At 05:58 PM 7/23/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>"Terry W. Colvin" wrote:
> > "S.J. Van Sickle" wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, John Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > > Actually I think ICBM's are an obsolete means of delivering a
> warhead, it's like
> > > > spending a lot of money on a anti Zeppelin system, except that
> system would work.
> > >
> > > Zeppelin bombardment is only obsolete *because* of the development of
> > > anti-Zeppelin systems (i.e. machine guns, AA guns, fixed wing aircraft).
> > > The Air Force would *love* a bomber with the capacity and loiter ability
> > > of a Zeppelin.
> > >
> > > steve
> > Bingo. A "Stealth Blimp" is under development.
>A stealth blimp is not that hard to do if all of your bag and structure
>is polymer based, all you have really to worry about are the engines,
>which can be fitted in faceted housings. The problem with blimps is
>speed. 120 mph is fast for a blimp, but of no use for a long range
>plane, as its just too easy to spot visually, and shoot down.
You could possibly go for a high altitude vehicle like this, it would be
damn near radar transparent with only few modifications, and could be used
for things like high altitude bombings (like the B-52s did in SE Asia), and
at high enough altitudes would be invisible to the eye at night. could also
double as a recon craft before or after the drop, due to it's increased
loiter ability. Would definitely not be a ship you would want to be in if
you were spotted though.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:10 MDT