Concept #4

Manji · Post by **Manji** » 2002-08-10 10:38am

Type: Lighter than air rigid aircraft (Dirigible)

Length: One mile (1,600 meters)

Beam: 1,200 feet (366 meters)

Depth: 850 feet (259 meters)

Lifting gas: Helium

Total lifting capacity: 250,256,600 pounds (113753 metric tons)

Maximum payload (after subtraction of estimated hull weight): 83,419,600 pounds (37,918 metric tons)

Gas cells: 100

Gas pressure (in cells): 1 atmosphere

Power: Nuclear-electric (propellors powered by electric motors powered by electricity from the nuclear power source)

Service ceiling: 10,560 feet (3,219 meters)

Speed: 85 knots (157 km/h)

Armament, offensive:

100 Boeing Harpoon anti ship missiles

200 Raytheon Tomahawk anti ship missiles

400 Raytheon Tomahawk land attack missiles

Facilities for the carrying and dropping of an up to 6,000 ton conventional bomload.

8 16" guns in four dual turrets, each turret being mounted with its axis in the horizontal position, and capable of bearing 360 degrees, with each gun being capable of elavating 90 degrees, giving a 360x180 degree arc of fire for each gun

12 Trident II D-5 missiles aligned vertically inside the hull to facilitate a VLS capability

Armament, defensive:

Standard SM-2MR Block 4 SAMs.

8 Sea Sparrow launchers

12 Phalanx 20mm CIWS emplacements

Heavy ECM jamming pod (may also be used offensively in support of operations)

Aircraft:

The top surface supports a runway, and the airship bases a number of aircraft, with hangaring, weaponing and refueling facilities:

80 F-18 Super Hornet

20 STOVL JSF

10 CH-53E Super Stallion heavy transport helicopters

6 CH-47D Chinook medium transport helicopters

The airship also has facilities to act as a heavy cargo transport, or a troop transport for 8,000 men.

Evaluate the usefulness, costs, etc. of this vessel.

Luke Starkiller · Post by **Luke Starkiller** » 2002-08-10 10:42am

GAH!!!!

Why do you keep doing this; this is beyond idiotic.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-08-10 11:02am

Hey, nice insider name.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2002-08-10 11:06am

Mackie is obsessed with 16" guns.

Oh, and painting a large bulleye and the letter's SHOOT ME would be more effective.

RayCav of ASVS · Post by **RayCav of ASVS** » 2002-08-10 11:14am

::slams head into desk repeatedly::

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-08-10 11:42am

btw, this carrier-idea is especially laugable, an airship supporting fighter planes! How on earth shall they start or land? it's difficult enough to take off and land from a sea carrier, but an airship?

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-08-10 12:30pm

Mackie is obsessed with 16" guns.

He also seems obsessed with sea attack Tomahawks. I read someplace they were pulled from the inventory along time ago. I asked why, and someone said it was because you cant effectively target ships at such a long range anyway. ( ie: I another ship is in between it might be hit by mistake )

::slams head into desk repeatedly::

:: TPJ winces but understands ::

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2002-08-10 02:54pm

I was reading the first lines I was thinking "Finally a design that is not completely and absolutely insane,just useless" until I arrived to the 16inches guns...

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-08-10 02:57pm

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Mackie is obsessed with 16" guns.

Maybe he's compensating for something.

Incidentally, why would you need such weapons for bombarding a target if you are flying? You primarily need air-to-air defenses, and the helicopters would not be able to fly off of such an aircraft, because their ceilings are too low.

You overestimate the power of this ship. Not only would it be hugely expensive and deliver few benefits, but it would be highly vulnerable to air-attacks.

And the aircraft-carrying dirigible idea has actually been tried, in the past, and found to be ineffective.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2002-08-10 03:09pm

These threads are pointless, stupid, and are not even worth discussion. Cease posting them, please.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2002-08-10 03:12pm

I maintain that he's getting slightly better. At least this one doesn't have 3 feet of armor.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-08-10 04:49pm

Oh for the love of Pete, we've been over this before.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/vie ... ght=#22106

I swear, if there is one more thread about some great war machine ten times bigger than its counterparts, I'm going to start lobbing the admin to hand out some village idiot titles.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-08-10 05:14pm

What are you trying to do? Design the dumbest ship possible? A 70 meter long tank is bad enough!

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-08-10 06:12pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Mackie is obsessed with 16" guns.
He also seems obsessed with sea attack Tomahawks. I read someplace they were pulled from the inventory along time ago. I asked why, and someone said it was because you cant effectively target ships at such a long range anyway. ( ie: I another ship is in between it might be hit by mistake )

::slams head into desk repeatedly::

:: TPJ winces but understands ::

Yes, all TSAM anti ship Tomahawks were converted into TLAM-C land attack missiles. The same was done with the TLAM-N nuclear Tomahawks.

The real problume is not so much hitting the wrong ship, its hitting anything at all. Way points can be programs to take the missile around other shipping, and it won turn on its seeker untl a given point.

However, the seeker can only see about 20 miles, and the time of flight to max range is nearly 40 minutes. In that time, if the target ships changed course even a little, they could easily be outo f the seekers field of view.

