Video: LEMV First Flight
LEMV First Flight Video and Photos
Let's drop a 5GW p-11B Polywell into one of these babies and see what it can really do...
Army UFO
Or lets put an ISAR in it and see what it can really see for semi-persistant large area observation. Tie that with multi-spectrum sensing, and suddenly alot of stuff becomes apparent. And building spoofing dummies almost pointless and certainly way more expensive, enough that you may as well build and man a real one in some cases...
But we would never think of doing stuff like that.
But we would never think of doing stuff like that.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
-
CaptainBeowulf
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am
Yes, after all, we never used observation balloons before, did we?
And I guess that the Brits didn't build plywood tanks to fool the Germans in the desert in 1942, and that the Allies didn't create a fake army under Patton in the spring of 1944 to make the Germans think that the Normandy landing was a diversion.
I guess the Russians have us really tricked with inflatable tanks, we've never considered how to design sensors which can tell the difference between a fake vehicle and a real one, since it's an idea we've never had.
And I guess that the Brits didn't build plywood tanks to fool the Germans in the desert in 1942, and that the Allies didn't create a fake army under Patton in the spring of 1944 to make the Germans think that the Normandy landing was a diversion.
I guess the Russians have us really tricked with inflatable tanks, we've never considered how to design sensors which can tell the difference between a fake vehicle and a real one, since it's an idea we've never had.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
More money flushed down the toilet by idiotic DOD decisions. This thing has no mission. It was rationalized by comparing it to doing recon with fighters and helicopters, but of course we all know that the best aerial recon comes from drones, which are vastly cheaper than helicopters and fighters. Look at this absurd rationalization over at wiki:
While reconnaissance can be undertaken by fighter aircraft, the costs involved for such a flight were estimated in 2010 to be $10,000–20,000 per flight hour, plus an additional $10,000 in recapitalization costs.[3] Helicopters are more affordable than their fighter equivalent, and can intervene like fighters if weapons are needed, but they are noisy and vulnerable, have very low endurance, and are still not cheap to operate.[3] Hybrid airships can operate from any small forward base, like a helicopter. Their operating cost is likely to be better than any other surveillance option, as is their endurance, which can be measured in weeks.[3] The LEMV requires no less than 1000' of runway and requires a tether point with 360 degrees of 300' smooth area to park, which restricts them from operating at most large bases and all small bases.
They can serve as steady communications relays, for instance, ensuring that groups of soldiers in mountainous areas never lose contact with one another, even if they do not have direct line of sight to each other.[3] LEMVs can track important convoys, key roadways, or other key infrastructure as semi-permanent overwatch escorts, monitor an urban area of interest to prepare for major battles or enforce security, or focus on shutting down border chokepoints.[3]
According to Alan Metzger, director for airship programmes at Northrop Grumman, the airship’s ability to stay in the air for long periods make it perfect for surveillance missions. Speaking to The Engineer magazine, Mr Metzger claimed that the LEMV was “going to be the longest endurance UAV in the world. There will be no gaps in the data that gets put down to the war-fighter.”[4] Northrop also says the LEMV could be used as a cargo aircraft, claiming that it has enough buoyancy to haul seven tons of cargo 2,400 miles at 30 miles per hour.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Endur ... ce_Vehicle
Think about the costs for this ridiculous toy. It's not just a couple hundred million dollars to develop but outrageous sums to support and it can't be flown from most fields, large or small. Just pathetic.
Now imagine what US Army would have if they had spent the $200M developing a next gen caseless ammo rifle like the H&K G11, or even an EVO weapon.
While reconnaissance can be undertaken by fighter aircraft, the costs involved for such a flight were estimated in 2010 to be $10,000–20,000 per flight hour, plus an additional $10,000 in recapitalization costs.[3] Helicopters are more affordable than their fighter equivalent, and can intervene like fighters if weapons are needed, but they are noisy and vulnerable, have very low endurance, and are still not cheap to operate.[3] Hybrid airships can operate from any small forward base, like a helicopter. Their operating cost is likely to be better than any other surveillance option, as is their endurance, which can be measured in weeks.[3] The LEMV requires no less than 1000' of runway and requires a tether point with 360 degrees of 300' smooth area to park, which restricts them from operating at most large bases and all small bases.
