At last - the Army goes Salamander!
The US Army has asked Northrop Grumman to design three hybrid airships that are capable of providing American soldiers with persistent ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) capabilities in Afghanistan.We've been asking for this for years. Hybrid airships are perfect for persistant ISR - better in many cases than Global Hawk/BAMS. I have a bias towards manned systems - but for ISR we could go UAS if we must.
The airships - which have been dubbed Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle (LEMV) systems - will be deployed in just 18 months.
"It is critical [for] our warfighters [to be] equipped with more enabling integrated ISR capability to tackle today's and tomorrow's conflicts," explained Northrop spokesperson Alan Metzger.
"[So], we have designed a system with plug-and-play capability to readily integrate into the Army's existing common ground station command centers and ground troops in forward operating bases."
According to Metzger, the LEMVs are expected to be capable of sustaining altitudes of 20,000 feet for a three-week period.
Next step is to get some manned cargo/transport versions that are ready to be built and can go places with more stuff than any C-17 to C-130 can.
As for this ISR one from LMT - a little more the Army's Solicitation.
The LEMV will be utilized to provide persistent Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) support in multiple environments, including combat areas. Technical objectives for the LEMV include the following performance parameters: a. Unmanned air vehicle capable of being controlled through existing DOD ground station; b. 3 week flight endurance; c. 2500 pound sensor payload; d. 20,000 foot operating altitude; e. Multi-INT capable; f. 16Kw power for payload; g. capable of station keep; h. recoverable and reusable.
The advantages of a manned cargo variant - especially for an expeditionary force that may or may not (see Haiti) have access to airfields that can take large aircraft - are legion. One of the most lame excuses I hear against using modern hybrid airships is the old, "It will be too hard to build a proper career path and to get the right Flag sponsorship .... " etc.
Really? Really? We quit that soon for such a lazy reason? Sure, it is part of the environment ... but more often than not it is an excuse for the lazy mind.
Career path? Harumph. Then give them to the CWO/LDO professionals - they won't spend all their time tracking the career paths of others in their select group. Better yet, give it to the Reserves and Guard. Goodness knows that we have excess capacity in the USNR compared to the USAFR, USAR, and ANG.
What would I give up - you budget geeks ask (correctly). Simple. Four LCS. I like the bang for the buck of ~$3.5 billion in ISR and Transport hybrid airships any day. Make the cargo force 1/3 active duty with 50% CWO/LDO pilots (AWs need honest work now days anyway) and 2/3 USNR so we can recapture some of the money we spent on pilot training when the 1310s leave active duty. Another option - save more personnel costs by making the ISR hybrid airships part of the BAMS squadrons (large overlap in skill sets WRT mission systems).
In just 5 minutes, did I give you enough COAs to start with?
You're welcome.
You're welcome.
The Army at 20,000 feet - gosh, thought that just might be USAF domain.
ReplyDeleteNOT Air Force domain ;) Not fixed-wing! The persistent ISR platform idea has merit. Relatively HUGE sensor payload (compared with our fleet of UAVs) and I'm willing to bet some egghead can program another UAV airship to be a refueller and do air-to-air refuelling.
ReplyDeleteCue Campbell in 3...2...1
ReplyDeletenot only that, but it's too slow...USAF isn't really interested in anything that cruises less than 250 KIAS or so...(cue the A-10 comparisons)
ReplyDeleteI know .... I know .... he's running late this AM.
ReplyDeleteTruth to power!
ReplyDeleteI love the AW comment.. true also
plus I need a new job, so lets lets civies do it!
"Give it the USNR." Nice idea, but People Smarter Than Me (TM) eviserated the Navy Reserve rather swiftly and completely by the end of the previous administration. With the exception of a handful of "hardware" units doing jobs the Regular Navy either doesn't deign worth their efforts or has utterly no core comptency to do, it's now simply a hiring pool for IA assignments. Sad; at one time in the very recent past, (late 80's to early 90's) it had an air element and ship element that made it, alone, one of the most powerful naval forces in the world.
ReplyDeletefor heavens sake it is airSHIP, and its endurance makes it ideal for naval surveillance, especieally in teh blue wter where no enemy fighter are expected... why not park a few over Somali coast to monitor all the traffic?
ReplyDeleteLate huh? Hells Bells, I've been 30 years ahead of everyone else on this! Ha!
