Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airborne Laser News: Possible Model Change!  
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6427 times:

There is news that if all goes well with the planned "shoot down" test of ABL in 2008 and it goes into production, the production model will likely be based on the new 747-8 Freighter model.
Makes sense, no definitive production decision will be made until 2008. By 2009, the 747-400 model that the prototype is based on will be out of production once the 748 production line starts.

Link: FI Article



[Edited 2006-10-14 08:01:37]


Airliners.net Moderator Team
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6407 times:

Yes, it would seem very logical that it would switch over to a 747-8 configuration for future models.

As more and more countries develop ballistic missiles capable of threatening the United States, the utility of a successful ABL program would be obvious, in my view.


User currently offlineLt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6304 times:

Well IIRC the rest of the ABL order was swapped to the conventional upperdeck to allow for more crew space. Wil the 747-8 go "long up top" as well? I can't get the link to work  Sad

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Veni, Vibi, Bibi, Carpe imperium


User currently offlineLimaNiner From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6258 times:

Quoting Lt-AWACS (Reply 2):
the rest of the ABL order

I didn't realize there *was* a "rest of the ABL order" -- I thought the ABL program is at the stage where they're still just "trying to make it actually work". The FI article talks about "Tail 2", so I guess there's at least one more on order...

I really look forward to the live shoot-down demo -- this is one cool weapon.  Smile


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16866 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6251 times:

Question, could the ABL target Satelites?


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6242 times:

Quoting Lt-AWACS (Reply 2):
Well IIRC the rest of the ABL order was swapped to the conventional upperdeck to allow for more crew space. Wil the 747-8 go "long up top" as well?

No, the 747-8F retains the 747-100/200 upper deck.

They could always convert 747-8I, or find second-hand 747-400 on the market. I'm suprised the latter isn't being persued given that it would not be difficult to find a decent number of aircraft from a single source.


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6242 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 4):
Question, could the ABL target Satelites?

Certainly, if it's above the cloud layer (where it operates anyway) and the "bird" is overhead. The laser also gives it inherent self-defense capabilities, but they don't talk much about either capability. Not that it'd need to defend itself. I'm sure it'll have a fighter escort at all times, probably Raptors.  Wink



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6236 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 5):
I'm suprised the latter isn't being persued given that it would not be difficult to find a decent number of aircraft from a single source.

The used 744 market right now is extremely tight. It's almost impossible to find any that are not waiting to be converted to the 744BCF.


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6227 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 5):
No, the 747-8F retains the 747-100/200 upper deck.

They could always convert 747-8I, or find second-hand 747-400 on the market. I'm suprised the latter isn't being persued given that it would not be difficult to find a decent number of aircraft from a single source.

I'm sure Boeing would deliver a 747-8 with full upper deck, and maindeck converted for freighter including SCD. The short decl is just for cargo height clearence in the main deck further forward. 744BCFs as well as -300s have the rear of the SCD floor lifted/removed to have clearance, but I would doubt the USAF would need that mod...



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6214 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 7):
The used 744 market right now is extremely tight. It's almost impossible to find any that are not waiting to be converted to the 744BCF.

That's not true. There's a substantial number that will be leaving commercial service after 2010-2015. The USAF doesn't need these aircraft today.

Considering that the engineering of both prototypes will be adapted after the 747-400 and used -400 will have lower aquisition cost, it should not be dismissed.


User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6184 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9):
Considering that the engineering of both prototypes will be adapted after the 747-400 and used -400 will have lower aquisition cost, it should not be dismissed.

You're point is valid, but I think the -400 can be dismissed.

As the article pointed out, B is funding the research as it will provide increased ABL capabilities and mission systems integration.

My take on the article is:
1. B is spending their own money on the 748 frame, they anticipate a production run.
2. "Better missions systems integration", could that mean the first guy that reaches an "Alert Bird", hits a button and the aircraft self starts and by the time the crew straps in, it is ready to taxi and is "armed"?
3. B anticipates improved ABL capabilities and is providing a frame has the capacity, plus it gives them an "in" for a production integration contract.

How many frames do you think it would take to provide a "world wide" umbrella to protect the US and it's allies? My best guess is 30, with 20 on alert status at various OLs.

An advantage of using an ABL over the successful 1980s ASAT launch from an F-15 is it could destroy a satellite (or a dozen satellites from a hostile nation)without generating the amount of debris that the ASAT caused. If we are able to permenantly disable a fleet of satellites without creating enough debris to threaten friendly space resources, the ABL could fulfill multiple strategic missions.

I think this program has a solid future, N. Korea and a Taiwan/China conflict are two reasons.



