Always on the verge of a seeming comeback, airships are back in the spotlight, touting new technologies. The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency recently announced funding for an innovative, ballast-free airship technology created by Aeros Aeronautical Systems, based outside Los Angeles. The Aeroscraft ML866’s potentially revolutionary Control of Static Heaviness system compresses and decompresses helium in the 210-ft.-long envelope, changing this proposed sky yacht’s buoyancy during takeoff and landings, Aeros says.
It hopes to end the program with a test flight demonstrating the system. Other companies are planning their own first flights within the next few years. Each has a design that it promises will launch a new era of lighter-than-air transportation.
Read more from our friends at Popular Mechanics on Military.com.
– Christian
Our CGS...
well Hi there. Kudos to my competitors at Aeros; they’ve come a long way and are heading in an (almost) correct direction.
Their craft pictured, the Lockheed Martin P-791, the ATC “skycat”.…all proprose to use a type of hovercraft landing system. It is fundementaly flawed; a hovercraft operates only because of the WEIGHT of the craft forces blown-in air to vent out the underside of the craft.
Hello? an airship does not have the weight…
and so called “hybrid airships” are minimally heavy.…they become nothing more than huge, lightweight airplanes…susceptible to the same surface winds that even now plague much heavier airplanes in landings.
Even if the airship will be able to change its’ bouyancy using engines to compress helium into so called “DARPA tanks”, it will not be enough to offset the huge SAIL area that the airship hull presents when in ground contact.
Airship flight is simple physics; not even a small aerodynamic challenge. Put enough helium into a container, and you can lift any container.
The greatest hurdle is the ground handling.
Airships, PROPERLY DESIGNED using some simple common sense, offer a paradigm shift in military applications in many roles.
I welcome serious discussions about airships.……
I have seen various forms of lighter than air aircraft come and go. It seems the major issue, as Campbell indicated, is the affect of high winds on these craft. That is what doomed the use of airships during WWII. And it continues to do so. You can always create jettys for allowing ships to go into port during high winds. This isn’t the case for airships. Therefore, they are not inherently reliable enough for military applications.
DC2
How many articals heralding “The Return of the Airship” have I seen in the past 20 years? 100? 200?
And still I see no blimps wallowing around outside my window.
Oh the humanity!.…..
(I only posted that to get it behind us, now back to this very cogent discussion)
I to have seen the announcements for the return of the airship through the years, and the problem has always been about funding.
The Air Force have never really funded development of this technology. The Navy did have a program (I am unsure where it is now) but it was never truly taken seriously (the “wings” of a blimp pilot were one wing, not two).….
The issue with Airships has always been one of control and vulnerability.
I would like to suggest that with:
–Fly by wire control, the pilot tells the aircraft where he/she wants to go, and the computer gets it there
–Vectoring thrust. If they can make a heavier than air turbo-jet hover, they can make a lighter than air craft stay still in bad weather and land/takeoff without issue
–Carbon Fiber structure the craft can be very light, and very strong
–Stealth technology to make it much less vulnerable.
–and finally computer controlled counter measures against aircraft and missiles
That this technology has real potential.
The Army needs ways to get heavy equipment to places…fast.
The new ship designs that are out there (fast ferries and such) can do it, but that would require the Navy and Army to work together. I am not going to hold my breath on that one.…..
Plus the Navy has a hard enough time building there own Gator freighters.….
Ships can only get to the coast, where a lighter than air ship can go anywhere we control the airspace.….
I am not saying there is not a lot of work to be done (screwed up and overcharged by contractors), but the fact they can loiter for weeks or transport huge amounts of freight make it a configuration worth funding.
At least a prototype
The biggest problem I foresee is that the operation of lighter-than-air craft (airships) for military operations is that it requires complete and utter dominance of the surrounding airspace. If someone can launch an an S300 or lob an R27/77 at it there is not much this thing can do. It will make an unbelievable target on any radar screen and won’t be able to get out of its own way. We cannot afford enough airframes for dedicated SEAD and/or air superiority (F15/F22), but yet assume that we will be able to loiter these things around for days? Color me very skeptical.
