Naval guns on an airship?

[dropbearabroad]

"I see no benefit in possessing a fleet of armed airship, be it at sea or on land, as said early: They generally work best as spotters."

That's my point from the post further up tyhe page.

Now that people have moved on from the flying battleship/tank concept (and hooray to that) and have focused on a potential ASW role I still have to ask: why bother? Just use fixed wing aircraft to do the same job. Any advantage in carrying capacity and loiter time of an airship is negated by the aircraft's much greater speed, flexibility and lower cost. Naval reconnaisance airships made sense in WWI, and played a role in ASW duties in WWII when kept well away from any risk, but after that they are a dead duck in any potential military engagement, against anybody carrying anything more advanced than a popgun. So why not use an aircraft that can do all the same jobs as an airship in detecting and sinking a sub, over a much greater area and also fly away to safety if threatened?

And once you are in the age of nuclear propulsion you encounter the possibility of your ASW airship actually being outpaced by its quarry, which would be a bit embarrassing.

I agree with most of what Zoomar said above, except for his suggestion that maybe they could serve as glide bomb launchers. Even in that slim role I have to ask who could you use it against that isn't likely to shoot the airship down? If anyone can nominate a potential suitably defenceless target, then couldn't something else already existing do the job just as easily?

 

[pdf27]

Well, this got me wondering just how BIG an airship would have to be to carry a 15" gun turret.

Taking a British 15" turret (as fitted to the QE class), of 782 tonnes, and 50 shells (@0.87 tonnes each) gives 825 tonnes.

The Hindenberg was 240m long, 40m in diameter and had a lifting gas volume (Hydrogen) of 200,000 m3.
Transatlantic payload is eluding me - the best statement I can find is "By the end of 1936, Hindenburg had crossed the Atlantic 34 times, carrying over 3,500 passengers and more than 66,000 pounds of mail and freight, and the ship’s highly successful 1936 season seemed to indicate that regular transatlantic air service had arrived."
This works out at 103 passengers plus 880kg of freight per trip. Assuming 200kg per passenger (luggage, seating, etc - whatever you could rip out on a military aircraft) that gives a payload of 21.5 tonnes.

Accordingly, to lift a single turret from a Queen Elizabeth class battleship plus 50 shells an airship 39 times larger in volume than the Hindenberg would be required. That would be 820m (half a mile!) long and 140m in diameter. That's roughly twice the length and breadth of the largest ship ever constructed!

 

[Color-Copycat]

Another function might be to use them in a colonial warfare role akin to that of the British strategy of air control utilized in the Mesopotamian mandate. The payload capacity and endurance of an airship coupled with lack of any serious anti air opposition would be an ideal operating environment, especially for policing large swathed of territory. The only problem is constructing the necessary infrastructure to support airship operations in the area.

 

[Genmotty]

I believe that pressurised Hydrogen leaking into 1atm spontainously combusts anyhow, so heated hydrogen isn't that much more risky than normal hydrogen...

However its still rather implausible. While you might be able to get several QF Flak guns mounted along the sides of the craft, naval guns are pointless, since what are you shooting at? Ships? Might as well get high above them taking your time to drop a bomb down the funnel since airships are much faster and manoverable (in light winds) than sea ships.

If your shooting against another airship you only need to have a minor range advantage, not naval ordinance. And against aircraft you only want light guns anyhow.

 

[ANTIcarrot]

Glide bombs or missiles are the realistic weapon system. Zeppelin have such low pay loads, and are used in small number; therefore, to be effective, it is precision guided munition. A Zeppelin has a 30-45 ton max capacity. Gunboats went up to 600 tons, cruisers 8,000 tons.

Sorry, but that's a silly thing to say. How much does the AC-130 weigh? Less than 600 tons right? Right.

I'd say less than ten tons for the turret, and cabin/cockpit. Make it 40mm or higher and it can strike at ground targets as well as shooting missiles out of the sky.

I'd arm it with Brimstone, stormshadow or sidearm missiles as required. I believe a DP gun could shoot down most AAMs and MANPADS with AHEAD ammunition.

 

[BlondieBC]

I wonder if perhaps smaller "escort airships" could be armed w/ small weaponry and AA armament (or maybe even a small aircraft wing) and act as escort vessels in a convoy?

Could be, sure.

Better solution is probably seaplanes on the freighters.

Now that people have moved on from the flying battleship/tank concept (and hooray to that) and have focused on a potential ASW role I still have to ask: why bother? Just use fixed wing aircraft to do the same job. Any advantage in carrying capacity and loiter time of an airship is negated by the aircraft's much greater speed, flexibility and lower cost. Naval reconnaisance airships made sense in WWI, and played a role in ASW duties in WWII when kept well away from any risk, but after that they are a dead duck in any potential military engagement, against anybody carrying anything more advanced than a popgun. So why not use an aircraft that can do all the same jobs as an airship in detecting and sinking a sub, over a much greater area and also fly away to safety if threatened?

