Replies

"Yep. Plus in situations where we have air supremacy, you could have one of those staying on station for extended time periods, dropping smart bombs on the heads of guerrillas below."

Sorry. Nope. Like every decade or so for the last 50 years "airships" come up as "new" ideas for military and civilian transports. The ideas never go anywhere.

Military wise they are large targets. Even with just helium as the flotation gas there are major problems with being in the largest target over, or near, a battle area.

Especially a large target that has a 0-100 time probably measured in 5 minute increments. So you are in a big, slow target in a battle zone. And they handle like slugs.. sort of like super tankers... but not as responsive.

Top that off with the fact that it will not do well in high wind areas, particularly during heavy storms. Additionally they are hard to maneuver on the ground, ever hear of the Akron and her sister ship the Macon?

The Akron and Macon had to be maneuvered on the ground with rail road locomotives. Both went down in storms (one off New Jersey, one off California) ending the Navy's idea of rigid frame airships. Several sailors died in the accidents. Several more who dropped to their deaths or were smashed around during landing/take off operations.

So you have a large target, that weighs several tons itself, is not very responsive on the controls, is hard to maneuver on the ground, and can't be put away even in a super dome... unless it is in pieces and then it takes several dozen trucks or rail cars to move it around.

So no, there is no hope for these in the military. Probably not in civilian applications either.