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineLt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6149 times:

Well I had heard that 7 total ABL frames were funded, the last 6 "converted" from -400F to the full upperdeck, but this was from various sources including some folks on the project and IIRC Air Forces Monthly some time ago. I will have to dig around and find it. Thanks for the other link.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Delightfully Tacky, Yet Unrefined-Hooters Germany Now Open


User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6117 times:

[quote=Lt-AWACS,reply=11/quote]

Also look at the Air War College library, it used to be full of EEFIs.



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6087 times:

There have been no ABL frames authorized by the Pentagon yet. Most of the risk lies with Boeing now so I'd quite imagine they'll make the thing work. The current plan calls for a fleet of 7 aircraft including the prototype entering service. The big advantage I see for the 748 is the fact that Boeing says it'll carry more fuel, not for the plane, but for the laser. The COIL uses a volatile mix of chemical to fire the laser and it carries a finite amount. Bigger frame = more fuel = more shots.
I don't think I can see the AF going for the SUD though. They don't need much space up there. The crew rest area on a B-2 is very small, it doesn't need to be huge.



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineMrChips From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6073 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 5):

They could always convert 747-8I, or find second-hand 747-400 on the market. I'm suprised the latter isn't being persued given that it would not be difficult to find a decent number of aircraft from a single source.

From what I've gathered, the US Air Force no longer looks kindly on purchasing second-hand aircraft. The difficulties encountered in the E-8 JSTARS program with respect to different aircraft configurations, corrosion/fatigue repairs and the like taught them a hard lesson about buying fleets of second-hand aircraft. It's why they likely wouldn't buy anything other than new-build aircraft for any major procurement program in the future.



Time...to un-pimp...ze auto!
User currently offlineLimaNiner From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6055 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 4):
could the ABL target Satelites?

Probably, but that cuts both ways: the U.S. is probably more dependent on satellites than most (all?) potential adversaries, so starting a new "space arms race" is likely to push weapons development in a direction that would hurt the U.S. more than the others. Of course, the Chinese are already experimenting with targeting U.S. satellites to temporarily blind them, so maybe that arms race has already begun...

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 10):
2. "Better missions systems integration", could that mean the first guy that reaches an "Alert Bird", hits a button and the aircraft self starts and by the time the crew straps in, it is ready to taxi and is "armed"?

Would it be an advantage to go even one step further and start the plane remotely, e.g. when the alert is sounded, a signal is transmitted via radio (or a long cable) to "start everything"? For backup, there could always be a button on the plane itself, at the point of entry.

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 13):
I don't think I can see the AF going for the SUD though. They don't need much space up there. The crew rest area on a B-2 is very small, it doesn't need to be huge.

But the B-2 only has 2 crew members (right?), so I imagine a single bunk is enough, whereas an ABL probably has a crew of 10-20 (?? just a guess).

By the way, I've always wondered: what kind of lavatory facilities do planes with super long missions like the B-2 have on board? Is there somewhere for the crew to... uhhh... do some business? IIRC, U-2 pilots had bags strapped to them. Is that still the case today?


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6028 times:

Quoting LimaNiner (Reply 15):
By the way, I've always wondered: what kind of lavatory facilities do planes with super long missions like the B-2 have on board? Is there somewhere for the crew to... uhhh... do some business? IIRC, U-2 pilots had bags strapped to them. Is that still the case today?

The Beak (B-2A) has a chemical toilet lav.



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineLt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5969 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 13):
I don't think I can see the AF going for the SUD though. They don't need much space up there. The crew rest area on a B-2 is very small, it doesn't need to be huge.

yeah, I've been in a B-2 cockpit and know several B-2 pilots. There is rest area for one, to lay down uncomfortably on whatever pad you bring, and a stinking little pot for a lav. Not exactly what they are looking for on the ABL. According to the fellow ABM folks I know who have actually flown the ABL airframe the crew rest area and bunks are similar to the bunks on the E-3 and the galley of the E-4. The B-2 option is not happening.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Texas-It's bigger than France


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5935 times:

Ironically, China was accused of taking laser shots at one of our satellites recently, so I say we aim down, over, AND UP...

Also, we have fighter based missiles that can reach a low orbit satellite anyway, so what is the difference?



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5929 times:

Quoting Lt-AWACS (Reply 17):
yeah, I've been in a B-2 cockpit and know several B-2 pilots. There is rest area for one, to lay down uncomfortably on whatever pad you bring, and a stinking little pot for a lav. Not exactly what they are looking for on the ABL. According to the fellow ABM folks I know who have actually flown the ABL airframe the crew rest area and bunks are similar to the bunks on the E-3 and the galley of the E-4. The B-2 option is not happening.

