news@unix.cis.pitt.edu (05/31/91)
From: <news@unix.cis.pitt.edu> To my knowledge, Airships have been considered repeatedly for use as heavy air transport, and as inexpensive radar platforms by the navy. Little has ever come of it. It would seem with the availability of Helium, and the recent advances in control technology and polymer materials, the early problems that led to the demise of the US Airships in the 1930's could be overcome. This is a bit off the cuff, but I strongly suspect that they would make excellent roll-on-roll-off heavy transport, given time/money to do system developement. S. Frezza
john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (06/13/91)
From: anasaz!qip!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu daly@strawber.princeton.edu (John Daly) writes: >An airship would be the equivalent of a P-3C with helo-like >loiter capability and unlimited range. If airships are capable of >sustained speeds of 40+ knots then they will make relentless submarine hunters. I disagree. Nuclear submarines reportedly can exceed 40 knots submerged. P-3's can be sent thousands of miles at 425 knots in order to participate in ASW (we used to investigate SOSUS contacts at the international date line from an airbase near San Francisco). That's going to be tough to do in an airship. Incidently, our hangar previously housed an airship used for ASW circa WW-II (USS Macon, I believe). The airship was destroyed in a storm. I would say that the airship is an obsolete ASW weapon.
anderson@erim.org (Rod Anderson) (06/14/91)
From: anderson@erim.org (Rod Anderson) >anasaz!qip!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu writes: >>daly@strawber.princeton.edu (John Daly) writes: >>[airship capabilities discussion deleted] >I disagree. >Nuclear submarines reportedly can exceed 40 knots submerged. Presumably to outrun airships. My 1954 Jane's quotes a top speed of "over 85 mph" (>75K) for the Navy's N class blimp. A definite speed advantage to the blimp. In any case, submerged speeds of ~40K would result in VERY long passive acoustic detection ranges. For this reason, high speed is probably used only in extremis (e.g., weapon evasion, departing a flaming datum...). At this point, he's forfeited stealth, which is what you want to do (aside from sinking him!):-) >P-3's can be sent thousands of miles at 425 knots in order to >participate in ASW (we used to investigate SOSUS contacts at the >international date line from an airbase near San Francisco). That's >going to be tough to do in an airship. P3 does have good range, but I recall max range airspeed was more like 330K TAS. How much on-station time did you have on your example mission? Less than 4 hours out of a 12 hour mission would be my estimate. How many crews and aircraft were needed to maintain at least one P3 on station, even with no maintenance problems and minimum crew rest? My guess: 5 aircraft, 8 crews. This is for one contact! Incidentally, the P3's slow transit speed was an issue in the P-7 competition. Both Boeing and Douglas proposed mods of commercial jets (757, MD-80 ??), and touted the speed advantage. Wasn't decisive, though!! >Incidently, our hangar previously housed an airship used for ASW circa >WW-II (USS Macon, I believe). The airship was destroyed in a storm. I >would say that the airship is an obsolete ASW weapon. All airships used in WWII were blimps; USS Macon was a prewar dirigible. We need to establish what kind of ASW we're talking about: 1. open ocean search (SOSUS or SURTASS cued), 2. bastion penetration (Maritime strategy style), 3. convoy escort, or 4. direct BG support. Because of its speed, the P3 does a good job in #1, is hopeless in #2 (too vulnerable), and is marginal in #3 and #4 (limited onstation time, vulnerability). SSN's excel at #2, and are pretty good at #3 and #4. (Coordination with convoy/BG can be a problem). Airships are an intermediate platform between fixed wing aircraft and ship/submarines in terms of speed and endurance. Convoy escort in particular seems ideally suited for them. They could conduct search and localization using sonobuoys, ESM, and FLIR just like the P3. If dipping sonar could be installed, an airship could prosecute the entire ASW problem, perhaps assisted in the weapon delivery phase. MAD localization is the only area in which an airship would be inferior to a fixed wing platform, IMHO. Conclusion, airships would excel at #3, and do OK in #4. OBTW, blimps performed extensive convoy escort duty during WWII, especially in the "Black Pit" (out of range of land based air). Number of ships lost while escorted by airships: NONE. Is there a lesson here? Rod
Arthur.Leung@Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur Leung) (06/16/91)
From: Arthur.Leung@Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur Leung) anderson@erim.org (Rod Anderson) writes: >Airships are an intermediate platform between fixed wing aircraft and >ship/submarines in terms of speed and endurance. Convoy escort in >particular seems ideally suited for them. They could conduct search >and localization using sonobuoys, ESM, and FLIR just like the P3. one question about the endurance of the airship in the ASW role: what is the on-station time being considered? from the discussions about convoy escort across the pond, it seems that it should be measured in days. because of the high endurance, crew berthing will have to be provided, along with food, weapons, and a large supply of sonobuoys. i'm no airship expert, but it seems that a large volume penalty might have to be paid in order to support an atlantic convoy. is this true? if so, the problem may be alleviated by using ships in convoy as a moving supply platform. (how would you UNREP an airship?) more seriously, how is airship employment affected by weather? convoys were escorted by blimp in WW II - were these year round employment? -- arthur
002@pnet16.cts.com (J.W.Cupp Lcdr/Usn) (06/19/91)
From: 002@pnet16.cts.com (J.W.Cupp Lcdr/Usn) I'm not sure whether I agree with or disagree with the airships issue for ASW. But notice: anderson@erim.org (Rod Anderson) writes: >OBTW, blimps performed extensive convoy escort duty during WWII, >especially in the "Black Pit" (out of range of land based air). Number >of ships lost while escorted by airships: NONE. Is there a lesson here? > >Rod Which reminds me of the story about AA machine guns on merchant ships. Seems that after the guns were installed, some statistician checked the numbers and found out that very few aircraft were ever shot down by the merchant's crews. Just about when they were about to de-install all the machine guns (to save ammo and $$$) somebody else checked and found out that even though the number of aircraft destroyed was minimal, the number of merchant ships lost to shore based air (as in, nearby by invasion beachheads) was almost zero for those ships with the machine guns. Point is, the guns weren't added to down the Luftwaffe; they were added to protect the ships, and were doing a very fine job. (Above loosely paraphrased from "Proceedings", which issue forgotten). Back to airships--before we make any serious committment, we need to ask, Just what is the point? As the post quoted was saying, there are numerous roles in ASW and various platforms work well for various roles. Many who discuss these issue argue strengths and weaknesses across-the-board, forgetting that it's ar rare item indeed which does EVERY function well. J. W. Cupp UUCP: humu!nctams1!pnet16!002 Naval Telecommunications Center ARPA: humu!nctams!pnet16!002@nosc.mil P.O. Box 55 INET: 002@pnet16.cts.com Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860 The above is merely my opinion, and not to be construed as anything else.