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?

25 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. At Last!!! by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny
    An airship that will look like the budget that funds it!

    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
    1. Re:At Last!!! by winkydink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      C5s & C141s are not exactly small & speedy.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    2. Re:At Last!!! by brohan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Also, this airship isn't built for hardiness at all. From what I can get from the article it will have many points of faliure. I don't see how a well placed photon torpedoes down a shaft can bring the whole death star^W^W Walrus down.

    3. Re:At Last!!! by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Helium aircraft are a lot harder to shoot down than you might imagine. People are so used to party balloons that they seem to get the idea that helium aircraft failures would decompress as rapidly. Not even close - in addition to having more resilient skin, the volume rises proportional to the radii cubed, while the surface area proportional to the radii squared. I.e., there's a lot more gas to dissipate compared to the size of the hole. Then factor in that it's under lower pressure, and you get very favorable numbers. Small holes do very little to large airships.

      On the subject of missiles: I wonder how effective traditional homing mechanisms would be on a craft like this, with its potential for unusual engine positionings, visual profile, and probably an odd, disproportionate radar signature. Given its great size and slow speed, if they had effective countermeasures on it it might almost be worth painting it in Dazzle camouflage.

      --
      Santa Ana Winds: Like the Dustbowl, but with awards shows.
    4. Re:At Last!!! by EtherealStrife · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Nothing. Most of the modern conceptual designs utilize extreme compartmentalization, such as having thousands of spherical bladders contained within the greater structure. At most a single bladder would be ruptured, having negligible effect. Even a Stinger (or any 'terrorist' missile that could be fired at it) probably wouldn't destroy it -- although, that's mainly dependent on how large it is. Could be a few football fields long or the size of a volkswagon bug. The best they could probably hope for is to *bring it down*, and in airships that could mean a wait of hours for it to hit ground (ample time for crew to parachute, unlike a fixedwing aircraft).

      I was bored years ago and crunched the numbers for such a craft:
      For a lightly armed/armoured airship (I threw on the actual chassis weight + gas weight + sufficient armor plating to protect against small arms fire, and several sam launchers / small calibre gun platforms...GEEK, I know):
      Experimental weight: 1,501,247.50464 lbs (some destroyers weight ~2.5mil, for comparison)
      Necessary lift: 1,445,600 cubic meters of helium)

      Now that's a HECK of a lot of space being taken up by just the gas itself, but then again it's carrying some serious weight.

      I for one welcome our new helium based overlords (sorry, someone had to say it)

    5. Re:At Last!!! by tsotha · · Score: 3, Interesting
      On the subject of missiles: I wonder how effective traditional homing mechanisms would be on a craft like this, with its potential for unusual engine positionings, visual profile, and probably an odd, disproportionate radar signature.

      Well, presumably radar guided missles will home in on the cargo area, which may or may not be what you'd want. But IR missles will probably pick out one of the engines. If you lose an engine you probably wouldn't crash, but you might not be able to land either, since landing airships requires vectored thrust. This could be worse than crashing, depending on how sensitive your cargo is and which way the wind is blowing.

      That said, I like the concept. DoD spends huge amounts of money for routine air transport, and this could save big bucks by filling the niche between sea and air freight. Airships are much, much cheaper to operate than C-130s. The key would be to make sure they didn't accidentally become mission critical systems during wartime.

  2. Haha I'll be Rich!! by OneByteOff · · Score: 3, Funny

    By Selling them my girlfriend, some off-green paint and helium tanks!!!!

  3. Protection Methods??? by Nerd+Systems · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I read this story and it is very impressive how much tonnage that this device can carry... only one question comes to mind... how are they going to protect it?

    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
    1. Re:Protection Methods??? by greulich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Goodyear blimps come home with bullet holes all of the time. An airship is a lot more difficult to bring down than you would think.

      As long as you don't coat it in rocket fuel of course... ;)

    2. Re:Protection Methods??? by Verteiron · · Score: 4, Funny

      Put a giant teddy bear costume on it. No one would shoot a cute teddy bear!

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    3. Re:Protection Methods??? by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      As long as you don't coat it in rocket fuel of course

      Myth.

      --
      Santa Ana Winds: Like the Dustbowl, but with awards shows.
  4. Commercial Uses Galore by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Commercial Uses Galore by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When we have forest fires, we need to get tons of water in on top of the trees. Being able to load up from a lake and literally bring in 100 tons and slowly drop it in on top of them, would help a great deal with all the fires that we have in west. Right now, the approach is to use an old bomber and try and bring it in as fast as possible and get back to the fire asap. With this approach, we can simply lower a number of hoses and spray. Or we can just dump (you prefer being in closer though, and that will not happen with a large craft. Keeping 10 of these around the west, would allow us to quickly stop a fire and move the vehicle to the next fire. At the very least, it will allow for controlling the fire.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  5. Heavy lift aircraft don't usually do combat drops by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. Thunderbirds are go! by centinall · · Score: 4, Funny

    Looks just like Thunderbird 2.

  7. Stupid but not that stupid by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:seems sort of risky by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 3, Funny
    it seems sort of weird to field a giant cargo ship you can bring down with a .22
    I don't think they'd build it out of party balloons.
    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  9. Re:Heavy lift aircraft don't usually do combat dro by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

    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
  10. Rrriiight.... Cargolifter, anyone ? by McSnarf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone left who remembers the fabulously failing Cargolifter AG in Germany? http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/cargo lifter/

    1. Re:Rrriiight.... Cargolifter, anyone ? by LnxAddct · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference between those who fail and those who succeed is those who succeed usually fail more but eventually succeed from learning from their history. If you give up when something doesn't work, then why try at all? There is a quote from someone saying something to the affect of "If you're not failing 90% of the time, then you're not thinking revolutionary enough".
      Regards,
      Steve

  11. You said it yourself...... by reality-bytes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  12. Re:Heavy lift aircraft don't usually do combat dro by dakirw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  13. FedEx tried this once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  14. Wouldn't it be... by Cervantes · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
  15. Re:Heavy lift aircraft don't usually do combat dro by blindseer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.