Beth.Fulton@csiro.au schrieb:
> "a biplane of such low performance that it was difficult
I'm still skeptical.
I could see that it might be a problem with the larger AA guns that used
mechanical computers to calculate the aiming point.
Small-calibre guns had fairly simple "spider-web" sights. These could
be aimed straight at a slow-flying plane and the aim could be corrected
by watching the tracers.
Do you consider your book a well-researched technical work, or more of
the popular kind? Does it quote sources? Not everything you see in
print is neccesarily accurate :-(
Greetings
> At 3:43 PM +0200 4/18/02, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
Given that the Sword fish was mainly a maritime invention. I wonder if the New
german gun computers were the primary issue.
Given how useful the aircraft were for the British against the Bismark and in
the attack on Taranto, I'd have to lend it some credence.
Biplanes could out turn monoplane fighters but that is not the end of the
fight. Biplane performance was much less than that of the monoplanes.
So in a dogfight the smart monoplane pilot will make diving high speed attacks
at the biplane and then use its superior performance to climb away to set up
for another attack.
Eventually the biplane pilot fails his dodge roll and the monoplane has him.
I think blimps are large slow targets that will be
juicy to any fighter pilot in the sky. In a WW-I
setting they can outclimb the fighters of the day but in any later setting
they are not viable in a combat zone that has other air assets.
I do not see enough armament and stealth gear to keep them safe without a
large escort that can keep the threat away.
Magic
> --- KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
> On 18-Apr-02 at 16:35, Robert Makowsky (rmakowsky@yahoo.com) wrote:
> I do not see enough armament and stealth gear to keep
You don't think the big laser they are proposing for knocking down
intermediate range missiles would take down an airplane? They are mounting the
thing in a big jet.
> From: Robert Makowsky <rmakowsky@yahoo.com>
> Eventually the biplane pilot fails his dodge roll and
You'd think so, but there were rare instances when biplanes DID
out-dogfight
monos - notably the Gloster Gladiators used by Britain in the defense of
Malta. Every dog has it's day, so to speak
> I think blimps are large slow targets that will be
*_IF_* that enemy fighter pilot has a chance to get near it. AWACS and
Hawkeyes are pretty slow-moving planes - you'd think they'd have been
MAJORLY juicy targets for, say, Iraqi fighters in the Gulf War. I believe
Mr. Gill hit on the idea of using them for radar and control -
definitely within the protection of an air cap.
In a WW-I
> setting they can outclimb the fighters of the day but
But may be viable in a less enemy-intensive zone....
> I do not see enough armament and stealth gear to keep
Such as the escort provided a carrier task force or other fleet....
The thing to remember is that just because a flight technology is not viable
in front-line combat, does not mean it's completely inviable in ANY
military
service. Rear-area heavy lift, coastal patrol, radar & control, all
MIGHT
be plausible uses for lighter-than-air...
3B^2
> At 4:57 PM -0400 4/18/02, Roger Books wrote:
I don't see the laser being something usable for the next 40 years on a light
platform like a blimp. However, as an AEW platform, a blimp all the way up to
a rigid airship will have an extremely valuable performance envelope with
regards to station time over a given task group.
> At 2:32 PM -0700 4/18/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
Its the same problem that fighters have when dealing with a helocopter that's
on the deck. They can get around fast enough to get their guns on you to make
a shot count. Further, most of those larger
still used bi-planes had a second guy with a vicker's K or two. They
could put a lot of lead back at the mono-plane trying to get on their
six.
ME109's had a hard time with Swordfish in and around the Fjords as I recall
from one account.
> *_IF_* that enemy fighter pilot has a chance to get near it. AWACS
Yep, its not that Blimp you'll be worried about. It will be everything he can
vector at you to take you down. Throw 3 or 4 Lighter than Air AEW and EW craft
on a station and you'll have a hard time sneaking anything in unless the guys
in the airborne command post drop the ball seriously.
> Such as the escort provided a carrier task force or other fleet....
