Slashdot Mirror
Old Airlift Vehicle Concept Made New
starexplorer writes "LiveScience is reporting on an early conceptual design of The Walrus the DOD's new planned 'very large airlift vehicle'." Could the concept of a 'war-balloon' really be gaining favor again?
I've been a huge fan of airships after reading up on them, but this thing will positively scream "TARGET" (not the chain store) to every radical nut with a shoulder launch missile. It will also move rather slowly.
Perhaps a good choice for moving materiel between safe locations, but not something you'd fly over the Middle East any time soon.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
By Selling them my girlfriend, some off-green paint and helium tanks!!!!
...that the pilots will see how they run like pigs from a gun.
Based on the size of this warship, not to mention the slowness of it, am sure that it can't just easily outrun a fighter jet sent to destroy it, or be able to perform evasive manuevers...
I can imagine that it will be escorted by a fighter division, not to mention have some high-tech anti-missle weapons and the like, yet I can see an air to air missle easily bypassing those protections and bringing down a TON of hardware with it... major catastrophe...
Anyone have any ideas what sort of protection methods will be used to protect this massive warship, as well as if this will be used for strictly hardware transport, or troop transportation as well?
We shall find out shortly it seems...
Need a Nerd?
Nerd Systems
Makes me think of "Warlords of the Air" - a peculiar Moorcock book from the 70's. Had flying dreadnaughts - designed by the Chilean wizard O'Bean.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
I mean, I would assume they're not bulletproof or anything, so it seems sort of weird to field a giant cargo ship you can bring down with a .22
Nice thing about this, is it would be perfect for doing firefighting or even work in 9/11-katrina areas (think of it as a floating hospital, or simply ability to drop in national guard, etc). Hopefully, it gets used.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I wonder how the Iraqis would like one of these bombing their country.
except from altitude and even then they are rarely if ever deployed in heavily contested areas. Most of the time they require large airstrips which in itself implies control over land and air of the region.
What it does offer is many possiblities for not just military operations. If these things pan out in efficiency you can bet UPS and FED Ex would want them. Let alone the possibilities of flying cruise ships!
FWIW, anything is a target for a terrorist, though preference is giving to things that don't shoot back.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
To me this seems like a pretty good idea. It would be wise to keep the numbers of them small and spread out in relativly safe locations so that the unfriendlies wouldn't bother to target them too much . Be very useful to airlift that much weight even very short distances - lift tanks up a clif from a ship that would otherwise have been impossible.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
Instead of for transport, big baloons and dirigibles will be used for surveillance! Imagine a huge blimp using clouds as camouflage! It is watching us all more closely than any satellite, and we don't know they are there. They will be like floating death stars!
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
By Selling them my fat-ass boyfriend, some off-green paint and helium tanks!!!!
We'll just put a few anti-everything-that-can-possibly-harm-us lasers (no sharks), a wholly capable tracking/guidance system, and a tremendous powerplant on some type of carbon-nanotube armored kevlar balloon and Presto! Instant Flying Dome o' Doom.
The Chronic *WHAT* les of Narnia!
What if such developments in dirigible tech actually mean that it's easier for a robot to fly from LA to Las Vegas? Would the DARPA Challenge be folded up since it's no longer needed, or is there a real requirement for land-based robotic vehicles? Are flying vehicles a level of magnitude more expensive?
Now pass me the helium tank so I can talk in a high squeaky voice and scare off the terrarists.
...
sigh.
.
.
.
yeah, I know it's hydrogen, but it's funnier that way
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Looks just like Thunderbird 2.
Only a few comments so far, most of them about how easy it would be to shoot it down.
But it won't be that easy. First of all, compartmentation. No doubt the bag will be at least dozens, if not hundreds, of individual compartments. Weight prevents anything equivalent to a ship with thousands of watertight compartments, but there will certainly be enough that bullets won't be much of a danger. The lifting gas won't be under pressure, so it won't start rips that widen the holes. And certainly the gas bag material will have anti-rip threading.
It won't use hydrogen either, no one is that stupid. Helium is the lifting gas of choice.
Shoulder fired missles are not a threat. This thing will fly above them. Their range is only a couple of miles. Full sized missles and full size AAA are a different matter, but again, compartmentation will help, and gas bags probably don't provide much of a radar signature to trigger fuzes, nor does the gas bag itself offer enough resistance to trigger most fuzes; they will probably fly right through and leave behind a few holes, trivial to patch.
