# Blimps/airships/aerostats (merged)



## 48Highlander (3 Feb 2006)

I came accross an interesting article on the Winds of Chane Blog about several research projects currently under way which are exploring new applications for blimps.  The most interesting of the linked articles were the JLENS system, basicaly a distributed network of blimp based radar, infrared, and visual sensors, as well as the WALRUS HULA, an airlift blimp which will, theoreticaly, be able to lift up to 2 MILLION pounds.  Make a pretty good replacement for the C-130 

Some images:













Article can be found here


----------



## mo-litia (3 Feb 2006)

Very interesting article; particularly about the radar-station blimps.  Heavy-lift blimps are intriguing, but I wonder if any studies have been done on how to tactically deploy such a resource.  ???


----------



## q_1966 (10 Feb 2006)

Isnt it harder to shoot down a C130 Herc or Tactical Helicopter as appose to a Blimp (they are fairly slow)
although it is a fresh idea


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Feb 2006)

Deployment areas would be dependent on threat assessment.


----------



## willy (11 Feb 2006)

Let me float up an idea (pun intended):

Use of unmanned blimps as semi-expendable RRB stations, SATCOM uplinks, jammers, etc.  Use of blimps to take on tasks that manned sigs dets are typically used for could both increase capability as well as reduce potential for casualties.  Manpower requirements could also be reduced through this application: not only would you not need the RRB crew, but you wouldn't need the D&S guys to protect them.

Any thoughs?


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Feb 2006)

What's your theoretical admin 'tail' for "X" number of blimps?

How many blimps per deploying unit?, located where in relation to the operational area(s)?

What the manning bill for operators/launchers, maintainers, protection of launch and recovery parties?

It may not be a significant manpower saving?
But it could be a risk reduction strategy, especially for some tasks where the payoff is high and the blimp is expendable anyway.


----------



## GINge! (11 Feb 2006)

We were using Blimps during Ex ROVING SANDS 96 in Ft Bliss / WSMR.  It carried a rader that was linked into the Patriot Bn for early warning. No motor, just a cable tether.


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Feb 2006)

An updated variation on the Civil War observation balloon.


----------



## willy (11 Feb 2006)

Not an expert on blimp related lift, so someone tell me if I'm wrong:

A RRB station need only contain 2 x Receiver-Transmitters, plus enough power to go for a worthwhile period of time.  Add a computer to allow for remote control and you're set.  I can't see the overall weight being anywhere near prohibative.  One could probably arrange for a smallish and inexpensive type blimp to take this sort of task.  I think that there are considerable cost savings to be considered here.

As well, any blimp used to augment ground based RF comms systems would have the advantage of being directly overhead.  This would significantly lessen the problems which are typically caused by terrain, as it would be a straight LOS shot from any ground based C/S to the blimp in question, with no hills or mountains in the way.


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Feb 2006)

Just a few thoughts, I do think the genral idea has merit;

If it generally 'directly overhead' freee or tethered, it becomes a targetting aid.  Low threat environment not a concern, but the mid and high threat options need to be explored too.

Even though the payload is reduced to just the radios and power requirements, it still need a vehicle a crew (2?) to transport/deploy/recover it.  Likely possibly to add to an existing detachment, but that also affects their flexibility to support it, like picking it up two miles away when they are tied into a HQ penthouse and cable grid.

Nothing unsolvable, but worthy of consideration.


----------



## willy (11 Feb 2006)

Ref: targeting aid: fair enough.  Again, I'm not an expert on this sort of thing-- is it possible for a smallish blimp to fly high enough to not be readily detectable from the ground?

Ref: crew requirements, a basic RRB station requires the capability described above, but on reflection, I don't see why a blimp RRB couldn't carry more.  This technology could conceivably replace multiple detachments with one blimp, and possibly with an increase in capability due to overhead positioning.  I think that it is reasonable to believe that an overall reduction in manpower could be achieved.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Feb 2006)

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/aerostats.html

Here's an assortment of Aerostats ranging from a tiddler (REAP = Rapidly Elevated Aerostat Platform) which can keep a 16 kg payload at 300 ft for 10 days 



> The REAP aerostat, built by ISL's Bosch Aerospace Division, is specifically designed for quick deployment. The whole system, including the deflated blimp, is transported in a container on top of a vehicle (HMMWV in the Army application). After attaching the payload to the tether line, an automatic sequence can be started, which inflates the aerostat and releases the tether until a preselected altitude has been reached. The whole procedure takes only around five minutes. The Army's standard REAP payload consists of electro-optical (day time) and night vision cameras, which have an effective surveillance radius of about 33 km (18 nm) at the blimp's operating altitude of 90 m (300 ft).



To the TARS JLENS (Tethered Aerostat Radar System, Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor ) which can keep a 2300 kg payload at 15,000 ft for 30 days.

The Marines  MARTS (Marine Airborne Re-Transmission System) can keep 225 kg at 3000 ft for 15 days.  That gives a 125 km line of site radius for VHF/UHF transmission.   It will stay aloft in winds up to 85 km/h and survive lightning strikes and small arms fire.   (That makes sense when you think about it - these things are not going to go bang like a party balloon when punctured.  They are just going to start leaking and when they have lost enough gas they will slowly start coming back to earth.  If you reel them in fast enough, while the balloon is still acting like a parachute you would likely be able to ground it with little damage to the payload).  