They can serve as steady communications relays, for instance, ensuring that groups of soldiers in mountainous areas never lose contact with one another, even if they do not have direct line of sight to each other.[3] LEMVs can track important convoys, key roadways, or other key infrastructure as semi-permanent overwatch escorts, monitor an urban area of interest to prepare for major battles or enforce security, or focus on shutting down border chokepoints.[3]
According to Alan Metzger, director for airship programmes at Northrop Grumman, the airship’s ability to stay in the air for long periods make it perfect for surveillance missions. Speaking to The Engineer magazine, Mr Metzger claimed that the LEMV was “going to be the longest endurance UAV in the world. There will be no gaps in the data that gets put down to the war-fighter.”[4] Northrop also says the LEMV could be used as a cargo aircraft, claiming that it has enough buoyancy to haul seven tons of cargo 2,400 miles at 30 miles per hour.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Endur ... ce_Vehicle
Think about the costs for this ridiculous toy. It's not just a couple hundred million dollars to develop but outrageous sums to support and it can't be flown from most fields, large or small. Just pathetic.
Now imagine what US Army would have if they had spent the $200M developing a next gen caseless ammo rifle like the H&K G11, or even an EVO weapon.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
There were some Alberta farmers in the '60s that swore up and down that UFO's had landed in their fields, and were taken away by the authorities. Everybody laughed until one company released a statement years later about experimental recon vehicles and apoligized for the embarassment caused.
Saw a clip on the news in the late '70s of Can. cabinet ministers attending a demo of experimental recon vehicles, looked like 2 conical sections joined at the apex, approx. 3 feet high, able to hover midair. No idea about propulsion. Saw them again on a tv program ~mid 90's with reporters trying to sneak into a restricted area, they were hovering in the distance, as if used to observe the intruders.
Saw a clip on the news in the late '70s of Can. cabinet ministers attending a demo of experimental recon vehicles, looked like 2 conical sections joined at the apex, approx. 3 feet high, able to hover midair. No idea about propulsion. Saw them again on a tv program ~mid 90's with reporters trying to sneak into a restricted area, they were hovering in the distance, as if used to observe the intruders.
CHoff
I fully agree with that sentiment.More money flushed down the toilet by idiotic DOD decisions. This thing has no mission. It was rationalized by comparing it to doing recon with fighters and helicopters, but of course we all know that the best aerial recon comes from drones, which are vastly cheaper than helicopters and fighters. Look at this absurd rationalization over at wiki:
It is money thrown at a single source defense contractor... well you know my opinion on that.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
No Skippy. N-G won the competition over L-M. The trouble is the thing is not needed with the abundance of cheap drones we have available and the fact it needs 600 yard diameter mooring facilities so can't be operated out of most existing bases. Once you factor in the cost of building it its own base, the thing can't possibly be cost competitive.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Gorgon Stare, ARGUS-IS.ladajo wrote:Or lets put an ISAR in it and see what it can really see for semi-persistant large area observation.
Since LEMV is optionally-manned (PC -- 'humanned' or 'inhabited'... yuk) very long time-on-station is possible.
(Skippy: Drone! Drone!)
Polywell propulsion at 5GW would necessitate nanomaterial stiffening and thermal protection of the aeroshell structure.
Army's hybrid airship program started out as a rational enough idea - long-haul ultra-heavy cargo, intermediate between naval logistics ships and USAF cargo birds. USAF hates running CAS and the cargo fleet (not glamorous), and Army hates endlessly getting the short end of the stick from the zoomies. Funding collapsed with the economy.GIThruster wrote:More money flushed down the toilet by idiotic DOD decisions. This thing has no mission. It was rationalized by comparing it to doing recon with fighters and helicopters, but of course we all know that the best aerial recon comes from drones, which are vastly cheaper than helicopters and fighters. Look at this absurd rationalization over at wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WALRUS_HULA
This looks to be the contractor's last gasp at keeping the funding stream on-tap.