ReplyDeleteAs you write CCR, manned cargo variants will have incredible advantages to offer. Note I wrote "will have". Two years ago, NAVY put out solicitation for similar craft, ahead of Army. You can google em up with "PMA-262LTARFI"
RE this particular LEMV as currently designed: while it is supposed to only carry a ton at 20k altitude; that would translate to 50 tons if operated at sea level, so, a bit more versatile if run as a naval asset.
Volumes more to be said of course......
And perhaps an ASW version? Something that can stay out there for days at a time?
ReplyDeleteWhy does it have to be called "LEMV" when it is a "blimp"? How much was wasted on that and how much will be wasted when the name is later changed to "Long Endurance Joint Vehicle" (LEJV) because somebody thinks all new weapons systmes must have "Joint" in the title?
ReplyDeleteI was wondering about that--I had it in my mind that the effective ceiling for a 50-ton-payload cargo vessel was 10K'. I'm not sure if I got that from earlier discussions here, or what. So, I have a couple questions--if this LEMV can in theory haul 50 tons at sea level, could you simply rearrange the superstructure and use the same airframe to make a cargo vessel (or would you want to)?
ReplyDeleteAlso, could the notional cargo variant get over the AFG mountains just by running half empty? Or does lift degrade faster than that as you go up?
There are plenty of people who did not join the Navy to make admiral but to fly, see the world and have interesting missions. Those of us in the air ASW community have recognized the advantages of airships since WWII. Every now and then someone else thinks about them too. Great idea that would give us an outstanding capability but it'll never happen in today's military where thinking even slightly outside the box is punishable by career death.
ReplyDeleteI see nom reason why an airship could NOT be designed with separate crew/cargo pod from the main "floatation" system. If you built it like the old "Sky Crane" helo, you would have a lift compartment complete with power and control/cuidance element integral, and then a separate compartment to haul/attach whatever you wanted.
ReplyDeleteOh heck, if you are going to build an airship fleet, why not bring back the enlisted flying billet, and let a CPO and his gang run the damned thing. Save a ton of money, they'd be able to do their own maintenance and keep it clean, and and headed by a Chief, EVERYONE would know who "owned" the airship. ;)
ReplyDeleteCue the "air pirate" jokes.......
There's an outfit in the UK called "World SkyCat" thats beeen all over this modular task-specific concept for wears (of which I, even as an ex-zoomie, am a HUGE advocate) Check out @:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.worldskycat.com/
AW1 Tim, an entire crew of AW's? Now THAT is a truly scary thought! :)
ReplyDeleteLekely enough to keep the Skipper awake at night wondering what they're up to... ;)
ReplyDeleteHello Big D, thanks for a reasoned question.
ReplyDeleteNo idea where your 10K' might have come from; airships have flown at greater than 20K over eighty years ago, hauling 40 crew and 5 tons of bombs. Very uncomfortable though; mighty cold. Aircraft above 10K are supposed to have oxygen available for persons on board, or pressurized. The proposed LEMV is taken from a "SkyCat"; which is basicaly two familiar blimps jammed together, with MINIMAL undercarraige. That would have to be changed to become a cargo carrier of any utility. As it is now, much of the undercarraige area/room/weight allowance is taken up with a dubious hovercraft-like landing system.
Aerostatic lift degrades by 7% with each 1,000' gained in altitude, under "normal" conditions. The idea behind "hybrid" airships is that their lifting body shapes provide enough aerodynamic lift to offset that.
However, what you end up with is simply a huge, lightweight airplane, succeptable to surface winds at take-off/landing, and dependant upon thrust to remain airborne at all.
A bit dicey, neh?
All,
ReplyDeleteThe good Commander has graciously extended permission to me to link to Web page with airship related information and entertainment, for his readers to look over if they wish. At:
http://www.turtleairships.com/ghost_ships.htm
Now, it is FICTION.....I'll say that first. Then, well, a bit sadly written I'll admit; but hopefully fun to read!
And to you, CDR, my sincere, respectful "Thank you!"
Sex appeal. LTA systems don't have pointy noses or fire belching out the back. You need a glitzy moniker.
ReplyDeleteASW is actually the best mission. You lose a lot of lift at higher altitudes with an LTA system. Blimps like to fly low...a few thousand feet.
ReplyDeleteWith an ASW airship, you ARE a submarine...except that you float in air, go three times as fast, and need a much smaller crew.