The whole role that I'm looking at.
> The thing to remember is that just because a flight technology is
Gosh look at the P-3, the E-2, and AEW C-130 varients. Not everything
that is useful for AEW/EW support is a fast mover. Additionaly the
larger airships could get some pretty significant ground speeds when they had
a tail wind.
And don't forget the AC-130 Gunship... Maybe you could mount a 120 mm
cannon on a sliding cariage out the back/bottom. The blimp could be
very quiet and might be able to get into position for low-tech opponents
with a lower chance of detection. Might be useful in counter-insurgency
operations where you need something that can hang around for days looking for
troop movement and where they would only carry
shoulder-launched or light vehicle mounted SAM's.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
G'day,
> Do you consider your book a well-researched technical work, or more of
We've got the entire series and have yet to pick it on an inaccuracy (always a
first time I guess though). However, I've read this in a few places, this was
just the easiest to hand. The fact the Bismark didn't take down a single
Swordfish is often given (in many sources) as an example of this in practice.
Cheers
G'day,
> In a WW-I setting they can outclimb the fighters of the day but
OK dumb question time. Seeings as we can make cockpits (and thus gondolas)
pressurised wouldn't they still have this ability or does the gas pressure
thing become too much of a problem at really high altitudes?
So you could (may be) imagine a situation where they sit WAY up. Lase the
targets for themselves (if satellites can identify spots, I'd say a blimp
could use the same tech) and then just drop their bomb load methodically
(a
load potentially much larger than that of a bomber given the weights they can
carry). They don't have to worry about scooting back to base so often or so
fast as they can just sit up there.
On a recon footing you could take the step further and say with the remote
guidance tech used in that pilotless plane they could stay up there a LONG
time just watching. Then again satellite coverage may make that a bit
redundant.
Cheers
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:32:25 +1000 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
<snip>
> On a recon footing you could take the step further and say with the
No secrets here but satellites aren't perfect, you never have enough for all
jobs, and competing interests (high for maps low for 'other uses') eat over
100% of the assets. Add the joy of clouds on EO (Electro Optical) systems, and
other natural and man made problems plus hardware 'anomalies' and you see why
drones are loved for more then just the fast response times. Drone loses
'eyes' you launch a replacement, land it, fix it and put it back up in the
air. Satellites don't do so well at landing...
Gracias,
Ryan M Gill schrieb:
> >The thing to remember is that just because a flight
In fact, a fast mover might be less useful for AEW/EW because of its
high fuel consumption.
> Additionaly the larger airships could get some pretty significant
Of course, any nearby fighter or missile would benefit from the same wind.
Greetings Karl Heinz
> --
> At 09:32 19/04/02 +1000, Beth wrote:
But the Blimps provide almost satellite like cover at a much reduced cost, so
it wouldn't be redundant just cheaper:)
Cheers
Hi Beth,
> OK dumb question time. Seeings as we can make cockpits (and thus
It's not dumb if you really don't know (and dumb is in the eye of the
beholder, anyway...)
Short answer, yes. You could make a pressurized cockpit for super high
altitude. The space shuttle, for example, has a pressurized cockpit for it's
entire flight (though the crew does use helmeted suits, IIRC, for takeoff).
Problem - the higher you want to go, the more expensive and difficult it
is to produce good pressurization. And it's expensive.
But certainly very doable.
> So you could (may be) imagine a situation where they sit WAY up. Lase
If you made the thing big enough, it could stay "on station" for weeks,
probably. Like a ship.
> On a recon footing you could take the step further and say with the
Not at all. Satellite coverage from a single satellite over any given area is
very short duration (assuming low altitude recce satellites). This type
of airship with high-altitude capability could stay over a given point
for a *long* time.
People have discussed doing this sort of thing with both
very-long-duration
pilotless (and piloted) airplanes, and airships, to use them as communication
relays over large urban areas. Just like a satellite, only much more "local".