Vae Victis
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
I have to disagree. Airships have not been a rational idea since heavier than air flight became a working solution. People who think it's rational don't understand the immense problems caused by the requirements. Airships are completely at the mercy of the winds, and this problem is multiplied severely when the ship is near the surface.
The reason that an airship needs a circle to moor in that has the same radius as the length of the ship is that the ship is moored at its nose to a tower or mooring mast, and the rest of the ship acts like a windsock. If the ship is not free to move and change direction with the wind, it rips itself or it's mooring station apart.
People think the idea of such extremely large objects is pretty cool, and I'll agree there is a coolness factor involved, but in normal operations, and especially in war, size like this is a huge deficit. Ships that are thwarted by the s lightest breeze are not practical, nor rational for DOD work, especially when their mission is far better and more cheaply accomplished by drones we already have built and fly daily.
Airships went out of use for excellent reasons. They are utterly inferior to aircraft.
The reason that an airship needs a circle to moor in that has the same radius as the length of the ship is that the ship is moored at its nose to a tower or mooring mast, and the rest of the ship acts like a windsock. If the ship is not free to move and change direction with the wind, it rips itself or it's mooring station apart.
People think the idea of such extremely large objects is pretty cool, and I'll agree there is a coolness factor involved, but in normal operations, and especially in war, size like this is a huge deficit. Ships that are thwarted by the s lightest breeze are not practical, nor rational for DOD work, especially when their mission is far better and more cheaply accomplished by drones we already have built and fly daily.
Airships went out of use for excellent reasons. They are utterly inferior to aircraft.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Yepp...I have to disagree. Airships have not been a rational idea since heavier than air flight became a working solution. People who think it's rational don't understand the immense problems caused by the requirements. Airships are completely at the mercy of the winds, and this problem is multiplied severely when the ship is near the surface.
The reason that an airship needs a circle to moor in that has the same radius as the length of the ship is that the ship is moored at its nose to a tower or mooring mast, and the rest of the ship acts like a windsock. If the ship is not free to move and change direction with the wind, it rips itself or it's mooring station apart.
People think the idea of such extremely large objects is pretty cool, and I'll agree there is a coolness factor involved, but in normal operations, and especially in war, size like this is a huge deficit. Ships that are thwarted by the s lightest breeze are not practical, nor rational for DOD work, especially when their mission is far better and more cheaply accomplished by drones we already have built and fly daily.
Airships went out of use for excellent reasons. They are utterly inferior to aircraft.
f you aren't keen on flying, airships are a lot better than planes. Sit back , plenty of space, gently getting from a to b. whats not to like? Perhaps you prefer being packed in like a sardine on planes doing million miles between maintenance, while the forces at 500 mph try to tear it apart.
Plus that thing looks like it could pack more missiles than the rest of the drone fleet put together, add a big sensor suite and its the dirigible from hell. Needs a good old fashioned german cross on it though, for full effect.
Plus that thing looks like it could pack more missiles than the rest of the drone fleet put together, add a big sensor suite and its the dirigible from hell. Needs a good old fashioned german cross on it though, for full effect.
Irrelevant to the politics of funding strategic airlift. Air Force loathes airlift, but dominates fixed wing air transport thanks to the Key West Treaty - and since AF gets all the support funding that goes with that dominance, it will never give up the mission it loathes. The Key West Treaty imposes severe limitations on how Army can oppose and defy Air Force's control of aviation. The Army brass at Key West messed up BADLY back when, and Navy did not.GIThruster wrote:I have to disagree. Airships have not been a rational idea since heavier than air flight became a working solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement
As a result, the solutions Army can use to end run the zoomies do not have to be optimum, just good enough, and barely outside the strictures of Key West.
Vae Victis
If any of you had been to Afghansitan lately, you would have seen Lighter Than Air vehicles in service. They make great persistant ISR units.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)