# U.S. Army to get new hybrid blimps for  Afghanistan



## pardus (Oct 21, 2010)

By Melissa Mahony | Jun 25, 2010 |

By the end of 2011, three U.S. Army airships could be on 
their way to the Middle East. 
The LEMVs (Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicles) 
will slowly skim the skies over Afghanistan, providing 
military surveillance to troops on the ground. Last week the 
U.S. Army signed a $517 million agreement with 
Northrop Grumman to build the aircraft within 18 
months. 
Longer than a football field, the new LEMV, Condor 304, 
will not be your grandmother’s blimp, but a robotic spy 
ship giving “a persistent unblinking stare” to the Earth 
below for weeks at a time. Though not intended for combat, the craft will be adaptable to 
various missions, with apparently easy sensor changes. 
Aiding in the design is British company Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV). 

Lewis Page of UK’s The Register reports: 
HAV’s new special sauce was the idea of “hybrid” ships which would not, like 
their illustrious predecessors, actually be lighter than air. Some 60 to 80 per cent 
of their weight would be supported by the buoyancy of their helium, and the rest 
by other means: vertical thrust from the engines during takeoff and landing, and 
aerodynamic lift generated by the ship’s forward motion while in transit. 
Traveling at altitudes of 20,000 feet for 21 days, the LEMV could possibly provide non-stop 
ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) capability to the military for a 2,000-mile 
landscape. No pilot necessary. 
According to the Army, in about 10 months they will inflate the new LEMV and then test it in 
Yuma, Arizona. 
The HAV304 is one of many military airship designs created in recent years. For instance, 
Lockheed Martin’s P-971 prototype (which reminds me of Ghostbuster’s Stay-Puft 
marshmallow man) is shown below. This “suck ship” used hovercraft technology in reverse to 
steady it to the ground. 











http://www.smartplanet.com/business...-get-new-hybrid-blimps/1715/?tag=content;col1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty cool.
There was a proposed giant blimp to transport cargo, huge weight, huge distances, would be nice for A'stan and our standoff with Pakistan over trucking routes etc...


----------



## pardus (Oct 21, 2010)

Here ya go...

*DARPA (Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency)
WALRUS PROJECT*



> Imagine an aircraft that could lift 1-2 million pounds of cargo, then fly it up to 12,000 miles nonstop without needing a runway to land on.



Cargo Blimp


----------



## The91Bravo (Oct 21, 2010)

In regards to the title of this thread.....

Pardus, blimps are not anything new or fascinating.

I saw one ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL......

I am still waiting for you to WOW me...


----------



## Scotth (Oct 22, 2010)

I bet they perform well in all weather conditions and SAM's will be no threat at all.:uhh:


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 22, 2010)

I think it would be a good idea, I don't know how well it will work but worth a try.


----------



## pardus (Oct 23, 2010)

91B & Scotth ... 

91B, Dude, this is a new deployment that you didn't know about with an exciting capability, WTF over?

Scotth, do some research into the range of shoulder SAMs & height the blimps the use.


----------



## JBS (Oct 23, 2010)

I think these were the low flying UFO's all over the Southwest a few years back.


Cool as hell.

Almost limitless loiter time.  They could probably be used as "hives", a sort of floating hangar for VTOL drones that could carry out missions and return to this platform for refitting.  The possibilities are endless.


----------



## QC (Oct 23, 2010)

Are they going to name one Michael Moore?


----------



## The91Bravo (Oct 23, 2010)

Nice.. but it needs to be full of hot air, not helium or whatever it has..


----------



## QC (Oct 23, 2010)

That clown has helium enhanced voice.


----------



## AWP (Oct 23, 2010)

If your post is missing, it may be because I and I alone deemed it to be full of BULLSHIT which did nothing to contribute to the thread or board.

Warm regards.

TWS


----------



## Teufel (Oct 23, 2010)

Chopstick said:
			
		

> That is pretty derogatory and insulting especially to the women who are on the site who are currently serving and have served in uniform. Not funny IMHO.  That is just a civilian's:2c:


 
Concur, feel free to make those jokes at your local he man woman haters club but don't bring them here.  Women Marines and other female servicemembers signed the dotted line just like us.  Personally I think they have a lot rougher time of it at the work place than we do.  Yes, it's easy to pick on some of the out of standards female service members but I think we highlight them because they stand out more.  There are plenty of out of standards male servicemembers out there as well who hide amongst their peers.  Now, I will say that some females are not held accountable because their male leadership are unwilling to enforce these standards or are unfamiliar with their standards.  This is a leadership issue and not a female servicemember issue.  If I have a female Marine who is not in standards, whether it is hair, uniform, or physical appearance standards, it is not hard to put her into a body composition program or have an SNCO, male or female, get her into standards.  They shouldn't be treated differently than any other Marine and being a Marine means living by standards and exceeding them.  Now the Marine Corps is a powerful organization and Semper Fidelis goes a long way but it can't stop the cycle of life.  You can't tell a female Marine that she can't become a mom no more than you can't tell a male Marine that he can't become a dad.  That being said, there are regulations for pregnant Marines and I am sure this applies to the other the services as well.


