Bringing back the Zeppelins

[Techno_Union]

Do you think it is possible to bring back the Zeppelins and outfit them for modern warfare and other tasks. For all of you who do not know what a zeppelin is, it is a large airship like the Hindenburg. Close to a blimp but on a much much much larger scale. Now useing modern technology we would replace the hydrogen because of its flamibility and put in something else, mabye helium. Is it possible to bring them back? They, in my opinion, would be good homeland defense.

[Luke Starkiller]

They are incredibly slow, have a huge radar profile and can carry minimal loads, compared to any realistic military aircraft. Sounds like...no.

[StarshipTitanic]

Do you think it is possible to bring back the Zeppelins and outfit them for modern warfare and other tasks.

Ah...no.

Close to a blimp but on a much much much larger scale. Now useing modern technology we would replace the hydrogen because of its flamibility and put in something else, mabye helium. Is it possible to bring them back? They, in my opinion, would be good homeland defense.

Hydrogen was only used because it is lighter than helium, they were aware of the existance of helium. Homeland defense? Are we being attacked by single-engined biplanes? The only use it had after the development of better planes were to hold up a long cord for tangling plane props. I don't know how you expect the thing to defend against a jet...

[Techno_Union]

Curiosity, could you station one above a city and the zeppelin has weapons say machine guns and missles. It would then not have to move a lot. But this is coming from compltely a militeristic point of view. I am sure a lot of people would not want them.

[StarshipTitanic]

Curiosity, could you station one above a city and the zeppelin has weapons say machine guns and missles. It would then not have to move a lot. But this is coming from compltely a militeristic point of view. I am sure a lot of people would not want them.

Because any boy with a slingshot could down the entire thing?

[SirNitram]

From a military point of view, the Zepp is done. However, there has been some talk recently of using them as bulk air freight, since the costs would be overall lower than jumbos, even if the transit time is longer.

[Techno_Union]

Curiosity, could you station one above a city and the zeppelin has weapons say machine guns and missles. It would then not have to move a lot. But this is coming from compltely a militeristic point of view. I am sure a lot of people would not want them.

Because any boy with a slingshot could down the entire thing?

How do you figure?

[StarshipTitanic]

Curiosity, could you station one above a city and the zeppelin has weapons say machine guns and missles. It would then not have to move a lot. But this is coming from compltely a militeristic point of view. I am sure a lot of people would not want them.

Because any boy with a slingshot could down the entire thing?

How do you figure?

You can't put tons of armor on it and the armor you do put on has to be something light.

[Rye]

From a military point of view, the Zepp is done. However, there has been some talk recently of using them as bulk air freight, since the costs would be overall lower than jumbos, even if the transit time is longer.

Aw man, i'd love to see that, big fan of zepplins as i am.

How much can zepplins carry, compared to your average number of jumbos?

And to pseudohijack - what happened to those truly massive jumbos, that carry space rocket parts and stuff?

Back on topic, i'd love to see them again, but i don't think it's too likely, especially not for warfare, unless it's a diversionary device or something, but that would be a bit wasteful.

[Techno_Union]

First off, we (U.S) used very small zeppelin/blimps during WWII. We used them to cover our fleets. They would go above the ships and stop suicide bombers and other bombs (not saying it would work today). But the zeppelins already have to some degree armor. Not heavy stuff, but equal to that on a military aircraft. The zeppelins can carry a lot of stuff. Using modern tech. it could probably hold as much as a military transport depending on size (could be more, could be less). But it would slow it down.

[Col. Crackpot]

well John Bonham is dead, but his son is a damn good drummer. I imagine a reunion tour...oh, not Led Zeppelin? Just plain old Zeppelins? then no. If you made it out of ballistic nylon with thin kevlar armor it would be too heavy to do much , and could be shot down with a rifle shot.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Curiosity, could you station one above a city and the zeppelin has weapons say machine guns and missles. It would then not have to move a lot. But this is coming from compltely a militeristic point of view. I am sure a lot of people would not want them.

Because any boy with a slingshot could down the entire thing?

Really? Now that's funny, because during WWI, biplanes with Vickers machine guns had trouble downing the things in any reasonable time and even with the majority of gas bags punctured, an airship like the early Zepps could still limp back home. Modern blimps, however, are not as adept but can still do a similar thing.

