# Combat Zeppelins, Why Not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 5, 2008, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355 "2008-01-05T01:55:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Projammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/projammer/32/559_2.png) [@Projammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Projammer)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/1 "2008-01-05T01:55:48Z")
I was thinking the other night. Dangerous, I know, but there I was. And it occured to me that in arenas where we have undisputed air superiority that zeppelins would make ideal surveilance and intelligence platforms. As they are a lighter than air craft, the fuel cost to keep them airborn ranges between zero and negligable once they are aloft. Cover the upper surface with solar cells and use electric motors to maintain position or move as needed. They can remain aloft and operational for months at a time. As a tech platform they can support hundreds of cameras and other surveilance devices. They’re ideal relay points for secure data and communications links. They can have many hardpoints for air to ground missiles or direct fire weapons. They can also be a launch platform for Predators and other UAVs. The only really viable assault vector against one would be from directly beneath it, but with it at an altitude of a mile or more there would be plenty of time for a missile to be interdicted. Psychologically, it is an ever-present reminder to opponents that we are in control. And an assurance of protection to the friendly population. Just some random thoughts on a slow weekend. ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/2 "2008-01-05T02:09:18Z")
Balloon, meet pin. “Oh, the humanity!!!” I think those will be the first two reactions to tethered military lighter-than-air (LTA) craft. Now, if you make them big enough, the square-cube ratio will allow you to make their skins of tougher material, and skin punctures or hull breaches of any given size will be correspondingly-smaller. I seem to recall that Buckminster Fuller postulated kilometre-diameter LTA structures that could hold towns, and be suspended by just the buoyancy of warm air in cool. But surveillance3 balloons in military areas would be much more vulnerable. ---
**Author:** ![Count\_Blucher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Count\_Blucher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Count_Blucher)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/3 "2008-01-05T02:22:47Z")
I know where could find a huge blimp for this purpose. Right, Rush…? ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/4 "2008-01-05T02:26:32Z")
What makes you think it would be anything other than a big juicy target? Even the vaunted US Airforce is not that good at shooting down small fast moving surface to air missles. ---
**Author:** ![Projammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/projammer/32/559_2.png) [@Projammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Projammer)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/5 "2008-01-05T02:26:57Z")
I’m not talking about tethered balloons, I’m referring to full fledged self propelled zeppelins. Think Goodyear blimp on a grander scale. It’s altitude would be it’s best defense, but it would have some sort of a self sealing skin in the event that a rifle round did manage to make contact and active defenses against a SAM launch. Of course, on that scale, a bullet hole would be insignificant. And don’t bother citing the Hindenburg incident, that’s like citing the Titanic as an argument against ocean liners. ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/6 "2008-01-05T02:31:12Z")
They could make selfsealing airships now a days, the technology exists. New textiles. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/7 "2008-01-05T02:42:03Z")
[QUOTE=devilsknew] They could make selfsealing airships now a days, the technology exists. New textiles. [/QUOTE] That might work fine for the occasional bullet but since it’s going to be really high there will not be to many bullets. What it won’t work for is the 20+pounds of high explosives in the tip of a proximity fused surface to air missle. ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/8 "2008-01-05T02:47:16Z")
I see them as useful air fortresses and airbourne bases with a contingent and “force field” of smaller unmanned blimps bristling with countermeasures. Much in the Air Craft Carrier/Battleship defense mode. ---
**Author:** ![Projammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/projammer/32/559_2.png) [@Projammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Projammer)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/9 "2008-01-05T02:49:11Z")
Let’s see. I’ve mentioned interdiction of hostile missiles and active defense systems. Let me spell it out a bit clearer. It would have the ability to identify incoming missiles and take defensive measures against said projectiles. This isn’t Star Wars level tech, there are systems in production for just this purpose. Google ‘active armor’ if you need a cite. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/10 "2008-01-05T02:53:03Z")
[QUOTE=Projammer] Let’s see. I’ve mentioned interdiction of hostile missiles and active defense systems. Let me spell it out a bit clearer. It would have the ability to identify incoming missiles and take defensive measures against said projectiles. This isn’t Star Wars level tech, there are systems in production for just this purpose. Google ‘active armor’ if you need a cite. [/QUOTE] Do you want opinion or debate because it seems like you want the latter. If so you put this in the wrong forum. You are wrong about the capability of anti missile defense capability though. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/11 "2008-01-05T02:59:19Z")
Despite what the SDI crowd would claim, it’s really difficult to actually hit a missile in flight - especially during a short flight like a surface-to-air launch. Aircraft generally depend on speed and maneuverability for missile defense. A zeppelin is going to be a big slow soft target for a missile. Any opposition would be able to launch cheap missiles against it with proximity fuses and shrapnel charges. The missile would fly up and explode a few dozen meters from the zeppelin and shred a big hole in its side with hundreds of little pieces of flying metal. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/12 "2008-01-05T03:28:27Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] A zeppelin is going to be a big slow soft target for a missile. [/QUOTE] Not if we equip them with 1920s-style Death Rays! ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/13 "2008-01-05T04:21:16Z")
The cool part about blimps is that they could be cheap, redundant, and unmanned with heavy payloads. ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/14 "2008-01-05T04:25:40Z")
Everry missile they send against it wastes and nocks hundreds of thousands of dollars in high tech assets, compared to a loss of a cheap unmanned blimp and some generic technology. They are valuable as decoys at the least. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/15 "2008-01-05T04:26:12Z")
Moving thread from IMHO to MCZIMF ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/16 "2008-01-05T04:38:51Z")
CODE NAME: 99 Luftballons ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/17 "2008-01-05T04:54:45Z")
Actually, LTA and stealth are combinable, and there is an experimental solar powered UAV of considerable size that has an operational ceiling near 100,000 feet. It could hold up a video and and other instrument suite and keep it up for months at a time. It doesn’t have to move fast, if it moves all the time, and finding it is way beyond the capability of small anti-aircraft weapons of any sort. Sweeping the sky with a powerful enough radar looking for it is an invitation to counter battery fire from other assets in theater. I doubt that it could be fortified as the op suggests, but I also don’t think that is necessary. It could communicate with ground assets over a huge area, and with other air assets as well. Bases are vulnerable, even if armored beyond reason. If you know where something is, in modern warfare, you can kill it. Tris ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/18 "2008-01-05T05:02:10Z")
[QUOTE=devilsknew] The cool part about blimps is that they could be cheap, redundant, and unmanned with heavy payloads. [/QUOTE] To carry large payloads they have to be huge, and that ain’t cheap. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/19 "2008-01-05T05:07:40Z")
[QUOTE=Projammer] … at an altitude of a mile or more there would be plenty of time for a missile to be interdicted. [/QUOTE] It would be a wimpy missile indeed that would take long enough covering a mile to constitute “plenty of time” for defense. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355/20 "2008-01-05T05:44:52Z")
[QUOTE=Xema] To carry large payloads they have to be huge, and that ain’t cheap. [/QUOTE] For surveillance, as **Triskadecamus** mentioned, they needn’t carry very much. How much do small air-to-surface armaments weigh? I don’t know much about this sort of stuff. I’m thinking a largish-caliber gun like what’s sometimes on helicopters or a guided rocket/missile launcher. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/combat-zeppelins-why-not/432355.md?page=2)