Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!olivea!oliveb!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Dirigibles & airships
Message-ID: <1991Jun18.073814.13457@amd.com>
Date: 17 Jun 91 16:30:11 GMT
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Lines: 52
Approved: military@amd.com


From: pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)


Personally, i have to think, much as i love airships, and chasing their
history, that LTA (lighter than air) would be simply LST (Large Slow
Target) in todays environment.  The point of WWII effectiveness of the
(sometimes forgotten) blimp (nonrigid) fleet is good, but much has
changed.  (The WWII operational area extended to Brazil, and,
eventually, the Med.)

Speed, for the big rigids, (and as quoted elsewhere, for the blimps)
was 80-90mph range.  The transatlantic commercial service would better
this by "pattern flying", which involved taking a (usually northerly)
course westbound and a (usually southerly) course westbound.  (or
vice-versa) to maximize the tail wind, and tuning that to the specific,
current position of the weather.

Ground handling was a reasonably solved problem, by 1930, at least in
half way decent weather.  Consider Shenendoah, Los Angeles, Akron &
Macon, the USN rigids.  Shenendoah, "hung up" intact, to free Helium
for Los Angeles & other uses.  Los Angeles lost in a thunderstorm in
the mid west.  Akron, flown into the water, in a storm, in the Atlantic
(for lack of radio altimeter).  Macon, broke up in mid air, returning
from fleet exercises in the Pacific.  May (or may not) have been due to
problems with a repair from a ground handling accident.  (i could do
lines on each of these, but decline, as i see the edge of the charter
right over THERE...(I may have Akron & Macon reversed)).

Each of them, even pre radar, was routinely shot down early in
exercises.  RADAR would help them, but also make them (or successors)
very "visible".  LTA would, imo, be a fine tool, so long as nobody was
shooting at it...

context switch:
re the comments on B52s as AAM launchers/carriers, and a lost post
about the lack of success trying to get bombers through without
fighters in WWII.  hmmmm I wonder.  There was not, that i know, an
attempt to send along gunship only B17s, which would be a closer
analogy...  Would it have worked?  we'll never know.

	[The problem with the Bombers-as-gunships was that they were heavily
	 armored and carried a LOT of ammo since they had no bombs.
	 After the other B17s dropped their bombs, the gunships were
	 much much slower, and either got left behind or made everyone
	 slow down so they could keep up.  It turned out to be a losing
	 proposition.  All of this was covered in considerable detail
	 in previous issues of sci.military. --CDR]

dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
600 Nickerson Rd Marlboro, Mass  01752		pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com