BAE Systems and Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd have announced a Memorandum of Understanding to examine the prospects of the Airlander, a large, long-endurance airship, for use in defence and security contexts.
The Airlander, touted by its makers as a beacon of sustainable aviation, is on the radar for airborne defence logistics and long-endurance airborne communication and surveillance applications, especially with its capability to carry sizeable payloads.
The collaboration is set to be facilitated through BAE Systems’ FalconWorks, an advanced research & technology centre specialising in the Air sector.
One standout feature of the Airlander 10 is its potential to remain in the sky for up to five days, equipped with a plethora of computing, communication, and reconnaissance tools. Furthermore, the aircraft’s versatility to launch from almost any flat surface, inclusive of water bodies, makes it a promising asset in coastal, maritime, and land-based warfare scenarios.
Highlighting the aircraft’s utility in defence logistics, the firms mentioned that Airlander 10 can transport up to a 10 tonnes logistics payload, outperforming current military transport helicopters in terms of range, cost, and capacity. Future iterations, namely the Airlander 50 and Airlander 200, are projected to bring forth sustainable, low-cost air lift capabilities at both tactical and strategic levels.
Dave Holmes, Managing Director of FalconWorks at BAE Systems Air, expressed the evolving nature of conflicts necessitates innovative solutions. He said, “The changing character of conflict is driving new and novel approaches across the defence sector… We’re excited to work closely with the Hybrid Air Vehicles team to jointly explore and advance Airlander’s potential defence and security capabilities.”
Tom Grundy, CEO of Hybrid Air Vehicles, emphasized Airlander’s revolutionary design, describing it as the “world’s most efficient large aircraft.” Grundy expressed enthusiasm about the partnership with BAE Systems, viewing them as the ideal ally to fast-track the development of tailored Airlander systems for the worldwide defence sector.
An AEW Aerostat for the Type 82 Destroyer? It might seem counter-intuitive, but Washington, D.C. was being protected by AEW blimps (JLENS) in the 2010s. There was an accident where one got untethered and there was negative publicity, so I’m not sure if that’s still the case. Nevertheless, the cost/manpower/energy that goes into AEW could be drastically reduced if these things were practical (low radar signature etc.)
Yes they should have some supplementing UK AEW and maybe for tge CSG….
Under the ‘Sort of Connected’ banner, I’m often struck by the time that some of our UK companies’ innovative technology remains on the development back burner, so to speak. This is one, but another example is Reaction Engines Sabre.
The comparison I tend to draw is with US companies like Spacex & Stoke Engineering, but you’ll likely know of others.
Rgs
Reaction Engines is still in the game: they are currently partnered with Virgin Galactic with a new craft, to take VG, horizontal take off technology, from the edge of space, into space. You will find details, on the RE website, under “news.”
Cheers, Terence
Knew they were still around, it was more UK comparative pace of progress. Don’t buy into the tortoise vs hare fable that much, since the hare rarely sleeps these days. Many of the technologies of which we were also at the forefront we now have to go with begging bowl to others – less of whom seem friendly each time.
But it isn’t just us; seems Musk uses China for Tesla production a great deal.
Rgs
Yes, Gavin, I agree: both China and India, if they had the technology, would be pouring billions into this. We however, are putting £100 billion into a trainset from London to Birmingham. Virgin Galaxy is shaping up now, that Branson has sold his interests in the company. Yes, they are slow, but they will get there in the end.
Re, last post, the details of new Reaction Engines project is on the RE website @ News/ “Reaction Engines chosen for high-speed transportation concepts under the UK Space Agency’s International Bilateral Fund.”
I just like the idea of them. Not very technical perhaps, but I like them and I’d really like to see them finding a military use. I can imagine one or two providing persistent AEW coverage perhaps?
I’m the same, probably some romantic notion from watching ‘The Island at the top of the World’ as a kid. I’ve always thought they would be great in the MPA role, on station for days rather than hours and with the advances in drone technology could even carry torpedo launching drones for ASW. Getting low enough to dip might be tricky right enough but they could carry a shit load of buoys.
AEW is an interesting one, I guess there is scope to have them RAS’d by something like a carrier or RFA without landing, you could even do crew changes perhaps so keeping them on station for weeks potentially.
When they come on line the really big ones would be great to lug stuff to either support military forces with supplies or disaster relief. A lot faster than ships anyway.
Yeah, I’m a bit of a fanboy…. 😍
Don’t know much about it but these new techniques for discovering subs be it electro magnetic or minute water current changers that can be detected from airborne platforms would be perfect companions to a craft like this I suspect, potentially superior to being aircraft based I would think. Certainly worth trialing the possibilities. Certainly a carrier for drones could be very interesting and the ability to land on water is distinctly interesting. It’s one of those things that you have to use for a few years to determine its abilities and capabilities, a lot of aircraft found their true calling in tasks they were not designed for so a new platform of this nature needs experience to determine its functionality and plus and minus points as we have seen with drones.
“Certainly a carrier for drones could be very interesting and the ability to land on water is distinctly interesting.”