The Russians got around this to an extent by allowing there long range missiles to recivce updates from a third party, like a Helocopter or Bear bomber. However such forward observers would be easy target for the USN at least.

And yes, this airship is an awful design, and one partly stolen from the Strategic transport thread. The shock of firing the main battery would likley destroy it, and the anti ship missiles are useless, they'd likley crash into the sea after being released.

Mr. B · Post by **Mr. B** » 2002-08-10 06:16pm

This whole string of ideas is summed up with one word.

WORTHLESS

RadiO · Post by **RadiO** » 2002-08-10 06:53pm

At least the Super-Super-Super-Battleship could just about hide in the open oceans (if the bad guys didn't have ocean reconnaissance satelites). This thing would be an absofuckinglutely huge target and be visible to sensors for miles beyond the horizon.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2002-08-10 06:58pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Mackie is obsessed with 16" guns.
He also seems obsessed with sea attack Tomahawks. I read someplace they were pulled from the inventory along time ago. I asked why, and someone said it was because you cant effectively target ships at such a long range anyway. ( ie: I another ship is in between it might be hit by mistake )

::slams head into desk repeatedly::

:: TPJ winces but understands ::

Yes, all TSAM anti ship Tomahawks were converted into TLAM-C land attack missiles. The same was done with the TLAM-N nuclear Tomahawks.

The real problume is not so much hitting the wrong ship

Instead this is a problem.At warship1.com there is a nice article on that.
The funny part is about an admiral that without knowing it ordered his own flagship to be targeted with one of these Tomahawk during an exercise.

, its hitting anything at all. Way points can be programs to take the missile around other shipping, and it won turn on its seeker untl a given point.

However, the seeker can only see about 20 miles, and the time of flight to max range is nearly 40 minutes. In that time, if the target ships changed course even a little, they could easily be outo f the seekers field of view.

The Russians got around this to an extent by allowing there long range missiles to recivce updates from a third party, like a Helocopter or Bear bomber. However such forward observers would be easy target for the USN at least.

Apparently the idea of using a third party is not so uncommon.Italian Teseo antiship missiles can receive mid course corrections from an helicopter.The russians built also a satellitar system to locate US carrier battlegroups positions and guide their big antiship missiles against them.Albeit the system did not live up to expectations.

And yes, this airship is an awful design, and one partly stolen from the Strategic transport thread. The shock of firing the main battery would likley destroy it,

and the anti ship missiles are useless, they'd likley crash into the sea after being released

This is a curious statement.B52 can fire Harpoons without problems,and all heavy bombers can fire Tomahawks.The airship flies,so it can have a direct line of sight with targets that a surface ship would not see.This make also her a nice target.

Of course the idea of mounting 16 inches guns on an airship is the most insane thing I have ever heard since I started to discuss military hardware on internet.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-09-15 12:01pm

I believe that Nephrite said it best:

"PATHETIC!"

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-09-15 12:52pm

RayCav of ASVS wrote:::slams head into desk repeatedly::

Let me provide the visuals.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2002-09-15 01:06pm

Tsyroc wrote:
RayCav of ASVS wrote:::slams head into desk repeatedly::

Let me provide the visuals.

Where'd you find that?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-09-15 02:14pm

Hmmm one

One man to shoot it

*pfffffffffffffffff sound as all the Air Leaks out

Hell or one old WWII AA gun

One of these.. just aiming up

Pretty damn easy to take down, Whats next? The Rocket Powered Air-craft carrier?

Luke Starkiller · Post by **Luke Starkiller** » 2002-09-15 02:25pm

Whats next? The Rocket Powered Air-craft carrier?

NOOOOOO!!!

Don't give him any ideas

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-09-15 03:24pm

Mr Bean wrote:Hmmm one
One man to shoot it

*pfffffffffffffffff sound as all the Air Leaks out

Hell or one old WWII AA gun

One of these.. just aiming up

Pretty damn easy to take down, Whats next? The Rocket Powered Air-craft carrier?

Gepard dates to the 70s Bean

Anyway I'd go with good old MLRS with M26 and ATACMS rounds

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2002-09-15 08:53pm

btw, this carrier-idea is especially laugable, an airship supporting fighter planes! How on earth shall they start or land? it's difficult enough to take off and land from a sea carrier, but an airship?

Actually, the US had 2 zeppelin carriers, they carried propeller powered scout planes, and were launched by dropping out of an underside hangar, and retrieved with a hook thingy. The whole idea sounds like a battle zeppelin from Crimson Skies, only much easier to take down.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-09-15 10:08pm

Jadeite wrote:
btw, this carrier-idea is especially laugable, an airship supporting fighter planes! How on earth shall they start or land? it's difficult enough to take off and land from a sea carrier, but an airship?

Actually, the US had 2 zeppelin carriers, they carried propeller powered scout planes, and were launched by dropping out of an underside hangar, and retrieved with a hook thingy. The whole idea sounds like a battle zeppelin from Crimson Skies, only much easier to take down.

Yes, however as you said they were Scouts, no guns no bombs, and did nothing more then that. And when they were built, ships had perhaps 4 anti aircraft guns with no fire control, and the world's carrier fleet could be counted on one hand. And what fighters they had would be quite hard pressed to catch even a 90-knot airship.