Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

Giant Blimp, Deflated

No! Nooooo! Say it ain't so, Darpa! The Walrus program -- the fringe-science agency's awesomely, almost insanely, ambitious plan to build an aircraft carrier-sized blimp -- is over, Defense Technology International discovers.

walrus_HUGEish.jpgCongress had always been skeptical about the idea of an airship that could schlep 500-1000 tons halfway around the world. (After all, the Pentagon's current go-to airborne hauler, the C-130 Hercules cargo plane, holds about 22 tons.) But blimp-lovers had pushed the "tri-phibian" (air, land, sea) Walrus as a way to make American forces less reliant on deep-water ports, foreign bases, and billion-dollar airports to wage war.

But it wasn't meant to be. Darpa took away the fiscal year 2006 funding for the Walrus. And the agency's 2007 budget request calls for "termination of the Walrus effort."

Now, the Army's Surface Deployment and Distribution Command had its own plans for a heavy-hauling airship, too. I'm checking to see if they're still interested. Keep your fingers crossed.

UPDATE 9:46 AM: Don't get too bummed, blimp fans. Darpa's plan for an all-seeing airship that tracks an entire battlefield at once is still intact.

Latest Comments

"and yes, any one of a dozen airplanes are already sufficient."

How so? No existing airplanes can even come close to a 500 ton lifting capacity. One of the biggest obstacles to rapid deployment of our military is that the M1 Abrams weighs so much that even our largest aircraft can only carry a single tank. If this Walrus were made to work as intended, it could carry 7 such tanks. Even with the vehicle flying more slowly than a C-5 Galaxy, that would still allow for far more rapid deployment of armored units (which regardless of Rumsfeld's inane "Transformation" pipedream remain essential to winning against any remotely formidable enemy) than is currently possible.

Posted by: Shinimegami at July 23, 2006 3:31 PM


This decision truly baffles me.

For a small amount of money (relatively speaking) DoD could validate (or not) a huge cost savings for heavy lift.

It almost makes you believe that the DoD R&D system is politicized and rigged for the big contractors.

Almost.

Posted by: Daniel Markham at April 26, 2006 10:22 AM


No, DoD and the military are against heavy lifting blimps or anything else that will get the job done because THEY DO NOT WANT TO FIGHT!

Read Dr. Norman Dixon's book on the Psychology of Military Incompetence for details.

Voluntary militaries are filled with people full of anxieties about themselves and life let alone war. They want BS gear like road-bound Stryker trucks filled with "mother may I?" electronic gadgets because they are all hoping mother will say "don't". Push-buttoning firepower is an ideal out for the narcissistic egomaniacs ordering around the weak economic co-dependants comprising 99% of our military. Military force is more than just blowing things up, but most Americans are fooled into thinking the current idiots are doing war well despite the obvious failures in Iraq and Afghanistan to secure the countryside and round up sub-national rebels.

If America wants itself defended its high time we take back control over both Congress, DoD and our military and fill the ranks with warriors who are genuinely interested in military success and folks who simply want to get the job done not fill some kind of psychic void in their life. Anything less than this and be prepared for a nuclear 9/11 attack in our lifetime.

Posted by: Mike Sparks at April 6, 2006 2:41 PM


A recent Military.com article talked about the USAF changing its mind about wanting C-27 "Baby Hercs" or C-295s because the Hercules couldn't land on enough runways in Third World backwaters and it was affecting combat operations. They hoped smaller aircraft that could use these shorter runways might help.

But the 2008 technical demonstration version of the Walrus was supposed to haul 30 tons. Which means that funding it could give the USAF an answer that could use those shorter runways and haul more than the C-130s, thus potentially solving the problem.

Even if the 500-ton version later proved impossible, the value of a successful demo craft alone would appear to justify the investment level of a DARPA project. Now throw in DID's recent coverage of the rising cost of fuel and the concern in the DoD.

I truly do not understand this decision.

Posted by: Joe Katzman at April 3, 2006 7:59 PM


Walrus is cancelled because DARPA and largest potential contractor have been unable to see beyond "envelope" "fabric" "laminate" "inflate" and a host of other ARCHAIC airship/blimp technologies.

Plus, perhaps after all, they finally recognise that their vaunted "hybrid" airship still needs a runway because it is not a true Lighter-than-Air craft. As such, it is no more than a larger form of airplane, and yes, any one of a dozen airplanes are already sufficient.

Airships will only enter use when the world wakes up to totaly rigid SHELLED craft that are truely Lighter-than-Air, are solar powered, and eliminate historic ground handling through AMPHIBIOUS design.

Proper airship development SHOULD be continued. Best work is being done by (my competitor!) at Aeros Worldwide, (although my turtle is better)

Coming fuel prices will force the issue, belatedly.

Posted by: campbell at March 29, 2006 9:14 PM


» View All 11 Comments

» Post a Comment