I will make another comment, regarding funding:
In 2004, in response to the DARPA solicitation for airship companies/ideas…I attended their first conference in Arlington (Wash.DC). I was told then, (as closely as I can quote it)
”…you may be Gods’ gift to the world of airship design, but you’re not going to receive funding, because we have no base of confidence in your ability to carry through with the project.…“
Well.…I am, dammmit!
Since then, only one simple demonstration ship has been built, from one of the two companies that received approximately $3.5 Million each.…and “walrus” was cancelled, to soon. with no real competition.
That demo ship is a POS.…it is still A BLIMP, although as if three were combined.
STOP BUILDING BLIMPS! DO NOT BUILD “ZEPPELINS”!
please, send notice to whomever you know in the circle of power/money in our military branches.…get more airship work done.
Not strictly my own.…(though that would be nice).…but I still encourage OTHER airship work as well.…..
Darrell Campbell
Turtle Airships
A ground-effect aircraft would be much safer than an airship.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing-In-Ground_effect_vehicle
Crashing airship = “oh the humanity“
Crashing GEA = surface ship
DOD should save their money and just by the blueprints for the Ekranoplan.
So… Is this the technology that people observed in Texas a couple weeks ago? See the January 24th post.
A ground-effect aircraft would be much safer than an airship
those fly over the mountains alot or over cities?
Airships are not feasible for any sort of duty where they could hypothetically take fire. There are some applications for lighter than air vehicles in combat missions but none of the vehicles in those applications really deserve to be called airships. No technology in the foreseeable future could make an airship feasible in direct combat. They have to be massive in size and very light in construction. No amount of RAM could possibly make them stealthy, and you cannot armor the helium compartment and still be light enough to float.
The place where they hold promise is carrying heavy cargo over long distance much faster than cargo ships but much more economically than airplanes. The Ekranoplan doesn’t fit the bill here because, like an airplane, it is expensive to maintain and keep fueled. The idea of an airship is that it doesn’t need to devote massive amounts of power to generating lift, it just floats on its own like a ship does in the water, leaving the propulsion to be devoted entirely to moving it laterally.
The problem though still remains how to control such a large, light vehicle when it gets near the ground.
Der Spiegel had an article about a French designer proposing an airship “hotel” in the shape of a flying white whale.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,533281,00.html
I have to agree with a previous post though,they are always proposing new types of airships,but then the companies planning them seem to disappear & nothing ever comes of the airships. I’m totally for the military use of them,knowing full well that they have to be operated well behind friendly lines.
I also remember that SkyCat had a proposal for a SkyCat-1000 “Arsenal Ship” that could carry & launch cruise missiles.Some people may roll their eyes at such an idea,but is it any more absurd or impractical than a propeller driven bomber(Tu-95 Bear)? I do however understand that there is less of a chance that the Tu-95 would be blown off course than for an airship.
“So… Is this the technology that people observed in Texas a couple weeks ago? See the January 24th post.“
My thoughts exactly Dave. Initially DARPA managers said they planned to use plasma propulsion with their giant airship. Details at http://astroroach.blogspot.com/2008/01/could-stephenville-ufo-be-walrus.html
Which will be first?
a) practical airship
b) hovercar
c) moonbase
d) personal jetpack
They *do* appear to make sense. Just like last time, and the time before, and the time before, and.…
ak,
My problems with a personal jet pack is how do you keep your butt or your legs from catching on fire from the exhaust when you fly with it,how do you control & maneuver it in flight,& is it really wise to get into a gun fight with a jet pack full of rocket fuel on your back.….…oh wait,you were kidding,never mind.
