Boeing faces jumbo problem over US aerial raygun fleet

8F is bigger right

So they can mount a bigger frickin' laser. Everyones a winner.

Easy solution...

Just get a WHOLE bunch of battery operated laser pointers, wrap them up with a rubber band, and fly them on a Piper Cub. Wouldn't that do the trick?

I remember when some idiot pointed one at me while driving on the freeway. It REALLY annoyed me.

Re: They could, but

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. ;-)

Best Aircraft

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.

You're five days early!

April Fool!

Too small

When will they realize that planes are Too Small for frikkin' lasers? They need to get them up on the moon, then they can rule the night! And do it quick, while the Prince of Darkness can still sign the reqisition order

... Bwoooahaahahaha

noooo

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.

One slight problem with lasers

It will fuel the demand for the Evil nations to build the ultimate defence.....

Huge frikkin' mirrors....

But then again

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 !

re Morely Dotes

I think the reason it is imparacticale is how close (relatively speaking) you need to get the rather heavey and slow aircraft to the actual luanch points to be in range of the LASER (please people its a fricken accronym).

Of course that dosnt mean it will always be impractical.

A380F payload...

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.

re:It does not take a rocket scientist, to make the correct decision

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>

Dear all "axis of evil" countries

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.

however

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.

Utterly pointless.

Re: Best Aircraft

The USAF will want the best aircraft, not refurbished second-hand 'rubbish' aircraft.

Well perhaps you missunderstood, take a passenger plane (old or New!) and modify it into a cargo plane by replacing the interior with new bits. Who said second hand?

Scrooo Boeing

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.