Which brings up damage control. I am sure the crew will be able to climb around inside and apply temporary patches.
I think these heavy lift combat balloons are a silly idea. But they aren't nearly as silly as so many quick posts make out.
Infuriate left and right
Looks,
Like a remake of the crap Popular Science seems to devote every third issue to.
Yawn. No make that YAWN!
---- Go ahead, mod me down, I'll just post it again and you lose your mod points.
Why not just bring back the "Skirosy" Helicopters, they have a decent speed, they can carry a long list of cargo(vehicles, munitions, bombs, troops), and they can carry some decent weaponary and armor for themselves..personally i would rather see a new fleet of these then airships..anyone who wants to see em they are here----->http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/s ystems/aircraft/h-53.htm
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
In the article they mention making landings near combat zones on unimproved landing fields.
What it does offer is many possiblities for not just military operations. If these things pan out in efficiency you can bet UPS and FED Ex would want them. Let alone the possibilities of flying cruise ships!
Oh, heck yes! Have you seen how the passenger compartment of the Hindenburge (LZ-129) was laid out? Pure luxury! I'd fly to London in that in a heartbeat, screw the extra hours it takes.
FWIW, anything is a target for a terrorist, though preference is giving to things that don't shoot back.
Sure, but what is this thing supposed to shoot back with? This looks like the Glider fiasco of WW II all over again.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The US just awarded lockheed Martin with lots of money to build an oversized goodyear blimp. Is it me or did anyone else notice that Lockheed had several patents on 'war blimps' already?
A morning without coffee is like something without something else.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems as though this might be vulnerable to enemy attack on a _ridiculous_ scale. I know the the Russians were working on very large aircraft (ekranoplans) that use the wing-in-ground effect to stay aloft, and could theoretically transport an armored battalion at once at 400kts. That would seem to be a much smarter idea, especially since others have been making progress since the Russians gave it up (When Brehznev took over).
Kirov reporting.
Hmm, good idea.
;)
Paint the bullseye, just make sure there is a safe spot behind it for the bullets to land
Hehe, it would be hard to shoot at it and NOT instinctively aim for the bullseye.
I think I liked "The Land Leviathan" more, to be honest. Although I thought Moorcock was making some kind of statement about fate when Hiroshima ended up being the first city to get nuked anyway.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
"the Walrus aircraft will be a heavier-than-air vehicle and will generate lift through a combination of aerodynamics, thrust vectoring and gas buoyancy generation and management."
THRUST VECTORING OWNS THE SKY! THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSS ZERO STYLE!
Anyone left who remembers the fabulously failing Cargolifter AG in Germany? http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/cargo lifter/
One is giant nazi gas bag, the other is a dirigible!
Warship.
Even the most modern, lumbering Aircraft Carrier is a big target for waiting submarines / strike aircraft so you protect it.
You protect these things according to their strategic value. ie: The Aircraft carrier is strategically valuable so you give it a Frigate / Destroyer screen along with air-cover.
In the case of the huge HTA cargo carrier, you likewise protect it with fighters, refuellers etc and because it can carry huge ammounts, perhaps give it it's own air to air missile system.
Given it's size / lifting capability, perhaps these warships could also carry a Phallanx / Goalkeeper type system.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Oh the humanity !!
FWIW, anything is a target for a terrorist, though preference is giving to things that don't shoot back.
Sure, but what is this thing supposed to shoot back with? This looks like the Glider fiasco of WW II all over again.
Something big enough could probably mount some cannons, rockets, or missiles. They could be mounted pod-style, like on attack helicopters, or internally, like warships or the F-22 Raptor.I thought I told you to stop making up animals.
Simple: make the thing so DAMNED *BIG* that it can carry fighters - a flying aircraft carrier!
Of course, the article fails to answer the most important question: can it turn on a dime?
Please help metamoderate.
I don't think clouds would give off heat signatures and bounce back radar like a HUGE BALLON. Interesting idea though.
Why are there so many "I Am The Walrus" references associated with this thing?
(Don't shoot me. I'm 22.)
