Slashdot Mirror
Old Airlift Vehicle Concept Made New
starexplorer writes "LiveScience is reporting on an early conceptual design of The Walrus the DOD's new planned 'very large airlift vehicle'." Could the concept of a 'war-balloon' really be gaining favor again?
I've been a huge fan of airships after reading up on them, but this thing will positively scream "TARGET" (not the chain store) to every radical nut with a shoulder launch missile. It will also move rather slowly.
Perhaps a good choice for moving materiel between safe locations, but not something you'd fly over the Middle East any time soon.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
By Selling them my girlfriend, some off-green paint and helium tanks!!!!
Based on the size of this warship, not to mention the slowness of it, am sure that it can't just easily outrun a fighter jet sent to destroy it, or be able to perform evasive manuevers...
I can imagine that it will be escorted by a fighter division, not to mention have some high-tech anti-missle weapons and the like, yet I can see an air to air missle easily bypassing those protections and bringing down a TON of hardware with it... major catastrophe...
Anyone have any ideas what sort of protection methods will be used to protect this massive warship, as well as if this will be used for strictly hardware transport, or troop transportation as well?
We shall find out shortly it seems...
Need a Nerd?
Nerd Systems
Makes me think of "Warlords of the Air" - a peculiar Moorcock book from the 70's. Had flying dreadnaughts - designed by the Chilean wizard O'Bean.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Nice thing about this, is it would be perfect for doing firefighting or even work in 9/11-katrina areas (think of it as a floating hospital, or simply ability to drop in national guard, etc). Hopefully, it gets used.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
except from altitude and even then they are rarely if ever deployed in heavily contested areas. Most of the time they require large airstrips which in itself implies control over land and air of the region.
What it does offer is many possiblities for not just military operations. If these things pan out in efficiency you can bet UPS and FED Ex would want them. Let alone the possibilities of flying cruise ships!
FWIW, anything is a target for a terrorist, though preference is giving to things that don't shoot back.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Looks just like Thunderbird 2.
Only a few comments so far, most of them about how easy it would be to shoot it down.
But it won't be that easy. First of all, compartmentation. No doubt the bag will be at least dozens, if not hundreds, of individual compartments. Weight prevents anything equivalent to a ship with thousands of watertight compartments, but there will certainly be enough that bullets won't be much of a danger. The lifting gas won't be under pressure, so it won't start rips that widen the holes. And certainly the gas bag material will have anti-rip threading.
It won't use hydrogen either, no one is that stupid. Helium is the lifting gas of choice.
Shoulder fired missles are not a threat. This thing will fly above them. Their range is only a couple of miles. Full sized missles and full size AAA are a different matter, but again, compartmentation will help, and gas bags probably don't provide much of a radar signature to trigger fuzes, nor does the gas bag itself offer enough resistance to trigger most fuzes; they will probably fly right through and leave behind a few holes, trivial to patch.
Which brings up damage control. I am sure the crew will be able to climb around inside and apply temporary patches.
I think these heavy lift combat balloons are a silly idea. But they aren't nearly as silly as so many quick posts make out.
Infuriate left and right
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
In the article they mention making landings near combat zones on unimproved landing fields.
What it does offer is many possiblities for not just military operations. If these things pan out in efficiency you can bet UPS and FED Ex would want them. Let alone the possibilities of flying cruise ships!
Oh, heck yes! Have you seen how the passenger compartment of the Hindenburge (LZ-129) was laid out? Pure luxury! I'd fly to London in that in a heartbeat, screw the extra hours it takes.
FWIW, anything is a target for a terrorist, though preference is giving to things that don't shoot back.
Sure, but what is this thing supposed to shoot back with? This looks like the Glider fiasco of WW II all over again.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Kirov reporting.
Hmm, good idea.
;)
Paint the bullseye, just make sure there is a safe spot behind it for the bullets to land
Hehe, it would be hard to shoot at it and NOT instinctively aim for the bullseye.
Anyone left who remembers the fabulously failing Cargolifter AG in Germany? http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/cargo lifter/
Warship.
Even the most modern, lumbering Aircraft Carrier is a big target for waiting submarines / strike aircraft so you protect it.
You protect these things according to their strategic value. ie: The Aircraft carrier is strategically valuable so you give it a Frigate / Destroyer screen along with air-cover.
In the case of the huge HTA cargo carrier, you likewise protect it with fighters, refuellers etc and because it can carry huge ammounts, perhaps give it it's own air to air missile system.
