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.

 

Blimps or other lighter or mitral botany craft, are they the future?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2021 @ 10:10 PM
link   
So we all love the F15 missile truck and how racks of various drone and decoys can be launched.

What both of those don’t have is super long missions or stealth 🥷 r some other issue

I was like laying a game today and there is a HUGE delta shaped craft and the n the underside the skin covered hidden drones.

I’m t would have the ability to launch LARGE swarms as well be a high speed data connection as well as working with other aircraft

I wonder if said craft that can carry a lot of smaller drones

A blimp can loiter forever essentially..

It could also be used as a ordnance platform, that way the attack aircraft could tailor their weapons for the mission as well as using the on station blimp.



posted on Dec, 3 2021 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

No. Everytime they have tried to used blimps or lighter than air vehicles, it ends badly. If we had a thick, languid atmosphere they'd be great. It's not what we have at all.

Solar powered heavier than air drones are far more likely.



posted on Dec, 3 2021 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3
Ah. Playing ace combat?



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

I think of airship's or rather blimp type craft as essentially sky submarines, they achieve a level of static buoyancy and then float on the heavier atmosphere below them.

At one time they were thought to be the future of air travel and it was even envisioned that sky ports much like sea ports would be built in city's to cater to these behemoth craft.

Sadly the worst people were the ones that chased after this idea the most, warship's, icons of political power and influence is all they saw them as.

This came to an end with the high profile disasters of such air giants as the R101, the Hindenburg and the Akron.

They remained a viable craft albeit not one to fly around in during WW2 when over here in Britain we deployed them in tethered formations to prevent low level fighter strafing and bombing of civilians in our city's.

I guess my favourite air ship has to be the iconic Geisha billboard in Blade Runner but I would have loved to see what we could have achieved had it been the technological tree we had followed instead of fixed wing aircraft.

Don't count them out yet though, new generations of hard skinned airships and even vacuum filled and Aerogel type craft are constantly being toyed with at least in the minds of inventors even if very few ever see the light of day.

The main problem is older airship type's were slow, had weak engines and were often at the mercy of the weather far more even than a fixed wing aircraft is, also back then since the US had the monopoly on Helium a lot of them were filled with Hydrogen which of course led to them exploding or burning extremely fast.

Modern takes on the idea blend wing and airship principles with powerful engines to allow both the shape and the aerofoil effect to provide lift.

It may even come to a time when humans or machines will use similar craft to airship's to colonize the upper atmosphere of Venus and just possible even of the gas giants perhaps as automated floating mining platforms (the gravity even then would be too much for a human but just possibly not for a machine and there are a lot of gases and elements in gaseous form that we could make use of if we could harvest them).




One way to fill an airship with a vacuum would be to make it in orbit above the atmosphere, fill the envelope with an expanding foam that would then set hard, it would have to slow down and be moved gently back into the upper atmosphere though to avoid the hazards of re-entry but once at a neutral buoyancy these structures could be used to create floating support structures for craft, even floating city's if that's your thing but currently we do not have the technology to yet do this.

edit on 4-12-2021 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Somethingsamiss

got me

i got ALL the expansions and they have a delta winged F22 bomber.



funny thing is it has the ability to look like that picture that cane out recently of a mirrored F22

its amazing how close the cockpits are to real life and how things handle.



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Airships, or LAV's, are vulnerable to weather only at lunch and landing.

However, LAV's, with the right design, can easily cruise and loiter at altitudes far above the weather; the current record altitude for a powered Airship is 95,000FT, I believe. At that altitude, an Airship's operating ceiling is higher than most high performance aircraft.

As a drone carrier, an Airship would be capable of ferrying dozens, if not hundreds of drones. However, it might prove difficult to recover those drones at the cruising altitude of the mothership.

One if the more interesting aspects of extremely high altitude, long duration Airships is the extensive surface area inherent in their design. It is entirely within the possibility to utilize the upper surface area if a potential LAV as a "solar power-farm" to generate power for propulsion, avionics, and perhaps even DEW-based defense and weapons systems.

Unmanned, robotic LAV's have been flown successfully (reference the altitude record holder I mentioned previously), it is not a far stretch to conceive of autonomous and/or semi-autonomous versions as well.

From their "high ground" vantage point, near-space LAV's enjoy a much wider field of view in which to monitor, track, target and destroy potential threats rising from the ground, and can identify those threats at far greater distances than assets at lower altitudes.

"Vacuum" Airships, although potentially much more versatile than conventional gas-filled designs, would require lifting-cell (the envelope that would contain the vacuum) material capable of withstanding tremendous crushing forces exerted by the atmosphere, which would only increase as the ship descended through the atmosphere to land.

As yet, no (publicly) known material has that capability.

But maybe one day....!



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Mantiss2021


Airships, or LAV's, are vulnerable to weather only at lunch and landing.


No sandwiches on those big boys.

More seriously, neither the Akron nor the Macon were lost during launch or landing.

www.airships.net...
www.airships.net...



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Perhaps I should clarify/correct my statement; Airships are Most vulnerable to weather during launch and landing. All aircraft are at least somewhat vulnerable to weather conditions while in flight, after all.

One thing to note however, with their ability to fly well above the weather, combined with the ability to remain aloft, at altitude, far longer than conventional aircraft, it is possible for an advanced LAV to launch and land hundreds, even thousands of miles from areas of dangerous weather. With a flight duration of days, or even weeks, it would be possible to wait out the worst weather over a vast area, observing from a vantage point high above the maelstrom.

And let's not forget that technology has advanced considerably since the days of the Akron and the Macon.



