Could blimps still have a military value as an anti-submarine role?
http://www.airshipcenter.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=259
>>30377327
>born too late to serve aboard military airships
Feels bad, man.
Damn that story was exciting as fuck
Think its all over and then they get attacked by sharks lmao
>>30377327
maybe. definitely as surviellance units over occuppied countries or for regular supply runs.
>>30377327
>http://www.airshipcenter.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=259
would be a good movie
>>30377335
Dumping a whole lot of interior shots of the US navy blimps
>>30377509
>>30377512
>>30377512
.
>>30377531
>>30377531
,
>>30377537
>>30377549
>>30377555
>>30377562
>>30377566
>>30377576
>>30377480
fuck yeah
It would be good, because right now we are venting all our excess helium into the atmosphere simply because there is not enough demand.
>>30377335
With your luck you'd have ended up on the R101, or the Akron, or the Macon, or the R38, or the Roma, or the Dixmude, etc. etc.
Airships a shit.
>>30378253
Yeah, it's a serious problem too. Globally, voices have gone up .3 octaves in the past 80 years.
>>30378299
Shame they crashed and ended the idea of the flying aircraft carrier.
My grandfather's buddy was at Pearl Harbor and later served on Navy blimps. He was a cool dude. I think he liked my sister and I better than his own grandkids because his children were all terrible people.
>>30378299
To be fair, the loss of many military airships was due to their captains insisting on flying in weather conditions that they were not designed for. They treated them as though they were ocean-going naval vessels that could be sailed through a storm with ease, instead of treating them as an aircraft that must keep away from storms. It's what happens when you let non-pilots command your flying things.
>>30378299
Cherrypicking technology from the 20's and the 30's
Modern airships have better safety records then airplanes. Even the blimps from the US navy from the 50/60's have better safety records. Guess what, we don't use hydrogen anymore
>>30377327
I don't think so. Mostly because modern missiles could be easily modified to deal with them(while historically the main advantage of blimps over planes was that blimps could fly at very high attitudes, beyond the reach of airplanes and I believe it would still be a thing today, just the attitudes would be more extreme - however missiles would reach them just as easily).
>>30377327
sloooow bomb runs from height on sandland
>>30377327
I don't know jack shit about blimps, but how would a 20mm barrage not pop one like a balloon?
>>30378409
Rigid airships would probably be a better idea than blimps. There are many stories of it taking quite a bit of time and effort for the Brits to shoot down German Zeppelins during WWI.
>>30378393
Not using Hydrogen anymore also reduces load capacity.
>>30378299
What about the thousands of jet airliners that have crashed the last 60 years killing thousand times the people. The MH17 crash killed more people then all the people killed on all the airship crashed you listed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPGLnEVWkiE
If airships are shit, then airplanes are even shittier according your logic
>>30378409
"The most commonly used lifting gas, helium, is inert so presents no fire risk. Modern airships have a natural buoyancy and special design that offers a virtually zero catastrophic failure mode. A series of vulnerability tests were done by the UK Defence Evaluation and Research Agency DERA on a Skyship 600. Since the internal gas pressure was maintained at only 1–2% above the surrounding air pressure, the vehicle proved highly tolerant to physical damage or to attack by small-arms fire or missiles. Several hundred high-velocity bullets were fired through the hull, and even two hours later the vehicle would have been able to return to base. Ordnance passed through the envelope without causing critical helium loss. In all instances of light armament fire evaluated under both test and live conditions, the airship was able to complete its mission and return to base."
However, airships aren't supposed to be used above conflict territory.
>>30378426
by 7%, that is worth the inflammability.
>>30378379
They can't handle rough weather, they're too slow to get around it, and cant get above it while carrying a useful payload.
>>30378553
They can with modern technology. Back then airplanes had the same limitations regarding rough weather.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERI8_cprgMo
>>30377327
We use blimps a the time still in warfare for surveillance, just not manned and almost always tethered (only saying almost since I have never seen them untethered but it might be a thing since I'm not blimo-expert, just going by what I've seen in person). Also this is on land, not sure about the Navy.
One stateside even came loose recently in my neck of the woods and dragged it's tether cable for some distance destroying stuff, haha.
>>30378593
And to clarify: "all the time" isn't hyperbole, they are deployed 24/7.
I think they're developing blimp drones as long endurance surveillance units. They had a bit of a mishap last year with one of them breaking lose from its mooring, but they're working on it.
>>30377327
>ASW
yes, if you have enough
>SAR
YES
>border patrol
YES
>police applications
YES
>bring back zeppelin carriers and use apaches as parasite craft
EJACULATE
blimps are perfect for border patrol
they offer the most stable platform that can stay in the air for days. They're perfect for low altitude aviation and use much less fuel.
You can then easily shoot the gringo's trying to climb Trumpwall with an AR-15 out of a blimp
Plus they're not very noisy, with mufflers they're the most silent aircraft in existence, gringo won't hear you come unlike with a helicopter.
>>30378900
>>30378900
How'd you get up to the blimp though ? Sorry, I don't get how they are operated.
>>30379332
They go down, you step in, they go up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIVWkJJUKXk
>>30379332
...seriously?
>>30379362
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNzWn22Izpo
>>30378900
"Gringo" is the nickname Mexicans give Americans.. Just saying
>>30379384
gringo just means "foreigner" in beaner talk
>>30378476
Not really
the hydrogen is no risk or danger
It only burns when its mixed with oxygen
>>30379417
But only for Americans. Experience: I live in South America
Would a submersible airship work?
>>30379433
I agree but only in blimps, not in super large airships like the Hindenburg anymore k
>>30379456
No
but there are designs made to land on water, with scoops to pick up water as ballast / drop when it wants to go up. This gets rid of the mooring mast
>>30379457
hindenburg had flammable paint or w/e
Zeppelins are probably pointless though because if you are going that slow you can just travel by rail.
>>30379480
yes I agree. Blimps still have uses tho
but those large airships are redundant.
You could make the blimps smaller if they use hydrogen
>>30379492
If you want long endurance you could just put solar panels on the top of a high altitude glider
It'll stay up there forever
Your blimp needs to be powered anyways to move around
solar drones fill the same role and do it better.
>>30379456
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4RLOo6bchU
Kirov Reporting!
>>30379510
>>30379512
How do you want to use a solar drone for border patrol faggot
