Airborne Laser Test A Success

[eion]

So the onboard LASER is called the "High Energy Laser"

Is there really any doubt that at least once, some lucky tech got to say, "On my signal, unleash H.E.L."?

And is there any doubt that the joke has been banned from the program by now?

[MKSheppard]

Not totally useless, but strikes me as a good way of gargling away cash.

So?

I suggest you crack open a book on the early missile ships in the U.S. Navy.

They were pretty costly conversions, even for single end terrier conversions. It took a while for the 3T system(s) to mature to the point where they were workable in a naval environment. But they provided a lot of much needed experience for the U.S. Navy in taking Computers to Sea.

Think about it. You'll need multiple ABLs to cover a target then more to get a rotation of 'On target, returning, maintenence, heading to target', all of which need precious fuel.

I see you've been cribbing from my notes concerning the Seabased ABM approach taken by the Obama Administration. At least you were paying some attention.

As for the 'needs precious fuel' bit -- all quake in awe before expert logistician Martin, who states the fucking obvious -- stuff needs gas to work.

HOW DID WE EVER DO THINGS WITHOUT YOU?!?

Hooray, another part of the nation's defense that will be rendered useless when the prices spike too high.

Prices of what? Back when the program was going to be two YAL-1A prototypes and five AL-1B production aircraft; the cost of the second YAL-1A was going to be about $275 million or so in FY06 dollars.

If we expected production aircraft to cost about $250 million due to cost decreases due to the fact that you're now buying things in somewhat bulk, rather than for just two aircraft -- the cost for the AL-1 fleet would be about $1.5 billion; that's cheaper than the price of a production Virginia SSN, of which the USN wants to buy 30.

Now, the entire program is pretty much dead. It's still very much up in the air whether it will do any more test shots -- there's enough money left in the MDA budget for two more flight tests this year; but no additional tests have been scheduled for 2010, and with the MDA budget for ABL zeroing out in 2011; well, I am not optimistic about it's future.

Oh sure, it'll live on as a testbed for the DOD DDR&E office past 2011; but DDR&E doesn't have the budget MDA has (or had).

Let's all get together and thank Bob Gates; who seems to think that the only people we'll be fighting for the next 30-40 years are gonna be malnourished morons on donkeys somewhere in Afghanistan; along with keeping people from killing each other in places that vaguely resemble Vietraq.

[SirNitram]

Prices of what?

Fuel. Derived from petroleum. Which is a finite supply, and has lots of fun spikes in price. But no, we'll let you run along declaring whatever you like is meant instead. It seems to sooth your ego.

[MKSheppard]

Fuel. Derived from petroleum. Which is a finite supply, and has lots of fun spikes in price. But no, we'll let you run along declaring whatever you like is meant instead. It seems to sooth your ego.

You're seriously arguing that ABL is unworkable because aircraft burn jet fuel?

By that logic, just about everything we operate is unworkable -- from big deck supercarriers (the air wing burns a lot of jet A), destroyers, tanks, helicopters, etc.

[SirNitram]

Fuel. Derived from petroleum. Which is a finite supply, and has lots of fun spikes in price. But no, we'll let you run along declaring whatever you like is meant instead. It seems to sooth your ego.

You're seriously arguing that ABL is unworkable because aircraft burn jet fuel?

By that logic, just about everything we operate is unworkable -- from big deck supercarriers (the air wing burns a lot of jet A), destroyers, tanks, helicopters, etc.

No, cum for brains.

It is a bad idea to move into it, as it will guzzle down jet fuel due to constant loitering over targets, and this is apparently a solution for an as-yet determined period of time. It isn't unworkable, it's just a bad idea. Stop twisting things I say, cretin.

[MKSheppard]

It is a bad idea to move into it, as it will guzzle down jet fuel due to constant loitering over targets

You mean like......

Combat Air Patrol etc on Big Deck Carriers?

OMG, Those goddamn F-18s are just wasting gas and costing us money because they're just orbiting a fixed point over and over several hundred miles from the carrier!

Besides, we already have experience in operating large aircraft on airborne alert for a very long time -- witness Strategic Air Command's EC-135 LOOKING GLASS, which was always in orbit over CONUS for 29 straight years without an interruption.

Besides; it's not like we're going to continuously orbit AL-1Bs over Iran or North Korea forevermore. The beauty of AL-1B is that it manages to shrink a megawatt+ laser into something that is fittable into an aircraft, giving it mobility -- you can just base them in CONUS, and then forward deploy them when the need arises, e.g. during times of heightened tension, such as North Korea being unusually belligerent and sinking South Korean gunboats, etc.