The blimps can be of commercial use for transport. They will serve as early warning and as communications transponders. They can be weaponed and robotic operated. A few techies might serve on board for maint. Blimps will serve as inexpensive platforms for surveillance and other multi task executions. Perhaps the blimps can be lift off transport for emergency back up satellite launches in the event killer satellite knock out sat com navnet and essential gps systems. Blimps will serve as fuel savers and help forecast weather and other sightings. They may provide early warning for oceanic and terrestrial activities. Blimps could help to intercept any undeclared enemy war scenarios such as another Pearl harbor. They can be used to launch drones for target practice and NORAD response capabilities. If something plans to get close like a silent service enemy bent on knocking out Manhattan ; a blimp and the civil air patrol might be an extra American advantage. We could prevent WWW III ? Don’t throw out your Annapolis sextant and charts mates.
We ought to be happy that lighter than air craft already fill some niches:
balloons: recreation
blimps: advertising, sporting events
I think LTA could fill a niche in tourism, why it hasn’t caught on I don’t know, perhaps passenger capacity? I’m sure there is a market out there for LTA service in the Caribbean.
The parasail powered cargo ship makes more sense than any LTA. How about individual armed hot air baloons powered by all of these LTA advocates privete and government. About as practical
Why not? At 60,000 or 70,000 ft. Kevlar with a low heat and radar signature. Time on station days not hours.
I’m sorry,I’m wrapping my mind around the concept of a convertible(the Rinspeed sQuba) that you can drive underwater.Those Swiss sure are smart.If Ted Kennedy had had a car like this,he’d have been president & not a murderer.
The idea of an airship that can perform ASW & mine clearing is a great idea.Like someone said before,it can stay in the air for days instead of hours & there can be bunks & a kitchen in it for the crew.
GO FOR IT. OF COURSE SOMETHING THAT IS COMMON SENSE IN IT’S APPROACH AND USE WON’T BE USED BY THE POWERS THAT BE.
SEMPER FI
I am not qualified in this sort of area but have a few ideas. Why must a large vehicle like this ever land? Surely taking on freight or offloading it could be done by lowering it on a tether without the vessel interacting with the ground turbulence or approaching dangerous obstacles?
If you can drop a truck on a parachute or capture a re-entry vehicle with a helicopter (http://www.arctus-spacecraft.com/) this shouldn’t be too much of a chore.
Helicopters or something similar can ferry crew and plenty of maintainance can be done as well in the air as on the ground, judging by the scaffolding needed anyway.
Why should landing be so necessary?
Prepositioning only requires stuff to get up, be shifted and put down again. If landing the whole thing is so good then why didn’t Mike Collins walk on the moon in 1969?
If hindenburg back in early 1900s use the blimp in war war I. Look at some of the opsticals thought out by him. A blimp filled with very flamble helium can drop explocives and have the potical to change the way we viwed travel. He had to methodes of landing one was valving the gas through the top of the blimb slowly lowering it to the groung (same concipt of the hotair bollon) and two he called a high landing where he would drop a host down to the groung and be docked by men pulled the blimp down to dock into a docking station pasitioned aprox 200 feet off the ground and the nose of the blimp would be lached to hold it in place. Hindenburg sead the high land is the most echnomic way to land back in the early 1900s, that is more than 100 years ago. So i have to think that there would be know reason why you aircraft would ever even have to come out of the sky to drop cargo or supplies. With the right design this could dramaticly change the way we travel. If the design of the craft is unable to be penatrated by anything and the handling of the craft is perfact to handle the winds and lettle moving parts to minamize mantaices. For land travel simply us the burners to burn out all the helium to a min. volume (enough ot contiue motion) and replace the helium with sulphur hexafluoride which is about 5.11 times heavier than air so do the math there is you weight need to move about and make a more huver craft landing as long as electrical arcing is avoided because it can produce S2F10 which is a very deadly gas that was used in WWII. Just some things to think about and look into and hopfule can bring a better green and echnomic way to support the milatiry and trave. Sorry for the bad spelling my battery was dieing. Thank for your time