Remember this story...
The next time some Septic tries to claim that the EU subsidises Airbus unfairly in the plane market.
Boeing executives have revealed to reporters that they have worries about their plans to mount America's second nuke-nobbling laser cannon in a pricey new jumbo-jet variant. It seems that the 747 cargo model which will carry the first as-yet-unproven raygun is going out of production, and Boeing wants more cash so as to tackle …
It's marginally impractical today. In 1975, a personal computer that could display real-time 3D animations (ala World of Warcraft, for instance (pun intended)) would have been impractical. Now, 30+ years later, US$300 will get you more computing power than most small nations owned back then.
Technology changes. It gets cheaper, more powerful, and more practical as development proceeds.
And a laser is the only weapon that can move fast enough to catch an ICBM during boost pahse, when it is most vulnerable. 300,000 km/second is the speed of light (or speed of laser, if you like). A physical object going into orbit is only moving at about 29,000 km/hour. It's the difference between the Post and radio, essentially.
And we didn't have invisible anti-gravity-powered black helicopters then, either. ;-)
The USAF will want the best aircraft, not refurbished second-hand 'rubbish' aircraft. If the new 747 (a 30+ year old design) obviously doesn't tick all the right boxes & a squeaky clean & new A380 does. It does not take a rocket scientist, to make the correct decision. The USAF chose Airbus A330 for the KC-45 tankers, OK so they will be made in Europe but they will be assembled & maintained in the USA by Northrop-Grumman.
Don't we want the world biggest Superpower to have the biggest (A380) & best that it can afford? Hey, ABL probably won't work anyway but try it on a European platform rather than a 30+ year old US platform.
It would not "be better to just forget about the stupid impractical laser" - people just don't understand, and refuse to think things through properly.
If we forget about the stupid impractical laser where is my X-Wing fighter going to come from? I was hugely disappointed not to get one last Christmas, what with the silly wrangling over money and all the nay-sayers pushing back this tremendously exciting idea.
And these kinds of subsidies are good for the environment I'll have you know, they're carbon neutral. The energy used to fire the laser is mitigated and turn humans into little piles of smoking ash, is mitigated by the lack of iPod charging that person will engage in for the next 20 years.
But then again the A380 has a lot has one or two or three or more bugs to iron out at the production line as Singapore Airlines have found out as per beeb link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7313957.stm
But Murphy always was an optimist , as for this technology working in real life given the variables added together with results of Star Fish Prime Tests it is very unlikely indeed , and as always the tax payers are for ever the loser in any equation !
FedEx, UPS and several cargo carriers have cancelled/deferred their orders for A380F because it does not have a frontal nose door, it's impractical to load/unload, needs special taxiways and the maximum cargo load density is very low compared to a 747 or a 777.
Now the 777F looks like a winner: efficient, two engines, top-notch efficiency, long range and great looks.
if i can point out lewis' favourite axe to grind -
"Fit for the job" and "cost effective" come further down the list of priorities than "secure <our> jobs" and "make make money back through taxes"
This is the case in the uk. if its the USAF maybe itll be one of those few documented cases of a triumph for common sense. After all, with it wanting to reduce its dependance on foreign oil, there is hope that someone in the USAF pays attention to el reg ;) </tongue></cheek>
If they're just squeezing the thing into a 747-400, they're going to need a really big mallet to get it into a 777.
Oh, and "great looks"? I'm sorry, but the 777 is straight out of the long-tube-with-wings school of aeronautical design. The words "very ordinary looking conventional airliner" spring to mind.
Also, payloads from the manufacturers:
747-400 - 110 tonnes
747-8 - 134 tonnes
777 - 103.9 tonnes (oops)
A380-F - 150 tonnes
Cargo density isn't an issue here as we only want to put one thing (a frickin' huge laser) into the beast. Nose load isn't a requirement (we want to put a frickin' huge laser emitter there, not a door). Runway / taxiway size isn't a problem (if the airfield can accept a B52, a 380's going to look a little lost in the space). Since what we're looking for is interior space for chemical tanks and payload for carrying the maximum possible amount of chemical "fuel" for the laser, this looks like a win for the 380F to me.
Ok, it looks a bit like the Hunchback of Notre Dame, but this is the same military that operates the A10 "Warthog"..........
If you're worried about your superbomb being shot down by a frikkin huge laser then why not shoot down the laser plane first or send a battery of missiles it's way and while it's preoccupied with trying to protect itself, launch your uber quick, uber deadly, uber missile? Alternatively you could do what the japs did and scream "kamakazi" in a really high pitch voice. If I was playing Command and conquer I know that's what I'll do. Only problem is that you probably don't want the toxic material coming anywhere near you when the frikkin laser goes down.
Flame: cos missile tries to burns US, laser tries to burn missile, kamakazi tries to burn laser.
Since when did 1 B52 get stored, the US put them at a very few air force bases and they are always in fleets.
A couple of these babies would be in a car park full of b 52's and the b2 stealth aircraft as I dare say the US will put them in the same limited number of air bases (IE very secure and well guarded places) like the Indian ocean island base and the couple in the states they have.
Just think of all the wasted fuel to build plane parts in europe then ship across to build the plan in the states.
But you save your cans and paper for recycling... all worth while so a pointless jumbo will be around at the the time of a launch to shoot it down, assuming normal air to air missiles and interceptor planes don't shoot the jumbo's anyway prior to missile launch.
Of course the jumbo is well renowned as an air to air dog fighter.
AND in order to protect the jumbo's they need air to air interceptors (F35?) which require refuelling, constant guarding and advance knowledge and planning to have everything on hand.
All that fuel, money and effort to have the chance of putting the missile and plane in the same area for a shot.
Oopsie, my bad. Should've checked.
Holy smoke! The 380's bigger than a Galaxy. Who'd've thunk it?
The only thing out there available* bigger right now seems to be the Antonov AN-225 Mriya, which edges the 380 on length (84m) and wingspan (88.4m), although it's only a paltry 18.1m tall. Carries a massive 250 tonnes in payload though.
Hmmm, we can get *two* lasers in one of those and there's enough capacity left for turrets. I call dibs on the top one.
*Antonov have one. They reckon they can build more, but nobody's ordered any.
Having to lift off and fly to an offensive weapon could be dangerously time consuming, and in fact take too long to be of ANY use. And keeping the ABL continuously in the air over hot spots is ridiculously impractical and too costly.
If possible, I think the weapon should be mounted on sea faring vessels which are often in the vicinity of hot spots, and for long periods of time. And send Boeing packing to pull (probably deliberate) cost over-runs on some one else for a change. The job of protecting the US, our allies and neighbor's is NOW, not after we're backed in a corner waiting for weapons. Can you immagine trying to tell the person shooting at you to give you time to get your act together? For far, far too long the DoD and our security have been taking a back seat to contractor's shenanigans. It's time they bite the bullet for playing games with our Country's security.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019