And once you are in the age of nuclear propulsion you encounter the possibility of your ASW airship actually being outpaced by its quarry, which would be a bit embarrassing.

I agree with most of what Zoomar said above, except for his suggestion that maybe they could serve as glide bomb launchers. Even in that slim role I have to ask who could you use it against that isn't likely to shoot the airship down? If anyone can nominate a potential suitably defenceless target, then couldn't something else already existing do the job just as easily?

If early enough, they could be used in major battles (WW1), admittedly with losses. But it is important to remember while big, they are cheap, about as much as a submarine. So say for the battle of Jutland, trading 7 of 10 Zeppelins for 3 heavily damaged capital ships would be an economic trade. In the post 1920 era, the guided weapons would mostly be a self defense weapon, much like short range torpedoes on surface ships in the 1980s.

Now you could use the weapon aggressively on any surface task force without air cover. If airship development had continued, the airships might well be at 40,000+ feet, which would provide a lot of protection. They are also 2-3 times faster than surface ships, so they are also likely miles or 10's of miles away. At best a niche weapon, but likely they would have had a few glory kills in WW2, if they were common.

Even a 1920's airship can outrun a nuclear submarine. And if you go with the nuclear propulsion for the submarine, you can also do nuclear propulsion on airships if for some odd reason speed and endurance become critical.

Yes, they are a dead duck against fighters, but so is the modern AWAC plane. But AWAC are seen as hugely useful. If one was using Airships as AWAC in the WW2 era, they need dedicated fighters for protection. But even in an environment of high potential threat, they could be useful with skilled commanders using them who remembers they are much cheaper than capital surface ships. For example, an airship with radar over Midway with a couple of fighters protecting during the day, would provide very useful intelligence to American commanders. Yes it would likely die in the battle, but trading an airship for a 1% chance the the Yorktown surviving would be a good deal. Again, the cost of the ship might be the cost of a few B-29 or a submarine.

Why use airships over planes. Endurance, space, payload, altitude. Take a B-17 as you AWAC plane.

It operated at 20,000 feet or so. An airship could be 40,000+. This gives you much greater range, probably over 100 extra miles on radar.

B-17 had 6,000 payload for the radar. An Airship can be 10 times that amount.

Space: B-17 is very cramped. An Airship effectively is not volume constrained. You can have sleeping cabin for two shifts of radar operators.

Endurance. The B-17 stays up for hours, the airship can stay up for days.

 

[BlondieBC]

Sorry, but that's a silly thing to say. How much does the AC-130 weigh? Less than 600 tons right? Right.

I'd say less than ten tons for the turret, and cabin/cockpit. Make it 40mm or higher and it can strike at ground targets as well as shooting missiles out of the sky.

I'd arm it with Brimstone, stormshadow or sidearm missiles as required. I believe a DP gun could shoot down most AAMs and MANPADS with AHEAD ammunition.

You don't really explain why my statement is "silly". Airships are heavily weight limited in ways ships are not. Weight limits place a premium on precision guided weapons, as opposed to say battleships which can function will when they only hit a few % of the time.

 

[Shtudmuffin]

NOTE: This article (from Wikipedia) is referring to Britain's R31 class airships, so feel free to look it up.

As the airships were intended for fleet protection operations, they were to be fitted with defensive machine guns on top of the envelope, at the stern and in the gondolas. A 12-pounder gun was to be fitted in a special position centrally below the airship for use against U-boats. In the event, this armament was only fitted to R31, as R32 was only completed after the armistice with Germany.[3] It had also been intended to fit a bomb load of two 520 lb (240 kg) bombs and four 230 lb (100 kg) bombs. but with the end of hostilities these were never installed on either airship.

Hmm. So they were actually going to use the airships as an armed ASW platform. Interesting.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Heated hydrogen?

Basically what the sun normally does to hydrogen during the day and which, in order to prevent, airships are usually silver on their exterior. Heating hydrogen would increase lift, but radical temperature spikes would cause the gas to be automatically valved off to keep the airship from climbing out of control.

 

[BlondieBC]

NOTE: This article (from Wikipedia) is referring to Britain's R31 class airships, so feel free to look it up.