> A MARTS blimp "can run for two weeks before it would need refueling, and can remain afloat in winds up to 50 mph," according to DD. With a combination kevlar/mylar skin, the aerostat can even "handle small arms fire... function[ing] with a 4-inch diameter hole."



http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001488.html


Unit cost is apparently 14 MUSD/4 or 3.5 MUSD each.



> and the Marines are scrounging up $14 million to buy four more.



http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/04/14m-for-blimps-in-iraq/index.php

So one of these things tethered in the middle of your camp would give you both an RRB platform with 125 km radius (assuming a 3000 ft altitude and no 3001 ft bumps on the skyline) as well as a 24/7 Eye in the sky sentry, also with a very long range.

Edit: Here's another reference with more on surveillance range - at 1000 ft you get a 30 km horizon - from other sources at 15,000 ft you get a horizon of about 280 km - then all you need is a powerful enough lens or radar to see that far.

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_072105_Helms,00.html


----------



## Bert (11 Feb 2006)

Willy

I'd suspect if they used radar absorbing composite materials, the blimp/ballon/aerostat would have
a minimized radar signature.  Likely camo techniques to minimize visual and IR ident.   On a modern
battlefield against a tech savy enemy, its possible to quickly identify RF broadcasts though.  

However, the height of the blimp reduces the need to build and maintain communications towers and
the idea serves well in tactical and fixed scenarios.  Might be an air hazard without certain methods of
identification.   From a tech point of view, the equipment inside is physically harder to service if 
suspended.  Down time might be longer and back-up systems need tol be provided as well.

I doubt it would mean the reduction of personnel.  These devices are additional tools and not necessarily
the best option for all fixed or deployed communications and radar types.


----------



## UberCree (12 Feb 2006)

There is talk in Manitoba of looking into airships (blimps) for transportation of goods to remote communities.  Because of the transport costs to fly in goods and the shortening of the winter road season the idea is gaining momentum.  
30 million for first airship.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Feb 2006)

Any word on savings?


----------



## UberCree (12 Feb 2006)

Not in the article I saw.
Barry Prentice, from the Asper School of Business at the U of M was pushing the idea.  I assume because of that that it would be economically viable.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Feb 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> There is talk in Manitoba of looking into airships (blimps) for transportation of goods to remote communities.  Because of the transport costs to fly in goods and the shortening of the winter road season the idea is gaining momentum.
> 30 million for first airship.



We could use some of those too:
The Dirigible-A Phoenix rising from the Ashes
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_05/iss_3/CAJ_vol5.3_14_e.pdf


----------



## 57Chevy (5 Jan 2011)

Lighter Than Air vehicles (LTAs)

The new vehicle set to revolutionise the skies

Imagine a flying machine that can cruise in the air for three weeks without landing - and does not need a runway when it finally comes back to earth.
It may sound like science fiction, but the Hybrid Air Vehicle - which looks like a traditional airship - can land anywhere and on any surface. 

Check out the video at link.
       ________________________________________________________________________________________

Hybrid Air Vehicles to revolutionise air travel
This may look and sound like the latest James Bond mobile, but Hybrid Air Vehicles could transform the way we navigate the skies
Hybrid Air Vehicles offer a revolutionary approach to air travel by using Lighter-Than-Air (LTA) technology.

The company has one of the world’s most experienced teams specialising in designing, building and certifying LTA systems, according to the company’s website, and they have just launched a new video showing the revolutionary SkyCat 200 taking flight.

SkyCats an land and take off from any ‘reasonably flat surface: water, snow, sand and tundra,’ according to the company’s website, which suggests that Hybrid Ari
Vehicles could address the new challenges in the logistics and surveillance markets.

‘The growing world demand for raw materials and the increasing threat of global terrorism is driving the need for novel solutions to the requirements for heavy lift transportation and surveillance / communications with the minimum environmental impact. Hybrid Air Vehicles' products directly address all of these requirements in a cost effective manner,’ states the company’s website.

The SkyCat can fly for three weeks without landing and does not require a runway to land of take off.

The SkyCat could be advantageous in many fields, suggest the creators, who believe that it could revolutionise the way people travel the skies.

‘Compared to available alternatives, these products offer a cost effective solution for heavy lifting requirements in territories such as the far north of Canada or the outback of Australia. Oil and mineral exploration and extraction become more viable based upon our environmentally sensitive solutions. Our products can provide very effective timely humanitarian relief, to areas struck by natural disasters,’ states the company’s website.

The SkyCat can burn up to 25 percent less fuel that existing aircraft and can land and take off vertically.

The SkyCat series' advantages allow the creation of a transport system that can interface with existing transport modes. Operational capabilities result in almost zero impact on the environment by avoiding the need to construct runways or roads.

                               (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Jan 2011)

Revolutionize ??? Really !!!

I have pictures at home of my grandmother travelling in one of those in the 1920's.

They were outclassed by airplanes due to a (little known  ) aerodynamic concept: Air resistance. Them things just don't move fast.

I can't see anyone wishing to lose the speed advantage just for a 25% increase in fuel efficiency.

If fuel gets to be so expansive that speed matters less, the real way to travel will become ships again - Much more fuel efficient per passenger than airships and a lot more comfortable. Just MHO.


----------



## 57Chevy (5 Jan 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver......I also enjoy the jet propulsed style travelling, however there is great possibilities for Airships in the Great White North :snowman:
 *highlights mine
            ______________________________________________________________________________Airships to the Artic

The materials exist to build cargo airships that are much larger than the giants of the past.  Envelope materials that can build a 250 ton lift hybrid have already been developed, and designers are projecting 500 to 1000 ton lift airships as likely.