And given the tremendous loiter abilities of airships and their ability to be unmanned and require no fuel if solar powered as well as being one big radome if need be, I'd say you'll be seeing more airships in the future for military purposes if certain programmes get their way. That and cargolifting airships are still being looked at as are ASW platforms.

[General Zod]

i simply don't see any practicality to introducing zeppelins as a military weapon. anyone with a high powered rifle could turn it to shreds. though about the most i could see a use for it would be a novelty item for those with money to use as some type of sight-seeing vehicle.

[Admiral Valdemar]

i simply don't see any practicality to introducing zeppelins as a military weapon. anyone with a high powered rifle could turn it to shreds. though about the most i could see a use for it would be a novelty item for those with money to use as some type of sight-seeing vehicle.

They are not that easy to shoot down. Some people seem to think you pop a few 7.62mm rounds into it and it's sunk. That simply isn't the case. You'd need missiles (a tad wasteful) or large calibre HE rounds to take it down for good quickly enough. A few guys with rifles won't do jack before it's done the job, whatever that is.

And the days of airships as weapons are long gone and died in WWI, they simply can't carry the bombload and are still vulnerable for what they are since they're slow and not all that quick.

No, airships would be best as observation platforms such as stratospheric RADAR systems that could act as longer endurance versions of AWACS or JSTARS or as ASW platforms silently over the ocean. If they do become lifters for the military, they'd be kept back behind the front line. There are plans for 160+ ton cargolifters for civilian purposes, all weather and modular loadout, but funding is needed.

They have their potential uses, that's for sure, but whether they do come back in force is another question.

[StarshipTitanic]

First off, we (U.S) used very small zeppelin/blimps during WWII. We used them to cover our fleets. They would go above the ships and stop suicide bombers and other bombs (not saying it would work today).

I already covered that. The balloons did nothing themselves besides hold up a wire for the planes to get tangled in.

Really? Now that's funny, because during WWI, biplanes with Vickers machine guns had trouble downing the things in any reasonable time and even with the majority of gas bags punctured, an airship like the early Zepps could still limp back home. Modern blimps, however, are not as adept but can still do a similar thing.

That's because the biplanes couldn't get the same altitude.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

I wonder what would happen if you just aimed old flak guns at one...

[The Kernel]

They are not that easy to shoot down. Some people seem to think you pop a few 7.62mm rounds into it and it's sunk. That simply isn't the case. You'd need missiles (a tad wasteful) or large calibre HE rounds to take it down for good quickly enough. A few guys with rifles won't do jack before it's done the job, whatever that is.

You're kidding right? I could down a Zepplin with a 20mm anti-personal rifle from long range.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That's because the biplanes couldn't get the same altitude.

There were many engagements of "high flyers" between 16-20,000ft altitude. By that time, the RFC was using incendiary rounds to down them easily.

[Admiral Valdemar]

They are not that easy to shoot down. Some people seem to think you pop a few 7.62mm rounds into it and it's sunk. That simply isn't the case. You'd need missiles (a tad wasteful) or large calibre HE rounds to take it down for good quickly enough. A few guys with rifles won't do jack before it's done the job, whatever that is.

You're kidding right? I could down a Zepplin with a 20mm anti-personal rifle from long range.

And your basis for this?

I also see you missed the part I emphasize here. It will take repeated fire from that gun (and I highly doubt you know many 20mm anti-personal [sic] rifles, they are anti-tank rifles and barely carry more than 5 rounds. A 20mm chaingun will do nicely with HE or incendiary rounds (not that the latter will be as useful against helium filled craft).

[Thunderfire]

SOme people thought it was possible but cargolifter is a failture.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Part of the difficulty of shooting down a lighter than air craft, is that the lifting gas,(Helium, or Hydrogen if you can't get Helium) is NOT under pressure, like a balloon.. So when you shoot a hole in it, it doesn't deflate real fast and shrink!
Instead, the lifting gas mixes with the outside air through the holes, like hot air leaking out of a greenhouse with leaky window frames. Very much like a hot air zepplin after the fire goes out would.
Then there is the whole surface area to weight ratio thing, where even filled with NO lift gas, terminal velocity, (the speed at which gravity's accelleration is equal to aerodynamic drag) is low.
In most cases this is less than 40 MPH, which, on a huge craft that is basicaly one crumple zone, is easily survivable.
Without airbags no less!
Note, this is for derrigables, or zepplins only! Balloons have no frame and thus collapse easily.

