http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/HybridAirship.html

Here's one idea as example. Instead of for transportation, use it for AEW.

AEW&C is not for patrolling but air defence providing fighters a "god's eye view" of the sky, hence the name Airborne Early Warning & Control. Its radar can see further than radars on the surface and can inform jet fighters where to fly for best advantage, like having an RTS game view when your opponents have only FPS view.

To patrol SCS we would need Maritime Patrol Aircraft armed with antiship missiles or torpedoes.

Not sure about manoeuvreability, I do not think speed is a major concern, except for a relatively minor advantage of being able to arrive on station quickly.

USAF did test an airship for mounting radar and stuff IINM, but the program has been cut. That tells you something about its viability anyway

Thanks for the reply, but the airship theoretically could be equipped with all of the above.

Do you know any more info on the test by the USAF? Especially on why it did not pan out? Anyway, this is just an idea that I thought maybe our country might want to look into.

Edit: I found the below. Seems the testing was a success but the hangar housing the airship fell down and damaged it beyond repair. The USAF still giving them money nevertheless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Aeros_Corp

This post has been edited by RobUlstan: May 26 2016, 03:18 PM

looks like the navy is also introducing its camo uniform made by jakel
though i dun really see the point in that..

the airship thing got a really bad rap recently..
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2...hread/74873058/

DAMN IT my reply disappeared. Long story short, the slightest bit of bad weather is a major issue especially in maritime, roughest weather on the planet.

The US program, for example, well

http://www.inquisitr.com/3023837/has-the-p...e-surveillance/

http://www.inquisitr.com/2527744/runaway-m...nia-schoolyard/

This is TUDM

so whats difference between big and small aew

like USA use 707

others use 737 or biz jet

i see i got it wrong then
thought navy cuz the scheme really similar like the prc navy

The blue for the navy looks darker I think....

the bigger the jet the more equipment, operators and relief crew you can put on board.

E-2 Hawkeye: flight ceiling 35,000 ft, but still only achieve flight endurance 6 hours, loiter on station 4 hours+, 3 mission crew (equipment operators). But then E-2 is designed for carrier ops.

UK carrier solution is to use the AW101 Eurocopter heli
Merlin Crowsnest AEW: flight ceiling 15,000 ft, loiter time on station 4 hours, 2 mission crew

For land-based AEW,
US E-3 Sentry: flight ceiling 41,000 ft, time on station 9 hours, 16 to 18 mission crew.

Russian A-50 Mainstay: flight ceiling 40,000 ft, time on station 9 hours, 11 or 12 mission crew.

SKorea/Australia Boeing 737: flight ceiling 40,000 ft, time on station 9 hours, 6 to 10 mission crew.

This post has been edited by KLboy92: May 26 2016, 04:07 PM

Hey thanks both for the new info. I guess there's things they need to work on further. Personally, I believe the idea still have merit though.

#throwback



This post has been edited by Fat & Fluffy: May 26 2016, 04:16 PM

9hrs not counting air to air refuel?

Btw y don't consider modern long haul jets like 787 or 777 they can fly up 14/15 hrs

Flight time does not equal to loiter time.

They are not cheap one, second no one want to pay for put all those equipment onto a new jet. All the rearrangment to do again.

Structural strengthening for all those on board equipments. Power requirements for addition equipment mean modification to the APU.

Basically, no that it cant be done is just the matter who want to pay for it

This post has been edited by thpace: May 26 2016, 04:30 PM

that is too big plane and too cost/expensive to operate. and technically no required for such big plane.
Boeing 767 already biggest Aew plane.

yes, not counting mid air refuel. the listed times are loiter on station times, usually add 2 hours take off/landing and travel for total flight time as in the E-2 example. So total 12 hours for most US large aircraft.

Its certainly not impossible, most of the big US electronic warfare and surveillance aircraft can do 12 hours. If a KC-135 can drink its own fuel it can probably stay up more than a day. When the US decides to recapitalise its AWACS fleet, maybe they'll do that.

But drones are changing the game. Global Hawk regularly does 24-hour on station missions and up to 30+ have been accomplished.

this.

Lel, Murrica's latest & greatest K.O by Soviet weaponry, meanwhile T90s survived another TOW.

Not made by Jakel,
Jakel is the distributor
the fabric is manufactured by PT Sterix Indonesia

This post has been edited by atreyuangel: May 26 2016, 05:58 PM

MILITARY SITUATION IN NORTHERN RAQQA, SYRIA ON MAY 25





https://southfront.org/military-situation-i...yria-on-may-25/