FlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 511 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 hours ago) and read 5103 times:
MilAv post, and as noted in the linked wiki article this program is a decade in the making (more really) but it has been cut from the budget so it is in limbo. They are new order 747s by the Air Force not second hand. the first model had the F model upper deck, future orders were to be pax upper deck for more crew area.
Please note my son has been posting on my account. This has been dealt with. I am sorry if this offended anyone.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10570 posts, RR: 53 Reply 5, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4963 times:
Quoting B738FlyUIA (Thread starter): Any idea about the Reg of the AC, or if the USAF as more of these kind of 747's?
The aircraft has a USAF designation (MDS) of YAL-1A, it is a prototype, and its tail number is 00-0001, indicating it was budgeted for in FY-2000, and was given a vacant number of 0001.
Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 2): MilAv post, and as noted in the linked wiki article this program is a decade in the making (more really) but it has been cut from the budget so it is in limbo. They are new order 747s by the Air Force not second hand. the first model had the F model upper deck, future orders were to be pax upper deck for more crew area.
No, the Airborne Laser program is not in limbo, but not on the front burner, either. It is funded for FY-10, and included in the FY-11 and FY-12 budget requests. It is scheduled for additional testing through FY-15, with a production decision made in 2012 for between 8 and 24 airplanes, or up to 4 squadrons. The prototype YAL-1A is a new build B-747-400F, and if the AL-1 enteres production, it will be as a "B" model and will be new build B-747-8Fs.
The production airplanes will not be the passenger version, or B-747-8I, as the AL-1B will have a crew size of 24 or less. But you are right in assuming most crew positions will be on the upper deck, and no crew stations on the main deck, esspecially when firing either of the lasers. There may be crew positions in the lower cargo compartments, below the main deck, most probably Flight Mechanics for the inflight maintenance of the laser and other systems. Also the nose cargo door of the B-747-8F is needed to load and unload the main laser coils, which are about 40' long, as well as other very large peices of equipment (some of which will fit through the aft cargo door).
There is another YAL-1A in the progam, but carries the YGAL-1 MDS (but no series), that was bought used, then the engines removed and cut off around the inborad engine stuts, and the tail surfaces removed, the tail number is 00-0002. It is a ground test only airplane for fit and testing. Many of you guys may remember seeing it's nose sticking out of a building at EDW. This airplane was originally a passenger version B-747-200B.
Wingman From France, joined May 1999, 1688 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4922 times:
Huh! I said in the Civ Av forum that the 380 was the ugliest coolest plane in the sky. Just 24 hours later I have to withdraw that prize and hand it to this completely deformed and yet sexily deranged 747.
FlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 511 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4641 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5): No, the Airborne Laser program is not in limbo, but not on the front burner, either. It is funded for FY-10, and included in the FY-11 and FY-12 budget requests. It is scheduled for additional testing through FY-15, with a production decision made in 2012 for between 8 and 24 airplanes, or up to 4 squadrons. The prototype YAL-1A is a new build B-747-400F, and if the AL-1 enteres production, it will be as a "B" model and will be new build B-747-8Fs.
The production airplanes will not be the passenger version, or B-747-8I, as the AL-1B will have a crew size of 24 or less. But you are right in assuming most crew positions will be on the upper deck, and no crew stations on the main deck, esspecially when firing either of the lasers. There may be crew positions in the lower cargo compartments, below the main deck, most probably Flight Mechanics for the inflight maintenance of the laser and other systems. Also the nose cargo door of the B-747-8F is needed to load and unload the main laser coils, which are about 40' long, as well as other very large peices of equipment (some of which will fit through the aft cargo door).
There is another YAL-1A in the progam, but carries the YGAL-1 MDS (but no series), that was bought used, then the engines removed and cut off around the inborad engine stuts, and the tail surfaces removed, the tail number is 00-0002. It is a ground test only airplane for fit and testing. Many of you guys may remember seeing it's nose sticking out of a building at EDW. This airplane was originally a passenger version B-747-200B.
Much if what you write there is incorrect.
The program is, in fact, in limbo. Ha, The main officers in the program are already tooling up their resumes. Now, there is much lobbying going on to keep the program in its current form, but to say it is not in limbo is wrong. C
ome out to Edwards or Kirtland or Tinker with me and see for yourself. I am not assuming anything on the crew positions, I've actually seen the interior designs. The extended upperdeck that was ordered after the initial freight model, is for crew rest areas not operators. The ABMs and techs will be in the main deck; however completely seperated from the chemicals and laser components in the back.
And after the first modded aircraft the rest will have the longer Pax version uppder deck, not freight model (I am not talking static frame). I've served with many folks working this program, and been both to Kirtland and Edwards working on interops on this myself not to mention at Tinker on the ABM transition to the Aircraft. Rated Air Battle Managers will be the majority of the flying offices on board(There are even arguments over who will press "the button" the ABM MCC or the Pilot PIC).
Please note my son has been posting on my account. This has been dealt with. I am sorry if this offended anyone.
venus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1366 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4623 times:
MCC = Mission crew Commander
ABM = Air battle manager = Goat on a E-3 = Penguin on a E-8 = Self loading baggage to both airplanes Flight deck crew
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10570 posts, RR: 53 Reply 11, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4407 times:
The program is, in fact, in limbo. Ha, The main officers in the program are already tooling up their resumes. Now, there is much lobbying going on to keep the program in its current form, but to say it is not in limbo is wrong.
The ALTB (YAL-1A) just destroyed its first actual missile test this week, on 11 Feb. 2010. It is hardly a program that is in limbo.
Quote: While the success of the test is a technological triumph, it won't save the airborne laser program from being placed on life-support, a defense analyst said.
"The program results are, unfortunately, two years behind the secretary's decision to cancel the program," said Jim McAleese of Mcaleese and Associates, a lawyer and defense consultant in Virginia who is not affiliated with the project.
and
Quote: "As a practical matter, absent something extraordinary, the program has already receded backwards into a technology incubator as opposed to proceeding into production and fielding," he said.
...Certainly sounds like there is a state of uncertainty and limbo.
SeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 265 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4134 times:
This really is anextraordinary achievement. I do think the program is perfectly pegged as an incubator, since I simply cannot envision this platform getting anywhere near a rocket in its boost phase (according to above military.com article "The laser program was designed to kill missiles at short range".)
Going for an acquisition program at this stage would turn a successful and promising incubator with a mercyfully limited constituency into a money draining zombie of a program with endless complications and an agonizing death that would draw down precious resources (and I'm thinking more of the ability to plan and implement rationally that must be nurtured above all).
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10570 posts, RR: 53 Reply 16, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4082 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
It is hardly a program that is in limbo.
Well maybe you should read more than just press releases from the manufacturer?
I agree there is conflicting information on the ALTB program. SecDef Gates said a buy of 10-20 airplanes would costs about $1.5B each, that is $30B, making these the most expensive airplanes in the world. At that proce tag, you are right, it very well could get chopped, unless there is a way to increase the range of the COIL laser and reduce the overall costs of each unit costs.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 8407 posts, RR: 11 Reply 17, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4073 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16): I agree there is conflicting information on the ALTB program. SecDef Gates said a buy of 10-20 airplanes would costs about $1.5B each, that is $30B, making these the most expensive airplanes in the world. At that proce tag, you are right, it very well could get chopped, unless there is a way to increase the range of the COIL laser and reduce the overall costs of each unit costs.
The cost involved and the doubts about the real abilities of the ABL make it a perfect taget for anyone REALLY interested in saving money in the US government. The $30B is just the aquisition cost, the running costs will double ortriple it over the times. Btw I read a B-2 costs even more.
The ABL is surely an awesome weapon but not every fascinating thing makes sense when looking at the budget. I doubt so that it will be killed alltogether, just laid to rest for a while. Its expensive and its strategically not very urgent. The US would be stupid to bury it alltogether though after spending so much.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10570 posts, RR: 53 Reply 20, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3938 times:
Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 19): Quoting NA (Reply 17):
The US would be stupid to bury it alltogether though after spending so much.
Ah but we do that so often... XB-70, AH-56 Cheyenne, A-12 Avenger, AH-66 Comanche, etc.
Don't forget the more recent VH-72.
Quoting NA (Reply 17): Btw I read a B-2 costs even more.
Since it will be difficult to get real comparable costs numbers It is hard to say. The number most often kicked around for the flyaway costs of each B-2A (averaged) is $1.1B in 1990 dollars, but the price included R&D averaged into each of 21 airplanes. The costs currently said about the $1.5B AH-1B is only for the airplane buy, without the unknown R&D costs averaged into it.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1639 posts, RR: 15 Reply 22, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3810 times:
A concern voiced by SecDEf Gates (on MSN) is the laser range is so short the the aircraft must loiter almost within the enemies airspace in order to be close enough to a launch site for a hit. I saw somewhere (I wish I'd saved it) that that shot was only 8 to 10 miles away not at all close to the 100-200 miles once tauted.... Seven or even 20 to 30 would still leave great holes even around North Korea and with the number of countries we deem unfriendly 200+ would be needed. Remember these aircraft even with aerial refueling still have to come down for maintenance and crew changes.
The way technology advances they will be obsolete before the 7th is built. However it appears the program is dead excpt as a single proof of concept vehicle.
FlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 511 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3806 times:
You would actually need two airframes "on station" at the same time to provide full coverage.
The planes conops mean they should fly orbits so for half the time, a single aircraft would be pointing away from the threat, so you need to double all the logistics and cost you mention above.
