It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Airship Bombers

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Why Not???

This is just an idea...I dont know of any projects going on now with this as there goal.

we have no pictures of visual stealth...but know it exist...Lockheeds proposal of the F/B-22 mentioned visual stealth, it said it turned the aircraft the color of its surroundings.

Why not build a fleet of Airships, that are massive, and can hold 500 tons, are stealthy...Visual stealth, radar stealth, extremely low IR, fly at around 40,000 ft which is above virtually all weather and above AAA fire.. It could be called the "Double A", for Arsenal Airship. It would hold all its munitions internally, it would have several types of bombs in it, 250lb/500lb/2000lb, and a variety of missiles like JASSM and others, it would have optics in it so it can also be used for real-time survalence. A week or 2 before you go to war you have a dozen of these AA's above your enemy, able to stay there for a few months before fuel and maintanence, it would be completely unmanned. Once you campaign kicks-off you give its orders and it begins its onslot, the enemy wouldn't know where its all coming from, the Airships would all be linked together so no target gets hit twice, all the commanders have to do is give them a long list of GPS cordinates...which they will have gathered before the war...either by long known military facilities, or up-to-date info from the couple weeks worth of recon that the Airships did prior to the war.

They could drop SDB in urban areas, and bunker busters for bunkers and tunnels, and could possibly even carry a few MOAB's for the hard or large targets.

They would cruise at around 100 mph, and once there mission is complete or there all out of ordinances, they would return to a US base. and the enemy could just be finished off by normal means, like the B-2 and F-117 early on, and once there radars are gone the B-1 and B-52 could take out smaller installations.

So what do you think??? Do you think its realistic and/or feasable?





posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   


Do you think its realistic and/or feasable?


Not only is it feasable and realistic. I would put money on the fact that something like this is on the drawing board. I know they are already planning on developing a UAA(Unmanned Aerial Airship) for mothership purposeses to launch UAV's and UCAV's why not regular munitions? It's basically the same thing in a way if you think about it.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Yeah, but even a bush league fighter from the dinosaur age can take it down if it is picked up on radar. The only way it would work is if they can make its RCS very very small.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah, but even a bush league fighter from the dinosaur age can take it down if it is picked up on radar. The only way it would work is if they can make its RCS very very small.


STEALTH BLIMP?


How would that work? The shape of a blimp isn't very stealth! I will admit I have heard roumors of a "Stealth Blimp", but I have never seen anything to make me believe these reports are credible in the least. If anyone knows something I don't, I would love to learn!



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
To ghost - airship can be stealth - not because of shape, or RAM, but it's skin is usually made from such materials that are completely transfluescent to the radar waves.

Anyway - it's not the good idea -
1.the airship is slow and as already said it is very vulnerable - the only use I see is against small poorly equipped terorist groups and still there is too much risk to be shot down. The planes have higher IR, but they are also much faster and more maneuvrable than blimps.

2. The 500tons payload is only up to the 500m above the sea level. In such alt it is vulnerable even by handguns. So you must reach higher alt that means your payload capacity would drop dramatically. Not to mention that you must go even higher in mountains for example in Afganistan you must reach at least 15 000 meters over sea level (that's 10-11000 over the afganistan ground) to be relatively safe (and still only against small weapons).


3. Even if airships could be made stalth to radar and IR they could be easily shot down with some modified misille with LADAR/laser seeker.

Airships can serve in batlefield recon misions but they must cruise so high (20 000-30 000) that their payload limitations would not allow it to carry significant amount of ammunition (together with sensors)..

Really the bomber role is not the best for airships, however they can serve in other roles such as recon, transport, but their best use IMO would be - the airship AWACS - the Awacs doesn't need to be very fast, it just needs to stay in air for a long time and for low operating costs..., also it can carry huge radar antena when compared to E-3 or Hawkeye. It can even serve as part of anti misille program with those HUGE radars (that can see golfball from 1850km) and 150km/hour speed and 100 hours(unrefuelled) endurance far away from enemy front lines it can be almost invulnerable.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by longbow]



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
One word... NO... It would me totally redicilous... They stopped making those during WW2 for a reason... one of them is speed... There is no way they can go faster than a plane... And that stealth issue is also a problem... And why even build those things... Aren't MOABS good enough...



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
To ghost - airship can be stealth - not because of shape, or RAM, but it's skin is usually made from such materials that are completely transfluescent to the radar waves.


Hmm, I never thought of that! Good Point Longbow. It's nice to learn something from someone who Does Not feel the need to be insulting.

I'm still not sure about the Bomber idea. However, I think the idea of a stealth airship would be really good for long range/duration patrol and survallience. It would be ideal for finding/tracking narcotics and other countrabanned items at sea.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
A blimp would still have a lot of metal, the frame, engines, bomb bay, so unless they figure out a shape for those things that wont reflect to much radar waves, this idea wont go anywhere.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
A blimp would still have a lot of metal, the frame, engines, bomb bay, so unless they figure out a shape for those things that wont reflect to much radar waves, this idea wont go anywhere.


The gondola and props must of course have stealth shape. But this is much easier to do (compared to heavier-than-air machines) because if your max speed is 150km/hour, you don't need to make compromises like stealth VS aerodynamics and the thermal sensitivity of RAM materials is also a non issue.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
A high altitude airship bomber makes perfect sense, what are you guys talking about. Think about it, unmanned, almost limitless loiter time over the target, packed full of sensors.

As long as you have air superiority where no fighter aircraft are being sent up to try and shoot it down, you can move this thing all over the battlefield and drop JDAM's, SAT-JDAM's, conventional bombs, cluster bombs, whatever you want and just bombard the crapola out of anything and everything on the ground.

