Shipbucket

A couple of things.

I don't think the overall concept of modern military airships is entirely outside the realm of reality, but rather suffers overcoming the momentum of current programs and a limited range of operational opportunities. The fact is that the P-3 and its replacement exist and at the very least perform the task adequately enough not to warrant premature replacement , heavier than air programs and platforms are well understood thus enjoy a certain advantages in the procurement/production world, and our infrastructure is geared to support conventional aircraft. That being said I would note a couple advantages of a viable platform like this.

- loiter time is going to be far superior to any conventional aircraft.
- fuel consumption (any real design would be prop driven) will be better than current assets.
- the possibility to operate it from bases that don't have full runways.
- If built correctly the payload could be quite impressive as several current and cancelled lighter than air heavy lift programs have shown to be possible.

Some weaknesses of the concept.

- Speed of action. A conventional aircraft will be able to respond far more quickly than a platform like this. loiter is one thing, changing where you are loitering at is quite another.
- Vulnerability. If we are talking operating in any area where we can't quickly and reliably impose air superiority these things are toast. I appreciate the attempt to provide self defense in the OPs design but I don't think mounting such systems is achievable or would be effective if they were. Granted you can make these platforms relatively stealthy but they are not going to be maneuvering their way out harm either.
- Observability. Any platform capable of caring anything of note will be at least the size of a football field. High up it will still be small, but it isn't moving fast so once you see it you will continue to know where it is. If it has to get low enough to dip a sonar...
- You couldn't use it near an enemy coast, any SAM would have a field day with it.

I think the main weakness with the OP's concept is restricting it to ASW. It would certainly be useful for that as areas like the Gulf or Oman or North Korea or a number of other spots where submarine warfare is likely (well as likely as hostilities in general anyway) where we have full expectation of complete air superiority but there probably isn't going to be that much ASW going on justifying a dedicated platform. I think as a general scouting/intelligence/targeted strike platform it would really come into its own. Against full on SAMs it is a sitting duck, but you could easily operate it above MANIPAD range in say the Horn of Africa or Afghanistan. You could cover most of the Somali coast with near 24/7 observation with just a few of these. The last time I was out there the multinational force was maintaining nearly two dozen P3s in Djibouti to provide maybe one or two recon patrols every two days. Whether you mount a few mavericks on them or have them direct other units to the action I can see it being useful.

Anyway my suggestions for the actual drawing:

- replace the jets with prop type propulsion. I say this for several reasons. First, the fuel you would need to carry to power those jets would quickly overwhelm the lift capacity of the current dawning and would do the same to a vehicle of more realistic size. Second, the aerodynamic realities of the shape of an airship make anything over 100mph a technical pipe dream not to mention the weight of the structure you would need to support such speeds. Third, one of the possible benefits of a system like this is stealthiness and those engines will not only make it loud but provide a perfect signature for every sort of seeker out there.

- I suggest researching some modern airship designs, the structure/shape is more akin to a century ago than modern technology.

I often wonder if ASW blimps could still be used as a relatively cheap "net" in an area with many islands and miles and miles of coastline (see: my SMS nation North Point). I've often stated that North Point has a fleet of blimps used for ASW patrol, but have recently decided to scrap them. However, the above post raises some interesting points and makes me reconsider.

A fleet of blimps on constant rotating patrol, with MAD gear etc, could be a pretty easy way of keeping a large amount of sea territory under control. If a contact is sighted, the blimp can loiter while land based aircraft arrive.

Still, I'm not entirely sold on the utility of blimps given the fact that their main advantage was to force submarines to stay down and run out of air. Thoughts?

They make sense as a permanent, stationary presence, which is why the USN had permanent, stationary blimps (though they're retiring them).

Colosseum wrote:I often wonder if ASW blimps could still be used as a relatively cheap "net" in an area with many islands and miles and miles of coastline (see: my SMS nation North Point). I've often stated that North Point has a fleet of blimps used for ASW patrol, but have recently decided to scrap them. However, the above post raises some interesting points and makes me reconsider.