Given it's size / lifting capability, perhaps these warships could also carry a Phallanx / Goalkeeper type system.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
FWIW, anything is a target for a terrorist, though preference is giving to things that don't shoot back.
Sure, but what is this thing supposed to shoot back with? This looks like the Glider fiasco of WW II all over again.
Something big enough could probably mount some cannons, rockets, or missiles. They could be mounted pod-style, like on attack helicopters, or internally, like warships or the F-22 Raptor.I'm sure you'd like a fleet of these, but helicopters are intensely expensive in terms of maintenace-per-flying-hour and these guys can only carry about 18 tons each (36K pounds). If the Walrus can do 500 tons, that's the equivalent of 27 helicopters and for many cases that do not involve threat of enemy activity (e.g. ferrying troops from VA to Germany) ... it's probably good enough, and much more economical.
FedEx tried this once, with Lockheed Martin Skunk works as the prime and ran out of money. One of the biggest problems was that the vehicle was so big, it would hardly fit onto the runways at LAX. Try having those things land regulary at any busy airport and you are going to have major logistical problems. Also, I worked on a similar concept for a now extinct company in Germany called CargoLifter. There airship was called the CL160, which was actually lighter than air (didn't need aerodynamic lift) and was the length of roughly 3 American football feilds in length. It could carry 160 tons of cargo from destination to destination ...eliminating the need to build things in small enough pieces to be carried on the highway. Seemed like a good business plan until the German government pulled th plug on funding. The old hanger, which could fit two of these things side by side, is now a bioshpere like amusement park:
http://www.my-tropical-islands.com/index-e.htm
Answers to the "target problem"
1) bullet holes are no problem. Airships like the goodyear blimp get shot at regularly by rednecks and the compartmentalization keeps them afloat.
2) This thing should be able to carry a fairly advanced array of anti-missile weaponry and decoys. Combined with a low radar and heat signature, it's not as good a target as one might think. It should even have enough lifting capacity that they can throw in some anti-missile gatling guns like the ones they use on cruisers and aircraft carriers. Also, it flies quite high, out of the range of shoulder-launched missiles (they only have a range of a few miles), so you only really have to worry about conventional missiles.
3) Back in the heyday of airships, the US Navy actually built and tested "aircraft carrier" airships. They carried a complement of fighter airplanes on board, and could launch them at will for self defense. Recovery involved catching a cable hanging underneath the airship, not unlike arrestor cables on modern aircraft carriers. Updating the technology to the jet age and accomodating the higher speeds would not be easy, but it could be done.
In short, these things are a lot more practical for military purposes (let alone civilian) than one might think.
For that matter, why not carry an F-22? This thing is supposed to lift 500 tons.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
this wasn't really insightful at all. Speaking as the author of the original "sort of weird to field a giant cargo ship you can bring down with a .22" comment, I've been thinking about it and it was just knee-jerk "omg, giant balloon" thinking.
There was a weather balloon with some kind of expensive equipment aboard it about 5 years ago floating over Canada. Whoever owned it asked the Canadians to shoot it down, so they sent out some F4s or something, and they couldn't do it. They basically said that they unloaded a few thousand rounds at it, but that the balloon was so big that these basketball-sized holes didn't really make much of a difference.
Stuff like this makes me wonder... wouldn't it be fuckin' awesome to work for DARPA and be able to bring life to the crazy shit you dreamt up when you were 9?
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
For that matter, why not carry an F-22? This thing is supposed to lift 500 tons.
It's not like it hasn't been tried before. I remember seeing film where a propeller driven biplane was launched and retrieved from the bottom of an airship. I also saw concept drawings of an airstrip atop a Zeppelin type craft. This is not a new idea.
A fully loaded F-22 weighs about 40 tons, that means the craft could lift 12 planes.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Weather, for starters.. Folks seem to forget what happened to the first Zeppelin airfleet that was made by both the US navy and the brits.
They had made some wonderfull airships and were considered to be real plum assignments to have.
Just they underestimated Mother Nature.
Both sides lost at least 4 airships before scrapping their airship fleets to sudden storms, squall lines and even a hurricane.
This Walrus maybe almost impervious to enemy fire and operating in the rear area, but when a sudden storm comes up and the thing aint secured, well.. Break out the torches boys, alot of scrap metal is headed to the recyclers.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Ever since I was little kid Popular Mechanics has been predicting the retunr of the blimp. Hope springs eternal.
... is a German concept called "Cargolifter", which can claim prior art to this revocation of old technology. Read here for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargolifter .
Unfortunately, mostly to blame on bad managment and leadership, not really regarding technical creativity and expertise, they went bankrupt in 2002.