View attachment 13367


----------



## Polar Bear (Oct 23, 2010)

Hi sign


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 23, 2010)

Heyyyyyyyyy who took my poggy bait???


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 23, 2010)

Anyway, back to the thread. 

These things look great...I don't know about them transporting cargo or supplies to somewhere high-ish threat though, blimps have never gone particularly fast, nor can they really.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 23, 2010)

Scotth said:


> I bet they perform well in all weather conditions and SAM's will be no threat at all.:uhh:


Name an aircraft that performs in all weather conditions.

SAMs will be a minimal threat, they have a low RADAR/IR signature, RPG's would be a bigger threat.
Still a work in progress as far as I am concerned.


----------



## pardus (Oct 23, 2010)

Queens Cadet said:


> Are they going to name one Michael Moore?


 
No, too much chance of a friendly fire incident.



The91Bravo said:


> Nice.. but it needs to be full of hot air, not helium or whatever it has..


 
Why? :uhh:


Scotth, the blimps operate outside of current SAM ranges.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 23, 2010)

I predict UFO sightings will increase exponentially... :)

I'm pretty sure this isn't really new, I'm fairly confident they were using maybe a different model but still a blimp in Iraq last time I was there.  I know for certain we had one on base at Ft. Huachuca when I was there, enormously capable sensor capability and unmatched loiter time.

As far as the SAM threat, the bad guys would get a much better payoff if they launched said SAM at a helicopter full of Joes than at an unmanned bag of air... if they could even get their hands on one in the first place.


----------



## JBS (Oct 23, 2010)

Freefalling said:


> If your post is missing, it may be because I and I alone deemed it to be full of BULLSHIT which did nothing to contribute to the thread or board.
> 
> Warm regards.
> 
> TWS



Aww gee wiz, now I get to wonder if some of the missing posts were aimed at my UFO post.


----------



## The91Bravo (Oct 23, 2010)

pardus said:


> Why? :uhh:
> Scotth, the blimps operate outside of current SAM ranges.



To be named Michael Moore...  :uhh:


----------



## RyanSC (Jan 5, 2013)

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-aeros-airship-tustin-20130104,0,799208.story

New article, kind of an update to the original post.  
I want to see how this thing delivers equipment.


----------



## pardus (Jan 5, 2013)

Pretty cool. I wouldn't want to be in it though during a conflict.


----------



## TheSiatonist (Jan 5, 2013)

Land anywhere with a 66-ton cargo. That's like a cargo of 1 Abrams tank and 1 up-armored Humvee, right?

And that surface reminds me of the invisibility cloaking device HyperStealth has developed recently.

Cool stuff.


----------



## AWP (Jan 5, 2013)

We'll find some way to squander its potential.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 7, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> We'll find some way to squander its potential.


 
Karzai will probably want 80 of them in the next round of demands from us.


----------



## pardus (Jan 7, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Karzai will probably want 80 of them in the next round of demands from us.


 
That's OK, we'll supply all the Hydrogen he wants to run them...


----------



## Karoshi (Jan 8, 2013)

I remember the SMDC Future Warfare Center having some of the LEMV project personnel in the back area of one of the bays here in Colorado Springs. Only thing I could think during the discussion was how these nerds are going to become the old man from "Up" in a few years.


----------



## TheSiatonist (Feb 13, 2013)

Is that a blimp I see up there?







Photo is from the _Ranger pix_ thread.


----------



## pardus (Feb 13, 2013)

TheSiatonist said:


> Is that a blimp I see up there?
> 
> Photo is from the _Ranger pix_ thread.


 
Maybe the ghost Ranger beamed down from it. Don't believe everything you see on the internet.


----------



## AWP (Feb 13, 2013)

TheSiatonist said:


> Is that a blimp I see up there?


 
That's an aerostat.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Feb 13, 2013)

Are you sure it's not a weather balloon?  I consulted a chart that said it's a weather balloon...or was it swamp gas?


----------



## Scotth (Feb 14, 2013)

pardus said:


> 91B & Scotth ...
> 
> 91B, Dude, this is a new deployment that you didn't know about with an exciting capability, WTF over?
> 
> Scotth, do some research into the range of shoulder SAMs & height the blimps the use.


 
They have to land some time which makes them vulnerable to all kinds of ground weapons.  The spy ships might not land in theater but the transports do.  Imagine the head lines when 1-2 million tons of supplies come crashing down in a big old pile of junk.

Even at cruise altitude they are big and slow which opens them up to air-to-air threats.  We can't plan for only fighting third world shit holes that have no ADA when talking about investing 100's of million or even billions of dollars.

