Re: Slow planes was: Battle blimps

>From: Robert Makowsky <rmakowsky@yahoo.com>

>Eventually the biplane pilot fails his dodge roll and
>the monoplane has him.

You'd think so, but there were rare instances when biplanes DID
out-dogfight 
monos - notably the Gloster Gladiators used by Britain in the defense of

Malta.	Every dog has it's day, so to speak

>I think blimps are large slow targets that will be
>juicy to any fighter pilot in the sky.

*_IF_* that enemy fighter pilot has a chance to get near it.  AWACS and 
Hawkeyes are pretty slow-moving planes - you'd think they'd have been 
MAJORLY juicy targets for, say, Iraqi fighters in the Gulf War.  I
believe 
Mr. Gill hit on the idea of using them for radar and control -
definitely 
within the protection of an air cap.

In a WW-I
>setting they can outclimb the fighters of the day but
>in any later setting they are not viable in a combat
>zone that has other air assets.

But may be viable in a less enemy-intensive zone....

>I do not see enough armament and stealth gear to keep
>them safe without a large escort that can keep the
>threat away.

Such as the escort provided a carrier task force or other fleet....

The thing to remember is that just because a flight technology is not
viable 
in front-line combat, does not mean it's completely inviable in ANY
military 
service.  Rear-area heavy lift, coastal patrol, radar & control, all
MIGHT 
be plausible uses for lighter-than-air...

3B^2

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: