I see your point on design. But, it does seem odd that a design that would require strength of structure consistently seems to lack a quality that is integral to its whole purpose. Blimps are just "better" than planes? Also the orientation of a dirigible and/or its engines doesn't change it direction of travel until its thrust overcomes it MOMENTMUM. Also, It just seems wrong.
Well, my aerodynamics and physics aren't all that great ( I'm a biologist by training), nevertheless the problem with fixed-wing aircraft over dirigibles and blimps ( Two
very different beasts, of course ) is that a winged flyer needs power to both create lift and move forward; It's ability to turn requires less power as simple control surfaces moving in the airflow of its forward motion create that ability at very little extra cost in terms of power, but the power to keep it in the air needs to be constant and applied for forward motion only.
In a static lift system like a dirigible ( Or blimp, but since a blimp is a gasbag with no real internal or external structure, it's clearly
not the sort of thing being used here ), no power is used to keep the vehicle in the air, so all of its power can be used in propulsion
and/or steering and if applied to steering only. that would include overcoming momentum, which given that it has a simply lower inertia than say an ocean-going vessel of the same size, the relative power-to-mass ratio can be better. The steering surfaces aren't as effective since the craft isn't moving quickly most of the time, so one has to rely on the direct steering by the engines, in a sort of vectored thrust, in order to steer, however that is a more effective form of maneuver.
Mind you, all this gets away from the robot argument. To return to that, I'll just point out the rationale used for Mecha in Battletech: While a planetary force of many tanks carrying small weapons could beat a Mech in straight fight, the logistics of moving a large enough force of such tanks through space and two gravity wells was much more expensive than moving a few Mecha carrying larger weapons. This means that a raiding party of Mecha dropped on a planetary surface could hit a target and return to a dropship while still being able to fend off a tank-only force, if they weren't caught by too many tanks. A version of the "Economy Of Scale" model, if you will.
i imagine the same can be said with most of the DW robots as well; Carrying huge weapons in single platforms makes for a single target capable of dealing with more than its own mass of smaller, cheaper vehicles and/or ships. Eventually, the force opposing such robot platforms would either turn out larger and larger numbers of those small craft against them in an attempt to overwhelm them ( Thinking the GEV tactic in OGRE here too
), or create vessels that are economical yet with heavier weapons - Which, when you look at such fleets as the Raj assault carrier, the Russian Coalition Pakhtusov and the Prussians and their railway gun-equipped cruiser, that latter tactic seemed to be coming up.
