Navy lighter-than-air platforms

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

Shaka of Carthage RE:Navy lighter-than-air platforms 6/25/2003 7:25:06 PM

I assume these would be launched from ships. Aren't they kind of defenseless from enemy attacks? Maybe I should be asking if these are unmanned platforms?

Quote Reply

Horse Soldier RE:Navy lighter-than-air platforms 6/25/2003 7:37:53 PM

The navy has been researching unmanned LTA vehicles for years now, going back at least into the 1980s.

Quote Reply

jbwill2 RE:Navy lighter-than-air platforms 6/25/2003 10:13:56 PM

Yes, the USN did a lot of research on LTA craft in the 1980's. Apparently, then Sec. of Navy John Lehman was a big proponent of these platforms, but I think that funding for these projects were scaled back after Lehman's departure. To answer Shaka's post, the LTA design highlighted in the Proceedings article is quite large, takes off from land, and is manned by several people. Despite basically being a glorified blimp, these airships don't really look anything like a blimp or zeppelin. To address another point, the article claims that these craft are very durable and are quite difficult for a missile to lock onto and hit. I know nothing about these airships, but it seems to me that it would be fairly easy to shoot with gunfire. I think that these airships are designed for maritime operations performed after the area in question has been cleared of any air threats. Also, the article mentioned the possibility of actually lauching UAV interceptors in the event of an airborne threat.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Navy lighter-than-air platforms 6/26/2003 1:38:07 AM

In fact i think the USNavy relies more on submarine systems. A lot of research money has gone into negative-sound, i.e. sound played backwards from different recievers to find the point of origin.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Navy lighter-than-air platforms 6/26/2003 11:57:38 PM

jb, -The radar business, I assume, is because of the design. You don't have a lot of metal, so you don't have a lot of radar return. This was true, due to the nature of the beast, back during WW2. Today, presumably, when we know a lot about radar and how it works and doesn't work, it would be comparatively easy to add some low end stealth features to an already low observable platform. --Gunfire? From what, where? They're not proposing flying blimps over an enemy army. They talking about using them, at sea, for ASW. Darned right they'd be intended for a low threat environment. This is mostly a non-issue. Blimps were widely used for ASW in WW2. They certainly never went anywhere near enemy surface combattants they knew about, precisely because they could be shot down. Actually, in those days, submarines HAD guns. They don't, today. The other threat would be infra-red guided missiles, which are usually the smallest SAMs. But, here, to, a blimp might not be in bad shape. It doesn't go fast enough to generate much friction along it's leading edges, so I wonder if an all-aspect homer could lock onto it. And, the engines are very small, since they're needed only for pure propulsion, and not to generate lift, so they don't put out much heat. And, I imagine you could rotate the bag to put it between the seeker head and the engine, which might be an easy way to mask emissions if you know where an enemy is.

Quote Reply

Heorot RE:Navy lighter-than-air platforms 6/27/2003 5:48:42 AM

I believe that these were semi-rigid airships (rather than blimps) based on the British Airship Industries design but scaled up. Sadly, that company is no more, it ran out of money before it could produce a commercially viable product. The original design was powered by Wankel rotary engines driving ducted fans, so virtually no IR for missiles to lock on to. If made big enough, the loiter time would have been several weeks. The gondola would have had the biggest radar signature, but presumably could have been designed with a very low RCS. The radome would have been housed in the envelope. As for general vulnerability, it would have been less vulnerable than an AWACS while performing the same function. You wouldn't fly an AWACS without cover so why not provides the same level of protection for the airship. Unfortunately, in a service hooked on fast jets, without the support of Sec. of Navy John Lehman it was doomed.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Navy lighter-than-air platforms 6/27/2003 7:46:56 AM

Let's just say the need has deminished at they take too long to reach station.

Quote Reply

Spent Case RE:Navy lighter-than-air platforms 6/27/2003 8:04:53 AM

I suppose some clever ducting of the airflow would work, but don't wankels run fairly hot? Not to bash the concept though, as a round the clock ASW platform would be valuable. To answer Thomas' point, the time needed to get on station is irrelavent, since it would always be on station. Advantages would be that it would free up carrier-based ASW assets in areas with no enemy air threat. Disadvantages would be a greater sensitivity to weather. Keep in mind that in WWII, no convoy that was escorted by blimps ever lost a ship. At least one was brought down by a sub's flak, though.

Quote Reply

Shaka of Carthage RE:Navy lighter-than-air platforms 6/27/2003 12:10:08 PM

>Unfortunately, in a service hooked on fast jets, without the support of Sec. of Navy John Lehman it was doomed.< >Advantages would be that it would free up carrier-based ASW assets in areas with no enemy air threat. Disadvantages would be a greater sensitivity to weather.< There are the answers to why it wasn't developed. It would threaten the existing mindset, since these platforms combined with VTOL carriers could provide "sea control". And the money saved by not using aircraft may actually promote other people to start thinking outside of the box. Remember Columbus and "the world is flat"?

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Navy lighter-than-air platforms Spend case 6/30/2003 3:04:48 AM

I honestly don't see a need for a blimp. The current USNavy philosophy (as far as I can guess) about finding potentially hostile subs is: Don't lose them in the first place. Secondly find them with undersea detection chains, and glue the LA-class on to them, that should have been there all along.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 NEXT