It is cool new tech but as a nation is this the best investment at this time?  You have to ask your self is this critical to the US for carrying out our missions.  It looks like the defense sequester cuts are going to hit the DoD.  Then you have more politicians on both the left and the right calling for even deeper cuts to DoD.  We have piles of worn out equipment that needs to be replaced after the last decade of war and we have a lot of work to do for our returning vets.

I think blimps would be cool and have very positive traits for certain conditions but it is a luxury that we don't need or can afford.  We are throwing money at tech that will probably never be fully developed or deployed.


----------



## AWP (Oct 23, 2013)

Well, this thread is now semi-irrelevant.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-blimp-fire-sale-20131023,0,3497521.story



> Near the height of the Afghanistan war, the Pentagon spent $297 million on a seven-story blimp-like aircraft — as long as a football field — that would hover over the war zone for weeks at a time, beaming back crucial intelligence.
> 
> But as the military wound down its presence in the Middle East, plans for the unmanned floating spy center deflated. The aircraft fell behind schedule, became 12,000 pounds overweight and was ultimately canceled after just one test flight.
> 
> Last month, the Pentagon quietly decided to sell back the sophisticated spyship to the British company that built it for $301,000 — a fraction of its investment.


 
I love this part:



> Aside from falling eight months behind its initial schedule, the airship had other problems, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office. Last year, the GAO said it was "*about 12,000 pounds overweight* because components, such as tail fins, exceed weight thresholds."
> *The GAO said the increased weight reduced the airship's estimated endurance "at an altitude of 20,000 feet from the required 21 days, to 4 to 5 days."*
> In its first and only flight, the airship flew for more than 90 minutes above Lakehurst Naval Air Station in New Jersey in August 2012. The airship had a pilot onboard.
> "We feel that getting a hybrid airship to first flight in such a tight timeline was an accomplishment unto itself," said Timothy Paynter, a Northrop spokesman.


 
HAHAHAHA!!! Spin it! "Yeah, we were way over the proposed timeline, way overweight, and reduced the airframe's loiter capability by more than 70%, but we did a great job!"

ETA: spelling


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 23, 2013)

Great; another program cancelled, now we have more money to re-design everybody's service uniforms.  Again.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 23, 2013)

Scotth said:


> They have to land some time which makes them vulnerable to all kinds of ground weapons.  The spy ships might not land in theater but the transports do.  Imagine the head lines when 1-2 million tons of supplies come crashing down in a big old pile of junk.
> 
> Even at cruise altitude they are big and slow which opens them up to air-to-air threats.  We can't plan for only fighting third world shit holes that have no ADA when talking about investing 100's of million or even billions of dollars.
> 
> ...



Sooooo here's a novel thought

we're bouncing through friendly countries OTW to current deployments

why not do the long hauls like across oceans to nearby friendly countries with a blimp that carries more, then use the hercs etc that aren't as economical but are more versatile and maneuverable... to shuttle from that location into the area of concern?

Let alone being able to do humanitarian stuff like Haiti etc with something that doesn't really need a runway (since blimps are basically VTOL aircraft) when you don't have to worry about being shot at.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 23, 2013)

pardus said:


> 91B & Scotth ...
> 
> 91B, Dude, this is a new deployment that you didn't know about with an exciting capability, WTF over?
> 
> Scotth, do some research into the range of shoulder SAMs & height the blimps the use.


Mobile SAM's can probably go higher then the blimp, and eventually the blimp has to come to a lower altitude to deliver cargo.


----------



## Scotth (Oct 23, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Mobile SAM's can probably go higher then the blimp, and eventually the blimp has to come to a lower altitude to deliver cargo.



That was my point exactly.  They are probably out of range for shoulder fired weapons but a surface to air missile is another story.  I think Ranger Pysch probably has the best operational use though.

With sequestration hitting the DoD on Jan 1 I would bet this plan and a bunch of others like it will become a luxury the DoD can't afford to keep funding.


----------



## CDG (Oct 23, 2013)

There are shoulder fired surface-to-air missiles that can reach out to around 20K FT.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 23, 2013)

Some other issues to consider: How fast can they fly, and would they be limited to flying with a tailwind?
Heavy payloads are awesome, but only if it can there faster then a C5.


----------



## reed11b (Oct 23, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Some other issues to consider: How fast can they fly, and would they be limited to flying with a tailwind?
> Heavy payloads are awesome, but only if it can there faster then a C5.


You mean faster then a ship? That would be more accurate.
Reed


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 23, 2013)

reed11b said:


> You mean faster then a ship? That would be more accurate.
> Reed


No faster than an airplane with a 50% reliability rate.
I doubt it is faster than a Ro-Ro ship either.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 23, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Some other issues to consider: How fast can they fly, and would they be limited to flying with a tailwind?
> Heavy payloads are awesome, but only if it can there faster then a C5.



Not really.  Every shipment on the planet is not time critical, C5's are less reliable than your average high school graduate level workforce, and ships do less than 30kt for the most part. Especially big ships that don't run off nuclear power.


----------