Saddam for example, was launching SCUDs into Israel for four straight weeks in 1991.

It would have been nice in 1991 to have ABL orbiting in a racetrack pattern over say Eastern Jordan, or Western Iraq, shooting down SCUDs as they were launched, rather than banking on the chances that the SCUD offensive would result in negligible Israeli casualties, and thus no Israeli intervention, which would have thrown a monkey wrench into the '91 Coalition.

It isn't unworkable, it's just a bad idea.

Bad idea how? It provides capabilities we never had before -- and provides a steppingstone to improved versions -- imagine one shrunk down to fit in a 777, or 737; making it even more cost effective to deploy than a 747.

Stop twisting things I say, cretin.

So in Martinverse, fuel costs impose strict limitations on the deployment and use of military forces?

Never mind that in the real world -- something you are belligerently opposed to -- the US Military has simply deployed Abrams tanks at various road intersections to act as checkpoints on sidewalks, and left them there with the engines idling -- even with later mods such as APUs which are more fuel efficient than the turbine -- that eats gas like crazy. So obviously, the cost of fuel is not an impediment to military operations.

[eion]

Whenever they perfect hydrogen burning jets they can just swap out the petrol ones easily, so fuel use really isn't really that big a problem.

Three questions to ask in regards to the Airborne Laser

1) Does it work?

2) Will we need it?

3) Can we afford it?

Nothing wrong with developing the prototype more and keeping a few on 30 day standby.

The Pentagon has wasted money on far worse ideas than theater missile defense.

[SirNitram]

So in Martinverse, fuel costs impose strict limitations on the deployment and use of military forces?

Which is a finite supply, and has lots of fun spikes in price.

Goddamn retard, as usual. In the real world, costs and limits of a fuel are considerations. F-18's are one thing. A brand new craft which sucks down fuel at 747 levels while in constant loiter(Consuming alot more than an idling Abrams, but reality is hard for the inbred and often-dropped on their heads, so I understand your failings), with a lifespan of likely decades, is quite another.

But no, in Shep's fever dreams, cost and limits of a fuel are not something that impacts his precious wank-fuel.

[Kane Starkiller]

Clearly the US needs to revive the nuclear powered jet engine program. Combine that with remote controlled/AI controlled planes and fleets of aircraft can patrol the skies 24/7 making an excellent balistic missile or air defense network for CONUS.
Can't be that pricey can it?

[Simon_Jester]

Not totally useless, but strikes me as a good way of gargling away cash. Think about it. You'll need multiple ABLs to cover a target, then more to get a rotation of 'On target, returning, maintenence, heading to target', all of which need precious fuel. Hooray, another part of the nation's defense that will be rendered useless when the prices spike too high.

If we can't afford jet fuel for a system that can shoot down ballistic missiles, we're probably going to lose the war no matter what happens. The exotic chemicals for the lasers are only expended if we're actually firing it, in which case we presumably have a target it was worth hitting with a laser cannon.

At this point, the sunk cost of R&D is large relative to the marginal cost of the planes, so building a large number of them to cover a potential hot-spot isn't the killer. If the system never gets used, and if we never deploy a comparable laser platform down the road that benefits from the discoveries made with this program, then the R&D was a mistake in hindsight... but we're not to the point where we know it's a mistake.

Let's all get together and thank Bob Gates; who seems to think that the only people we'll be fighting for the next 30-40 years are gonna be malnourished morons on donkeys somewhere in Afghanistan; along with keeping people from killing each other in places that vaguely resemble Vietraq.

Thing is, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that he's right; I'll get back to you on that in twenty or thirty years if you like.

I am very ambiguous about some of the stuff he's trying to cut costs on, but like it or not the US is in the middle of a recession. We can't afford to keep spending money at boom-economy levels, and the US military budget is so large that it's absurd to try and respond to the crisis without having that budget take at least part of the hit.

Unless, of course, you favor massive tax increases, in which case the problem might be solvable without doing that...

[MKSheppard]

YAL-1A is basically a straight up 747-400F bought off the commercial line and modified for ABL. 747-400s burn about 30,000 lbs per hour in cruise setting the first hour, with fuel flow decreasing by 1,000 lbs per hour as fuel is burned off.

We'll assume it burns 20% more fuel, due to the dragginess from the ABL modifications and huge ball on the nose. So that's 36,000 lbs an hour initially, lessening off to about 21,000 lbs an hour at the end of cruise (16 hours in the air).

So basically, if you want to keep a 747-400 in the air for 24 hours with refuellings on the 12 hour mark; it would cost you 732,000 pounds of fuel.