FedEx tried this once, with Lockheed Martin Skunk works as the prime and ran out of money. One of the biggest problems was that the vehicle was so big, it would hardly fit onto the runways at LAX. Try having those things land regulary at any busy airport and you are going to have major logistical problems. Also, I worked on a similar concept for a now extinct company in Germany called CargoLifter. There airship was called the CL160, which was actually lighter than air (didn't need aerodynamic lift) and was the length of roughly 3 American football feilds in length. It could carry 160 tons of cargo from destination to destination ...eliminating the need to build things in small enough pieces to be carried on the highway. Seemed like a good business plan until the German government pulled th plug on funding. The old hanger, which could fit two of these things side by side, is now a bioshpere like amusement park:
http://www.my-tropical-islands.com/index-e.htm
It is indeed an easy target; like a ship for instance. In WW2 we lost lots of ships to u-boat torpedos. Nobody said we should stop building ships though. This thing probably has its place.
that's got to be the best idea I've seen ;o)
and funny to boot!
They will be putting the Lead in Led Zepplin?
Sorry, couldn't resist
First Falcon-1 to orbit, then Falcon-9. Then I can die a happy man.
Answers to the "target problem"
1) bullet holes are no problem. Airships like the goodyear blimp get shot at regularly by rednecks and the compartmentalization keeps them afloat.
2) This thing should be able to carry a fairly advanced array of anti-missile weaponry and decoys. Combined with a low radar and heat signature, it's not as good a target as one might think. It should even have enough lifting capacity that they can throw in some anti-missile gatling guns like the ones they use on cruisers and aircraft carriers. Also, it flies quite high, out of the range of shoulder-launched missiles (they only have a range of a few miles), so you only really have to worry about conventional missiles.
3) Back in the heyday of airships, the US Navy actually built and tested "aircraft carrier" airships. They carried a complement of fighter airplanes on board, and could launch them at will for self defense. Recovery involved catching a cable hanging underneath the airship, not unlike arrestor cables on modern aircraft carriers. Updating the technology to the jet age and accomodating the higher speeds would not be easy, but it could be done.
In short, these things are a lot more practical for military purposes (let alone civilian) than one might think.
The colour and shape remind me of another old heavy-lift vehicle: Thunderbird 2. Coincidence?
I read an article that stated theat these blimps are only going to operate in US secured air space.
Perhaps Dogs? Or bees? Or dogs that bark and bees come out of their mouths??
For that matter, why not carry an F-22? This thing is supposed to lift 500 tons.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Ok, so who else thinks this thing looks like Thunderbird 2?
m l
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~ajhs/hobbies/tbird2.ht
Kirov reporting!
:).
Airships might be tougher than they look, but I'm still not sure about this one's defenses. Some military transports have rear-mounted cannons in addition to chaffs/flares*, so I guess the Walrus would have at least these. It's still a BUSlowF though, making it an easier target and complicating its escorting.
In any case, this seems to be a very interesting and promising project. It can carry almost twice what an An-225 can, or probably even the An itself. I don't know what the operating costs would be, but that's another possible advantage. As is vertical takeoff/landing. Speed is going to be a disadvantage, but it's still better to be able to carry 500 tons than not to be
*- don't these devices require a rapid change of course for the aircraft to be most efficient, making them less efficient in this case?
PS. While I was writing this somebody posted a RA2 reference, but I'll at least add a picture.
Anti-aircraft missiles are not intended to hit their targets, that is too difficult. They explode in proximity to the target and bring it down with shrapnel.
As such, they would be just as deadly for an airship, filling it with thousands of little and not so little holes.
this wasn't really insightful at all. Speaking as the author of the original "sort of weird to field a giant cargo ship you can bring down with a .22" comment, I've been thinking about it and it was just knee-jerk "omg, giant balloon" thinking.
There was a weather balloon with some kind of expensive equipment aboard it about 5 years ago floating over Canada. Whoever owned it asked the Canadians to shoot it down, so they sent out some F4s or something, and they couldn't do it. They basically said that they unloaded a few thousand rounds at it, but that the balloon was so big that these basketball-sized holes didn't really make much of a difference.
The usual way - by shooting first...
In these days of missile wars, a lumbering air ship is no more or less of a target than any other aircraft.
Oh well, what the hell...
Just wondering but is a huge 60mph blimp somewhat fragile over or near a war zone?
Fitting for an economy based solely on sales, selling, and marketing products that someone else invented to base its military on flying air bags.
I've heard of governmental waste, but filling the ballons with the hot air is a great idea. Perhaps then the stench of DC will go away, if even temporary.
Yes, I said it.
Stuff like this makes me wonder... wouldn't it be fuckin' awesome to work for DARPA and be able to bring life to the crazy shit you dreamt up when you were 9?
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Touché! Good one :)
sigh. How many times do we have to tell you people? It was a myth that hydrogen caused the Hindenburg to turn into a "fireball".