Airships are compatible with Arctic conditions and terrain.  Colder air provides more lift and the lack of surface thermal activity is an advantage for smoother flight.  Airships need to be field tested in winter conditions to prove that they can deal with snow accumulation and extreme temperatures, but winds can only be managed.  Under some conditions many aircraft will not fly, but airships have long endurance which may allow them to wait out storms. Airship captains will have to work with the wind, rather than fight it.  A non-linear flight path that tacks against the wind may take a bit longer, but airships can cruise easily at 130 kmph so they will still arrive faster than a truck over any ice road.

The primary impediment to the development of cargo airships is the lack of business confidence.  This may be changing with the renewed military interest in the use of airships.  The US Government has organized a consortium to develop a Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle (LEMV).  The LEMV is on a fast track for delivery of a prototype in 18 months.  The requirements are for an unmanned airship or hybrid airship that can remain aloft for 21 days at 20,000 feet providing continuous communications and surveillance to ground operations.  If brought down to lower elevations where cargo airships operate, the LEMV could carry about 13 to 15 tons.

The LEMV is being designed to deal with the threat of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) that are used by insurgents to kill US, Canadian and other NATO forces in Afghanistan.  Only by continuous surveillance can the activities of the insurgents be discerned from the movement of the civilian population with which they blend.  Canadian Forces would welcome a solution to the IEDs, but there is also a need for similar airship surveillance in the Arctic.  Climate change is melting the ice cap and opening the Northwest Passage for increased marine traffic.  Canada needs a logistics and surveillance vehicle like the LEMV to protect our national sovereignty in the Arctic and react to emergency situations.

The airship industry has a history of false starts.  Several times military initiatives have gotten the development of civilian airships close to the tipping point, but it has never reached the critical mass of civilian demand to become a common place means of transport.  Perhaps it will be a case of “third time lucky”.  The size of airship manufacture and operations in Canada make it an appealing industry to encourage for its own sake, but the payoff to northern development could be nothing less than revolutionary.

For too long people in northern Canada have had to make the best of whatever transport they could with limited infrastructure and a sparse population.  Sufficient demand exists in northern Canada to produce cargo airships and no technological barriers remain.  The commercial tipping point is in sight, it just needs a final push to make it happen.  The fifth Airships to the Arctic conference may be ahead of the tipping point, but clearly it is rapidly approaching.  

                           (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Jan 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> A non-linear flight path that tacks against the wind may take a bit longer, but airships can cruise easily at 130 kmph so they will still arrive faster than a truck over any ice road.



According to a member of this forum, they could probably be used to intercept TU-95s and TU-160s up North and replace our fighters.


----------



## Strike (5 Jan 2011)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> According to a member of this forum, they could probably be used to intercept TU-95s and TU-160s up North and replace our fighters.



Ooooh, that's good!

As for them being good for up north, I don't agree.  Maybe for smaller aircraft to be used as surveillance, but the large airships are out unless they are filled (with gas/air) in the same temperate region they intend to take off, fly and land in.  There would have to be some serious though put in to venting and carrying a lot of compressed air to fill the craft when they hit cooler temperatures aside from the requirements already needed due to change in weight from use of fuel.  PV=nRT and all that.

Just can't see it doing pax transport up there.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Jan 2011)

Moreover, Strike, I would be greatly interested to see a nice large airship trying to land in winter in the Arctic with 75-100 Km/h cross winds, and then unload cargo.

Now, I know air enthusiasts get really excited when the prospect of carrying a thousand ton is mentioned. I am looking at AIS for Montreal harbour and, right now, there are seven container ships being unloaded and relieved of their (average) fifty thousand tons of material. That's 350,000 tons - just today - and none of them are of the Panamax or post-Panamax type.

I am sorry, I just can't see any airship future where that trade would be taken over. Just MHO.


----------



## Zoomie (7 Jan 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I would be greatly interested to see a nice large airship trying to land in winter in the Arctic with 75-100 Km/h cross winds, and then unload cargo.



I would be interested to see any kind of aircraft land in 75-100km/h crosswinds...


----------



## 57Chevy (7 Jan 2011)

It not like a balloon flying around in a windstorm ;D

Photo:
US forces hope to put LEMV in the skies above Afghanistan by 2012

note*
LEMV is designed primarily as a surveillance vehicle and when it takes to the skies above Afghanistan a suite of radar, video and signal intelligence equipment will enable to focus its unblinking gaze on the terrain below.

However one of the big attractions of the technology is that this payload is adaptable. ‘One of the key things that army wants is the ability to rapidly integrate new payloads,’ said Metzger. ‘We know that the payloads we put on today may not be the payloads that we have a year or two from now because the fight will change.’

Read the full article: Meet LEMV: the first of a new generation of advanced military airship

Also:
LEMV isn’t the only big airship program currently being funded by the US army.

Northrop Grumman’s biggest competitor Lockheed Martin was last year awarded a $400 million DARPA grant to develop a prototype  reconnaissance airship able to stay in the stratosphere for years on end.

According to DARPA the ISIS airship would use 6000m2 of lightweight radar equipment to track everything from cruise missiles to small vehicles hidden in the undergrowth 300 kilometers away.

The platform will owe its remarkable capabilities to the physics of radar. The surface area and height of a stratospheric airship enables a very large radar aperture. As the radar aperture grows larger, the tracking performance of the radar system increases exponentially. Demonstration flights are planned for 2013.

