5 ms·
The feasibility of a giant, easily hit target that is vulnerable to almost all forms of attack makes its use as a military vehicle a little questionable to me.
by ender7 15y ago
The feasibility of a giant, easily hit target that is vulnerable to almost all forms of attack makes its use as a military vehicle a little questionable to me.
Obvious civilian uses, though.
- p9idf 15y agoMilitaries commonly use giant, easily-hit vehicles. Aircraft carriers and cargo planes are obvious examples. Militaries find practical use for such vehicles by defending them against attacks.
- DanI-S 15y agoThe gas inside airships is at extremely low pressure so, whilst a large target, they're actually not as vulnerable as one might think.
- tsotha 15y agoThis is a good point. In WW I there was an AA shell that went off inside a German airship, and the ship was able to land safely. They really are quite resistant to damage.
- alnayyir 15y agoI have an air-to-air missile and a minigun firing 20mm rounds at 6,000 rpm that beg to differ. Regardless of pressure, you could turn the entire aircraft into swiss-cheese or blow a hole in it so large you could fly a jet through it in seconds.
- dkokelley 15y agoI doubt the 'tip of the spear' will consist of fleets of large, slow airships. The strategic value in lighter-than-air craft is in their ability to stay airborne for extended periods with relatively little control, and access areas unavailable to traditional aircraft. Of course, these airships will likely not be able to the perform 'combat landings' to the extent the C130s can.
- tsotha 15y agoNot every military vehicle is designed to be shot at. Even today most equipment is shipped to the battle zone on easy-to-sink freighters.