For that matter, why not carry an F-22? This thing is supposed to lift 500 tons.
It's not like it hasn't been tried before. I remember seeing film where a propeller driven biplane was launched and retrieved from the bottom of an airship. I also saw concept drawings of an airstrip atop a Zeppelin type craft. This is not a new idea.
A fully loaded F-22 weighs about 40 tons, that means the craft could lift 12 planes.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
500 tons worth of battlemechs!
Watch terrorists fuck with 5 pod mounted Atlas mechs guarding the thing.
Evasive maneuver pattern Kirk epsilon!
How often do you think they come home with bullet holes?
Perhaps as high as 3% of the time? Does that really qualify as all the time?
Not sure what the hyperbole was for, or how this can get +5 insightful for implying that at least half (if not most) if blimps that go up are fired upon.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
These may make interesting transports based upon the last few wars the U.S. has been in (or created for the hell of it, too!).
Gulf War I & II
These wars both had lengthly start-up cycles with lots of troops, hardware, and materials piled up waiting for deployment. Getting things to and from rear deployment areas would be prime candidates for a ship like this.
Balkans (under Gen. Clark)
Though this was won without U.S. troop involvement on the ground, like the Gulf Wars we had large staging areas that needed materials sent to them. Compound that with the rough terrain and close quarters and poor infrastructure (roads and bridges) this would have been an interesting ship.
Afghanistan
This was is now suffering from some states revoking airport access. Assuming some areas are air secure getting stuff into Afghanistan or around Afghanistan could potentially be done with this ship.
Disaster Response
If weather was calm enough what a great way to get a bunch of stuff from a nearby access point (say an uneffected airport or major interstate interchange) to an effected area. This would have the capability of hauling in lots of stuff real quick.
Remember: just because DARPA is designing it doesn't make it's role a direct combat one. As a support vehicle this isn't a bad idea.
The Luddites were ahead of their time.
Sorry, but, that seems to me to support that the Hindenburg fireballed because of hydrogen. It debunks the myth about paint
The army is getting Goblin Zeppelins!
Nice !!! Now we can transport our catapults to the combat zone a lot faster!
Considering that the U.S. is already arming its fighter jets with lasers that destroy rockets, it doesn't seem like much of a problem to me. They can just plop a laser or two on this huge aircraft have some fighter jets escort it and all will be merry.
Regards,
Steve
I, for one, am in favor of this new concept based strictly upon the fact that it has teeth on the front in the same style as you might see on a Homestar Runner character.
to choose T2 as your favorite thunderbird. In the case of T2 fans, you are required to specify which module.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
From Lord Tennyson's Locksley Hall, startedin 1830 and published in 1842:
Now mind you the persona in this poem is telling a story about how he was jilted by his cousin Amy, and all of a sudden we're about one step removed from John Carter of Mars, and wondering "where the hell did that come from?" But I suppose that's what separates the great ones from the good ones: they may be strange, even twisted, but they're never predictable they somehow manage to be right.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Projects like this are usually a way to funnel huge amounts of money to black-ops.
Hell they don't even need to escort it...it can CARRY them (and thus launch them as needed)
so where's the eggman?
Heck, it could have a fleet worth of guns ala the AC-130H Spectre, probably a phalanx system--or a dozen for that matter... With countermeasures out the ass, and missile batteries, it could be quite formidable. For that reason, it might actually make a very good "peace keeping" type vehicle, besides just being a vehicle for transport. It could be a very valuable asset in the type of war we're in now: one where we're not really battling a military with actual modern weapons, and a functioning air force...
How imposing would a gunship like an AC-130U be if it could basically just sit off in the distance (out of range of RPGs and shoulder launched SAMs) without need or want for refuel or re-equip? Very. On top of that, it could spot for artillery, laser and GPS guided bombs, have an AWACs type radar system (part of it's defense), a compliment of Air to ground missiles and otherwise it could be a massive part of the local communication and command structure.
Riots? No problem! That's what the 20mm gun is for! >:P With good optics, it could effectively guard a very wide area--like when bases and hospital units were getting mortared after we ousted the military, a few burps of the guns and they're toast. With an enforced curfew, it could guard wide areas from transport of weapons and troops--especially at night. It's sort of a silly thing that balloons could still be relevant in the 21st century, but in some ways, it's positively brilliant.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
That would be from the Skyhook project.
