Goo goo g’joob
I love DARPA. They are the Ministry of Science Fiction Gadgets. They are "Q" Branch on steroids. They will be the ones who will defend us from our would be robot overlords, unless they are the ones who invent our future robot overlords.
This particular gadget is, strickly speaking, not new. But it appeals to the alternate history lover in me. A world where the silly Nazis didn't build inflamable airships, and the skies were full of graceful and majestic dirigibles wafting passengers around the world in unparalleled comfort and elegance.
Instead, what we have is Jim Carrey in burn makeup saying, "Oh the humanity!" and this:
DARPA is shelling out millions of dollars to two companies for development of prototype military cargo airships.
The Walrus operational vehicle (OV) is envisioned to have the primary operational task of deploying composite loads of personnel and equipment (for example, the components of an Army Unit of Action) ready to fight within six hours after disembarking the aircraft. Walrus will operate without significant infrastructure and from unimproved landing sites, including rough ground having nominal five-foot-high obstacles. It is intended to carry a payload of more than 500 tons 12,000 nautical miles in less than seven days at a competitive cost. Additionally, Walrus will be capable of performing theater lift and supporting sea-basing and persistence missions to meet a range of multi-Service needs.
By way of comparison, the C-5 Galaxy can carry about a hundred tons 3000 miles without refueling. An airship would not be as fast as a cargo jet, but the ability to carry five times as much cargo and land it anywhere without need for airstrips is a really big plus. One of the chokepoints in our ability to project power globally is our logistics capability, and within that chokepoint is an additional chokepoint - the ability to rapidly move very heavy gear.
Airlift as we know today can move light equipment and troops nearly anywhere in the world in a matter of hours. However, heavier equipment can only be moved by the largest of planes or by ship or rail. Rail transport has a problem in that most of the world is under water, or not connected to the US rail system. Sealift is cheap and commodious, but rather slow. If you want to get stuff like an M1 tank to Eastern Outer Mongolia in a hurry, you are severely limited in options. You can transport them via C-5, but in doing so you sacrifice the ability of the C-5 to move massive amounts of other stuff, and you only get two tanks per flight. The opportunity cost of using the C-5 for this is thus very high. Ammunition, another important goody, also tends to be very heavy.
Air Logistics planners have a very difficult job. How do you get the best mix of lots of light stuff, and enough heavy stuff to the front quickly. Sealift is easier, but it can take thirty days or more to make one trip to a combat zone, and not all combat zones are on the coast. Like Afghanistan.
The walrus, or something like it, would be of incredible value. More than another new fighter, attack helicopter or destroyer. An efficient airship with a five hundred ton cargo capacity would increase our logistics throughput enormously, even if it is slower than a jet. And the flexibility granted by not needing an airstrip is almost beyond price. And once we have a few of these babies operational, other uses could surely be found for them as well. ASW, AWACS, in-flight refueling - in fact any function that requires long duration flight and cargo capacity but not speed. An airship might be slow, but no one expects an AWACS plane to be dodging missiles.
I say, lets get a couple hundred of these.
on
| § 19
§ 19 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
I assume the thing would fly
I assume the thing would fly durn high, so that no eeeevil Barrett .50 or Stinger or leftover Grail could shoot it down in transit. Just keep the LZ clear (or deep in the rear), and it's a whole new world of strat-lift goodness.
I'll have to send you this thing I copied from the IntardWhebb a few years back, if I can ever find it again. Supposed to be a letter written in response to a high school kid asking about becoming a USAF fighter pilot. The writer was trying to convince him that tactical airlift is where the real action is. It was hysterical.
An airship (at least one not
An airship (at least one not filled with hydrogen) is no more vulnerable than a conventional aircraft, and in some senses less so. Even if you blow a hole in an airship, enough of the liftgas will remain for a relatively soft landing in most cases. Especially if you divide the gas up into many small cells and things like that.
Airplanes do not fail gracefully, generally speaking.
A modern airship filled with helium, with more powerful engines and using lifting body shapes for extra oomph will simply not have most of the flaws of the old Zeppelins.
You're right, BH, but a
You're right, BH, but a zeppelin even if less vulnerable than a plane is also relatively easier to hit, and one that has to land somewhere other than where it is supposed to--even safely--is still a mission kill.
But on the whole I agree--let's try it.
B,
B,
I wonder if we could consider arifields the modern equivalent of the coaling stations of past imperia.
The location of friendly ports where warships could refuel was a determining factor in colonial-era power projection. Those stations were located according to strategic need but also within the constraints of geography; anyone who's played Risk or read Mahan gets that.