If you launch the thing from a freindly base and get it up to say 50 or 60,000 feet. With advanced optics, sensors etc you can can still pinpoint targets on the ground and be much more precise as you could control the airship to almost zero forward velocity. Target in on whatever you want, select your ordinace and blammmo.

Keep blowing stuff up until your mission is done and send the airship bomber back to a friendly base.

I think it makes perfect sense.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
As long as you have air superiority where no fighter aircraft are being sent up to try and shoot it down, you can move this thing all over the battlefield and drop JDAM's, SAT-JDAM's, conventional bombs, cluster bombs, whatever you want...


Actually it would be still very vulnerable. All you need to shot it down is a good scope and WWII era flak gun.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
umm, a flak gun that reaches 60,000 feet ???? what kind of round is that, a super rocket propelled 100mm flachet round ????

Sorry but Flak only goes so high before the force of gravity deflects its trajectory. You cant shoot a gas propelled round up to 60,000 feet.

You cant shoot even a highpowered cartridge round up to 60,000 feet. MAYBE 10,000 feet max. A cannon round MAYBE 20 - 30,000 MAX.


www.hmshood.com...

Gun Type: Mk V
Calibre: 4" / 10.2 cm
Number of Barrels: 1
Barrel Length: 45 cal (180") / 457.2 cm
Gun Length (Overall): 187.8" / 477 cm
Barrel Rifling: 32 threads, right hand twist
Charge: Cordite MD16
Charge Mass: 7lbs 11oz / 3.5 kg
Chamber Gas Pressure: 18.5 tons psi / 297 MPa
Shell Weight (High Explosive): 31.4lbs / 14.25 kg
Muzzle Velocity: 2643 fs / 805.6 ms
Rate of Fire: 8 -13 per minute
Max. Range:16,300 yds / 14,905 m at 45°
Ceiling: 28,750 ft / 8,763 m at 80°
Elevation (max. / min.): +80° / 5°

Mount: Mk III and Mk IV
Fire Control: HACS Mk I with 12 ft/3.6 m rangefinder. Guns could also be individually locally directed.
Comments: Between 4 and 8 guns were carried on the Shelter Deck until the completion of the 1939 refit, at which point they were removed entirely.

Your typical WWII Triple A weapon. For High Altitude

Often arrayed in "belts" around a city or target 88s could fire 22 lb (10 kg) shells up to 35,000 ft (10600 m) at a rate of 15-20 rounds per minute.

www.ww2guide.com...

For your German 88 Triple A weapon


[edit on 16-6-2005 by robertfenix]

[edit on 16-6-2005 by robertfenix]



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
A bomber might not be very good... but it would make a great aircraft refueling and rearment station in the air... or like someone said, it would make a great UAV mothership.

it would be really cool if it be a UAV mothership, it would be like a aircraft carrier in the air hehehe



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
umm, a flak gun that reaches 60,000 feet ???? what kind of round is that, a super rocket propelled 100mm flachet round ????

Sorry but Flak only goes so high before the force of gravity deflects its trajectory. You cant shoot a gas propelled round up to 60,000 feet.

You cant shoot even a highpowered cartridge round up to 60,000 feet. MAYBE 10,000 feet max. A cannon round MAYBE 20 - 30,000 MAX.



Of course I was exgerrating, I was just trying to ilustrate that it's much easier to hit slow moving airship than a plane... Once you know where it is. The high cruising airship is simply no effective bomber solution You can easily develop AA misille able to reach any altitude airship can reach . You can even take it down with not very powerfull laser, because it's too slow to escape the beam.
Plus as I already said - in order to reach "safe" altitude the airship can take only small payload. So airship at 60 000 feet with let's say 10 tons of bombs is really not very powerfull platform. And it's still several hundreds meters long giant.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   


it would be like a aircraft carrier in the air


I've always thought an aircraft carrier in the air would be cool. Also if you shoot one of the modern airships, the pressure is so low that it would take a long time to bring it down. I also heard somewhere that the US military has future plans for a gigantic airship with GIGANTIC lifting power. It could carry large amounts of tanks into battle (I can't remember how many). Airships are also good for surveillance and mine detecting as they can fly low and slow for large amounts of time.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

longbow
2. The 500tons payload is only up to the 500m above the sea level.

...I was describing a fictional Airship...So it could be as big as you want, until you can have it reach the 500 ton payload marker.

You make it sound as if a Airship cant get to 40,000ft carring its 500t patload. thats not the case.

The DARPA funded WALRUS Airship will be able to hold 500 tons, and it will fly around 20,000ft.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

UK_05_XM29
I also heard somewhere that the US military has future plans for a gigantic airship with GIGANTIC lifting power. It could carry large amounts of tanks into battle (I can't remember how many).

Your thinking of the WALRUS. (it will probably lift 500 tons, but possibly 1000 tons)
Several companies are hoping to get the bid, here are a few concepts.








posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Yeah, I think it was something like that.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

longbow
2. The 500tons payload is only up to the 500m above the sea level.

...I was describing a fictional Airship...So it could be as big as you want, until you can have it reach the 500 ton payload marker.

You make it sound as if a Airship cant get to 40,000ft carring its 500t patload. thats not the case.

The DARPA funded WALRUS Airship will be able to hold 500 tons, and it will fly around 20,000ft.


Of course you can make airship able to reach 15 000 meters with 500ton payload, but such airship would be too big for practical military use. The point is : the airships can be effective (size VS payload) to the 3 000-5000 meters, above they are just too big. Airship over 1km long (and I think it would be necessary for such payloads) would be visible even by human eye without scopes - that's not good for such slow moving platform.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
A better use has been proposed for airships; as a relay mirror platform for airborne lasers.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join