A 30 day racetrack pattern would then cost about 21.9 million pounds of fuel; but we'll say it's about 25 million pounds; due to having to factor in airplane changes, and the replacement aircraft has to fly out; and the relieved aircraft has to fly home.

That comes out to about 3.7 million gallons of fuel every 30 days (6.7 lbs per gallon density of JP-8).

If we were insane enough to make it a full fledged year round orbit -- that would cost 44.4 million gallons of fuel a year.

By contrast....the average USAF fuel consumption each year is.....

2.5 BILLION gallons.

Wow, we are so going to run out of money from a mere 1.78% increase in fuel consumption of the USAF!

As an aside, you could easily fund this by spinning down land combat operations in Vietraq. From 2003 to 2007; they averaged about 1.1 billion gallons a year of fuel.

Furtherwise, in '09 DARPA awarded contracts to begin efforts to produce competitively priced JP-8 from non-food crops, such as.......algae; and the USAF has already trialled synthetic blends of jet fuel on B-52s. So yeah, fuel is not a concern.

As an aside; mmm...algae jet fuel.

[eion]

I'd much rather fuel my car with algea and eat corn than the other way around.

[Starglider]

It is a bad idea to move into it, as it will guzzle down jet fuel due to constant loitering over targets, and this is apparently a solution for an as-yet determined period of time.

That is the most spectacularly idiotic argument against a weapons system I have ever seen. In fact that's in the top 10 most idiotic things I've ever seen on this board.

What's it's R&D cost? $6 billion? And the craft each would cost $170 million? To be fair, one interceptor missile costs $120 million. This can be a cheaper weapon all in all.

Shep's optimistic assessment of actual production cost is $250M/plane, and this is without the inevitable cost overruns. Then there is the cost of the specialised support facilities, maintenance, staff and laser fuel. You will need three in theatre (plus one at home for training plus another in overhaul, if you want reliable continuous coverage) just to maintain coverage of a single launch area.

GBI, by contrast, sits in a silo until you need it; the upkeep costs are pretty small. The per-missile intercept costs are not comparable as the GBI can kill ICBMs launched from just about anywhere, whereas ABL is primarily for use against TBMs (it may have a capability against Iranian and North Korean ICBMs, possibly, but the usage scenarios for that aren't terribly realistic). GBI would also be much cheaper per kill if MKV was restored.

The point that deploying this system would be a good way to gain real-world experience is very valid. However, since it is not yet in production it seems to me that deployment can be delayed a year or two without any serious consequences. By contrast, if active acquisition programs (e.g. F-22, C-13) are terminated, they are virtually impossible to restart. Thus in a period where the defense budget is being squeezed, deploying ABL does not seem like a high priority.

[MKSheppard]

Shep's optimistic assessment of actual production cost is $250M/plane, and this is without the inevitable cost overruns.

DoD estimated that a second YAL-1A prototype would cost $275 million.

Slicing a dozen or so million off the price for a production run of five AL-1Bs is reasonable.

Also, remember that cost overruns are pretty much independent of costs of the final production article, e.g we've already encountered all the horrible cost overruns and delays in developing the damn thing -- it was supposed to do this test back in what, 2006?

[Shroom Man 777]

Goddamn retard, as usual. In the real world, costs and limits of a fuel are considerations. F-18's are one thing. A brand new craft which sucks down fuel at 747 levels while in constant loiter(Consuming alot more than an idling Abrams, but reality is hard for the inbred and often-dropped on their heads, so I understand your failings), with a lifespan of likely decades, is quite another.

Jesus Christ, man. If that's a bad idea, then Jesus Christ all those commercial airliners that ARE 747s and that DO fly everyday constantly taking people to and from places all over the world, would also be a bad idea or something because fuel is expensive.

But no, in Shep's fever dreams, cost and limits of a fuel are not something that impacts his precious wank-fuel.

All those arguments of yours apply equally to everything from ships that use fossil fuels, to SAC bombers that were in constant deployment, to specialized USAF/USN aircraft like the Looking Glass, to fighter planes, to the thousands and thousands of tanks/jeeps/Humvees, to commercial jet liners - all of whom, every single day, fly/float/sail/roll out and burn craploads of jet fuel.

Proportionately, a small bunch of laser-equipped 747s loitering in the sky will proportionately burn miniscule amounts of fuel compared to the aforementioned gas guzzling whatevers, mang.