Today though geography is far less limiting. The US can put Marines anywhere there's coastal water, up to several hundred kms inland (vertical envelopment), and with their own air force too while they're at it.
Nevertheless, the US needs modern air facilities to do the heavy log and fighting the way we like to do it. It's improved, permanent arifields-either that we own, belong to trusted allies, or are ours now by virtue of the Ranger batallion standing on them- that maybe determine the limits of American martial power in the way the coaling stations of yore did for Britain.
B,
B,
And I forgot to add that the name "Walrus" is gay.
GL, second one first - that's
GL, second one first - that's why I gave the post the title I did. It is gay. Not as gay as calling it a sperm whale, but definitely trending faggoty.
As to your more thoughtful comment, you're absolutely right. We saw that in Afghanistan, where we needed to take out a place that was inconvenient to the sea, and inaccessible (well, not easily accessible for heavy troops) by air.
The walrus could make a huge difference. Everyone knows that airfields are crucial, especially to us. Sending lightly equipped rangers or airborne troops can get the job done, but at some risk. The enemy can stack troops around airfields to make it very dangerous to assault. With an airship like this, rangers/airborne troops can take and hold a flat patch of ground anywhere, and this monster can drop 12 Abrams tanks, or larger numbers of strykers (which would solve the air mobility problem they have since they're a smidge to big and heavy to be as easy to move as originally planned) or tons of ammo, artillery, troops, or whatever.
This would greatly enhance our strategic options. And once we have medium to heavy forces on the ground, we can bloody well take whatever airfield we want and commence regular airlift operations.
Ken, we send vulnerable cargo planes into harms way - and when they're dumping supplies or paratroops, they aren't moving fast. Compared to an F-22, it would be vulnerable. Compared to a C-130, not so much.
I wonder if they are considering stealth? A big rubber bag of helium is not necessarily a big radar target. Some careful design of the hard bits might render even something this big relatively small on the radar screen.
B,
B,
Well shit, if it can carry such a huge payload, you could cram it full of jammers, HARMs, EMP emitters, flares/chaff/countermeasures; a company of soldiers with all their heavy stuff and support equipment (550 cord; 100-mile-an-hour tape; coffee makers; fuck mags); and still have enough lift capacity for a tactical refrigeration pod to put beef and beer on the objective.
Let's just get a cooler name than "Walrus".
The name they slung on the
The name they slung on the one model of the B-52 - "BUFF" - seems appropriate. At least the interpretation of it that I always heard, "Big Ugly Fat Fucker." I wonder what that acronym actually stood for?
*** googling ***
*** googling ***
I'll be damned. Apparently, that is what the acronym stands for.
Aside from that, are there any notoriously fat indian tribes? We use them for helicopters. The Air Force seems to like animal names for combat aircraft, and goofy names for cargo planes. Galaxy, Stratolifter, etc. The Hercules is the best of those names. Maybe along those lines, the "Atlas" or maybe "Titan." Or even... "Pan."
Notoriously fat indian tribes
Notoriously fat indian tribes? I'm thinking... deep Pacific, Samoan. But that's not gonna work.
The trick is to have it sound cool without pretension. Or pretentiousness. Whichever.
"Titan" sounds like it ought to be able to kick your ass as well as being just big. And just like the fat kid in school, this thing's not dangerous unless it sits on you. "Hercules" didn't really get itself together until it started dragging around miniguns and 105mm arty; fuck yeah, flying fire base.
Well hey...why *not* a flying fire base? Instead of slinging tanks and soldiers (and their porn) under this balloon, why not have huge weapon platforms? Thinking of the fire barges of WW2 here. But flying. A couple 105s, a dozen miniguns, a fleet of drones, and Hellfires to taste. Maybe some fucking pain ray/microwave emitters while we're bullshitting, with the sickest sound system DARPA can build. On the side is Old Glory painted up real pretty and Toby Ketih-y, but instead of white stars on a blue field it's a 4-story middle finger.
And let's not even screw around- while we're at it, let's automate it.
I'm no closer to a name, but I'm much more excited about the whole project now.
Making a spooky out of it
Making a spooky out of it might be good for shooting out very poorly armed enemies. But another thing it could be good for is something like the B-747 concept. Given that we're moving towards smart standoff weapons, you could load an absolute shitload of guided glider bombs, cruise missiles and whatnot on this thing, and just hang in the sky a ways away from homicidal SAMs for days - waiting for fire missions. Five hundred tons is a lot of cluster bombs, fuel air explosives and general nastiness; all in automated rotating bomb dispensers.