                          (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jan 2011)

The US Navy operated very large blimps until the late 1950's as radar piquets. They were capable of operating in very bad weather conditions, including heavy icing  and cold weather. These blimps used condensers in the exhaust to collect water as ballast to replace the weight of burning fuel, and were built out of canvas and bailing wire (or something similar).

Modern materials and techniques (like "superpressure" balloons) can reduce the need to vent helium, and some designs use aerodynamic lift to supplement the lift from the helium which makes them less sensitive to the wind (when the ship is not in forward motion, the ship is actually slightly heavier than air).

All in all, modern airships can fill a niche role, but since the surveillance role can be done by so many other platforms, it might not be economical to go this route.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jan 2011)

University of Manitoba 2005  

Disregard Global Warming Hokey Stiks and other Bumf.

Previous study indicated that 70% of Canada was inaccessible by road.

150 tonne payload approximately equal to that of a 747-8 ...... no runway necessary, at either end.

Edit: And what is the average air temperature at the LEMV's planned operating altitude of 20,000 feet?


----------



## Kalatzi (8 Jan 2011)

Finally, a practical use for politicians!!!

Windbags >


----------



## Strike (8 Jan 2011)

57Chevy,

There is a big difference between a recce platform and a pax/cargo platform.  I am not saying that these craft can't be used fir strategic purposes but I am saying that it would be untrainable as a passenger platform.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2011)

Putting on my devil's advocate hat for a moment  >

An airship is a platform, so filling it with electronic equipment and using it as a surveillance platform isn't too much different from filling used 707's with electronics and creating AWACS and other surveillance aircraft. The former Soviet Union even used the IL-76 cargo aircraft to create an AWACS platform of their own (with certain advantages, such as having lots more room inside and having some ability to operate from austere airfields). C-130 Hercules transports are also used as communications relays, fuel tankers and gunships, and even stranger combinations have been proposed, such as Boeing 747's converted to carry dozens of cruise missiles or a B-1 re engined and armed with dozens of AAM's. 

There is no reason that a large LTA platform cannot be used in various versions for cargo, surveillance, anti submarine warfare or other purposes. The designers really have to ensure there is lots of usable space and a robust structure to mount various "things" and away we go. If the primary market is cargo carrying as Kirkhill suggests, then there is a fairly large potential market, which means military orders can benefit from economies of scale and platforms prepared for whatever role is selected.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Jan 2011)

I won't comment on other uses, but for technical reasons I will leave out (as they would require detailed technical explanations of current ASW methods that would breach the security rules of this site and the government), I am quite confident that LTA platforms cannot be used gainfully in anti submarine warfare.


----------



## brihard (13 Jan 2011)

Sorry, couldn't help myself.  ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Jan 2011)

Excellent !!!


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Jan 2011)

The "g" is silent ;D


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jan 2011)

WRT ASW, I was going by the example of the USN's use of blimps for ASW until the mid 1950's, and the use of aircraft like the PC-3 Orion today (I was kind of thinking of a blimp filled with the PC-3's surveillance suite and a large bay full of torpedoes or depth charges). However, we can strike ASW from the list and still have several possible uses for this platform.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Jan 2011)

From an article from last December in the Regina Leader-Post. Re-printed under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act.



> Manitoba looking to the heavens
> 
> By Adam Wazny, Winnipeg Free Press December 13, 2010
> 
> ...



 Article Link


----------



## Zoomie (15 Jan 2011)

While I concur with the majority of your post - please forgive me for this correction.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> ... isn't too much different from filling used 707's with electronics and creating AWACS and other surveillance aircraft.



E3 AWACs aircraft are not used 707's filled with electronics - they are a purpose built aircraft for its job.  However - our former CF 707s were sold to the USAF and they were filled with electronics and re-labeled JSTARS.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2011)

Although I don't think the platform is the same one as being discussed above, it is a similar idea. Perhaps a blip or LTA has advantages when carrying the amount of equipment being discussed (although I supose a really motivated airforce could use a new or converted 747 airframe if they wanted to, trading endurance for speed), but this should be in service on the ear future:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/all-seeing-blimp/



> *All-Seeing Blimp Could Be Afghanistan’s Biggest Brain*
> By Noah Shachtman   January 18, 2011  |  4:00 am  |  Categories: Air Force
> 
> Come this fall, there will be a new and extremely powerful supercomputer in Afghanistan. But it won’t be in Dave Petraeus’ headquarters in Kabul or at some three-letter agency’s operations center in Kandahar. It’ll be floating 20,000 feet above the warzone, aboard a giant spy blimp that watches and listens to everything for miles around.
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (19 Jan 2011)

I want the nuclear powered jets they were designing in the 50's to make a comeback. They actually had one built with the reactor installed. The NB-36H. 

New tech developed by Darpa makes them possible within our lifetimes (if you stick around long enough). They have fusion fuel that has a radiationless breakdown pathway. Developed with plans for aircraft carriers with safer reactors. But why not use them in aircraft? There is your airship that can stay up for months. If shot down the rads are minimal. You could also build drones with energy weapons.


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Jan 2011)

I checked out the SkyCat web site and the vehicle seems interesting. I don't see it having military strategic lift uses but what about civilian domestic uses? 

For those that comment they would like to try and land one in 70 KM/H wind, try and land anything in 70 KM/h wind.

Interesting to note the US are picking up LEMV.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Aug 2012)

Bump: LEMV flies


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R1G-L7qvTKI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x_fmy3xwjbM


And lands

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOIEO6h1fy0&feature=player_detailpage


And judging from the images in this Daily Mail article the Canadian Discovery Air connection is pretty strong - AIRLANDER.