[SirNitram]

Goddamn retard, as usual. In the real world, costs and limits of a fuel are considerations. F-18's are one thing. A brand new craft which sucks down fuel at 747 levels while in constant loiter(Consuming alot more than an idling Abrams, but reality is hard for the inbred and often-dropped on their heads, so I understand your failings), with a lifespan of likely decades, is quite another.

Jesus Christ, man. If that's a bad idea, then Jesus Christ all those commercial airliners that ARE 747s and that DO fly everyday constantly taking people to and from places all over the world, would also be a bad idea or something because fuel is expensive.

But no, in Shep's fever dreams, cost and limits of a fuel are not something that impacts his precious wank-fuel.

All those arguments of yours apply equally to everything from ships that use fossil fuels, to SAC bombers that were in constant deployment, to specialized USAF/USN aircraft like the Looking Glass, to fighter planes, to the thousands and thousands of tanks/jeeps/Humvees, to commercial jet liners - all of whom, every single day, fly/float/sail/roll out and burn craploads of jet fuel.

Proportionately, a small bunch of laser-equipped 747s loitering in the sky will proportionately burn miniscule amounts of fuel compared to the aforementioned gas guzzling whatevers, mang.

Yes! Congratulations! We should be looking at ways to using new fuels or power to get our equipment going. Gods, we have a breakthrough, but it's gonna go through the 'dur, that stupid' first. Thankfully, the Pentagon recignizes this: Link

The ABL is supposed to serve for how long, exactly? Embargos are an issue, given one of the sights this would be sent first is the Middle East.

[MKSheppard]

Yes! Congratulations! We should be looking at ways to using new fuels or power to get our equipment going.

Too bad I already mentioned that, Champ. Jet fuel from ALGAE!

By the way, you didn't mention the real reason this has been supported by the military -- it's for the same reason the Army funded Nuclear Powered Fuel Depot Concepts in the fifties and sixties -- Link

ONE OF THE MOST important factors in any combat operation is the ability to provide an adequate supply line. With ever increasing requirements for highly mechanized and highly mobile forces, fuel supply has become a critical consideration, Aside from the usual problems of logistics, maintenance of fuel supply in combat situations is further aggravated when rail and road transportation facilities are highly vulnerable or not available. Under these conditions, the maintenance of fuel supply can become very costly in terms of casualties to transportation personnel and equipment. This is particularly true when air supply must be used.-

Modern armies can-consume fuel at a voracious rate. Recent estimates indicate that even a small force of 1000 men can require several million pounds of fuel over a one year period. The same amount of energy could be produced by nuclear reactors weighing less than 1% of the equivalent fuel load. The weight advantage of nuclear energy supply can be directly translated into a reduction of transportation equipment and personnel. Furthermore, if the nuclear reactors could be used directly in the combat area, long and vulnerable supply lines between fuel manufacturing facilities and the combat zone could be eliminated.

Vehicle propulsion accounts for most of the fuel used in the Army. Consequently a number of studies were made to determine if nuclear reactors could be installed directly in military vehicles. These studies indicated that direct use of nuclear reactors was not practical for most vehicles. Therefore, an Army-sponsored program was initiated at Allison in July 1961 to determine if a method could be found for indirect use of nuclear energy as a source of vehicle propulsion power. The concept conceived for this purpose was termed the energy depot.

The ABL is supposed to serve for how long, exactly?

Ideally, 10-15 years, then it's replaced by a newer better, cheaper ABL that's been shrunk down to fit in a 777 or 737 based on experience.

Embargos are an issue, given one of the sights this would be sent first is the Middle East.

And energy embargoes resulted in the loss of US military readiness in the 1970s, as Strategic Air Command terminated regular operations, stood down, and our tanks couldn't carry out exercises due to lack of gasoline..........no wait they didn't.

[Shroom Man 777]

How is ANY of this an indictment at all for ABL, when "jet fuel fossils BAD!" can be applied to any and all aircraft using fuel obtained from dead dinosaurs buried in Pre-Cambrian rock? And when this matter can be fixed by simply swapping engines for the ABL plane if and when new fuels are found? None of this reflects poorly on the ABL itself and is just a digressing matter tangentially related to the laser weapon system itself!

I mean, crap. If an anti-ballistic weapons system, or any weapons system, is tested and fucks up we go "can it! it costs money! financial crisis!", and sure, these are pretty valid concerns. But when said anti-ballistic weapons systems, or whatever system, is tested AND SUCCEEDS, the same people go "can it! fossil fuels are bad! PEAK OIL!" or whatever. They just can't get enough satisfaction!

Mang. Even WITH abortions for some and miniature American flags for others, or successfully-tested ABL weapons systems, no one will be happies. The military-industrial complex is supersads.