Hmm. So they were actually going to use the airships as an armed ASW platform. Interesting.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_3-40_mk1.htm

It is a 1200 pound weapons, so quite manageable. In WW1, all sides had both 4 years and desperation, so most things were tried. Often they were not very successful or did not have high level support, so they are not well know 100 years later. Airplanes on U-boats, wire-guided bombs for Zeppelins, special forces blowing up bridges deep behind enemy lines, airplanes/Zeppelin teams, long range Zeppelin resupply, wolfpacks, etc. In retrospec, some of these technologies could have easily changed the outcome of the war, but the senior military leadership of the various countries were not strong supporters. It is hard for a million man organization to make quick turns, just like a supertanker filled with oil. Now also, many of these ideas are real bizarre too, such has using hand thrown spears to sink U-boats.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I believe that pressurised Hydrogen leaking into 1atm spontainously combusts anyhow, so heated hydrogen isn't that much more risky than normal hydrogen..

No, it doesnt, not that it matters for this asb thread.

 

[Genmotty]

No, it doesnt, not that it matters for this asb thread.

Well these sources suggest hydrogen does spontainously combust;

http://www.princeton.edu/mae/people...re-safety/movies/Dryer_et_al_CST_179_2007.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen

 

[Shtudmuffin]

No, it doesnt, not that it matters for this asb thread.

This isn't necessarily an ASB thread. If it was, I almost certainly would have put it in the ASB forums. I put it here because the idea was at least somewhat logical (if only to a small degree), and considered as well.

 

[pdf27]

No, it doesnt, not that it matters for this asb thread.

Ummm... it's a standard feature on gas bottle safety courses that if you just crack the neck valve on a hydrogen bottle open, the gas may spontaneously ignite - and since it has a transparent flame you may not realise it. That's from a 200 bar cylinder though - the sort of pressure you'd get from a warm airship won't get anywhere close.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

You've got your masively powerfull and expensive Air Battleship coming in to land and out in the long grass at the edge of the aerodrome Tommy Atkins waits with his Long Bow, arrows wraped in rags, a can of lighter fluid and a box of matches.

 

[Garrison]

Well you can improve on the performance of a pure airship, and some of the elements could probably have been done sooner with a little imagination.

http://www.hybridairvehicles.com/

Good lift without Hydrogen, lands on a surface, so no messing with pylons and is actually flying.

And if you want to mount weapons you could always go down the laser route.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Well these sources suggest hydrogen does spontainously combust;

http://www.princeton.edu/mae/people...re-safety/movies/Dryer_et_al_CST_179_2007.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen

Ummm... it's a standard feature on gas bottle safety courses that if you just crack the neck valve on a hydrogen bottle open, the gas may spontaneously ignite - and since it has a transparent flame you may not realise it. That's from a 200 bar cylinder though - the sort of pressure you'd get from a warm airship won't get anywhere close.

Hunh. Learn something new everyday. Still, it look like it takes pretty high pressure to genereate the necessary shockwaves.

 

[Mike Stearns]

NOTE: This article (from Wikipedia) is referring to Britain's R31 class airships, so feel free to look it up.



Hmm. So they were actually going to use the airships as an armed ASW platform. Interesting.

I was just about to suggest something like that. Equip it with radar and machine guns for air defence, and a sonar rig and a payload of depth charges for ASW work, and I think you'd have an aircraft that would annoy U-boat crews to no end.

 

[Gunnarnz]

I was just about to suggest something like that. Equip it with radar and machine guns for air defence, and a sonar rig and a payload of depth charges for ASW work, and I think you'd have an aircraft that would annoy U-boat crews to no end.

You don't even need the weapons or sonar for that, only a radio (which is just as well, because I'm not sure airborne sonar was possible in this timeframe). Although an airborne radar would help. Submarines close to the surface - say, at periscope depth - can be seen from the air, and the wake caused by raising a periscope or snorkel is even easier to see. An alert bunch of spotters with binoculars, or the airborne radar I mentioned earlier, could make it vastly more difficult for a submarine to approach a convoy undetected. The subs would have to stay deep - and therefore slow - and wouldn't have much chance to replenish their air tanks or battery charge if there was an airship hovering around, ready to call in a destroyer or three at the first sign of a periscope being raised. Giving the airship weapons of its own just makes it even more of a threat, but the biggest part of its ASW value is already there.

 

[Shtudmuffin]

You don't even need the weapons or sonar for that, only a radio (which is just as well, because I'm not sure airborne sonar was possible in this timeframe). Although an airborne radar would help. Submarines close to the surface - say, at periscope depth - can be seen from the air, and the wake caused by raising a periscope or snorkel is even easier to see. An alert bunch of spotters with binoculars, or the airborne radar I mentioned earlier, could make it vastly more difficult for a submarine to approach a convoy undetected. The subs would have to stay deep - and therefore slow - and wouldn't have much chance to replenish their air tanks or battery charge if there was an airship hovering around, ready to call in a destroyer or three at the first sign of a periscope being raised. Giving the airship weapons of its own just makes it even more of a threat, but the biggest part of its ASW value is already there.

So, basically, an airship could serve as somewhat of an airborne destroyer or other kind of escort?