Weather, for starters.. Folks seem to forget what happened to the first Zeppelin airfleet that was made by both the US navy and the brits.
They had made some wonderfull airships and were considered to be real plum assignments to have.
Just they underestimated Mother Nature.
Both sides lost at least 4 airships before scrapping their airship fleets to sudden storms, squall lines and even a hurricane.
This Walrus maybe almost impervious to enemy fire and operating in the rear area, but when a sudden storm comes up and the thing aint secured, well.. Break out the torches boys, alot of scrap metal is headed to the recyclers.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Pod 3 equipped with the wall-supporting Domo vehicle. HO YEAH!
Ever since I was little kid Popular Mechanics has been predicting the retunr of the blimp. Hope springs eternal.
Do you realize what this is? It is a flying aricraft carrier. Just doing remedial research on the weight of an f-16, it can be considered to be less than 10 tons. Using this number applied to the haul weights and you can see how this thing will be able to carry anywhere in between 50 to 100 f-16's.
I'm crying
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
For those of us with a large budget, a nice high powered laser will also do the trick. I might see some of them around the US cost but I don't imagine they'll be launching them in Iraq or Afghanistan too soon.
To fund the project they could just sell the advertisement space on it.
I remember seeing film where a propeller driven biplane was launched and retrieved from the bottom of an airship.
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
The cities are separated by "redneck country" and the advertising blimps spend more time in transit than you might think. Also, it takes a rifle to reach them (a pistol generally won't do it.) The rifles you tend to find in the posession of the "urban group" are usually fully automatic and are much more likely to attract the attention of the boys in blue. Out in the country, however, lots of good ol' boys have deer rifles (with scopes!) and the sound of a rifle shot is unlikely to draw notice.
This thing's big boat in the air. They just need it to be a boat. In the air.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
You do realize that a carrier has a crew of ~5000 don't you? There's a reason for that.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
Or even better, a whole array of UAVs. This thing could deploy around 400 Predator Drones and act as a relay station to thier operators on the ground a considerable distance away.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?
I was thinking Crimson Skies myself.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Uh oh I think someone at the DOD has been watching too much "sky captain and the world of tomorrow" ..
Ive googled a bit on that war baloon. It seems to me that the whole damn thing is going to be pretty big one. Look at this:
http://infoanimation.com/?q=node/44
Walrus aircraft will be a heavier-than-air vehicle
Oooooohh, It's heavier than air? I'll be damned.
But seriously,
Do they really need it? Won't it be cheaper to have a couple of Jumbo's instead of one of those. And what about redundancy? If the enemy destroy one of those it's like putting all your eggs in one gigantic (gas-filled) basket!
"I used to have that really cool,funny sig
... is a German concept called "Cargolifter", which can claim prior art to this revocation of old technology. Read here for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargolifter .
Unfortunately, mostly to blame on bad managment and leadership, not really regarding technical creativity and expertise, they went bankrupt in 2002.
The inability to fly in heavy weather was the downfall of past attempts at serious uses for large airships ie commercial operations by Zeppelin company.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
Heavy lift aircraft don't usually do combat drops except from altitude and even then they are rarely if ever deployed in heavily contested areas.
I take it that you have never seen a C-130 drop a tank out it's back end from ten feet above the ground?
Good; that's Thunderbird 2 done. Now for Thunderbirds 1, and 3 through 5.
After running after lots of useless ideas, here's a seriously useless one. Huge thing, lovely target (yes, yes, you can't take it down with an RPG-7), heavier than air (i.e. using lots of fuel), and slow.
I keep seeing references to aircraft carriers.
Keep in mind that, during the last NATO north sea manouvers (been a while), all of them were (marked) sunk ON THE FIRST DAY by diesel subs.
Killing one of these whales is going to be rather simple indeed.
Oh, any by the way: of course you can afford to research/build these worthless but amazingly expensive things. I'm sure Halliburton will be most delighted to take this project.
No, really. Go ahead. It'll speed up your collapse, something deperately hoped for by nearly everybody outside the USA.
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
Shenandoah Macon It's been tried before people. These things do terrible in storms.
"Well Ranger Brad, I'm a scientist. I don't believe in anything." - Dr. Roger Fleming
The US Navy had three dirigible aircraft carriers, the Macon, the Akron and the Los Angeles, back in the 1930s. The Akron crashed and the Macon sustained heavy damage, so the whole program was scrapped. Link
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
I will pay someone to design one of these in Battlefield so I can waste it with my shoulder mount and enjoy its terrific explosion.