[Wicked Pilot]

This has been discussed before here: We Need a New Transport.

To recap the above thread:

Advantages of mile long rigid airships:

1. Incredable payload
2. Can go anywhere in the world without refueling.

Disadvantages of mile long rigid airships

1. Airships are slow. The Westing house YEZ-2A Sentinel 5000 has a max speed of 90kts. (slower than a Cessna 152) At that rate, it would take a mile long airship 35 seconds to travel its own length. A Boeing C-17 Globemaster II can go over 350kts. C-130s go 330kts, while C-5s can reach over 500kts.

2. Rigid airships cannot achieve the same altitude as fixed wing aircraft. This whole nonsense of an airship going into the sub-orbital is complete and utter bullshit.

3. Airships of this magnitude would need extensive ground support at the landing area. They would need a bigger clearing to land on than what is required for a C-130 or C-17, and they would require extensive tie-downs and other means of securing themselves to the ground before they could offload vehicles safely.

4. Airships need near perfect visiblility and very light surface winds to touch down.

5. Airships "carry all their eggs in one basket." Anyone fimaliar with what happen to the Atlantic Conveyor during the Falklands War understands why this is a bad idea.


As someone suggest earlier, using a airship this size in the civilian sector would be a great idea. For instance, you could ship cars straight from Detroit to almost anywhere in the world without having to use trains, ships, and all the middlemen associated with them. But as a military application, airships are best left to communications and submarine hunting.

[Admiral Valdemar]

This has been discussed before here: We Need a New Transport.

To recap the above thread:

Advantages of mile long rigid airships:

1. Incredable payload
2. Can go anywhere in the world without refueling.

Disadvantages of mile long rigid airships

1. Airships are slow. The Westing house YEZ-2A Sentinel 5000 has a max speed of 90kts. (slower than a Cessna 152) At that rate, it would take a mile long airship 35 seconds to travel its own length. A Boeing C-17 Globemaster II can go over 350kts. C-130s go 330kts, while C-5s can reach over 500kts.

2. Rigid airships cannot achieve the same altitude as fixed wing aircraft. This whole nonsense of an airship going into the sub-orbital is complete and utter bullshit.

3. Airships of this magnitude would need extensive ground support at the landing area. They would need a bigger clearing to land on than what is required for a C-130 or C-17, and they would require extensive tie-downs and other means of securing themselves to the ground before they could offload vehicles safely.

4. Airships need near perfect visiblility and very light surface winds to touch down.

5. Airships "carry all their eggs in one basket." Anyone fimaliar with what happen to the Atlantic Conveyor during the Falklands War understands why this is a bad idea.


As someone suggest earlier, using a airship this size in the civilian sector would be a great idea. For instance, you could ship cars straight from Detroit to almost anywhere in the world without having to use trains, ships, and all the middlemen associated with them. But as a military application, airships are best left to communications and submarine hunting.

I see civilian applications being a spin-off from military research bringing about new technologies. While a rigid airship may not be able to reach high altitude, blimps have been shown to get to such heights and have a good chance of replacing satellites in many areas since they are above the weather patterns that make normal airship flight harder (really, like you said, landing in bad weather is the problem since most rigid airships were easily capable of navigating harsh weather) and are cheaper and easier to repair than geostationary machinery.

I recall the German Cargolifter 160 getting into trouble this year financially much like a model Skyship Industries made in the '80s for the USAF only to have the design scrapped.

[Sea Skimmer]

But as a military application, airships are best left to communications and submarine hunting.

There utility for ASW would be very limited today given the low speed, they'd also be extremely vulnerable, more then one boat is running around the oceans with anti aircraft missiles attached to the periscope. Communications applications require going very high, something a balloon but not a ridged airship can do.

[Trytostaydead]

Weren't they used as coastal spotters in WWII for U-Boats here in the US?

But today.. I dunno.. launch a modern fighter armed with a few missiles at it and unless the airship is armed with a few phalanx defense systems.. boom.