ArmyRick - we might see them supplying Op Nanuk or Alert yet.


Edited to add the correct landing video link


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Aug 2012)

And here are the rest of the tools  in the toolkit under development


----------



## FoverF (27 Aug 2012)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> A non-linear flight path that tacks against the wind may take a bit longer, but airships can cruise easily at 130 kmph



I know this is kind of a necro-post, but I'll just throw this out there anyways because I see claims like this all the time.

The FAI-certified airspeed world record for an airship is 115 km/h. 

The absolute air speed world record (not FAI-certified) is 140km/h (USS Macon). And that took eight Maybach V-12s, running absolutely flat-out. 

No airship built in the last 75 years has ever hit 130 km/h, so saying that airships can "easily" (_requiring no great labour or effort[/i)] "cruise"(maintain a speed and altitude profile providing optimum or near-optimum fuel efficiency) at 130 km/h is not even close to correct. _


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2012)

The 130 kph is probaby marketing speed, but given many of these new LTA designs are built with fairly rigid composite envelopes, aerodynamics which treat the envelope as a "wing" or at least a lifting surface and have vastly higher power to weight ratios than were ever contemplated in the 1930's, I think it is safe to say modern LTA's are capable of moving much faster than most people would imagine.

Oddly, this is actually a bad thing, given the huge potential advantage of an LTA is its ability to loiter for extended periods. If you want to go fast with your payload, rent a cargo plane...


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Aug 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The 130 kph is probaby marketing speed, but given many of these new LTA designs are built with fairly rigid composite envelopes, aerodynamics which treat the envelope as a "wing" or at least a lifting surface and have vastly higher power to weight ratios than were ever contemplated in the 1930's, I think it is safe to say modern LTA's are capable of moving much faster than most people would imagine.
> 
> Oddly, this is actually a bad thing, given the huge potential advantage of an LTA is its ability to loiter for extended periods. If you want to go fast with your payload, rent a cargo plane...



I can think of any number of commodities that could benefit from just being delivered.  Often it is not the speed of delivery that is critical so much as the cost of delivery and the possibility of delivery.  These lifting bodies open up new possibilities.  The costs have yet to be determined fully.  Although it does seem that infrastructure will be reduced (assuming a Main Operating Base).  I wonder if the CAA would permit autonomous operations for certain types of cargo.  That could reduce costs further.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Aug 2012)

The dismal science strikes again. LTA's can fill certain transportation niches, but today these niches are filled just as efficiently (or more so, since there is a current pool of experience, infrastructure and sunk costs) by existing modes of transport. Back in the 1930's, seaplanes were the wave of the future, since you could land on almost any body of water that was large enough, and make use of dock facilities that existed all over the world at the time to service small freighters. After WWII, there existed enough airstrips to moot the advantage of landing on available lakes and oceans, while ship technology moved towards larger ships and centralized docking facilities (culminating in today's megaports for container shipping), making seaplanes pretty much redundant except for very tiny niche roles.

I'm afraid the same situation obtains for LTA's right now. Want to deliver a lot of troops and equipment overseas? Us a San Antonio class LPD. Need to get a lot of stuff overseas quickly? Use a C-17. Need to transport 26 tons to a specific point? Hire a MIL-26 HALO. Want to ship stuff to the Arctic? Send it via semitrailer on the ice road. Have an emergency delivery during the summer? Use a bush plane, or in a drastic emergency, an RCAF C-130.

As much as I love the idea of airships, the economics just don't work out (yet). Even for specialized roles, existing airframes can usually be tweaked enough to do the job (the ancient 707 served as a passenger jet, cargo jet, flying fuel tanker, AWACS, J-STARS, laser cannon, flying observatory...)


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Aug 2012)

Thuc:

Agree completely on the application of the LTA vs the Ship when considering both military and overseas applications.

However I do see a potential for long distance intRA-continental travel over land.  There needs to be a lower cost solution than road and rail to get to the interiors of Canada, the Amazon, Eurasia between the Urals and the Altai, and the Sahara/Sahel/Congo/Savannah.  The cost of developing conventional infrastructure is just too high.

You want something that can compete with a barge drifting downriver, without incurring significant costs to bring it back upriver.


----------



## quadrapiper (29 Aug 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Thuc:
> 
> Agree completely on the application of the LTA vs the Ship when considering both military and overseas applications.
> 
> ...


And with (in those contexts) road infrastructure. 

Something that costs the same as a given load's worth of trucks, and (considering the Amazon example) reduces cargo-handling (no need to transfer from truck to barge to truck to whatever - just load and proceed to the final destination) and allows traversal of hostile-at-ground-level territory seems interesting. Only question is raising funds to develop such a thing.


----------



## FoverF (29 Aug 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I think it is safe to say modern LTA's are capable of moving much faster than most people would imagine.



Well, this depends on what you think most people would imagine. I suspect most people would image that LTA's are capable of moving at speeds which previous examples have been empirically demonstrated to do. In which case you claim is incorrect, modern LTA's cannot go that fast. Perhaps you could say "Some imaginary_ future_ LCA would be theoretically capable of travelling faster than most people would imagine",  but in order to correctly make claims about the speeds of a _modern_ LTA, you actually need to have an example of a_ modern_ LTA capable of reaching that speed. 

It's like saying "A modern fixed-wing aircraft can easily cruise at Mach 6", just because the X-15 sprinted to that speed a couple of times half a century ago.  

