Do hybrid airships have any military value ?
www.airshipcenter.com/images/Hybrid-Walk-Through-HD.mp4
They can carry shit for cheaper than an aircraft
>>30477111
Along with lightweight solar UAVs they seem great for when you want to leave something tootling around over an area during the sort of low-intensity conflicts we're seeing plenty of at the present, like so many things great for these situations they'd probably be of very little use in a higher intensity conflict though.
>>30477124
Their use for logistics seems like a somewhat awkward niche, cheaper potentially than heavy airlift but way slower, more expensive than seafreight but way faster. VTOL would be a nice theoretical advantage but the vulnerable slow flight speed means they'd be stuck flying the same rear echelon routes you can probably not worry so much about/gain such an advantage from that on. Since you're always going to have the bulk of your airlift capability be conventional due to time restraints I wonder how much room there is for another capability to coexist.
>>30477124
Dat ass
>>30477111
My dick is diamonds. Now all it needs are luxury cabins and I'd never want to leave
>>30477124
Someone posted calculations breaking down the cargo tonnage/fuel costs/air speed for an airship vs a C-17.
The C-17 could move much more way faster per unit of fuel.
>>30477124
l-lewd
>>30477111
zero, which is why only websites selling airships believe they're worth anything.
They are slow moving, expensive, large targets, fuel inefficient, non-stealthy and vulnerable to weather.
>>30477111
>>30477124
>Do hybrid airships have any military value ?
Probably, but who is going to take a giant flying ass seriously?
>>30477111
The way I see it, their value is only in long duration reconnaissance missions were they aren't expected to face combat. Like, basically a weather balloon but with a camera.
>>30477124
fap
fap fap fap fap....
>>30477111
Yes and no.
They occupy a sweet spot in logistics, but it's one the US has little use for. They're great for evading infrastructure needs via p2p transport, but legacy airships are vulnerable to wind.
Overall, they're good but not what most militaries need except as a HALE surveillance platform. And since most nations are going to stick with their existing AWACS, there's little need for that, because decent optical payloads can fit on lighter, cheaper fixed-wing UAVs.
>>30477273
did they factor maintenence and crew pay and airframe hours?
>>30477111
No but gliders do.
>>30477471
>>30477439
this
>>30477124
THICC
>>30477471
muh safety
>>30477439
No, it was a pretty linear weight vs fuel at kph. To be fair, in modern combat applications performance trumps mileage.
That being said, deploying drop pods from carrier-sized airships over Seoul during the 100th anniversary of the Korean war was awesome.
Thats the one the UK MoD is very interested in, hence why the Brits continued development of it after their design submission to the US didn't pan out.
They see it as useful for a HALE ISTAR platform to let loiter over areas with piracy to help spot and direct things much faster without spending expensive jets to constantly be flying around there.
Pretty sound strategy, to be honest.
>>30477124
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=JO76dkzV28k
>>30477439
A fixed wing aircraft is easier to fly than a hybrid airship.
You need a huge ground crew for any kind of airship, and landings are still quite complicated.
>>30480769
yea but you don't need a maintained run way to land a hybrid airship.
>>30477124
>>30480794
You need a shitload of people and some fairly specialized facilities.
I can't stress this enough, the idea of an airship landing as easily as a helicopter is simply false. They make landing a plane look easy.
>>30480804
citation please.
Not trying to be an ass, I just assume it's easier
>>30480812
I'm going to be straight, I have no idea how heavier than air airships compare to the landing of lighter than air ones.
It would, of course, remove the ability to hover or land vertically.
I'm not going to dig too hard for citations, but I know that when the Hindenburg landed at Lakehurst, there were more people on the ground crew than passengers on the aircraft, and that was the rule, not the exception.
>>30480804
If only major companies produced a way to use the lift fans to suction the airship to the ground to prevent wind problems! Oh wait, they have!
>>30479513
>That being said, deploying drop pods from carrier-sized airships over Seoul during the 100th anniversary of the Korean war was awesome.
Uh, I'm pretty sure the Korean War started after 1916.
>>30477124
> iggyazalea.jpg
>>30480876
And I'm pretty sure he's describing a hypothetical future and not a historical event.
>>30480850
Hindenburg had no vectored thrust or high-tech buoyancy control, it was basically just a big balloon with engines. Modern advertising blimps are pretty much the same, however state-of-the-art airship technology is another story. The Zeppelin NT needs only like 3 ground crew, compared to like 12 for the smaller Goodyear GZ-20. And a true hybrid airship would basically be like a plane (i.e. no ground crew needed except in very strong winds) but with an extremely low stall speed.
>>30477111
>one good gust of wind
>floats off in to the distance, never to be seen nor heard from again
superb idea m9
>>30480892
I'm not 100% sure that this would offer much capability over a C-130.
The C-130 can land on a strip of bacon, and if you're in a country where that's haram, you can simply parachute down cargo.
I guess that wouldn't do well for resupplying firebases in Afghanistan, but I wouldn't really want to be flying an airship in either.
>>30480924
but think of how steam punk you can be. Also it's more likely they will be used for supplying companies that work out in the middle of no where.
See their ad here
>>30480730
>>30480794
some of the modern heavy airship concepts rely on the outer envelope generating lift, so they still need a runway
>>30480989
well then fuck those, air ships need to be pratical, and if they arn't companies are not going to buy them or invest in them. But I'm pretty sure the Lockheed hybrid ship doesn't any of those special landing requirements.
>>30477111
Potentially. For long-range recon, provided that no combat is encountered. As a weapons platform, they could theoretically operate hovering over a site at altitudes beyond what shoulder-fired SAMs are capable of.