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Mantiss2021


And let's not forget that technology has advanced considerably since the days of the Akron and the Macon.


Indeed, technology has. However, the fundamental physics behind airships has not.



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: Mantiss2021


Airships, or LAV's, are vulnerable to weather only at lunch and landing.


No sandwiches on those big boys.

More seriously, neither the Akron nor the Macon were lost during launch or landing.


perhaps they mean the Shenandoah.

thread title is misleading. I think 'Mitral Botany' should be Neutral Buoyancy?

I love airships. had a chance to ride one. awesome potential. and so kewl.


previous thread on proposed airship: www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 01032020 by ElGoobero because: add linque



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

the idea of flying aircraft carriers is nothing at all new. in fact using lighter than air ships (a "blimp" is only one of the types there were also "ridged" airship types), was one of the earliest concepts to do so. as well as concepts to use large fixed wing aircraft to ferry smaller aircraft to battle.

the main problem with lighter than air ships, especially in battle was actually due to the lighter than air gas used, especially in Germany, being highly flammable. in fact from what i have read over the years, they were able to handle being shot quite well, due to their sheer size, compared to bullet holes. not to mention that size also allowed the mounting of antiaircraft weapons, to fight off attacks. well UNTIL they started to use incendiary ammunition, which caused the flammable gas to ignite. which rather quickly turned them into giant fireballs.

now that issue can be dealt with by using largely inert gasses such as helium. although from what i have read the last few years, helium is actually in rather short supply in the world, just from using it for kid's balloons, and the few rather small airships we have now. which is not a good thing, when just one airship, especially one big enough to carry aircraft, would need so much of it. forget about a "fleet" of such airships.

another big, problematic issue with lighter than air ships, is their considerable lack of speed. they would in fact almost be great big, stationary targets, just as they were in WW1. and we now instead of just tiny bullets, have missiles that can easily hit such a big, almost stationary targets, capable of making really big holes. in fact just one or two hits may be well enough to destroy one.

just think of bombers. a smaller, yet still big target. there are two primary ways in say WW2 (before major use of missiles), one of course being defensive guns, to fight it out with attacking aircraft, with only semi success (more a mater of who, shoots down the other first). or more importantly speed. where the idea is to outrun those shooting at you, making yourself also harder to hit. as well as being able to maneuver, making yourself even harder to hit. the Mosquito was a great example of this. being fast, unarmed (at least for original bomber setup, but they also made fighter/fighter-bomber variants later), very maneuverable, and because of not putting in so much firepower for defense and people to use those guns, also smaller than say a B-17, making it even more hard to hit. and was able to carry 2/3 the bomb-load of a B-17. with a higher speed and much more maneuverability. relying on that speed and maneuverability instead of guns and extra people to operate those guns for protection. with size, speed and maneuverability being the best defense in the age of missiles.

therefore an airborne, aircraft carrier period, is a lousy idea. one based on a huge, slow, unmaneuverabe airship, is far worse.



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: generik

i would argue that these days the ability to make a drone carrier and not just a bunch of racks in a C-130

we can make small suicide drones that don't need to come home and drones that do ISR or ELINT or even forming a big SAR.

and at the end of the day you can have them attack targets they were watching or come home and land on the top of the carrier. or even fly into the back of a C130

kind of the idea of loyal wingman and the minions but way cheaper per drone.


the carrier could sit at stand off distances right on the edge of the enemies advanced AA missiles.




obviously this is a thought exercise as we already have systems up and running that can do swarms and all that so it is just fun to think about and i was playing one of my favorite games and i was like ohhh that's neat.



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 04:24 PM
link   
What is this, 1935?



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Mark08

i think you might be surprised what lighter than air stuff is out there and what their jobs are.


we used aerosats in Iraq and Afghanistan used for ISR and other spy type stuff



posted on Dec, 5 2021 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Great for loiter time and heavy lift but speed (unless your a big black flying triangle) is an issue..



posted on Dec, 5 2021 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

if they are even weaponized, i personally don't think they are. If there is some sort of field around them that messes with emerita or even mass you couldnt shoot past that with anything other than maybe DEW's

i could see them using lasers or extreme microwaves, dead is dead, a bullet or your brain cooked....same result.



posted on Dec, 5 2021 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Had a buddy that went to Afganistan as a contractor with lockheed some years back he was working with their blimps.

So yea they have a place in the air now and into the future, dominate it probably not.



posted on Dec, 5 2021 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

yeah they can do some neat stuff

they can put HEAVY optics on them that are up there forever as well as radar and millimeter wave and ELINT stuff


i never got to see the control area of them but got a lot of info relayed from them and by them.


i did see a a picture from one and it was VERY detailed and had all sorts of info and looked like it might be interactive on a computer



posted on Dec, 6 2021 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blackfinger
Great for loiter time and heavy lift but speed (unless your a big black flying triangle) is an issue..


Actually, back in the early 1960's, NASA was experimenting with inflatable re-entry vehicles capable of speeds of up to Mach 7 at an altitude of 96 miles, or so.

This article might be informative (although it's from 2005) regarding near-space LAV's:


scholar.afit.edu...


Bear in mind the materials and technology has likely advanced to a considerable degree since then.



posted on Dec, 6 2021 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Well since the advent of super thin and high temperature carbon fiber and other types of semi metallic weaves reinforced with tiitanium mesh it is possible. However since the military does not need stationary surveliance it has gone by the wayside. The cargo market has the best possibility of developing this as it can fly/float past the seaports to its unload destinations. You know the leftcoast is still ikes covid we cannot work go home and die.







 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join