Hey, I am as pro-zeppelin as the next Victorian gentlemen, but the new blimp (originally posted by Noah at DangerRoom) being tested by the US Navy and US Coast Guard seems questionable to me. Brickmuppet calls it a stellar idea.
Granted the helium-filled blimp has great fuel efficiency and can stay in the air for 52 hours. However it is filled with helium (which as Chris points out is not explosive, but still must be under pressure and), is a massive target and manned by a crew of three. Aren’t satellites providing the same coverage all year round without the potential for endangering human lives? Well, not really. Satellite imagery is limited to in that it has only a shallow viewing angle, as anyone who has ever seen Enemy of the State can tell you. Thus low flying surveillance craft are useful for providing “perspective.”
What about UAVs (Unmanned aerial vehicle)? This has been a growth industry since the Balkans. UAVs can be flown remotely 24 hours a day at various altitudes. However these heavy machines do require lots of fuel and it is this weakness that the airship seems to exploit. Inflight refueling for UAVs is a feature set to be released by 2010. Vulture promises to stay aloft for five years at a time, but fuel-type is still a design problem. The Zephyr solar-powered UAV has already proven it can fly 54 hours straight.
The final solution could be a “solar-assisted” design, using diesel or even battery-powered engines for take-offs, landings and evasive maneuvers. Zeppelins and dirigibles are great fun, but the present and near future belong to UAVs, particularly those fuelled by “new energy.”
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « “Adult supervision” for Foreign Affairs
- » The Principles of War: 8. Flexibility
COMMENTS / 13 COMMENTS
Chris Albon added these pithy words on 27 Jun 08 at 1:51 amPolitical sidenote: The US government controlled the only major source of helium at the time and refused to supply it to Nazi Germany, thus the Hindenburg was filled with flammable hydrogen, not non-flammable helium.
Younghusband added these pithy words on 27 Jun 08 at 2:00 amThanks for pointing that out Chris. A large oversight on my part and I apologize.
Still, I think that this can be done in an unmanned manner. Don’t you agree?
Chris Albon added these pithy words on 27 Jun 08 at 3:10 amI absolutely agree. Having a crew reduces onstation time (by 85%!), increases weight, increases cost, & increases risk. Clearly the greatest limitation of the ship are the meatsacks at the controls.
ry added these pithy words on 27 Jun 08 at 6:42 amI have two things to say on this.
1) Size does matter. Pardon the pun, but having a large object with which you can make the body be part of a sensor array like this is a major advantage.
2) Not having this dragged by a destroyer and therefor having a crew on board(prbably two pilots and one EW rating) means it doesn’t have to worry about jamming ruining data links to ruin ability to search(and, if you do run into jamming having your hull able to act as a transimitter, see 1 above) can come in handy.Okay, I lied, three things. What I’ve heard is that these things are also being considered as stop gap measures in case sats get removed from play. So this might just be a proof of concept kind of thing. See what you can get out of them with current designs.
jon added these pithy words on 27 Jun 08 at 2:08 pmI think the blimps will be great for certain applications.
The one that comes foremost to mind would be for Israel. Like Van Creveld have suggested. They have a relatively small area to watch. They need constant detailed surveillance. And they have a limited supply of manpower.
Tether an unmanned version to the ground/sea floor, you have essentially 24 hr surveillance w/o lack of perspective or short loiter time of sats.
They would be shot down at the start of a war, but they could be useful in giving the heads up that war is coming. Probably would be a cheap addition to Israels early warning network.
von Kaufman-Turkestansky added these pithy words on 27 Jun 08 at 8:49 pmI’m eagerly waiting for the next generation of War Tubas!
(strike up something stirring on the sousaphone, please)
Benjamin Walthrop added these pithy words on 27 Jun 08 at 10:31 pmUnlike the US Air Force, the US Navy has been very methodical on their march to adapt to UAVs. I see this manned version as a relatively inexpensive (leased as it is) R&D project with potential spin offs in a number of areas including an unmanned version. The UAV arena is one area that the US Navy appears to be taking the time to get things right.
Michael added these pithy words on 28 Jun 08 at 2:18 amGive it actual cargo or passenger capacity, then we talk about cool factor.
Younghusband added these pithy words on 28 Jun 08 at 5:37 amUsed as a stopgap for a post-satellite situation is understandable. UAVs also require GPS and data transfer like vid feeds that are provided for by sats. A million bucks for research is a drop in the bucket for the USN. Directing that money into solar UAV research may not make that much of a difference, granted. However, an unmanned blimp would be as useless as a long-range UAV with no sats.
Oliver added these pithy words on 28 Jun 08 at 11:37 amIt still has advantages for applications where size is required.
Ocean monitoring and submarine hunting come to mind. A small drone will never carry a heavy radar and it has to be powered, too. Hunting submarines an airship can loiter for days, is faster than a sub or a ship and in contrast to a helicopter, silent and not prone to crash into the ocean when it runs out of fuel.
SEEROV added these pithy words on 28 Jun 08 at 11:54 pmI assume that these fly high enough to be out range of small arms fire? If not, where exactly will these be used?
SEEROV added these pithy words on 29 Jun 08 at 12:00 amOK, I just read the article and now realize that its intended for homeland security purposes. Because I don’t think you’d get many volunteers for combat-blimp missions? Maybe they can arm these things with a 105mm Howitzer, kinda like an AC-130 gunship?
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.