There's no theoretical reason why you couldn't build something to repeat that feat. But there is no example that can currently do so. And perhaps more importantly, due to the exact reasons that you have outlined, there is no reason to expect that future LTAs will be developed and produced anytime in the near future which are capable of matching the feats of their ancestors.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Aug 2012)

Most people imagine LTA's moving at the speed of the Goodyear blimp cruising slowly over the Superboowl game. People have more direct experience with air travel, having flown themselves on business trips or vacations.

So the _imagined_ speed of LTA's is probably pretty much in the same ballpark as a hot air baloon, while the new generation of prototypes is certainly as fast, if not faster than 1930 era Zeppelins (which still isn't all that fast, by today's standards).

Back to the dismal science again, the funding to develop and certify new forms of transport like LTA's (not to mention the time needed to get the thing into production) still counts against you. By the time you could get an LTA, you would have been able to fly hundreds of helicopter lifts, barge trips or whatever else you needed to do to get to remote locations. This is sad, since there is real "romance" to the idea of an LTA, but economic facts are pretty hard to argue against.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2012)

The US military takes delivery of LTA's:

http://www.hybridairvehicles.com/pdfs/PR_LEMV_First_Flight_Hybrid_Air_Vehicles.pdf



> JOINT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX-LAKEHURST, N.J. -- Aug. 10, 2012 -- Hybrid Air Vehicles
> Limited and Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) announce the successful
> completion of the first flight of the U.S. Army's Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence
> Vehicle (LEMV) in historic Lakehurst, N.J., the birthplace of the nation's storied military
> ...


 
And it seems that Kirkhil's predictions about LTA were also correct, although many proposals like this have been made in the past. I will be interested to see if this plan actually pans out:

http://www.discoveryair.com/page?a=563&lang=en-CA



> *Discovery Air Innovations announces agreement with Hybrid Air Vehicles to launch a commercial Heavy Lift Air Vehicle program*
> 
> Yellowknife, NT, August 30, 2011 – Discovery Air Innovations Inc. (DAI), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Discovery Air Inc. and Hybrid Air Vehicles Limited (HAV) have entered into a commercial agreement which identifies DAI as the launch customer for HAV’s Commercial Heavy Lift programme.  Under the agreement, HAV grants DAI multiple aircraft delivery options and, subject to successful completion of final design and commercial terms, both companies anticipate conclusion of a definitive purchase agreement in 2012, followed by production and delivery of the first operational heavy lift hybrid air vehicles in 2014. HAV is a pioneer and world leader in the design, manufacture and support of innovative lighter-than-air aircraft products, known as Hybrid Air Vehicles.
> 
> ...


----------



## 57Chevy (16 Feb 2013)

Article is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

I figured it was just a matter of time.


Bring on the blimp: MPs say time to test airships for remote communities
The Canadian Press  by Stephanie Levitz, 16 Feb

OTTAWA - It's time to rethink the blimp, a House of Commons committee suggests in a new report.

Airships are often associated with the Hindenberg crash of the 1930s, and their development was overtaken by that of the airplane, reducing their use in recent years mostly to props in ad campaigns.

But there's room for certain kinds of them to play a new role in Canada, especially when it comes to reaching remote communities in the North, the transportation committee recommended in a recently released report.

"Hybrid air vehicles may one day provide a superior solution, as they can travel over snowfall, frozen water or impenetrable terrain, and require no roads or rail installations to operate," says the report.

The committee's look at airships was part of a broader study examining more creative ways to address some of the shortfalls in Canada's transportation sector.

When it comes to airships, a number of barriers exist to putting them into more widespread use, the committee heard.

Among them is a lack of infrastructure, trained personnel and licensing regimes, said Barry Prentice, a professor at the University of Manitoba and president of ISO Polar Airships, a research institute that promotes the use of the vehicles.

article continues at link...


----------



## GAP (16 Feb 2013)

Sooooo.....that's where Mike Duffy is going.........


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Feb 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> Sooooo.....that's where Mike Duffy is going.........




......it's hard to keep a good man down......


----------



## GAP (11 Sep 2013)

Thunderbird 2 is go! Gigantic amphibious airship which could revolutionise air travel as we know it takes first flight

    The Aeroscraft can take off and land without an airstrip meaning it can operate even in war zones and disaster areas
By Daily Mail Reporter  10 September 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2416809/Return-zeppelin-Firm-unveils-gigantic-airship-revolutionise-goods-carried-world.html?ICO=most_read_module

Zeppelins were once considered the future of air transport - but after the horror of the Hindenburg disaster, they disappeared from the skies for more than 75 years.

Now a pioneering aviation firm hopes to bring back the airships in a bid to revolutionise the global market in transporting freight.

The Aeroscraft is built using innovative technology which allows it to control its flight better than previous airships, so it should avoid the problems experienced by the first generation of zeppelins.

It requires only a third as much fuel as an aeroplane carrying cargo, and it can take off and land anywhere even without a formal airstrip - including on water - making it well suited to war zones and disaster areas.

The aircraft has been designed thanks to a $3million grant from the U.S. government, and it will soon be ready for its first test flight, according to Business Insider.

The Aeroscraft is designed by Worldwide Aeros Corp., who predict that it will change the way that goods are moved around the world by providing a mode of transport which is cheaper than planes but faster than ships.

The key technological breakthrough came when the firm's founder Igor Pasternak came up with a way to compress helium, which allows the airship to control its weight.

~~It may seem flimsy compared to a metal jet, but the Aeroscraft has bulletproof skin, and even if its exterior is breached it does not deflate like a balloon.

