its military purposes, the airship, which is yet to be named, would permit a wide range of civilian uses. Mr. Baum said it could relay TV and radio signals, provide broadband Internet, monitor ground and air traffic and aid in weather forecasting. It also could serve as a communications transponder linking ground stations with planes and satellites. 
The unmanned airship, which would be 60 yards wide, could stay aloft for up to three years and could shift its position at the order of its ground station. It could be brought down to Earth at will for refitting and be sent back into the atmosphere. 
The craft would be divided into two compartments, one containing air and one containing helium. On the ground, the helium would be compressed, making it heavier than air. For liftoff, the helium would be released gradually to fill the air pocket. 
A steering mechanism based on a rear propeller controlled by an electric motor would keep the craft in geostationary position. Solar panels would provide a continual supply of energy. Current specifications envision a craft made of flexible, lightweight polymers that would weigh 10 tons and be capable of carrying payloads of 1.9 tons. 
"We thought of developing something less expensive than satellites," Mr. Baum said. The proposed craft would be positioned between the altitudes of planes and space satellites. 
The cost of the project is estimated at $100 million to $150 million, and the company is seeking an international partner. Lockheed Martin is reportedly at work on a similar concept and is exploring a joint project with Malam. Defense Ministry officials said a prototype could be operational in four years. Although Malam is not the first to think about such airships, it is believed to be the first to have resolved the problem of keeping the craft in geostationary position, serving as an airborne watchtower.


----------