Please note my son has been posting on my account. This has been dealt with. I am sorry if this offended anyone.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10570 posts, RR: 53 Reply 25, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3829 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 22): A concern voiced by SecDEf Gates (on MSN) is the laser range is so short the the aircraft must loiter almost within the enemies airspace in order to be close enough to a launch site for a hit. I saw somewhere (I wish I'd saved it) that that shot was only 8 to 10 miles away not at all close to the 100-200 miles once tauted.... Seven or even 20 to 30 would still leave great holes even around North Korea and with the number of countries we deem unfriendly 200+ would be needed. Remember these aircraft even with aerial refueling still have to come down for maintenance and crew changes.
The way technology advances they will be obsolete before the 7th is built. However it appears the program is dead excpt as a single proof of concept vehicle.
I think the short range of the weapons laser can be worked out. You may remember, the targeting laser, years ago needed to be within 25nm, or so (which is visual range) to track the NKC-135E "target". That has steadily been extended out to "well over 200nm".
I don't know exactly where this program is for its schedule, but I beleive it is some two years behind schedule. The POCV is funded through FY-11, and probibly will get funded through FY-12, -13, and -14 too. Yes, the first test firing of the laser to destroy a target missile was short ranged, 8-10 miles. I don't know if that was scheduled to be that way, or if there were airspace restrictions for the ALTRAV. That is using a lot of airspace in the crowded Southern California skys, even off the coast.
Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 23): You would actually need two airframes "on station" at the same time to provide full coverage.
The planes conops mean they should fly orbits so for half the time, a single aircraft would be pointing away from the threat, so you need to double all the logistics and cost you mention above.
I don't know the tactics the AL-1 would need to use, but that sounds logical.
rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1531 posts, RR: 2 Reply 26, posted (1 year 12 months 23 hours ago) and read 3754 times:
Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 23): You would actually need two airframes "on station" at the same time to provide full coverage.
The planes conops mean they should fly orbits so for half the time, a single aircraft would be pointing away from the threat, so you need to double all the logistics and cost you mention above.
You'd more likely do racetrack shaped patterns, so you'd be parallel to the launch site most of the time, except in the turns at the ends.
The final beam emitter mirror is pretty steerable - I don't know how far it can turn to the sides, so you might need a bit of a turn at the launch to get the missile into your targeting cone. And even in the racetrack turns, you're not going to be that far away from pointing at the target - you've got a couple of minutes to engage, and the ABL aircraft isn't going to be going very fast (presumably loafing along at max endurance speed), and cranking into a 45 or even 60 degree bank is not going to be an issue (300kts, and 45 degrees gives you 1.4G and 50 seconds for a 180). And then you'd always make your turns towards the target area, so you'd never have to do a full 180 to point back at the target.
Let's say, hypothetically, that the turret can point 45 degrees off axis. You then fly a race track so that that the "away" legs end where the target area is 135 degrees off the nose. IOW, you need a 90 degree turn to get the laser pointed to the target area (and you'd continue that turn to no more than 135 degrees if you were firing - that gets you head on, or a full 180 to maintain your pattern). And that's the worst case - at the limit of the pattern you'd need a 90 degree turn (under 30 seconds, assuming the prior scenario). Before that, you'd need less, but you would usually turn into the target before firing. The exact limits depend on allowable turn rates, allowable time to set up the shot, the turret limits, and whether or not ABL can fire in a turn, or does it need to be straight-and-level (if you need to get straight-and-level, you'd have to turn far enough so that you didn't drift out of your engagement cone during the firing interval)?
FlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 511 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (1 year 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 3729 times:
Quoting rwessel (Reply 26): You'd more likely do racetrack shaped patterns, so you'd be parallel to the launch site most of the time, except in the turns at the ends.
Well, that is different than the current conops the US Air Force is preaching/teaching. The current conops is to have two aircraft on station to be operational and deployable. Obviously the US Air Force is not going to publish the 3-1 manual to the public, but much of the current conops have been released, and having the aircraft fly racetracks is the plan.
I cannot and will not speak to some of your questions as they are classified 3-1 documents, but open source conops are out there and will tell you about the plans (which the US Air Force also noted in their orders)
Please note my son has been posting on my account. This has been dealt with. I am sorry if this offended anyone.
SeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 265 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2723 times:
Funding update on this program, via wired:
... The money brings the ALTB’s total budget this year to $146 million. ...
... There is $100 million set aside for the laser weapon in the 2011 defense budget. ...
Sponsor Message: 
From Switzerland, joined Dec 2009, 267 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 10544 posts, 
From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 511 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 6470 posts, 
From France, joined May 1999, 1688 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 5743 posts, 
I do think the program is perfectly pegged as an incubator, since I simply cannot envision this platform getting anywhere near a rocket in its boost phase (according to above military.com article "The laser program was designed to kill missiles at short range".)
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 21 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 8407 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
