3 ms·

I don't know what altitude they'd fly at, but this quote from the Wikipedia article on Airships says: "In November 2006, the U.S. Army bought an A380+ airship

I don't know what altitude they'd fly at, but this quote from the Wikipedia article on Airships says: "In November 2006, the U.S. Army bought an A380+ airship from American Blimp Corporation through a Systems level contract with Northrop Grumman and Booz Allen Hamilton. The airship started flight tests in late 2007, with a primary goal of carrying 2,500 lb (1,100 kg) of payload to an altitude of 15,000 ft (4,600 m) under remote control and autonomous waypoint navigation." So it's perfectly possible for these things to typically fly a few kilometres above the ground. That is outside the range of small arms: the furthest confirmed sniper kill to date was at a range of 1,250 m. So while it would certainly be possible for someone to shoot one of these airships down using aircraft or guided missiles, they would not be able to with small arms fire. Except during takeoff and landing, of course.

Cushman 13y ago
I'd quibble. While I agree it wouldn't be vulnerable in practice, I don't think the longest sniper kill is relevant at all. A battle rifle caliber can definitely break 10,000 feet fired straight up. The issue would be whether it has enough energy left to penetrate the skin of the blimp, and whether it winds up anywhere near where you aimed at. They're definitely not at risk to the odd potshot, but massed small arms/crew-served rifle fire could potentially be effective in the lower altitudes.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > That is outside the range of small arms: the furthest confirmed sniper kill to date was at a range of 1,250 m. Also keep in mind that snipers are shooting at humans. That's a much, much harder target than a blimp.
  - Cushman 13y ago
    Well it'd be ten times as large in your scope, but I don't think I'd call it an "easier target"-- you have to deal with a much more dramatic arc and unknowable atmospheric wind conditions.
    - Chronic24 13y ago
      Then you keep firing until you hit it.
      - Cushman 13y ago
        Yup, that's exactly the idea with massed fire. If you can't hit a point target, just designate it an area target and get enough rounds together to be effective on the entire area. When it comes to taking down a blimp with a round that barely has the energy to get there, though, I imagine that number of rounds is measured in thousands at least. Less of "keep firing" and more of "we're gonna need a lot of guys". And also don't forget the numbers I'm using suggest this is only plausible if you're firing more or less straight up, meaning the area you're ultimately targeting is where you are.

Cushman 13y ago

I'd quibble. While I agree it wouldn't be vulnerable in practice, I don't think the longest sniper kill is relevant at all. A battle rifle caliber can definitely break 10,000 feet fired straight up. The issue would be whether it has enough energy left to penetrate the skin of the blimp, and whether it winds up anywhere near where you aimed at. They're definitely not at risk to the odd potshot, but massed small arms/crew-served rifle fire could potentially be effective in the lower altitudes.

saraid216 13y ago
> That is outside the range of small arms: the furthest confirmed sniper kill to date was at a range of 1,250 m. Also keep in mind that snipers are shooting at humans. That's a much, much harder target than a blimp.
- Cushman 13y ago
  Well it'd be ten times as large in your scope, but I don't think I'd call it an "easier target"-- you have to deal with a much more dramatic arc and unknowable atmospheric wind conditions.
  - Chronic24 13y ago
    Then you keep firing until you hit it.
    - Cushman 13y ago
      Yup, that's exactly the idea with massed fire. If you can't hit a point target, just designate it an area target and get enough rounds together to be effective on the entire area. When it comes to taking down a blimp with a round that barely has the energy to get there, though, I imagine that number of rounds is measured in thousands at least. Less of "keep firing" and more of "we're gonna need a lot of guys". And also don't forget the numbers I'm using suggest this is only plausible if you're firing more or less straight up, meaning the area you're ultimately targeting is where you are.