Don't misunderstand me, that is my point. Moving things inter-theater means moving through friendly countries, so the theory goes, only an enemy's air force would pose a threat to such maneuvers. And the aircraft weapons systems of any nation are more than able to take out transports of any sort, be it dirigible or fixed wing.

No one is going to be fielding a sopwidth Cammel that can only take out a dirigible but not a C-130, come on!

Time to bring the Camels out of ... the museum

yes, but what advantge is there over a C5? I mean, zeppelins are slower than normal aircraft....and can carry more stuff...so what is the point?

Guess cost must play a part, as the ULA is cheaper than a C5 and as long as the cargo isnt needed quickly then its a good method, it may be quicker than a ship!

Well like I said, comparatively it is pretty fast if it can carry 6-7 M1A2s in a single trip. If it doesn't have to re-fuel it can make it almost anywhere in the world in 96 hours even at a lumbering 20mph. For a C-5 it has to make the trip over and back over and back 7 times to deliver 7 M1A2s and a ship takes weeks or even months to deploy, and that doesn't include taking the tanks from Ft. Knox to a port of departure, then taking them from the port of arival to the staging area.

And in terms of cost, the fuel for a C-5 to fly over and back for one tank, and the cost to run a ship including all the crew is quite extravagent.

zeppelins, are insanely easy to shoot down by themself. what will probably happen is they would be escorted by airplanes and ships.

Originally Posted by deathmonkey

zeppelins, are insanely easy to shoot down by themself. what will probably happen is they would be escorted by airplanes and ships.

Read my reply to the_13th_redneck, this is a very outdated way of looking at a modern military issue.