Good question, Real. These six were bought early in 2012 before there even was a BiB Mark 1 or Mark 2. Obviously there were problems with their launch systems since Georgia Tech contracted with LTASC to replace them with the launcher technology we use on the BiB. Helikites require rigid spars to be inserted into a sleeve in the envelope to give them their shape, thus reducing their potential for semi-automated launch. Maybe you could solve it but I am suspicious it would be hard and the advantage in lift isn't that big from the BiB. Embry-Riddle University contributed to our envelope design when they were working with Kevin Hess so the Helikite lift advantage isn't as strong as it once would have been IMO.
And I am pretty sure the Carolina Unmanned Systems and Sandy Allsopp (a great guy by the way) lack the funding legs to catch up. JMO. Sandy has to make his profit and Carolina has to get theirs--we are now vertically integrated adding to price point advantage. In a classic business sense, I think we have had the advantage of the late start. I am pretty sure we use the same ISR package except for mounting--JMO. So if we have lift competition with them we can just add cubic feet--if they have a 1.5 bottle fill and we have a 2 bottle fill that is not a big difference IMO.
The boys and girls in digital green will be comparing how hard or easy it is to launch IMO. We have the advantage where it counts IMO for the moment--launcher systems. Also Sandy is UK-based and we are all USA. We can even use CPT or Trident SDVO for an advantage if the contract bidding becomes competitive. The STMPAS sale shows the Army was moving toward Generation 2 aerostats IMO. But, the score is 6-2 + .6 for launchers. That next round of sales for either company will be revealing IMO. But for the moment, I think we are OK. JMO, IndyJonesOhio
PS I suspect our two BiB's aren't going to make it to the Afghan T.O.O. but may hang around Ft. Polk--good for us I think. JMO
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