[SirNitram]

I'm waiting on the algae thing to turn out well, or reliable hydrogen engines. You haven't perhaps put thought into the main reason there'd be a conflict in the Middle East involving us is in large part because of.. OIL? Nah, too much difficulty there for that thought.

[MKSheppard]

I'm waiting on the algae thing to turn out well

If algae doesn't turn out so well, so what? We'll just use Ammonia; like forecast in the fuel depot concept I linked to:

After selection of a fuel, a conceptual design was prepared for an Energy Depot as shown in Fig. 5. This plant, basically consists of a mobile ammonia manufacturing plant and an associated mobile nuclear powerplant. The conceptual design was based on a powerplant output of 3000 kwe. In the fuel manufacturing system, one module would be used to extract hydrogen from water by electrolysis. Another module would be used to obtain nitrogen from air by fractionation. The third module would combine the nitrogen and hydrogen under high pressure to produce anhydrous ammonia. The ammonia would be handled and stored in conventional, over-the-highway vehicles as used for commercial .distribution of ammonia. This system could be moved by land, sea. or ail to any battle zone and started up in a matter of hours.

Contracts were let to General Motors and Allison, and they concluded that both piston engines and gas turbines could be modified to run ammonia with little problems -- the only real problem is the lowish energy density of ammonia; requiring larger fuel tanks for the same range. But that beats walking.

As a bonus, Ammonia is much easier to handle than liquid hydrogen.

or reliable hydrogen engines.

Moron.



OMG, What the fuck is that?

Why it's the test flight of the Tupolev Tu-155 in 1988-89; using Hydrogen!

You haven't perhaps put thought into the main reason there'd be a conflict in the Middle East involving us is in large part because of.. OIL? Nah, too much difficulty there for that thought.

And how does this have to do with logistically supporting the damn thing? Absolutely nothing.

[Shroom Man 777]

No shit it's for oil, duh. But criticizing ABL for using oil is, well, a pretty poor criticism since that's not even criticizing the faults of the laser system itself and you can use that same argument on anything on this Earth that has an internal combustion engine! I mean, geeze, even if the F-22 or the F-35 didn't face procurement/development problems you could still go on about how they're terrible weapons systems because they use oil! Forget criticizing the Osprey for failing to meet specifications, why Sheppy-Pooh could just say that the V-22 sucks balls because it uses fossil fuels! Same goes with everyone's favorite Stryker!

Sure the laser can work fine in intercepting ballistic missiles. Maybe the laser can even be deployed from the stratosphere to surgically laser-lobotomize terrorists, like what Evil Superman does to villains. But the system will still be poor if the vehicle it's mounted on uses, gasp, oil. We're not even criticizing the performance of the ABL anymore.

Hell! The Eurofighter is also a poor system because, guess what, in a hippotheticel war against Russia we've got to factor the might of the almighty petroruble! US-Venezuelan hostilities must factor this too!

Hey, what if this weapons system gets used to defend Saudi-Arabia or Kuwait?

[MKSheppard]

No shit it's for oil, duh. But criticizing ABL for using oil is, well, a pretty poor criticism since that's not even criticizing the faults of the laser system itself and you can use that same argument on anything on this Earth that has an internal combustion engine!

Clearly, Mr. Maximumis Von Shroom, the answer is.....NUCLEAR POWERED TANKS

[K. A. Pital]

To be fair, I don't see a reason to get all riled up about a 270 million something when there's a 500 billion military industrial complex. Especially if said 270 million something actually works. Maybe it's not the best weapon on earth, sure, it's a niche weapon and quite possibly it's never going to see combat (peace on Earth, hooray). But at least it works, it can technically be used in potentially realistic U.S. conflicts, and it does not cost much, as a percent, neither in maintenance nor in production (the R&D costs are already sunk, so if you wanted to never have it, better have never built it)...

[Shroom Man 777]

If those nuclear powered tanks have infrastructure that has fossil-fueled vehicles doing the mining and/or transporting uranium, and if the enrichment facility used fossil-fueled bulldozers for the groundbreaking, then your logistics train is shit, Comrade Shroomitri Shepilov. The Arabianites can still say auv wiedersen to your Nazi balls.

[MKSheppard]

If those nuclear powered tanks have infrastructure that has fossil-fueled vehicles doing the mining and/or transporting uranium, and if the enrichment facility used fossil-fueled bulldozers for the groundbreaking, then your logistics train is shit, Comrade Shroomitri Shepilov.

Goddamn Nitram Logic!

We'll just make EVERYTHING NUCLEAR! Workers will bask in the healthy glow of atomic power.