You would need a small fleet of them, so that when one needs to come in to
refuel or whatever the area is still covered. In a military context, you could
use them for reconnaissance, command and control, communications relay, AEW,
and even for your long duration precision bombing idea.
...Just don't do it over an area where the opposition has a chance of shooting
at them...
But if you were on station at 80,000 - 100,000 feet, the other guys need
some pretty specialized equipment to get to you. Good high-altitude
capable combat aircraft, high-altitude missiles, etc. And if you use
passive and active stealth systems on the airship, it would be very hard to
get to. Not for someone with good modern tech., but over someplace like
Afghanistan, for example, it could be *really* useful.
Possibly it can knock out an air threat or two. I would not be my life on it
knocking out them all.
Magic
> --- Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:
Brian,
I agree with you regarding airships, I think they would be of great use back
in the rear areas where they can be defended. There their heavy lift
capability and extreme endurance could be used effectively.
Magic
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
Piston engines of the day did not have the performance to climb as high. Later
piston engine planes had a higher ceiling. Same with jets.
Now for a game idea I like it. Course it does not stand up to plausability but
that should not get in the way of fun. <G>
Magic
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> Satellites don't do so well at
Hmmm.... Thanks for giving me an idea... unmanned mini-shuttles.....
3B^2
Of course in a sci-fi campaign with FTL travel, aerospace fighters
and anti-grav, getting to any altitude is not difficult (just,
prehaps, expensive).
I imagine that Very long range salvo missiles and fighters are a major part of
planetary defense. So diverting some of these resources (after the space based
threat is dimished) would not be out of the question (cost vs. value gained
may however, reduce this likelyhood).
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Robert Makowsky
> <rmakowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think blimps are large slow targets that will be
In Pournelle's _There Will Be War_ series, there were a number of
stories based on air combat on a planet with a much thicker atmosphere than
ours. The combat mostly involved very big but fairly light aircraft, and a lot
of zepplins. It was an interesting series. I'm not sure how much was
technically feasible, but it would make for a neat game.
> I imagine that Very long range salvo missiles and fighters are a
Depends on the scenario.... Once played in a spaceport defense game using SG.
Had lots of enemy forces crowded around a large fuel dump. I spent an
inordinate amout of munitions, including a heavy air defense missile, to blow
that thing up. (The dice gods must have been very angry at me that day.) It
finally did explode, taking a couple of units with it, but my opponent had
time to disperse himself somewhat with my ineffective attempts to detonate it.
So, a 'wasted' heavy AA missile, and a destroyed fuel dump (in a starbase we
wanted to keep). Heavy hits, but we deemed it worth it compared what
we were up against.
Somewhere, I had a point to this......
> -----
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:32:25 +1000, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> So you could (may be) imagine a situation where they sit WAY up.
I'm not sure what the ceiling is on a blimp/zepplin.
I know that there _was_ a ceiling. One of the problems zeppelins had was
that once they achieved a certain height they had to vent gas. The higher you
go, the less pressure on the gas. The gas would expand. If you let it expand
too much, the gas containment would rupture. So, they would vent gas.
Zeppelins would sometimes rise due to thermals, or other conditions (sunlight
could, I believe, heat up the gas and give the ship more lift). So, they then
had to vent gas to stop going too high and rupturing. Of course this meant
that when the conditions changed the ship would start to sink. They could pump
in more gas from containers, or they could dump ballast. Eventually they ran
out of gas and ballast and had to go home.
I suppose a very high tech zeppelin could rise very high, but I'm not sure
what the operational limits are.
> At 12:49 19/04/02 -0700, you wrote:
What about more conventional armerments? It's not like these
blimps/rigid
airships are going to be feather weights in the cargo carrying department.
Cheers
At 80,000-100,000 feet you could concieveably stand off from the battle
area by 20-30 miles and still have a pretty good view (maybe not in
mountainous areas, but still pretty good). You could then load the
blimp up with a couple of dozen laser-guided glide bombs then have
ground troops use lasers to target for you. The advantages would be
nearly on-demand bombing - no waiting for a fast mover to be in the
area, choice of warhead - the blimp would carry a variety of bombs, not
just one or two types, and then you could call in really big strikes from a
single blimp.
