Blimpishness

1) Imagine a stealth dirigible as an insertion vector for CT or SOF teams.
Quiet, comes in at night so visual cam isn't a big issue, made of
radar absorbing materials, etc. Your SOF team fast-ropes down without
anyone ever hearing the incoming chopper (especially if you can set yourself
up, use wind drift and no motors).

2) Neutralizing an annoying blimp: 1) C batts or anything else that might
reach orbit 2) Thor satellites (hello Mr.Blimp... try to dodge my fin
stabilized penetrators moving at terminal vee) 3) Fighters (if the blimp is a
big enough menace)

3) Why blimps aren't so safe: Can't manouver quickly enough. A fighter can
both provide offensive punch and defensive countermeasures part of which are
manouver based. The blimp has a more reduced defensive array.
It may have more countermissiles/etc, but it can't dodge HELfire or
other attacks terribly well.

4) Why blimps lack in some cases: One thing I didn't see mentioned is their
ability to operate effectively in storm conditions, high winds,
etc. - They don't usually have enough gusto to push themselves well
through a strong head wind. Not exactly a recommendation if your infantry guys
are depending on yon blimp for support or resupply.

I can see places an LTA vehicle makes lots of sense. I can see good uses
for them in providing eyes in the sky for fleets/ground units especially
on low-intensity conflicts. I can see them being used by SOF. I can see
them being used by logistics command. But they can't handle active threats too
well and they have a significant logistical train themselves (to launch,
recover, or repair).

PS - Make sure you don't use Hydrogen as lift-gas.... ;)

> At 04:34 19/04/02 -0400, Tom wrote:

Actually this is a misconception, the end of the popularity of airship travel
went down with the Hindenburg and it was assumed that hydrogen was simply too
dangerous.

But, as it turns out that is not the case. Research has been done, finding old
company records, a piece of the fabric off the "hull" of the Hindenburg, and
building models of the rear section of the Hindenburg where the fire was
reported to has started.

It came down to this, even using hydrogen the Hindenburg was extremely unlucky
to have gone up the way it did. Sure there would have been a flame jetting
from the side of the Hindenburg but not what actually did happen. What really
did the Hindinburg in was the paint that covered it's skin. Test's were done
on the piece of recovered fabric and confirmed via old company records, the
testers discovered that the paint was in fact the equivalent of ROCKET FUEL.

Well there you go.

Cheers