US looking to deploy long-endurance hybrid airship over Afghanistan
By Donald Melanson 
posted Sep 23rd 2009 6:15AM
posted Sep 23rd 2009 6:15AM
We may see more airship proposals than actual airships 'round these parts, but it looks like this massive dirigible from Lockheed Martin will indeed be taking flight sooner rather than later, and could see action in Afghanistan by mid-2011. Dubbed the LEMV (or Long Endurance Multi-intelligence Vehicle), the airship is apparently "optionally manned," and can stay aloft at 20,000 feet for up to 21 days at a time, while also carrying a payload of up to 2,500 pounds. That relatively fast deployment is aided in part by the fact that the airship is basically a larger version of Lockheed's P-791 (twice as big, in fact), which has already flown six times and, as you can see in the video after the break, is pretty massive in its own right.
[Via The Register]
[Via The Register]
Massive airships FTW!!!
Maybe its time to spend a bit less on army?
gotta love the overly dramatic sound effects to that ugly thing! Makes it all legit!
Muaahh, usually all the research also benefits Nasa and vice-versa, so it's never a lost cause, on the contrary. I love new technology, and I for one would like to be able to go to the moon when I'm 50 :-)
The great thing about this is, now NASA has something to blame when people say they've seen a UFO.
Except it's not the afghans that claim that they saw UFO's
they are cheaper than UAVs with longer loitering times.
Your comment makes no sense Shinigami
This looks like what you would get if a hippo had sex with a hot dog
They already have one:
http://www.thestealthblimp.com/
There's something fundamentally unfair about hitting someone from 20000 feet with a huge cannon when that someone has zero defense and no airforce or rockets to hit back, it just offends my sense of fair play, it's like an adult beating up a kid, yeah he'll win, but should I cheer for him?
"Kirov reporting!"
@Wwhat
Will we?
seems rather big and therefor expensive for being able to carry only 2500 lbs. thats like two bombs.
A) You do realize that airships by their very nature are huge, right? You need volume for all that gas.
B) You'd have to be an idiot to design a bomber that can only fly about 70-80mph and carry one large bomb. Clearly, this thing is designed for surveillance and support. 2500lbs is a lot of electronics gear.
They'll probably end up putting a howitzer in there at some point, the bastards.
Wwhat said "They'll probably end up putting a howitzer in there at some point, the bastards."
Um, it's the military. They put guns on things. How does that make them bastards? Just curious. If they stole your car, and put a gun on it, I would understand your comment, but in this case, a vehicle they are paying for the development and production of, um, what's the problem?
Nope, they're taking US citizens money and paying for its development and production.
If one person forces you to hand over half their wages it's theft. If ten people force you to hand it over, it's organised crime. If a government forces you to hand it over, it's perfectly "legal".
Hit the wrong reply button, read my reply one post up
Why do they fade out the reply buttons too when voted down? It confuses threading no end.
So how do they avoid getting shot down?
cuz it floats at 20,000 ft
Probably due to the fact that it can hang out at 20,000 feet. Unless someone uses missiles, which would allow the US to find out who shot at them, ordinary gun fire won't reach a blimp almost 4 miles high.
I meant how do they avoid getting shot down by Americans.
"They look like they have orange panels on though."
"OK, well they got orange rockets on them."
"Orange rockets?"
"Yeah, I think so."
Large flying bags of gas are never a good idea in a war zone...
Well it's for iran to step up to the plate and get the opposition some ground to air missiles.
It is actually quite impressive it can get that high, I mean as air gets thinner its ability to push a blimp up diminishes, so to keep that weight at that height isn't bad, I think choppers can go a lot less high (15k) because of the thin air not providing enough lift
For one, there are systems to defeat missiles that are too heavy to put on fighter planes but are being considered for civilian airliners; no I am not talking about chaff and flares; both of which are on things as small as fighter planes. Currently, the reason they are not on civilian airliners is due to the fact that they are expensive, and not considered worth the cost. That system, who's name I forget at the moment, could easily be put on this thing, and likely will be.
