It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Walrus Tactical Transort Project

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 04:05 AM
What's up with this Walrus thing? A highspeed heavy-lift lighter-than-air-vehicle? We're all cramming our brains trying to figure out anti-grav propulsion, and the guy's at DARPA are trying to build 1930's style aero-zepplins. I was reading an article on some physics site about electrostatic atmospheric propulsion, feeling like someone had put Pop-Rocks directly on my cerebral cortex, meanwhile the govt. is focusing on big balloons to float our troops into harms way!!!!!

Well I guess it's an idea that has it's merits, but I was hoping for soooo much more out of the next generation heavy-lift aircraft. You know like a blended-wing-body jumbo. Who knows, maybe thats just a little far out in the future. In the mean time we can load up 3000 troops on a next-gen. Hindenberg and send em' off to battle.

Here is the DARPA solicitation to contractors for the Walrus

BTW, I was looking at the DARPA projects, and they do have some cool proposals out there. Micro-satellites that deliver nano-bots to repair malfunctioning spacecraft, bio-molecular motors (didn't see that coming, living engines?), morphing aircraft structures (I guess to scare the crap out of enemy on '___'). Anyway if anyone wants it heres the link for that stuff.

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 09:37 AM
Zepplins are cheap, they can haul immense loads and that's about it.

Anti-Gravity is expensive (even it it exists) but has alot more potentional...this might be a temorarilly thing.

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 02:16 PM
There is no antigraqvity, get over it.

Think of a large airship more like a small fast ship than an aircraft, more of a step sideways than backwards.

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 04:01 PM
Exactly Nacnud

You are all thinking of this as a replacement for an aircraft - it's not. It is a replacement for seas vessels.

Besides, they have merrits OVER traditional aircraft. They are much more survivable first off. They also so not need a landing strip. All they need is a big open area, and it can let all of it's cargo out.

Think of it as a small cargo boat that can bring tanks and large numbers of troops inland.

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 04:16 PM
I like the WALRUS concept, I think Airships should play a big role in the future. Like the HAA (High Altitude Airship), its being built by Lockheed, it will have solar cells on the top of it for power, and it will be unmanned and can carry a couple tons of recon equiptment and can stay at 65,000 ft for several months, making it (in my mind) better then the Global Hawk.

Building a massive Airship is not a step backward, just because people flew in them before planes does not make them a worse technology.

I think of Airships the same way I think of Nuclear power. The hindenburg and chernobyl, people need to get over the bad and look at the good.

A year or so ago I thought Airships would play a much bigger role in the world, but when Cargo Lifter went under...i'm not so sure. Personally I would love to see more Airships, in many ways they are better then a ship or plane.

[edit on 18-3-2005 by Murcielago]

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 04:29 PM
High altitude blimps have potential for missile shield, big enough to hoist those bulky lasers / railguns etc and the air is a lot thinner to preserve impact than ground based devices..

[edit on 18-3-2005 by Silenus]

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 04:48 PM
There is no anti gravity get over it.... lol you crack me up man. Imagine trying to explain a model T ford to a roman who has only seen a chariot. They would look at you and say "There will never be a chariot with no horses get over it"
I am not trying to say we have ultra secret spinny liquid mercury using sply planes that routinelly visit zeta reticuli, but to out and out deny something which is technically possible is the worst form of ignorance.
On a side note I think these airships are a remarkably good idea as long as you have a secure LZ which would probably be easier to achieve in a hostile nation than to capture an entire seaport intact.

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 06:36 PM
I completely understsnd the benefits of a lighter-than-air travel, it just seems all "love boat" like, when I envisioned a sleek, sexy, VTOL or STOL conventional aircraft doing the same job. I know I'm being hyper-critical of something that nobody's even seen yet, and the Walrus will probably lead to airbourne cruiseliners or some other cool use, but I'm entitled to my opinions. The Walrus concept just doesn't get my heart racing like some of the other concepts out there. In my view extremely lagre blended wing body STOL jets would be much cooler (maybe not more practical, but cooler).

new topics

top topics


log in