Taking things even further off piste, if we’re talking of landing on water for drones, we could go down the route of the old seaplane carriers. Launched from the deck and land in the water to be recovered by crane. It could allow heavier drones to be used and recovered, assuming they’re designed to land on the oggin.
A unit designed to support them wouldn’t need to be a hoofing big carrier either. Just running with your idea.
Well it was initially developed with funding from the US military for a range of functions I believe but they lost interest and the venture returned to Britain. Good to see a company like Bae get involved they tend to be somewhat ‘safe’ in their new ventures certainly outside of their mainstream so clearly this new department of theirs is already making an impact. Certainly can see a use around our shores to fill in a range of gaps that underfunding has inevitably left us prone to. Be perfect to ‘escort’ Russian, or other hostile vessels as they transit around our shores taking weight off of our own short in supply escorts.
I recall the army was trialing one in some secrecy down at Wallop in the 90s with reports of one seen at night over SPTA. Wonder what the results were.
To call this a Blimp is quite simply insulting to what it actually is, it is way more advanced than that.
The irony is that it was designed for the US Army LEMV programme but was cancelled due to teething problems but mainly cash needed elsewhere.
Designed to carry radar and other sensors in manned and unmanned missions. Quite why it has taken so long for MOD to wake up is a mystery to me, this vehicle could make Aircraft for AEW, COD, MPA and persistent surveillance obsolete.
It took them so long that HAV gave up and went civil zero carbon. These airships get better as they get bigger and perhaps the Airlander 50 will raise a few opportunities, especially when married to the autonomy software that BAES can provide.
I think we’ll see the command part of AEW&C move to ships as Crowsnest is replaced by drones,, but sensors will always be useful. A combo heavy COD, delivering NavyPODS, aircraft engines, whatever, and extra AEW sensor from 20.000ft would work well, I think, especially as it won’t need a large flight deck.
Are they still made in the Cardington sheds?
No, both hangers are film studios now. When it crashed I understand the Co had a big insurance pay out.
Not built there, but the new production facility is going to be in South Yorkshire and probably on the site of the former Sheffield Airport at Tinsley.
Really, I’ll have to go take a look.
One of the Cardington sheds is a film studio now, the other is still active I believe and Im sure when the project was first moved back here it operated out of there I remember the press releases..
It would be interesting if in a more Carbon Neutral world we start seeing Blimbs take over from Airplanes again.
Exactly. Multitude of roles could be envisioned, either operating independently or attached to CSG. However, if attached to CSG, could that elicit unwelcomed attention from the opposition? 🤔
This airship has been around for quite some time now. The US then showed some interest in it, which slowly ‘withered away’. Now supposedly bae are ‘sniffing around’, looking to see if its of value to them.
Ground handling, particulaly in high winds, is always the “achilles heel” of Airship operations. All the advantages are well known from the past.Large blimps such as the Airlander system require large hangars. US Blimps were/are ground tethered. I am suprises BAE are interested as the Airkander system has been around for some time and as I recall Ferranti tried hard to sell simlar systems before it went bankrupt in the early nineties. .
I remember a a solder telling me they had a blimp/balloon over Basra will million £ cameras etc on it and I got loose. They got sent on the go find it mission. Out for hours looking on the way back in the dark a large militia stopped them on the road. Brown trouser moment as he referred.
Both Basra and Kandybar, as did most of the really large bases operated by the US had tethered aerostats. They mounted the same EO turret as fitted to a Reaper. Didn’t stop the rocket attacks at Kandybar though!
I’d love to know why kites aren’t used as spotting platforms anymore. Would have thought something at a decent height being towed by a warship would be of at least some use…
‘Today’s MoU follows on from the strong partnerships Hybrid Air Vehicles has formed with the United States Naval Postgraduate School and the US Department of Defense Operational Energy Office’ – Aerospace manufacturing magazine.
I think in an actual war scenario things would advance fast with anything that gives a better view.
If tech can be worked out to find a classify objects rapidly we will see lots of devices perhaps including kits type vehicles.
The biggest issue towing any air vehicle be that UAV, kite or aerostat, is that it practically stops the ship from using its helicopter or have another land on it. This is due to the time lag in the cable when turning. But just as importantly is loosing the cable visually. Even with lights, its very difficult to maintain the cable in sight. As soon as its lost, you have to bank away smartish. This was one of the reasons why the Puma was lost in Afghan, The crew lost sight of the cable, but kept on going, where the main blades then hit the cable.
There may be a way around this. Which is where the ship deploys a boat with a winch mechanism and air vehicle. This is then towed some distance behind the ship, where the air vehicle is then flown. This would then allow helicopters etc to use the ship’s landing pad. But with a more coordinated approach from starboard abeam of the ship, keeping well away from the danger area. The problem here is that the ship is towing the boat, which is then towing the air vehicle. That’s a lot of cable. What would be the sea state and wind state limits?
This is the main reason why for a ship, the powered UAV is still better from an aerial surveillance perspective than a tethered air vehicle. As it has freedom to operate away from the ship and thereby not impede other ship’s operations.
