Do re-feuling blimps really exist? - Stealth (2005) Discussion

[–] Bob-45 17 years ago

“Stealth Notes”

I wouldn’t be so ready to dismiss the “refueling tankers”. By the way, it was not a blimp. It was a dirigible (rigid airship, such as the Graf Zeppelin, Hindenburg or Akron). Dirigibles fly considerably faster than blimps. Whether the stall speeds for the stealth aircraft were low enough to accommodate refueling is a different matter altogether. After all, propeller-driven tankers were used in the early days of air-to-air refueling. Solar collectors were clearly visible on the tanker’s exterior; however, whether these were the source of propulsion or for maneuvering, navigation or communication is not clear. A few years back, the navy proposed using huge blimps for coastal defense, so that aspect of the idea is not so far fetched. Loiter time for such a vehicle would be indefinite, limited only by fuel dispatched; electricity generated by the solar panels could be used to replenish hydrogen, extracted from rain water. Given the relative size of the tanker, it’s likely it used some combination of hydrogen and Biefield-Brown antigravity for lift. Hydrogen has greater lift capabilities than helium; and when one is already flying a “floating bomb” due to aviation fuel, why worry about a little explosive hydrogen in the mix?

If no one is bothered by civilizations capable of faster-than-light technology still using missiles and bullets rather than directed energy weapons (“Battlestar Galactica”), I don’t see why anyone is bothered by “Stealth” using a dirigible as a refueling tanker.

Shooting the end off the hose would certainly create a difficult, but not insurmountable refueling problem. After all, Luke Skywalker hit that vent on the Death Star.

reply

[–] CGSailor 16 years ago

If no one is bothered by civilizations capable of faster-than-light technology still using missiles and bullets rather than directed energy weapons (“Battlestar Galactica”), I don’t see why anyone is bothered by “Stealth” using a dirigible as a refueling tanker.

I don't have a problem with "Stealth" using a dirigible refueling tanker...

I have a problem with all the idiots claiming they are real.

Sir, Put the mouse down slowly and step away from the keyboard!

reply

[–] xboxme360 17 years ago

they do have refueling planes. similar but not exactly like that

reply

[–] pcyiu9 17 years ago

I only caught the last half of the movie. Did the refueling "blimp" blow up? It seems to be a rule in action movies that anytime a plane is refueled in midair, the refueling tanker has to get destroyed.

Heck it even happened in Armaggeddon, and that was a refueling space station.

-----------------------------
"I miss Giles."

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] schlob77 16 years ago

Absolutely NOT

reply

[–] Fik59 16 years ago

I think that refueling blimps (or dirigibles) not only are very improbable to exist (as opposet to the AI plane) any time in the future, for physical and practical reasons explained before me, but it was totally unnecessary for the movie:
They could have used an unmanned AI refueling plane, which would be not only feasible (I think), but a logical predessesor to EDI. They could have gotten some interesting conversation between the two AI, and proceed with the refueling hose shoot after an EDI's failure to convince the tanker AI to comply.

But of course, then we would not have this interesting thread ...

Ignorance is curable

reply

[–] kriss3d 16 years ago

Actually they arent blimps. But large cargo planes.
As for the whole thing.. Its retard. Its stupid and its unrealistic.

Basicly the designer of the plane could EASILY have made circuit that would, when reciving a secret transmission, blow up the plane (this would be useful for when shot down somwhere )

EDI would have no possible way to discover a hidden circuit anywhere.

reply

[–] ChakatBlackstar 15 years ago

Well, EDI was pretty intelligent and probably would have known and/or figured out the function and purpose of every last screw, bolt, and wire of his vehicle. And in theory, and signal could be jammed, and EDI probably would set up something as a jammer. Besides, how would it look to people funding your project when you install a self-destruct device as a safe-guard? EDI probably did have a self-destruct, but he probably would've only used it as a last resort to prevent himself from falling into enemy hands.

reply

[–] lastwordfreak 16 years ago

Even if refueling blimps did exist the sequence still wouldn't have made any sense; the inevitably shaggy computer whiz explained that EDI runs on methane gas.

Its pretty bad when one considers this scene would've made more sense if EDI had plugged itself into a cow's rearend.

www.badmoviebuff.com

reply

[–] ChakatBlackstar 15 years ago

There is no refueling blimps known to exist at this time. There are many manned aircraft that are capable of mid-air refueling operations. However this doesn't mean they won't exist in the near-future.

The US Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency contracted Lockheed Martin to construct High Altitude Airships to inhance it's ballistic missile defense system. The airship would be in the air for up to one month at a time and can survey a 600-mile (970 km) diameter of land. It will use solar cells to provide its power and will be unmanned during its flight.

It will have the capability to survey a 600-mile (970 km) diameter of land whether that be for surveillance, weather observations etc. It is to be composed of high strength fabrics to minimize weight as well as lightweight propulsion technologies. It will operate at a height of above 60,000 feet (18,000 m) and will have a payload for military use. It will be around 500 feet (150 m) long and 150 feet (46 m) in diameter.