I yield to no man in my enthusiasm for LTA systems, but if you think you can run this with a BAMS squadron, you are sadly mistaken. The hardware on the latter will be VERY complex.
ReplyDeleteThese airships are a no brainer - agreed. They'd be worth trading for the entire LCS class. Troubling is that the Army plans on using these things in 18 months in Afghanistan. To admit that we're planning to be there in 18 months with enough forces on the ground to justify this level of support gets me thinking bad thoughts reminiscent of General Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket." Are we even doing our best to win and get out or are we using the current conflict as a justification to fund the acquisition of new toys? Please skip the "how could you even think that" naivette. Powerful people who are willing to risk nothing throughout their lives in service to their country have no qualms about sending other people to die if it increases their shareholder value. Sad, but true.
ReplyDeleteWell... there you go again...
ReplyDeleteI was thinking the old saw about Rickover wanting to make nukes PO's vice officers... Congressman asked him why not make all Nukes officers. He replied, 'Ship that sails with nothing but officers, won't come back.' The congressman then asked him in jest why not send a ship to sea with nothing but enlisted, and was answered... 'Ship'd come back dirty!' :) Not sure if it's true, but it's been repeated over the years in the Nuke training pipeline :)
ReplyDeleteThe gas volume required to carry an appreciable offensive payload is pretty big. I also wonder about vulnerability to SAMs (i.e. how cool can we make the surface look while also minimizing RCS and maintaining some minimum strucutral stiffness?). But I agree in principle that airships would be good ASW platforms, although some small work would need to be done to deploy torps from 2-5,000 feet. Not undoable, but it would need addressing. One could drop lower to fire, but that'd surrender a number of advantages (bigger horizon for sensors, less sound for the target sub to listen for [at 5k ft, we can call it NIL], among others).
ReplyDeleteHow cool would an airship with an A-10's gun in a turret be? Two magazines for different ammo types and all the ammo you can shove in :) On call fire support with BIG stay time :) Even at less than 250 KIAS...
ReplyDeleteI believe the 10K' was a ballpark for superstructure and 50T cargo; however, now that you mention it, it might have been based on the assumption that no weight would be spent on pressurization, in which case it's a crew limit, not a cargo one.
ReplyDeleteSo, the proposal is actually a true blimp, then, rather than a hybrid?
if we are waging a war to win, especially COIN war, we need to be ready to stay there at least 5 more years...
ReplyDeleteWouldn't airspeed be a larger factor? Couldn't the current chutes be adapted to same-speed/higher-altitude?
ReplyDeleteAlternatively, they could just use the same delivery system as P-8s, which would be going a lot faster and (usually) higher...
I don't think it's COIN. COIN happens when a government is beseiged by an insurgency. There was a government (of sorts), we took it down, we installed a new government, now the old government is trying to take power back. COIN would normally be waged at the invitation of the government under siege by the insurgency, not after having toppled the government in power and installing one of our own choosing. I don't see the situations as remotely the same, especially with regards to the ability to win the hearts and minds of the populace. As long as we are there, they will hate us and fight us, even if for no better reason than that we are there. You couldn't use US troops to forcibly replace the government of a US state and occupy that state to ensure the federal government's installed government remained in power without getting the locals to hate you very quickly. Multiply the hate a thousandfold for every member of every family who has had a family member killed, maimed, detained, questioned, etc. by a foreign power with an alien religion and culture. What exactly is defines a win in Afghanistan anyway?
ReplyDeleteDon't get me going about the idiocy of the P-8 program. It has a rotary sonobuoy launcher that still doesn't want to work right, and they're having interesting times trying to find a way to retard torp drops from high altitude. The 737 was NOT meant to operate down close to the water where real ASW is performed. In fact, the P-8 dipenses entirely with the MAD system.
ReplyDeleteAn airship would be ideal for monitoring ASW inyelligence, but some other platform has to be able to get down and dirty to deploy the sensors as well as weapons.
Heh... sounds like Rickover, that's for certain. There's an old story abour him personally interviewing prospective Nuke officers. He'd invite them for a steak dinner and watch them. If they automatically reached for the steak sauce, he'd dismiss them from consideration. he wanted an officer who would taste the steak first to see if it needed anything, rather than go for the standard solution right off the bat.
ReplyDeleteBig D: The word "blimp" is properly used with simple non-rigid LTA craft. The LEMV will actually be a semi-rigid craft having some form of rigid keel structure; therefore, not precisely a "blimp".
ReplyDeleteThey are "hybrid" however in that they combine aerostatic lift from lighter-than-air gasses and aerodyanmic lift derived from their basic lifting body shapes. The Northrup Grumman design is expected to obtain 60% of its lift from helium; the remaining percentage from aerodynamic forces. The Lockheed Martin design was an 80/20 mix respectively.
I dunno, they used to go down there and drop DCs, right? :)
ReplyDeleteYeah, I know, one of these days, somebody's gonna actually put SAMs (or lasers) on a sub... still, if an airship is tooling around at below-P-3 speeds, what does it matter if it's at 10K' for buoy or torp deployment?
Define a victory? for me its a place where 80% of children can go to school and learn writing and basic math - including girls... and the government that was taken down by the very Afghanis with a little help of US spec ops and guided minitions was the worst kind of medieval theocracy, sustained by force against own people.
ReplyDeleteOh, horsecrap, GIMP. You make extraordinary claims, you have to offer the proof.
ReplyDeleteCome back when you have it...
...And now we have GIMP offering his own (undoubtedly brilliant) definition of COIN, since the traditional form is uncongenial to his ideology. He reminds me of people who say things like "I think assault is," "I think rape is," or "I think slander is" because they just won't read the damn text of the law(s) in existence.
ReplyDeleteHe then proceeds to fatuities such as a government "of our own choosing." Feh. As if we raised those men from the dirt, out of nothing. They already had some sort of arguable influence in Afghanistan. He also misses the boat with respect to "hearts & minds," as he seems quite igorant of how many Afghanis are more than "over" the Taliban, after several years of IEDs and suicide bombers who have killed far more Afghanis than foreign soldiers.
His last question is quite easy to answer: a stable government which will not act as a sponsor for terrorism.
I do have one question with respect to these new ships: how vulnerable are they to weather and winds? Isn't that what finally killed the original Navy airship program; the fates of the Shenandoa, the Akron, and Macon?
ReplyDeleteThe Soviets developed an extendable launcher for their small SAM's, similar to the Stinger, that could rise up out of the sail and launch. It meant that if we heard the boat coming shallow, we had to stand off at least 3 miles.
ReplyDeleteWe thought it terribly ungentlemanly of them.
I've heard about it, but did they ever really deploy the thing?
ReplyDeleteI offer no proof for my opinions other than they're my opinions. I understand the definition of COIN from FMI 3-07.22. Paraphrased it's fighting an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government. Technically we are fighting an insurgency, however, what set the whole thing in motion was an outside power (us) eliminating the constituted government (Taliban pre-911), installing our own (Karzai), then fighting to keep him in power. The Afghanistan situation has lots of history before the beginning of fighting the insurgency, and that history makes it a different animal. We didn't raise Karzai out of nothing, he was one of many fighters against the Taliban. We did select him. I'm sure the people of Afghanistan are over the Taliban. So? Their problem. Plenty of them are over us too. A stable government doesn't matter if it can't control all of its territory, which no central government in Afghanistan ever has. My ideology is simple. I want us to win. My opinion is that we're going about it the wrong way. Then threat is in the brains of terrorists, not sands of Afghansistan. This is a fight for the CIA not DoD. Winning means hunting terrorists and killing them, not erecting stable governments at great cost to little effect. This is a fight for agents, spies, assassins, and SPECOPS chopped to the CIA to do wet work, not conventional troops. I want us to win, but I think we're totally missing the point.
ReplyDeleteAs long as terrorists have safe havens like pre-2001 AFG, they will be plotting attacks on the US, and eventually they will succeed. You dont win fight against malaria swatting the mosquitoes but by drying the swamp.
ReplyDeleteThat was before satellite weather observation and with RIGID airships. Beautiful but doomed
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the fact that the Army has jumped on this opportunity makes it just that less likely that the USN will get onboard. It is someone else's great idea so it is no good. Er, we can't use someone else's cammie uniform because we need our own...why, because....why, because...even though it is completely out of place in the land battlefield and will likely get people shot because our people look like prized game. Stupid. We should be using the same cammie design as the Army or USMC and we should not shun great ideas just because another service gets to them first. How long did it take the USN to get a PT uniform? Why did it take so long? Because the Army already had one. Can't be a follower, even if it makes total sense.
ReplyDelete