Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1173 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3467 times:
Quoting bennett123 (Reply 3): Hopefully they will find a new use for this aircraft.
I say we just keep it around so we can still say we're the only country in the world to possess a 747-based laser-plane, whether or not we actually use it for anything is immaterial.
Oroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 788 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3413 times:
Quoting bennett123 (Reply 3): However, as a one off, and the USAF not having any other B747-400F derived aircraft, it is not sounding good.
The airframe was heavily modified to accept the laser system and turret... other than some parts... it is a unique aircraft.
Now... where could a extremely low cycle, one off 747 be useful. My first thought would be a SOFIA replacement. Maybe with some work the laser turret could be used somehow...
MCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3163 times:
The YAL-1A proved itself effective against both solid fueled and liquid fueled missiles and was successful in shooting them down. It was cancelled so the money could be used for "other things".
GDB From United Kingdom, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 12713 posts, RR: 80 Reply 7, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3027 times:
Quote from Defence Secretary Gates, sourced from Wikipedia;
Secretary of Defense Gates said that "I don't know anybody at the Department of Defense, Mr. Tiahrt, who thinks that this program should, or would, ever be operationally deployed. The reality is that you would need a laser something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the chemical laser in the plane right now to be able to get any distance from the launch site to fire."
"So, right now the ABL would have to orbit inside the borders of Iran in order to be able to try and use its laser to shoot down that missile in the boost phase. And if you were to operationalize this you would be looking at 10 to 20 747s, at a billion and a half dollars apiece, and $100 million a year to operate. And there's nobody in uniform that I know who believes that this is a workable concept."[18]
The Air Force did not request further funds for the Airborne Laser for 2010; Air Force Chief Schwartz has said that the system "does not reflect something that is operationally viable."[19][20] In December 2011, it was reported that the project was to be ended after 16 years of development and a cost of over $5 billion.[21]
Secretary of Defense Gates said that "I don't know anybody at the Department of Defense, Mr. Tiahrt, who thinks that this program should, or would, ever be operationally deployed. The reality is that you would need a laser something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the chemical laser in the plane right now to be able to get any distance from the launch site to fire."
"So, right now the ABL would have to orbit inside the borders of Iran in order to be able to try and use its laser to shoot down that missile in the boost phase. And if you were to operationalize this you would be looking at 10 to 20 747s, at a billion and a half dollars apiece, and $100 million a year to operate. And there's nobody in uniform that I know who believes that this is a workable concept."[18]
The Air Force did not request further funds for the Airborne Laser for 2010; Air Force Chief Schwartz has said that the system "does not reflect something that is operationally viable."[19][20] In December 2011, it was reported that the project was to be ended after 16 years of development and a cost of over $5 billion.[21]
Well, ok,
But it was waay cool..
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2756 times:
The YAL-1A is in flyable storage. It could be used sometime in the future for a more mature laser program, or another program, both after the airframe is modified. She is a very young airframe, built in 2000, IIRC, and only flown on weekends by little old ladies to church (LOL). But in reality she has less than 2000 hours on her and maybe 50 cycles. If and when she comes out of storage, she will need a full heavy phase inspection (equal to a "D" inspection). This will probibly be done by Boeing and NG, the two prime contractors on the program as they know the airplane best and as stated the USAF doesn't fly the B-747-400F. In fact, the 6 B-747s the USAF does have (E-4B and VC-25A), Boeing does all 3 types of phase inspections on them.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6359 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2238 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 788 posts, 
, 12713 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