Beyond that, you would always have some fighters or bombers available to return fire at any site who launched at it. Considering the thing can be unmanned, this is a good thing. It puts fewer of our troops at risk while at the same time offering them the advantage of eyes in the sky that can stay there for a long time. Again, this will protect them from ambushes.
To James Barsby:
Friendly fire incidents are due to two basic problems poor intelligence and poor communication. A system like this will go a long way to helping solve both of those problems, and is the best way to prevent such tragedies.
Frankly I don't give a damn about 'our' troops there, and think it's actually good for the world in general if a good number get killed/wounded since that discourages such adventures in foreign places, nothing would be worse than western troops being untouchable, and if they were the afghan taliban idiots would probably come over here to affect revenge too, not something I'm anxiously waiting for, so 'our' guys being hit is basically favorable for our society as a whole, and sucky for them but they had a fighting chance and huge advantages and signed up freely.
Are we trying to be doing the hindenburg all over again?
I just smell disaster.
the Hindenberg was a disaster because it used hydrogen, which is highly flamable, to fill it's envelope. modern airships use inert gasses.
as far as payload. the first deployments will almost certainly will be observation and tracking platforms that can be retasked/repositions much more cost effectively and speedily than satellites.
The Hindenburg disaster isn't solely attribuatable to it being filled with hydrogen; as Mythbusters showed, it turns out that making the envelope out of something close to frikken thermite might have had something to do with it as well...
@Brian - I hate to break it to you, but we have been flying airships for six decades since the Hindenburg disaster, and they are by far the safest mode of air transportation. The last US airship accident with fatalities was in 1960.
@randombloke - yes, the hydrogen was most definitely the primary cause of the accident. Of course, very few accidents have only one cause, but this was the primary one. Was the paint flammable? Yes, and that probably made it burn worse, but the paint didn't just ignite on its own. The hydrogen was the cause, plain and simple. Oh, and if I remember correctly, the Mythbusters BUSTED that myth.
and again, mythbusters busted a myth that was already disproven in the name of ratings and fake science.
If they busted something that was disproved, how would that be fake science? People say stuff like this all the time and yet I fail to see the harm in a show educating its viewers and encouraging them to think critically and test things. Obviously they try to make it fun to watch, otherwise no one would watch it, and their message would be lost.
@najakwaright but they got to blow shit up. So no harm done right?
@randombloke
The covering of the Hindenburg was not painted with anything even close to thermite.
In fact, the covering may not have been flammable at all; large sections never burned. See the photographs at:
http://www.airships.net/blog/hindenburg-covering-rocket-fuel
And the detailed information at:
http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/disaster/myths
Yeh thats what we need. More investment in an unwinable war in Afghanistan.
Though the war may be unwinable, war in general brings with it technological advancements.
Basically those in the pentagon that know it's pointless just use afghanistan and iraq as a huge source of human guinea pigs, making a bitter lemonade from the lemon.
Hah, voting down simply for saying the truth alone? I bet anybody working in the pentagon wouldn't vote me down though, but meh, do as you please.
Kirov Reporting!
All i can think is:
"Kirov reporting!"
"Bombardiers to your stations!!"
"Aw... look, is that your house?"
"Where are my escorts?!"
+1 to both Red alert quotes
"yes commander"
" why dont you drive?" - yuri revenge
That's one ugly airship
She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts.
What the hell? Afghanistan has transformed into Naboo now?
I thought the Hindenberg could no longer float because it's outer skin could no longer contain the gasses within. i.e. if it was filled with helium then a great big hole in it would still have caused it to crash.
Have you looked at videos of the Hindenburg? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDU2MWJwJDc
This is kind of overlordish...
"Smile, you're on CCTV"
I live near where those babies are made. Yay!
im thinking Stay Puft
Kinda looks like a flying ass and or nutsack.