A fleet of blimps on constant rotating patrol, with MAD gear etc, could be a pretty easy way of keeping a large amount of sea territory under control. If a contact is sighted, the blimp can loiter while land based aircraft arrive.

Still, I'm not entirely sold on the utility of blimps given the fact that their main advantage was to force submarines to stay down and run out of air. Thoughts?

Keeping the submarines down was their function in the past, but airship technology has advanced. Or rather other air technology is being fitted to airships as interest returns to them.

In WWII and the post war period airships were slow and not at all maneuverable. Even if they saw a surfaced submarine there was no way they would be able to get to it, stabilize over it, and get a dumb bomb over it. Also they were many times detecting surfaced submarines which had hands on deck who would surely see the airship not only because eyes were better than any periscope at the time but because the airship itself had to be low enough to see submarines in a pitching sea with the same old mark 1 eyeball.

Today things are different:

1.) Submarines don't surface. While periscopes have advanced optics as far as I know they are still optimized for surface viewing. Yeah masts have sensors to detect search radar and what not but I think a blimp at 5-10K feet loitering on very low engine power relying on enhanced FLIR and other type devices that wouldn't give it away would be near impossible for a sub to detect. And the way surveillance technology is today the second a periscope or mast pops out there is a high chance the wake or periscope/mast itself will be detected. I think there is a good chance that not only will the submarine not know anyone is there looking, they won't know when they are seen either.

2.) Now add the above to current weapons technology. Yeah even today's airships are slow compared to aircraft and yeah an ASROC is not a workable idea, but you cold probably make a guided munitions kit for a torpedo to passively drop it on top of a submarine miles away from the actual location of the blimp. Many of our guided bombs work this way, its a kit attached to a dumb bomb instead of a purpose build guided munition. You would probably still need a parachute mechanism to slow for entry, but you get the idea.

3.) Again lets not restrict this to submarines. Put a few mavericks on there any there isn't a small patrol craft (or pirate skiff) out there that will probably avoid destruction as they generally don't carry an anti air weapon that can reach to an airship at a reasonable operating altitude.

Again I think this is more for asymmetric situations than state on state warfare, but we have a lot of those situations currently.

The problem of course is that modern lighter-than-air platforms entirely lack elan (unlike the USN blimps of World War II), and are therefore not a viable option for North Point. I guess I'll just stick to the age old tactic of destroyers and Orions!

I think a single gunfire could make that dirigible to be devastated...

The LEMV:

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=4017

The material used for the rigid part of the hull which is the underside is thick enough to resist small arms fire. There really aren't too many aircraft that could be expected to withstand anything larger.

You certainly wouldn't use it anywhere that air superiority is not entirely on your side or where SAMs might be an issue, but submarines are sometimes the choice weapon to fight a superior belligerent precisely because they have the ability to operate where an enemy otherwise has superiority. Some subs do have a slight ability to shoot down aircraft primarily as a last ditch effort to fend off helicopters or other airborne ASW platforms if stealth fails them, but as we disgussed above I think an airship would be too quite for a sub to know its there.

Shipright, don't unpowered "gliding" munitions rely, to a certain extent anyways, on the forward airspeed of the launch aircraft to increase their range? How much glide can you get dropping from an airship at 60 knots vs. a P3 or F/A-18 at 300 knots?

This is the ultimate pinnacle of LTA ASW:

Navybrat85 wrote:Shipright, don't unpowered "gliding" munitions rely, to a certain extent anyways, on the forward airspeed of the launch aircraft to increase their range? How much glide can you get dropping from an airship at 60 knots vs. a P3 or F/A-18 at 300 knots?

I honestly doubt it, lateral momentum would bleed off quickly for any unpowered munition not augmenting it with glide momentum. Glide momentum is achieved by redirecting vertical momentum achieved from gravity to lateral momentum (or up drafts but that does not apply here) bu using the speed from decent to provide the forces to make an airfoil work.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/transp ... lider3.htm