The firm claims that its first airships will be available to customers in mid-2015, when they will be rented out for a year at a time.

A model of the zeppelin which carries 66 tonnes will cost more than $25million per year, while a 250-tonne version will be $55million.
more on links and pics


----------



## STJ_Kierstead (11 Sep 2013)

that.. is.. wicked.. 

The comments are quite negative, about the helium+oxygen being recipee for disaster, one comment about being able to travel the world at low speeds, low altitudes and being able to see the most amazing views in the world struck me as an awesome concept.  Very cool that it can land and take off virtually anywhere, it will be very interesting to see how popular this method of transporting cargo will become.  Very cool looking cockpit! [cockpit?] 

Quite a bargain for the larger vessel as well 



> A model of the zeppelin which carries 66 tonnes will cost more than $25million per year, while a 250-tonne version will be $55million.



almost 4times the size for twice the price!


----------



## Loachman (11 Sep 2013)

Remarkably similar news articles appear every few years, but I've yet to see any of these miracle machines in the air.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Sep 2013)

If you look at the history of airships, most crashed due to weather. They require significant infrastructure to house them (A couple of places left from the heyday). You can't just park them when bad weather is coming. Very high altitude UAV airships might work to provide telecomm coverage, intelligance, etc


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Sep 2013)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Remarkably similar news articles appear every few years, but I've yet to see any of these miracle machines in the air.


ZACKLY!

Methinks if enough money was able to be made, they'd be filling the skies by now.


----------



## Loachman (11 Sep 2013)

I'm still waiting for the hover car that I was promised in 1964.


----------



## McG (11 Sep 2013)

Marty McFly thinks you will have that hover car next year.


----------



## cupper (11 Sep 2013)

I don't get the Amphibious label. :dunno:

Using the same logic, a helicopter can be considered amphibious as well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Sep 2013)

Don't let logic get in the way of using big words to impress the gullible reader.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Sep 2013)

cupper said:
			
		

> I don't get the Amphibious label. :dunno:
> 
> Using the same logic, a helicopter can be considered amphibious as well.



Well, the Sea-Kings certainly are, or rather used to be...


----------



## Loachman (13 Sep 2013)

cupper said:
			
		

> Using the same logic, a helicopter can be considered amphibious as well.



Not very many.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Dec 2014)

JLENS program is making a last attempt to get off the ground (heh). While the idea is sound in theory, it is hard to understand why the prime contractor is unable to make it work. Conceptually, this is putting the sorts of sensors from an AWACS or similar surveillance aircraft on a different sort of platform, so it is hard to see why they are having such issues. Even helicopters are used to carry surveillance or targeting radars, and a bucking, shaking and vibrating platform with limited size is hardly an easy spot to deploy such systems:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/airships/pentagon-blimps-missile-defense-jlens?click=pm_news



> *Why the Pentagon Wants to Use Blimps for Missile Defense*
> Two radar-toting airships will fly over the U.S. east coast this spring as a test of the JLENS system.
> By Joe Pappalardo
> December 18, 2014 11:34 AM
> ...



It would be nice to get it to work. If anything, the Canadian Forces has greater need since we are equally vulnerable but have no GBAD or C-PGM systems, so need extra warning time if we need to get under someone else's umbrella.


----------



## cupper (20 Dec 2014)

They have been running similar tests with blimps for surveillance and other tasks over the DC region periodically for the past several years.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jul 2016)

Airships make sense from a logistics stand point,I just dont know how they would fair in a real world shooting situation.Of course you might not employ them in a forward setting.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/07/first-ml866-aeroscraft-should-fly-in.html

The U.S. Air Force's battlefield cargo airship being built by Worldwide Aeros Corp. based in California will be 169 meters long and capable of carrying from 66 tons to 500 tons, depending on which model is used. The military Aeroscraft will have a range of some 3,000 miles and, more importantly, won't need a runway to land on.

Worldwide Aeros CEO Boris Pasternak aims to have a global military Aeroscraft fleet operational by 2023. He said Aeros is seeking $3 billion to fund the construction of 24 Aeroscraft airships, including two prototypes


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ... Worldwide Aeros CEO Boris Pasternak *aims to have a global military Aeroscraft fleet operational by 2023*. He said Aeros is seeking $3 billion to fund the construction of 24 Aeroscraft airships, including two prototypes


And the timeline slides - this from 2013:


			
				GAP said:
			
		

> ... The Aeroscraft is designed by Worldwide Aeros Corp., who predict that it will change the way that goods are moved around the world by providing a mode of transport which is cheaper than planes but faster than ships. ...The firm claims that its first airships will be available to customers in mid-2015, when they will be rented out for a year at a time ...


I'm with Loachman on this:


			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Remarkably similar news articles appear every few years, but I've yet to see any of these miracle machines in the air.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Jul 2016)

Well, just to  :stirpot:  and put things in perspective for poor Boris:

Yesterday, 87 thousand tons shipped out of Montreal Harbour on two container ships. A daily occurrence here. Unfortunately, with the St Lawrence River limitations, the large container ships can't get all the way to Montreal.

