Airspeed is an issue, but not insurmountable. The air tanker could have 'sprint' capabilities up to a safe speed at a safe altitude.

Just how fast is the 'safe speed' for fabric spread over a lightly built frame? 

 

For that mater, what is the higherst air speed ever measured for a rigid airship? 

Max airspeed for a Graf Zeppelin was 80 mph.  More recent designs for heavier-than-air ships with up to 400 ton payloads exist with max speed of 178 mph. 

 

The Refuelling envelope for a KC 130-J is 100 - 270 knots.

No more so than any other air tanker getting jumped by interceptors.  Or perhaps less - if required they have the lift and space for long-range air-to-air missiles.  Of course the strike package would probably be taking out the C3i and infrastructure for threat aircraft to be launched in the first place!

 

In many of these discussions it is important to differentiate the capability of our adversaries.  The US now has kits that allow C130 tankers to become attack aircraft over Afghanistan, because the anti-air threat is so limited.  Along the same lines a dirigible with week-long loiter and a multi-hundred ton payload would make one helluva CAS system.  It would be safe 24/7 above MANPADS range and with glide bombs it could drop calling cards within a substantial radius.  It would also quite a visual deterrent.  Heck it could even take a page from early US Dirigibles and be a flying aircraft carrier for drones, especially spotters/immuninators.  But I digress.  The problem here gets back to the 'last mile', where a mortar can become an anti-aircraft weapon.  Dirigibles could be housed out of Saudi Arabia or Qatar, (perhaps in empty soccer stadiums!) bot not so much in Afghanistan.

 

 

 

 

The issue is air speed:

1) Deployment air speed.  How long does it take my tanker to arrive on station?  Not just how long it can STAY on station.  A Dirigible won't shuttle to and from the fuel site nearly as fast as a Heavier-than-aircraft...running at 300 Kilometers per hour is a far cry from running at 900 Kilometres per hour!

2) Refueling speeds.  The KC-135 was the MINIMUM aircraft needed to refuel jet aircraft.  The previous tankers KB-29 and KB-50 could only refuel jets when BOTH were descending, as the maximum air speed of the KB-29/50 was near the minimum speed of the jet!

 

So NO, a dirigible is NOT an option for a2a refueling.

 

Dirigibles are good for lifting, bulk, slowly and loiter...they aren't good for cargo.  Their speed is not competitive with heavier-than-aircraft.  You want to loft communications, surveillance, intelligence, reconnaissance payloads, and leave them there, for long period, relatively cheaply, choose a dirigible.

 

But if you are MOVING the payload, be it a tank, a car, or fuel, no don't chose the dirigible because it moves too slowly and will not deliver the pay load in a timely manner.

Ah...the flying battleship...one of my fondest dreams.  You just armor it.  The bigger it gets, the better the bouyancy to surface area ratio gets.  Cover the thing in Abrams glacis plates! A Star Destroyer, but a balloon! Mua hahahahahaha!

*throws a monkey into the room

 

Would it Work with an unarmoured dirigible against an enemy without aa capability, you could put jdams on it and maybe even pointdefences. If it were to hover about 8 km up no iraqi insurgent would be able to shoot it Down, and it would be hugely cheaper than bombers. Against an enemy with aa it would be foolish, but against an enemy guerilla force it might be cheaper than an apache or b52 or b1. we spent many years in iraq fighting a force with no aa, buying speciallised IED proof vechiles which could not be used in conventinal war so much.

 

just a thought

 

of course such a thing could not do low level strafing like the A10. hmm?

 

what do you think?

The problem STILL is speed...One B-52 or B-1 can cover a huge portion of Afghanistan, because of its speed.  Again 900 KPH...a Dirigible is much slower, so you'll need multiples, for TIMELY delivery.

 

Lighter than Air is GREAT for LOITER, not delivery.