Airlander has been around for years. If memory serves- they were originally pitching at providing heavy cargo transport to isolated locations, such as the Alaskan mining towns currently served by ice roads.
Originally it was a US Army funded project for persistent ISTAR use over Afghanistan. When they cancelled it, it all came back to U.K.
No need for radar with a slow moving target that size. Best sell ’em to the other side. Keep the pointy ended drones though.
Gas envelopes are surprisingly hard to kill. You can make them transparent to radar, and anti-aircraft missiles tend to punch clean through them instead of detonating. Even if you do create an explosion close to the skin it tends to go ‘boing’ rather than disintegrate.
But things have changed. A set and forget visually targeted pointy blimp-shape trained AI drone could leisurely wander up and explode on envelope.
Make ’em out of cardboard if you want.
With an ability to deploy and recover uas, they could make a fantastic convoy escort but, as a shareholder in HAV I would say that, wouldn’t I?
Didn’t they have a contract to sell a couple to Spain for tourist trips.
I just want to cross the Atlantic in comfort, not crammed in a tin can breathing recycled farts. And I will definitely be annoying people by reenacting that Archer episode.
You may not be flying over the Atlantic any time soon but Spains Air Nostrum ordered 10 x Airlander 10’s last year and added options for 10 more this year.
100 seat capacity and very low carbon footprint.
Blimps were used extensively in WW1+2 very useful observation and ASW platforms due to their long endurance and loitering capabilities.
Used as a lift capability they could only deploy into very permissive environments as totally vulnerable, slow big fat targets.
Would it be possible to land on a aircraft carrier? Could be a good way of delivering equipment. Just a thought
Why land? Hover over and lower/raise the equipment. That way it can supply anything from a carrier to an OPV. If necessary this type of airship cann be made capable of landing on water, but I don’t know if the HAV ones do.
Sure why not?
https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/hms-furious-shortly-following-its-initial-conversion-and-in-dazzle-paint-scheme-in-1918-an-ssz-class-blimp-is-on-the-after-deck.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/WEUroOK6Gf4/maxresdefault.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/www.defensemedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Navy-Airship.jpg
I understand the potential uses for this, AEW, transport, long range patrol etc, but I’m still not sure how it would be deployed/procured. Would the navy buy them or the air force? And how many? They sound quite pricey, probably on a par with a large helicopter or small turboprop
That would be down to internal forces politics. As you can see, American Airships in WW2 where operated by the navy for ASW patrols, but before the war I’m pretty sure all US Airships where operated by the Airforce.
Alternatively, why are the P8’s operated by the RAF not the RN? In the US and Germany they’re operated by the Navy after all.
There wasn’t a US Air Force before the war! The USAF was formed in 1947
But the American aircraft were still split between land (USAAF) and navy
It’s whether the navy would fight hard enough to get them treated like enormous helicopters or whether the RAF would hog them for being beyond the FAA’s immediate helicopter role
Thanks Toby.
In the1980s Airship Industries teamed up with Westinghouse for a long-endurance mid-Atlantic AWACS airship.
Airship Industries always ran out of money, and there is the small problem of ground handling and storms.
There’s a few of us on this site, who have been championing this hybrid airship design for years. The current Airlander 10 is ok, but the future Airlander 50 is where possibilities start to get interesting. This will be a much larger airship that can lift a 50t payload consisting of passengers and 6 x 20ft ISO containers. It will have a similar range, speed and height performance as the smaller airship. But is more dependent upon the take-off weight.
In a military perspective, it could comfortably carry two crews, including the necessary sleeping, eating, operations etc requirements to operate over a 12 hour shift pattern. An airship of this size could easily carry the Wedgetail’s L-band MESA radar in the envelop, along with a number of X-band AESA radars, including other surveillance kit. Which would allow the aircraft to cover both long range air surveillance. But also give it the ability to look down at the ocean and look for either sea skimming missiles or a sub’s periscope.
It could easily carry air to air missiles for defence. But also long range BVR missiles to take advantage of the long range radar. If there’s unused spare weight, then it should be able to carry something a bit more offensive for anti-surface/ground attack as well.
Bearing in mind that these hybrid airships max out at 130ish mph and cruise at around 90mph, they aren’t exactly fast! But something like an AEW Airlander 50 could stay on station for at least 7 days, cruising at a height of 15 to 20,000ft. Which is still good enough to push the radar horizon out to 170 miles (270km) @15,000ft. Which isn’t quite as good as a Wedgetail or E2D. But it does have significantly better endurance.
Could the airship be a drone carrier as well? Which would open up other possibilities.
There Airlander site shows internal crane for COD would be better to just carry 2-4 ISO under on external crane, fly over RFA/Carrier lower ISO’s to deck detach full one , pick up empty and head back to shore don’t need to physically land. If they only fly at 100kts using for just freight is fine 2k mile flight radius, but for pax spending possibly 20 hours in one would be mind blowing! great fow AEW esically if you have a fleet command ship that acts as its mothership, just need small frieght with large deck fwd/aft that the ship can settle on for refuel/service. it could even be optionally tethered as the ship could sail 10 miles from carrier with airship above which would not impact carrier ops.