That would really change the pace of a battle like that in Afghsnistan -
small groups of commandos supported by 2 or three blimps. Once you have a
track on the target, you can deliver a bomb within minutes, rather
than having a complicated and expensive set-up where you constantly have
an attack-bomber on call. So highly mobile units - commanders, supply
convoys or even massed troop movements can be hit while the reconaissance data
is still good.
You might even be able to have the blimp as a C and C center flying Predator
drones to do their own targeting. Think of how it might change
low-intensity warfare if a squad leader suddenly is given the capability
to drop a 500 lbs bomb on an enemy position. Bunkers, MG nests inside
buildings, tanks would all be highly vulnerable to ground troops with a radio
and a laser designator.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
<<SNIP>>
> So you could (may be) imagine a situation where they sit WAY
> From: "B Lin" <lin@rxkinetix.com>
> You might even be able to have the blimp as a C and C center flying
C and C, AEW, Observation, coastal patrol, and rear area heavy lift all seem
more plausible as uses than as bombers. Mind you, I'm all for
blimps/dirigibles even in hard SF settings, but I have to say, certain
uses for them are NOT very likely.
3B^2
> At 4:27 PM +1000 4/19/02, Derek Fulton wrote:
And far easier to retask for fleet tactical operations.
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:08:19 -0600, "B Lin" <lin@rxkinetix.com> wrote:
> At 80,000-100,000 feet you could concieveably stand off from the
At 80,000 to 100,000 feet you run into some real problems with the gas in the
gas bag expanding. So the gas bag is going to be pretty darn big. Look how big
the gas bag for the "around-the-world" balloons were. It has to be big
to go up to those high altitudes. That was for a pressurized sphere with a
couple of guys in it. Imagine how big the bag is going to be for a zeppelin or
blimp carrying enough weaponry to be useful.
It would be interesting to see how well the "around the world" balloons were
picked up on radar. Of course, they had a good reason to be picked up and were
not trying to be stealthy. You could go for a stealth balloon, but I think
they would still be easy to spot visually.
> At 9:18 AM -0500 4/19/02, Allan Goodall wrote:
Zeppelins
> would sometimes rise due to thermals, or other conditions (sunlight
The more advanced Zeps had a special pressure valve that vented when the
airship went above "pressure altitude". The American made Airships (The Akron
and Macon) were fitted with condensors that recovered water vapor from the
engines in order to replenish ballast and reduce the loss of ballast weight as
fuel was consumed. Another benefit the US Zeps had was that since we were able
to use helium, we could place the engines inside the skin (not the gas
envelopes) and greatly reduce drag.
> I suppose a very high tech zeppelin could rise very high, but I'm not
Depends on how it's fitted. The Helium balloons get to massively high
altitudes. A Rigid or semi rigid Airship could get really high.
> At 2:53 AM +1000 4/20/02, Derek Fulton wrote:
They could carry AAMs themselves. Heck, they could probably carry a brace of
SM2 missiles and direct them as well as handle OTH for other ships.
US Navy Blimps in WWII protected convoys and hunted subs. No convoy escorted
by blimps was ever attacked successfully.
> On 19-Apr-02 at 13:51, Allan Goodall (agoodall@att.net) wrote:
Look
> how big the gas bag for the "around-the-world" balloons were. It has
So why couldn't you pump it back into a storage container?
Reminds me of the fantasy story where a guy was trying to make a lighter than
air vehicle and had a demon make a hollow steel sphere and make a vacuum
inside because that would be lighter than air. The sphere collapsed of course.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:56:57 -0400, Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> The more advanced Zeps had a special pressure valve that vented when
They still had problems, though, even with the pressure valve. A number of
atmospheric effects could send them upwards, where they had to vent gas, only
to have the effect disappear and the ship sink without enough gas to
stabilize. They were particularly tricky things to fly. The idea posted here
that they could stay in the air for weeks is perhaps a bit optimistic. On the
other hand, with "gas refueling" airships and such, maybe it could work.