I always get a good laugh when I see aerospace companies get a hard on every time tonnages in the three digits are mentioned  ;D. Not to mention none of them has explained so far how they would handle bulks, like grain, coal, ore, salt, sugar or oil.  

op:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jul 2016)

The airship argument resurfaces about every 10-15 years and then fades away. Using stationary blimps for surveillance has made a comeback and good for base security. Almost every airship built in the early 20th century crashed. Most due to weather.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2016)

While airships and Wing in Ground Effect are two of my favourite examples of baroque technology, this really takes the cake for strange ideas:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/07/switzerlands-federal-polytechnic.html#more



> Switzerland's Federal Polytechnic Institute have an aircraft design which is inspired by shipping containers and Thunderbird 2 but with multiple fuselages.
> 
> The Clip-Air team though—they're preparing to build a smaller 10-meter drone prototype soon.
> 
> ...



Now the idea of using an entire fuselage as a railcar and then attaching it to a set of wings and an engine at the airport seems superficially attractive, it really makes much more sense to simply take already existing ISO containers and put them aboard whatever ship/truck/railcar/airplane to get them from where you are to where you want to go. Not only is it inherently far more flexible, but since each carrier is specialized to be a ship/truck/train/aircraft then you get the most efficiency out of each mode.

Not to say *we* do things perfectly or even well (the CAF has few trucks capable of moving ISO containers from an airfield to a unit in the field, for example), and having a *lot* more aircraft would seem to be a must for a nation which is so vast that domestic travel covers what counts as strategic distances in most other nations, but there you go.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Oct 2016)

A very cool design with the ability of an airship combined with hovercraft technology.It will be able to haul 20t of cargo.It also might be a more efficient ASW platform among other uses.

https://www.wired.com/2016/10/lockheeds-hybrid-airship-part-blimp-part-hovercraft-no-hot-air/#slide-4

When it does, the 300-foot-long, three-chamber, helium-filled airship will act like a hovercraft while maneuvering on the ground, without the need for a proper runway or even fully smoothed surfaces. Once airborne, it will haul 20 tons of cargo—vehicles, mining equipment, military gear, disaster-relief supplies—at speeds up to 70 mph, staying aloft a week at a time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Oct 2016)

yea count me as a skeptic of anything airship, when they are fast enough to outrun a storm, they will stand a chance. Also just how much helium is left in the world at present?


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> yea count me as a skeptic of anything airship ...


Me too - and we're not alone ...


			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Remarkably similar news articles appear every few years, but I've yet to see any of these miracle machines in the air.


... and this thread's been going for more than 10 years (3900 days as of this post, to be exact) now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Oct 2016)

well there is hope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg-RPTiVa_Q    [


some light reading https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks.../airship_aerodynamics.pdf

http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11320/longitudinal-stability-of-airships-how-is-the-critical-speed-defined


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Oct 2016)

You call that a crash?

Oh Gawd! We're all gonna die!  Do I have time to write the report before impact?   [


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Oh Gawd! We're all gonna die!  Do I have time to write the report before impact?   [


No need - a template with boilerplate narrative's already saved on the desktop to save time  ;D


----------



## Loachman (8 Oct 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> It also might be a more efficient ASW platform among other uses.



I remain sceptical of that, as it would take a long time to get on station and would have little speed advantage over its intended prey.

I remain sceptical of any other military applications as well, unless it is invulnerable to mass Sopwith Camel attack.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Oct 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> You call that a crash?
> 
> Oh Gawd! We're all gonna die!  Do I have time to write the report before impact?   [



I suspect there is limited knowledge in airship handling, coupled with a new design, knowing when and which decisions to make are going to have to be learned the hard way.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Nov 2016)

Well, SOMEONE's willing to give the things a try - a mining company working in northern Quebec ...


> The operator of Lockheed Martin Corp's (LMT.N) blimp-like hybrid airships on Wednesday announced its first customer, a Canadian mining company that expects to lease seven of the heavy-lift cargo aircraft for a decade starting in 2019.
> 
> Quest Rare Minerals Ltd (QRM.TO) will lease the airships from operator Straightline Aviation in the first commercial use deal for the airships, which are filled mostly with helium, said Hybrid Enterprises LLC, which sells the aircraft for Lockheed.
> 
> ...


We'll have to see how well this works.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Nov 2016)

It took Transport Canada only 25 years to figure out hovercraft licensing and seatime (despite being the biggest operators of) So they should be able to certify the airship in about 15 years.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Nov 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It took Transport Canada only 25 years to figure out hovercraft licensing and seatime (despite being the biggest operators of) So they should be able to certify the airship in about 15 years.


#GoRegulators!  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Well, SOMEONE's willing to give the things a try - a mining company working in northern Quebec ...We'll have to see how well this works.



Right now they plan traffic based on seasons.  Barges in the summer.  Trucks in the winter.  Planes and Helos when necessary.

This is just another option - even if they are limited to "good" flying days.  

Having spent time in northern hangars waiting for weather to clear, this is not a new problem.

I continue to be intriguesd.(damfingers)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Nov 2016)

I have my doubts, but I hope to be proved wrong. I want airships to work, but i also fear them being oversold and not living up to unreal expectations, which is what happened to hovercrafts.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Nov 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I have my doubts, but I hope to be proved wrong. I want airships to work, but i also fear them being oversold and not living up to unreal expectations, which is what happened to hovercrafts.



Same page Colin. I don't see it as a replacement for much of anything.  Just another tool that, if it works, even with limitations, could make some things easier.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jan 2017)

Already posted in another thread, but it fits here as well:

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/amazon-patents-blimp-warehouse-and.html



> *Amazon patents blimp warehouse and billboards that use gliding drones for near instant fulfillment of sales*
> 
> Amazon has been awarded a patent for a giant flying warehouse that acts as a launchpad for drones to deliver items within minutes.
> 
> ...


----------

