t-scotta@uunet.uu.net (05/30/91)
From: microsoft!t-scotta@uunet.uu.net I am sure this has been suggested before, but I must have missed it. So here goes. During the Gulf War, at least at the begining there was a big problem with the movement of large heavy items to the gulf. Basically, there was not enough airborne heavy lift capibility. The closing quote to the Monday 50 years ago today started me thinking about the possibilities using airships as an alternative to heavy lift cargo planes. A large airship cruising at 35-40 kts, about double the speed of a cargo ship, would be able to carry a reasonable load. The problems are going to be, 1. Load: I suspect that the airship should be able to carry 2 M-1 tanks or the equilivent weight to be effective. 2. Range: How far can it go on internal fuel. This could be solved by refueling at sea or having enough range to make it between land bases. 3. Defence: Cargo planes have no defensive capibility, however they fly quite a bit faster. Would defensive systems(AIM-9L) be useful. Is this a reasonable idea or am I out in left field? Would it be cost effective? Comments please. Scott Avery My opinions are all my own.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (06/01/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: microsoft!t-scotta@uunet.uu.net >... A large airship cruising at 35-40 kts, about >double the speed of a cargo ship, would be able to carry a reasonable load. I think the real problem here is simply the numbers: to be cost-effective at a speed an order of magnitude lower, an airship has to carry a payload an order of magnitude heavier than a cargo aircraft, or else have some other compelling advantage. Given that heavy cargo aircraft carry 50-100 tons of cargo (in the absence of load-distribution problems), this is going to be the mother of all airships. I doubt that it is worthwhile. -- "We're thinking about upgrading from | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (06/01/91)
From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) microsoft!t-scotta@uunet.uu.net writes: >A large airship cruising at 35-40 kts, about >double the speed of a cargo ship, would be able to carry a reasonable load. I do not know about cargo uses, but I once saw a study on the use of an airship as part of a carrier group. The suggested craft would have served the role now filled by the E-2 aircraft and the Aegis crusiers. E.g it would have carried long range radar and anti-air missiles. Supposedly, it would have increased a carrier's strike capability be eliminating the need for the E-2, some KA-6 and F-14 aircraft. These would have been replaced by A-6/A-7/FA-18 aircraft. The airship was protected from air-to-missiles by the assumption that anything big enough to harm an aluminum skinned airship was big enough to be shot down. So far as I know, there has been no follow-up to this paper study. Frank Crary
brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass personal account) (06/04/91)
From: edat!brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass personal account) [11 lines of unnecesary quote deleted --CDR] NOVA on PBS recently aired an episode on modern air ships, the various designs in use, and the exploration of heavy lift designs. In a word, no, no one has been able to build a modern air ship with a super heavy lift capability. But not from a lack of trying. It actually looked more like a lack of funding. Many different solutions were jury-rigged together more as proof of concept, and tended to end in disaster. One attempt by the US Forestry Service ended in the death of a test pilot. Given sufficient funding, long term committment, a proper design obviously could be achieved with say a 1 Million lb lifting capacity or more (3+ C-5 loads). But the biggest problem as shown in the NOVA show is mooring. Most air ship accidents happen while moored at unimproved facilities. I suggest waiting for the repeat episode (if this wasn't already the repeat) for more complete info. -- Brian Douglass brian@edat.uucp
jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (06/05/91)
From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov "The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed" by John McPhee describes your basic starry- eyed dreamer attempting to revolutionize cargo aviation with an airship of modern design. The strict military content is low but followers of this thread might find the book interesting nonetheless. --Joe "Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
spl@deakin.OZ.AU (Stephen Percy Larcombe) (06/07/91)
From: spl@deakin.OZ.AU (Stephen Percy Larcombe) microsoft!t-scotta@uunet.uu.net writes: >The closing quote to the Monday 50 years ago today started me thinking >about the possibilities using airships as an alternative to heavy >lift cargo planes. A large airship cruising at 35-40 kts, about To give some idea of scale the R.100 (built by Vickers for the British government to compete against the illfated R.101) had the following specifiactions (appoximatly). 5 million cubic feet of gas space. Hydrogen gas. Total lift of 150 tons. (these are English tons that are 240 pounds heavier than US tons). Total carrying capacity of about 47 tons. It carried around 30 tons of petrol when it flew non stop from England to Canada in about 3 days. This reduced load capacity to 17 tons. Tops speed of 81mph. Cruising speed of about 50mph.
chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey) (06/07/91)
From: Irving Chidsey <chidsey@smoke.brl.mil> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >I think the real problem here is simply the numbers: to be cost-effective >at a speed an order of magnitude lower, an airship has to carry a payload >an order of magnitude heavier than a cargo aircraft, or else have some >other compelling advantage. Given that heavy cargo aircraft carry 50-100 >tons of cargo (in the absence of load-distribution problems), this is >going to be the mother of all airships. I doubt that it is worthwhile. But heavy lift cargo planes require big runways. Airships compete more with helicopters if there are no runways. However, as a target it is much bigger than a barn door, and gas bags are much thinner than the steel plates they make cargo ships out of. There may be a niche for airships, but it may also be too small for them to develop. Is there enough space between: Cargo ships -- big slow, need ports. Cargo planes -- smaller, 20 times faster, need long runways. Helicopters -- still smaller, only 7 times faster, 1/10th the range. Trains -- 2 to 5 times faster, need tracks, can't cross sea. Trucks -- 2 to 3 times faster, need roads, can't cross sea, need many. for Airships -- Helicopter speeds, long range, land nearly anywhere, but a very big target and need relative calm to land. -- I do not have signature authority. I am not authorized to sign anything. I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DA, the DOD, or the US Government to anything, not even by implication. They do not tell me what their policy is. They may not have one. Irving L. Chidsey <chidsey@brl.mil>
daly@strawber.princeton.edu (John Daly) (06/10/91)
From: daly@strawber.princeton.edu (John Daly) It seems to me that lighter-than-air would be most adaptable to AEW and ASW roles, where endurance is the critical factor. The primary advantage of airships over conventional aircraft is that they can stay aloft almost indefinitely without refueling. An AWACS version of a lighter-than-air craft would be capable of providing continuous radar coverage of an area comparable to that covered by the E-3A with a single inexpensive vehicle. Since it can remain on station for weeks at a time, one might even develop it into sort of an airborne AEGIS by using fiber-optic data links to interface with ground based weapons directors and AAW/ASuW. As far as anti-submarine warfare is concerned, helicopters tend to be our most effective ASW platforms at present. Their primary limitation is range. 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.
alfalfa@milton.u.washington.edu (Corey Lawson) (06/14/91)
From: alfalfa@milton.u.washington.edu (Corey Lawson) daly@strawber.princeton.edu (John Daly) writes: >If airships are capable of >sustained speeds of 40+ knots then they will make relentless submarine hunters. But is that into the wind or with the wind? Very important factor with airships... -- corey lawson alfalfa@milton.u.washington.edu
military@amdcad (06/14/91)
From: <bellcore.bellcore.com!mruxb!patter> I doubt that it would be reasonable. Answering your first limitation question (load) is easy. Look up the load figures for the Hindenburg and keep firmly in mind that helium doesn't provide as much lift as the hydrogen used by the old dirigibles. They used to carry about 40 passengers, as I recall, in the same comfort as a steamship (including a bar with a grand piano). I don't think all that adds up to the lift necessary to pick up a couple of 60 ton tanks. Range shouldn't be a problem. The old airships made a living crossing the Altantic from Germany to the US. I'm not sure how they dealt with the fact that the prevailing winds are from the west and usually are higher than 20 knots (the jets can go high enough to pick a good wind). Such a vessel would be absolutely impossible to defend. Even aircraft able to go 400 mph were occassionally downed by ground fire. WWI pilots were absolutely terrified of ground fire (at ~100 mph). Imagine what a 105mm recoilless would do to this thing with a sensitive contact fuse!