I'm not sure a condensor would be much good in the 80,000 to 100,000 feet
range, though. Not a whole lot of moisture up there...
Another possibility is some type of "altitude bladder". Since the lift is
generated by helium displacing an equivalent volume of air, if you had a large
center bladder that could be contracted or expanded as needed, you could shift
the amount of air displaced without having to release gas. You would just
compress the helium in the bladder until it was of high enough density to stop
you from rising.
Perhaps modern/futuristic blimps will have fabric made from fullerene
strands or spider silk which might allow really high tensile strengths but
retain flexibility and allow you to withstand higher helium pressures than is
currently possible.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
Not to mention, we're talking about a future setting with viable fusion
power - not a lot of mass lost to fuel consumption there...
3B^2
> At 3:34 PM -0400 4/19/02, Roger Books wrote:
wrote:
> > At 80,000-100,000 feet you could concieveably stand off from the
What makes the thing buoyant is that the volume of helium displaces enough of
a volume of air that has a higher mass than the total craft weight. As you go
higher, the air is more rarified and thus you need your Helium to expand to
compensate for the lower mass. It does so rather nicely given that it may also
expand.
However a rigid airship has an issue with the helium envelopes expanding
beyond their ability to. The balloons do so by having a really huge envelope
that is not entirely filled. Rigids tend to work with a smaller volume range
on the gas envelopes. This requires a more confined altitude range.
Now, perhaps one could build a rigid or semi-rigid airship structure
that has an expansion capability that retains a directional aerodynamic shape
over the range of the expansion volume. Doing so would allow a greater
pressure height.
> At 2:48 PM -0500 4/19/02, Allan Goodall wrote:
On the
> other hand, with "gas refueling" airships and such, maybe it could
Granted, but they were getting pretty good at it. I think with modern
composites, better engines (read more HP and Lighter), and advances in sensor
technology (exactly where is that storm cell that will have the updrafts we
want to avoid), a Modern Military rigid could have quite a bit of hardware and
crew for very extended operations.
> I'm not sure a condensor would be much good in the 80,000 to 100,000
One of the byproducts from Internal combustion engines is water vapor. By
running that exhaust gas through a condenser you get the water vapor back in
liquid form that is then dumped into your ballast tanks.
see http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/macon.html
The Macon had capacity for 100 crew (berths, mess area), 5 fighters, 8 engines
with vectoring props (backwards or down)
http://www.btinternet.com/~david.manley/naval/genquar/airships.htm
A good size comparison and game stats....
> At 12:54 PM -0700 4/19/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
I'm not even thinking that far. As a means of getting a payload into high
altitude for extended duration, a Rigid with composites and really efficient
fuel cells could stay there for weeks on end just like a ship. The thing to
remember about Rigid airships is that they
aren't air-craft. They are lighter than air _ships_.
> B Lin wrote:
> Another possibility is some type of "altitude bladder". Since the
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 06:58:05 -0700 "Brian Bilderback"
> <bbilderback@hotmail.com> writes:
You're welcome. Nice read, I like the idea...
Care to post any thoughts/scenario starters?
Gracias,
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> >Hmmm.... Thanks for giving me an idea... unmanned mini-shuttles.....
Give me time, I just had the idea at work today.
3B^2
As I said to Beth, these would be great fun to game. Not so sure about in RL
but fun.
I will have to look for those Pournelle stories, they sound interesting.
Thanks,
Magic
> --- Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net> wrote:
It would be great for a game but I am not going to risk my RL life on them
getting all the threats in a giant gas bag floating lazily over the ocean <G>
Magic
> --- Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 04:07:48PM -0700, Robert Makowsky wrote:
The author is J.P.Boyd; you'd be looking for #5 (Warrior) for _Victory_,
and #9 (After Armageddon) for _The Last Cruise of the Zeppelin Tempest_.
Cheers,