Wouldn't the blimps be pretty much a tipoff that there is/will be
activity in the area? Seems like a pretty big warning sign to me.
Mike Hudak mihudak@state.pa.us
Fact is, there's nothing out there you can't do..... Yeah, even Santa Claus
believes in you.....
Dr Teeth and the Electric Mayhem,"Can you picture that", Muppet Movie
Soundtrack
Peregrine Falcons Start New Family!
Live video/sound from the nest!
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/falcon
> -----Original Message-----
The point would be to keep it at stand-off distance - 20 or 30 miles
away. If it's camoflauged (see the other discussions on luminosity and
radar-cross section in this thread) then it's not going to be easy to
spot. In addition, if it hangs around for days or weeks there are some things
you are going to want to move regardless. If you can keep ammo from reaching
the guerillas, either by destroying the ammo or preventing
it from moving you've acheived the same tactical result - ammo shortages
at the front lines. If they do try to rapidly move stuff out, you have a much
quicker response time. Instead of having to wait 10 minutes for a "ready"
aircraft to launch and get into position, an operator just drops one out the
bomb bay and a minute or two later, the ammo convoy goes boom.
I'm not sure of the exact cost of sending up a fighter-bomber, but
assuming the exact same glide-bomb, it has to be way cheaper to operate
a blimp for a week than it is to run dozens of figher-bomber sorties in
the same week. So if the overall cost is less per drop, it might be cost
effective to "waste" a 500 lbs bomb on every large truck that leaves a certain
area.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> Wouldn't the blimps be pretty much a tipoff that there is/will be
I think the stealthability of Blimps has been hashed over already, especially
if they stand off from a distance to do their work.
3B^2
> At 1:16 PM -0400 4/19/02, Hudak, Michael wrote:
Likely they know there is activity somewhere in a 100x100 square mile
area....When the bombs start falling you know there's activity, but then there
were teams in Iraq and Kuwait targeting things for aircraft as well.
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Hudak, Michael wrote:
> Wouldn't the blimps be pretty much a tipoff that there is/will be
Sure, if it wandered over your base at 5000ft in daylight...
If our hypothetical airship is at 40,000ft, offset 30nm+ from you,
visually 'stealthed' and nearly radar transparent, you're only going to
suspect it's around when it starts dropping those glide bombs on you!
Nit I need to pick: a 'blimp' is not what we're discussing here. A blimp
is a non-reinforced gasbag with the gondola & engines slung beneath; an
airship/zeppelin/dirigible has reinforcing material - struts, keels,
whatever - that make the envelope/gasbag rigid. The Goodyear thing over
sporting events is a blimp; the Hindenburg was a zeppelin or airship. Airships
can be much, much larger than blimps.
Hindenburg was over 800ft long; modern plans, using composites instead of
metals, have postulated quite buildable 1000ft long airships! More trivia:
Everyone 'knows' that airships are dangerous - but the 13 passengers
killed when the Hindenburg went up were the *only* paying passengers every
killed in an airship accident...
A good book on hypothetical airships is Dean Ing's "The Big Lifters"; it's
near-future science fiction, and a good book in it's own right. Not
military, but the book's dirigible, "Delta One" is a very impressive piece of
equipment.
Brian - yh728@victoria.tc.ca -
- http://wind.prohosting.com/~warbard/games.html -
> Mike Hudak
[quoted original message omitted]
> "K.H.Ranitzsch" wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
As designed, the Hindenburg would have been even safer. The gas bags consisted
of two nested cells, the inner hydrogen cell was surrounded by a helium cell.
Although, not as safe as pure helium, it could lift more and the hydrogen
would be somewhat isolated from oxygen, and the hydrogen bag itself would be
proof against incendiary rounds. Clad the Hindenburg in kevlar, instead of
thermite
> At 11:13 AM -0400 4/20/02, Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
According to one book I have around here, The Graf Zepplin II and the Graf
Zepplin were destroyed by a Lufwaffe construction battalion under the orders
of Fat man Goering. The crews had been ordred to do so, but refused. The metal
was recycled supposedly for aircraft manufacturing.
No, Karl is correct.
The safety of the Hindenburg would only marginally been improved by using
helium. The main reason that the fire spread so quickly was that the skin was
painted with a combination of nitrate and aluminium powder.
"... the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with
rocket fuel." - Addison Bain, NASA engineer.
> On Saturday, April 20, 2002, at 08:13 AM, Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
[snip]
> The Hindenburg fire was quite spectacular. However, it is now
> proof
> helium.
Cheers,