Now since this movie takes place in the future, there's no reason one of these suckers couldn't be modified as an unmanned tanker, in theory at least. During the scene where Talon 1 is forced to leave from his refueling early you can see panels that look like they're emitting heat, probably jet thrust, closing as he detaches from the airship. He may not have true VTOL ability but it can probably slow down to match the airship's speed. So, the technology already exists or is in development and could be produced in theory. However I am uncertain how efficient it would be to be put into practice.

reply

[–] GrifterZed 14 years ago

I do not believe that "Camel Hump" refueling rigid airships currently exist. However, I am going to dispell some reasons for their supposed impractability. The biggest reason stated earlier is that in order for the airship to ascend and descend, it would constantly have to vent helium, and therefore be a huge waste of money continually refilling itself in order to balance the weight loss during refuelling points in order to stay aloft. This is simply not true. While quite obviously the airship would need considerable floatation capability to carry large amounts of cargo (fuel or otherwise), airships DO NOT "vent" any of their floatation gases to ascend, descend, or to balance freight weight. The use of ballonets makes it possible. These are seperate bags which are either inflated or deflated with surrounding external air at the pilots discretion to make the airship "lighter" or "heaver." The ratio of helium to air determines whether the dirigible goes up, down, or merely maintains a floating equilibrium. The second issue I'd like to refute is the idea that airships could be "easily" shot down. While, of course, a missle, bomb, or other explosive device would do the trick, the same is true for aeroplanes, cars, buildings, or just about anything else for that matter. Bullets, while being a problem, would not just send the ship plummeting right out of the sky. Many new developments have rendered the airship FAR less likely to catastrophe than most modern jets, planes and helicopters. The helium is stored in multiple, individual bags for various reasons. And that is one of them. If a single recepticle loses it's pressure for any reason, it assures the whole ship doesn't crash to Earth. Further improvements could come in the form of additional "bulletproofing" techniques (and there are many ways), if deemed necessary or so desired by the military and private companies. However, the idea that because it's filled with fuel and floating in the air makes this theoretical vehicle no more of an enemy priority than anyting else that is either valuable (be it with civilian lives, military supply lines, military bases, etc, etc), or explosive, in the sense of a military target. If we attempted to fly them in war zones, yes, it would be childs play to destroy them and create possible havoc. But the mere fact that here in the US and most of Western Europe people aren't walking around the streets with RPGs and making IEDs en masse. This makes the thought a little more practical. "Why have them then, if not for war?" You ask? Because it could make cross country or intercontinental flights much easier and more convenient, all inherent difficulties of mid-air refuelling aside. Instead of travelling out of your way to refuel, wasting precious time and fuel doing so, you meet at a point closer to your flight path by bringing the base to you. The idea IS NOT ridiculous. It has bugs to be worked out, but it isn't stupid. And even if it isn't ultimately for refuelling purposes, there are many other very useful functions noted here previously by another poster that are already being discussed by our government. And I'm sure there will be many more to come as the idea resurfaces. Including, I believe, the original purpose: safe, spacious, LUXURY travel. Think Carribean cruise- in the air. The airship is experiencing a bit of a rebirth after living in the shadow of aeroplane technology and a hundred years of outright abandonment. The factors of Hindenburg have long since been corrected. We don't use flammable materials or hydrogen gas any longer. Duh.

reply

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

I can't believe this thread is even still alive!
It does not matter whether we are capable of the technology to make a refueling blimp or not. Your last sentence sums up the whole argument...

However I am uncertain how efficient it would be to be put into practice.

I am not uncertain. It IS impractical.

Refueling blimps DON'T exist. nor WILL THEY exist, Not because we are not capable, but because it is stupid and impractical to do so.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] DarkTheater 14 years ago

I'm from the future...2010. The answer is still no. They would be far too slow for a jet to link up to. WAY too much of a target, too.

This signature has been lightly massaged by an administrator

reply

[–] trims 9 years ago

Blimps for refueling jet aircraft are impossible. It all boils down to speed.

In order to keep flying, a plane must travel fast enough to generate lift via the air flow over the wings. Failure to do so results in what is called a "stall", and the plane literally falls from the sky. The closer a plane gets to stall speed, the harder it is to control, and fine movements become impossible.

In jet planes (particularly small high-performance aircraft), the stall speed is somewhere around 120-150mph. Realistically, they need to be going 300-400 mph for reasonable control.

Blimps (technically, the one pictured was a zeppelin, or rigid airship with an internal frame), have a maximum speed somewhere around 75mph.

The USAF had to retire it's B-29 derived tanker aircraft when they started producing supersonic fighters, for the above reasons, in that even a B-29 could barely manage 350mph flat out when refueling, so many jet aircraft had to lower their flaps and put down their landing gear to slow down enough to tank from them.

Having even a prop-driven plane refuse from a blimp is impossible, let alone a jet-powered one.

reply

[–] bh110027 9 years ago

Watching this right now and came on to see what threads were devoted to the refueling airship. As for the speed the airship was traveling did not seem to matter. When Josh Lucas' character goes in to refuel he opens up the top and bottom of his plane to reveal a vertical lift engine. This would allow him to avoid a stall and not overfly the airship.

OK now my problems with it. UCAV(EDI) tries to refuel and is denied. So EDI shoots one of the refueling lines and then inserts its refueling probe into it. Not possible, in our current day and age refueling planes can control the fuel they give out. No reason to think they'd abandon this so the refueling airship simply would not pump the fuel out of the hoses that EDI tries to get fuel from.

Ok next point, i don't know when fuel suddenly got lighter than air and would just stay suspended in the air waiting for someone to ignite the ring of fuel instead of falling to the ground.

 

reply

[–] RolandBachman 8 years ago

Dear God, 4 threads later this topic is still going on.

Here's my question that'll keep it going for another 4 threads.

Who refills the fuel in the refill fuel blimp??

I do not aim with my hand; he who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father. - Roland

reply