If they can get the thing flying, and it works as hoped for the cargo mission, I can see a lot of future development making variants of this vehicle. The thing is, an airship has a lot of advantages over heavier than air vehicles so long as it doesn't pull a Hindenberg or Shenandoah. With Helium and modern construction techniques, I think we can avoid both of those unfortunate outcomes. Then, you get longer time in the air, more cargo capacity for less fuel cost. This thing would be perfect for lots of missions besides trash hauling.
And once the military proves it works, you might see civilian versions, too. We're far enough from the Hindenberg that people won't have the same unreasoning fear of airships that they once did.
One downside that comes to
One downside that comes to mind with the flying fire barge is the risk. That is, you put x-hundred tons of missiles, CIWS, countermeasures, laser beams, hyper-velocity rail guns, photon torpedoes, whatever, on one platform, that's alot of ordnance sitting in one place and at risk from enemy countermeasures/counterattack. As robust as the vehicle may be, it surely could be brought down catastrophically under certain circumstances.
Sure, fleet warships face this issue, but the operative word is "fleet".
Always appreciative of unsubtle irony, I have to say this: we'd have to figger a way of protecting these horrifically dangerous assets if we were to actually field them.
Standoff-only variants are a good start; can't hurt them if you can't reach them. And I don't know that there's an aerial equivalent to mines (USS Stark) or homicidal Zodiac drivers (USS Cole) to complicate airships the way they constrict surface combatants.
But still we'd be better off not letting them operate without support. Remember, there's no "airship" in "team". Or something.
As for the name, maybe we could whittle it down from here: what's big (or fat, or bulbous), and slow, but crushes/kills whatever it can reach?
The ravenous bugblatter beast
The ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal? btw, I saw the Hitchhiker's movie on DVD, and it sucked.
Rhinocerous?
Hippo?
Mammoth?
None of those really ring my bell.
"Rhino" has possibilities.
"Rhino" has possibilities.
Can you design an appendage for the front (bow?) reminiscent of a horn? Maybe that's where you can put the pain ray. Or, *dual* pain rays, but on either side and lower, that look like tusks, and you get a Mammoth.
As it stands, the thing doesn't look like any creature as much as a bloated wood tick. Nothing cool about that.
I don't have to see it or read about it to know "Hitchhilker's" sucked. It's pretty telling when a flick's own studio/producers won't promote the thing. Marketing for that was as close to zero as to be zero.
Or instead of "Mammoth", keep
Or instead of "Mammoth", keep the tusk concept but go with "Boar". Just build a nominally applicable acronym out of it and there you go.
Ballistic Overhead Airborne Reaver
Big Overlord AsskickeR
Bulbous Ominous Autonomous Robot
Behemoth.
Behemoth.
And "HHGTTG" didn't suck. It wasn't great; it didn't suck.
"It’s pretty telling when a flick’s own studio/producers won’t promote the thing."
Well, either it's too stupid or too high-concept for the hacks to spin. But that doesn't get you much of anywhere.
I was reclining on my futon
I was reclining on my futon couch, about half way through the movie, when I said to my wife, "You know, I just don't care."
I liked the books. I liked the radio plays. I know these characters, and like them. But the filmic versions created absolutely no empathy in me. It was a parade of brightly colored images with abysmal sound design that did not grab me or make me at all interested in what was going on.
The interludes purporting to show the actual Hitchhiker's guide were a cross between an ipod commercial and bad seventies graphic design. Stephen Fry's narration was soporific. Half the time, I couldn't hear the words coming out of the mouths of the characters. Trillian was miscast. Zaphod's two heads were bizarre, and the third arm was poorly done. Sam Rockwell and Snape are wonderful actors, but as a result of poor direction or indigestion or something just phoned in their acting. A decent director could have gotten much more out of them.
I haven't read the books in over a decade. I wasn't expecting much, thanks to bad reviews. And I was still disapointed.
Crapfest.
I think this company went
I think this company went tits up but they had a nice idea:
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/cargolifter/
“Mastodon” would be is the best tusk name.
How about calling it the
How about calling it the Hakawi, the tribe from F Troop?
"King"
"King"
As in, Billie Jean, as in stuffed full of cruise missiles that it lobs in volleys towards some unfortunate target quite a ways away.
Or paint a big-assed "2" on the side so it looks more like the cargo lifter from the Thunderbirds.