Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Development Of Airborne Laser (B744F)  
User currently offlineNa From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2215 times:

I was wondering how the tests of the Airborne Laser are going. On time? When will the second aircraft be built? When will the testphase be finished. This is the most complex weapon system besides a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier so I assume that date can only be vague.

The last thread about and the most recent photos date back from 2002, so I think its time to collect new info.

6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNa From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2181 times:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-AIRPAPER-340209.php

Is it really that bad?


User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2112 times:

I haven't heard much about the program recently, but I was always under the impression the aircraft was intended for theater-level missile interdiction, essentially an alternative to the very expensive and only moderately successful Patriot system, not to be used in defending against ICBMs (rather short range ballistic missiles). The original plan was to hold the plane 200-400 miles back from a launch site and target missiles while they were still in the initial boost phase of flight--obviously this can't be done from several thousand miles away.

To me, this is a much more feasible use of the system then what the Author describes.

Thus, my question is has the goal of the ABL been changed to protect against long range missiles as he describes, or is the author simply against the program and trying to cite less than truthful examples in order to support his point?



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5426 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2111 times:

DW,
From my read of it, it seemed the author was stating that the idea of holding 2 AL-1s over the US for "Homeland Security" would not be a good idea as the threat we would have here is from ICBMs, which, as you point out, isn't what the aircraft is designed for. Thus, since we don't need to maintain 2 over the US, the number of aircraft budgeted for should be reduced at best. This passage is the key one:

Remember that not even the Pentagon brass plans to build a defense against the greatest missile threat we face — the 550 missiles with multiple nuclear warheads belonging to the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces. Since the early 1960s, the United States has stood defenseless against an attack by them. It still is.

The missile defense scheme, of which the airborne laser is part, is intended only to offer limited protection from rogue leaders like … well, Saddam Hussein.

If we use the production AL-1A at home, as the deployment plan prescribes, and if we can make it work, as seems doubtful, the airborne laser will protect us from ballistic missiles launched from Ottawa or Mexico City — or Havana.

Of course, Canada, Mexico and Cuba don’t have intercontinental ballistic missiles. Nor does Iraq. North Korea may eventually have a missile that can reach Alaska, but it doesn’t justify this program.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29839 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2023 times:

North Korea may eventually have a missile that can reach Alaska, but it doesn’t justify this program.

Bull.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineDl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1947 times:

We are more worried about countries that have the ability to hit our allies. It would be a complete economic disaster if Japan was hit by a DPRK nuke, not to mention our stated policy of placing Japan under our nuclear umbrella. Plus the PRC has a limited number of S/ICBMs that could be interdicted if we put one of these over say Russia or Taiwan.


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1937 times:

Of course, Canada, Mexico and Cuba don’t have intercontinental ballistic missiles. Nor does Iraq. North Korea may eventually have a missile that can reach Alaska, but it doesn’t justify this program.

very well put!



"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Development Of Airborne Laser (B744F)
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airborne Laser News: Possible Model Change! posted Sat Oct 14 2006 07:43:48 by MCIGuy
Boeing Test Fires Airborne Laser For ABL Program posted Mon Nov 15 2004 16:22:55 by Greaser
Airborne Laser posted Fri Aug 16 2002 14:41:12 by Kiwi dave
Status Of Airborne Laser/B744F? posted Wed Feb 6 2002 18:35:19 by Na
Boeing Begins Flight Tests Of Laser Gunship posted Sat Oct 14 2006 03:04:08 by AerospaceFan
"Stars Of Sukhoi" Video (Su-27, 30, 33, 47) posted Tue Nov 21 2006 04:47:29 by BEG2IAH
First Flight Of U.S.C.G. HC-235A posted Fri Nov 10 2006 04:55:27 by FlyUSCG
Odds Of Flying Air Force One posted Thu Nov 9 2006 02:28:17 by KingAirMan
Great Picture Of An Unpainted F-22A posted Thu Oct 19 2006 19:57:59 by Egronenthal
22 C-17s And Lots Of Other Goodies! posted Wed Oct 18 2006 18:13:23 by Galaxy5007

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format