But would the galley have a much needed microwave or those crappy jiffy bake ovens. It would also be nice if they had a good potable water system so can make coffee on the jet. E-3's always had crappy galleys that frigs were only good for one flight because after one touch and go the freon lines broke loose and let go of all the refrigerate. I tried to get some water systems operable at the start of noble eagle but there are no parts in the system to fix the heaters in the lavs or new pipes in the h2o sytem.
From first hand knowledge of working with second hand acft you should always go with new builds, espicially if you perform mx and have to order parts.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5907 times:

Somehow I think that with the DPRK's recent activities, and the fact Iran is also trying to play on the nuclear ball field, we will see more than 7 ABLs. My guess is we will see at least 2 squadrons (16-20 operational aircraft) of ABL-1Bs (B-747-800F, the B-747-400F will be designated the ABL-1A). North Korea will get it right some day, even after their recent ICBM (Tapodong II) and nuke test (max confirmed yield .8KT) failures.

User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5901 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 18):
Also, we have fighter based missiles that can reach a low orbit satellite anyway, so what is the difference?

Exactly, low earth orbits. So you can hit a few recon birds that are in highly elliptical orbits.

But then, the debris cone from an ASAT missle launch will be a severe threat to friendly space assets.

ASAT is pretty cool, but it's not an elegant or practical system for an all out attack on space based assets.



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 5858 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9):
That's not true. There's a substantial number that will be leaving commercial service after 2010-2015. The USAF doesn't need these aircraft today.

1) You're correct there are a substantial number of airframes leaving. However, if you look closely, you will see they're all ready sold. SQ is in a real bind because of that and the delay on the 380. They have committed to sell the airframes based on the original 380 delivery schedule. So the USAF would have a hard time coming up with airframes at a "reasonable" price.

2) It will be a cold day before you see the USAF buying used airframes for the ABL program.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 5856 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 18):
Also, we have fighter based missiles that can reach a low orbit satellite anyway, so what is the difference?

I think that the A-Sat program was terminated quite a while ago, if I'm not mistaken.


User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 5837 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 23):
I think that the A-Sat program was terminated quite a while ago, if I'm not mistaken.

That was my impression. The international community was in an uproar over the debris issue causing a hazard to space navigation. A similar test could not be done today for this reason.

It was an interesting technology. The missile placed four approximately 15 inch long bolts in the path of the target satellite (sorry I can't remember the type, an older malfunctioning NASA experiment, and I'm to lazy to look it up). When the satellite hit them at 22,500 mph, well, it was dusted. It was a direct hit, the test really was a smashing success, pun intended. The radar plots of the debris cone after impact were a thing of beauty.

The satellite wasn't chased down buy a missile, ASAT placed a couple pieces of steel in it's path. poof, gone.

I'm still thinking, B is investing it's own funds in the program, they obviously feel a "748-ABL" prouction run will happen.

Any guesses on the OLs? My guess is 3 frames per OL.

Me?

Philipines.
Somewhere in Alaska?, Eilson?
Hmm, some new found friends in Eastern Europe? Bulgaria or Georgia?
RAF Lakenheath



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
25 LimaNiner : Probably don't want to advertise that... I've always wondered: what would it take to "accidentally" set off one of their nukes in their own "factory"
26 MCIGuy : I probably should have prefaced what I said with "some" satellites. The advertised range on ABL would make it able to only target LEO satellites. Some
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Airborne Laser News: Possible Model Change!
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...
Boeing Test Fires Airborne Laser For ABL Program posted Mon Nov 15 2004 16:22:55 by Greaser
Development Of Airborne Laser (B744F) posted Wed Oct 6 2004 13:55:21 by Na
Airborne Laser posted Fri Aug 16 2002 14:41:12 by Kiwi dave
Boeing Begins Flight Tests Of Laser Gunship posted Sat Oct 14 2006 03:04:08 by AerospaceFan
C-17 At Newport News Airport posted Thu Oct 5 2006 19:11:38 by Checksixx
U.S. May Build Powerful New Laser Weapon posted Wed May 3 2006 10:13:57 by AerospaceFan
Could 747F Be A Possible C-5 Replacement? posted Tue Apr 11 2006 07:21:14 by AviationAddict
Possible RN Purchase Of The Rafale posted Mon Feb 27 2006 01:59:36 by LMP737
F-35 Engine Manufacturer Change posted Tue Feb 7 2006 17:30:44 by RichardPrice
Is NASA-ESA Cooperation A Good Model? posted Mon Dec 26 2005 16:55:37 by AerospaceFan

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format