Am I the only one who thought this, on seeing the picture?
And I was just thinking this discussion couldn't get any more Crimson Skies-like :/
This is a whatif conversation at the White House after deploying one of these.
President: So, does anyone want to explain how we lost one of these ships?
Secretary of Defense: Sir, they used a weapon that inteligence didn't know they had.
President: Do we now know what the weapon was?
Secretary of Defense: According to the flight recorder recovered at the crash site, it appeared to be a large slingshot. President: WTF!!11!!
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
The same way other aircraft do, and are less vulnerable, een when flying low (and no need to flylow except at takeoff and landing). The little shoulder-fired missiles are heat-seekers, and can be spoofed with flares. What's more, I bet this thing could take a couple of hits and still be able to land safely. That, and a little airfield security and the risk is low. They're not for artillery observation.
"The impossible often has a certain integrity that the merely improbable lacks" - Dirk Gently
Please allow me share my vision of the future ... Fill these suckers up with Oil for long haul transport. Christen the first one AirValdez and wait for turbulence. Then watch in amazement as it rains petrochemical death from above on people instead of seals and birds.
I do remember the Titanic's construction, or at least remember what I have read about it. It had high bulkheads athwartship, I think 11 of them spaced down the length of the ship, but they were not closed at the top. As the bow flooded, the water spilled over the top of the first high bulkhead, flooding the next section, which tilted it enough to flood the 3rd, and so on.
Besides, no one is claiming this is unbreakable. Anything can be destroyed with sufficient force. But it won't be a matter of a single bullet popping it or setting it ablaze.
Infuriate left and right
Some kind of dirigible or blimp would be great for disaster relief. Helicopters have short ranges, use lots of fuel, and have rotor wash that makes rescue miserable. This type of vehicle could be much more cost effective in this environment, especially if any visual searching has to be done.
The vehicle seems like it could like a small rocket. With long cables, you'd simply hold the rocket vertically upwards, at a slight angle. During launch, the rocket could get around the blimp, and the rocket wouldn't need to carry nearly as much fuel at a higher altitude.
-Ben
> A fully loaded F-22 weighs about 40 tons, that means the craft could lift 12 planes
That, my firend, would make an extremely attrative target. Shoot one of these down and take a large percentage of the United States GNP down with a couple of shots.
Also, everyone is thinking off all the wrong ways to take an airship down. forget missles, bullets, RPGs, etc. What you want is an air fuel weapon which can be dropped out of a mediumed sized turbo prop driven aircraft. Fly at twice the altitude of the warmed-over blimp and use GPS guided high performance ram air parachutes and BLAMO, no more warmed-over blimp.... you'd need to own the airspace for hundreds of miles around this thing.
of course, the only safe way to unload one of these things would be to use an aero-stat from a navy ship and then use LCACs to bring the cargo into shore from 25 miles out.
Pedantic rant: I don't think M1A2 Abrams (60 tons per) fit in C-130's (too wide). You need a C-17 or a C-5. They can drop HMMVV's though
USS Macon also crashed. Happened off Big Sur in 1935. USS Macon carried 5 Curtis Sparrowhawks.
This is indeed the case. The USS Akron and USS Macon, built for the US Navy in the early 30s, could launch and retrieve Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk biplanes.
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron_(ZRS-4)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Macon_(ZRS-5)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F9C_Sparrowhawk
Be a PATRIOT--because the only thing we have to fear is the lack thereof.
That also ignores the problem of handling a change in lift weight as you drop 500 tons of load. It's possible they are contemplating a hybrid system - e.g. use the gas to support the weight of very large engines, which drive helicopter lift engines - still far-fetched IMHO.
Surely Lennon wrote that.
"The impossible often has a certain integrity that the merely improbable lacks" - Dirk Gently
What would Admiral Shlork do if presented with this choice?
http://www.pbfcomics.com/temporary/PBF013ADAdmiral Schlork.html
Warning: not for the faint of heart. And the link might disappear eventually.
"Like John Lennon said, 'I don't believe in people, I just believe in me.' He was the Walrus. I could be the Walrus, but I'd still have to bum rides off people."
Sure, go ahead and label it offtopic if you want. I don't give a rat's ass...
Do not delude yourself with this 'law': you still have an awfully big envelope that you need to keep hot. It only becomes relatively easier if you scale it up, but not in absolute sense: A bigger balloon needs a bigger in-flight boiler.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you