Cancelled/mothballed government defense projects: 10 billion.

[Ns1]

Well that is fucking shit.

As for the airborne laser without looking more into it right now IIRC the laser actually could work somewhat but it just required too much power that the 747 could not generate. That said while airborne laser defense might not work that well against ballistic missiles it still could have amazing potential against cruise missiles, UAV, light armor and ships, and other aircraft.

http://warontherocks.com/2014/12/top-10-failed-defense-programs-of-the-rma-era/

omg just read the OP. Fair point re: the bolded.

The concept: A fleet of Boeing 747s, each modified to fire an infrared chemical laser through a 5-foot-long telescope in its nose. The laser would incinerate enemy missiles shortly after launch, before they could release decoys that might fool U.S. radar.

Major contractors: Boeing Co., Northrop Grumman Corp. and Lockheed Martin Corp.

Early optimism: “We are building forces of good to defeat the force of evil. And in that vein today we are taking a major step to give the American people their first ‘Light Saber.’” — Henry A. Obering III, then-director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, Oct. 27, 2006.

Problems: Because of the laser’s limited range, each 747 would have had to fly near or within an adversary's borders, leaving it vulnerable to antiaircraft missiles. To operate at a safer distance, the laser would have had to be 20 to 30 times more powerful. And the laser's potassium hydroxide and hydrogen peroxide fuel posed severe safety risks to the crew.

Disappointment: “I don’t know anybody at the Department of Defense … who thinks that this program should, or would, ever be operationally deployed.”
— Robert M. Gates, then-secretary of Defense, May 20, 2009.

Status: Killed in 2012.

Cost: $5.3 billion.

 

[Fern]

Well that is fucking shit.

As for the airborne laser without looking more into it right now IIRC the laser actually could work somewhat but it just required too much power that the 747 could not generate. That said while airborne laser defense might not work that well against ballistic missiles it still could have amazing potential against cruise missiles, UAV, light armor and ships, and other aircraft.

http://warontherocks.com/2014/12/top-10-failed-defense-programs-of-the-rma-era/

I'm wondering about its potential against satellites. In thinner atmosphere above its beam should project further, or at least that's my guess.

Fern

 

[norseamd]

Looks like we do not have sufficiently advanced technology instead of the concept not being possible.

Former Secretary of Defense Gates said that "I don't know anybody at the Department of Defense, Mr. Tiahrt, who thinks that this program should, or would, ever be operationally deployed. The reality is that you would need a laser something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the chemical laser in the plane right now to be able to get any distance from the launch site to fire."

"So, right now the ABL would have to orbit inside the borders of Iran in order to be able to try and use its laser to shoot down that missile in the boost phase. And if you were to operationalize this you would be looking at 10 to 20 747s, at a billion and a half dollars apiece, and $100 million a year to operate. And there's nobody in uniform that I know who believes that this is a workable concept."


The air force did not request further funds for the Airborne Laser for 2010; Air Force Chief of Staff Schwartz has said that the system "does not reflect something that is operationally viable." In December 2011, it was reported that the project was to be ended after 16 years of development and a cost of over $5 billion. While in its current form, a relatively low power laser mounted on an unprotected airliner may not be a practical or defensible weapon, the YAL-1 testbed proves that air mounted energy weapons with increased range and power may be another viable way of destroying otherwise very difficult to intercept sub-orbital ballistic missiles and rockets. On February 14, 2012, the YAL-1 flew its final mission to Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, and was placed in storage at the AMARG.


As of 2013 studies are underway to apply the lessons of the YAL-1 by mounting laser anti-missile defenses on Unmanned combat air vehicles that could fly above the altitude limits of the converted jetliner.

 

[norseamd]

I'm wondering about its potential against satellites. In thinner atmosphere above its beam should project further, or at least that's my guess.

Yes although you would probably want to mount those on other satellites.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Where's the article on how much we spent on successful government defense projects?

 

[IronWing]

Surprised nobody posted this. I'm genuinely surprised by these terribad ideas and how far along they got.

5.3 BILLION: Airborne Laser. Cancelled.

The plane is currently parked in the boneyard in Tucson if you'd like to gaze upon your investment.

 

[Ns1]

The plane is currently parked in the boneyard in Tucson if you'd like to gaze upon your investment.

wow. google maps you scary.


nice find btw.

 

[IronWing]

wow. google maps you scary.


nice find btw.

Google Earth will allow you to zoom in even closer.

 

[DrDoug]

Ten billion is chump change. Heck, I recently read that the top 14 wealthiest people in our country have made a combined $157 billion for themselves in the last two years. Get back to me when they are complaining about it.

Then at least I'll have something to laugh at.

 

[Ventanni]

I don't think all of the technology from the airborne laser program is being used for ship lasers, but the concept is extremely sound. They just don't use chemical lasers on chips, as they're too toxic. Point is though, a B-52 or a 747 just does not have the electrical generation capabilities to sufficiently power a laser, but a warship sure does, or at least can. One of the major overhauls for the new ships coming out is vastly improved electrical power generation. Lasers provide excellent short ranged defensive capabilities for ships against targets like missiles or small boats. They're also significantly more accurate (pin-point, in fact) than spraying a couple thousand rounds of 20mm can ever be, making taking out, say, a pirate boat from a short distance with much reduced potential for human casualties.

Ever see a couple Terran Point-Defense Drones go to work in a StarCraft II game? That's basically how the future of high tech warfare is going to work. And, for right now, that technology will be lead by the United States.

 

[rudeguy]

Less money to the chickpeas. I'm ok with this.

 

[Genx87]

at least that one is going to be used and sold.

Debateable at this point, and if the first part of this proves useless, then not sold.

The F-35 is an embarrassment for our country.

 

[Jaskalas]

No need to make the laser airborne. The weapons we're outfitting on naval vessels will more than do their job. Anything they cannot destroy will be hit by rail guns.

 

[Genx87]

The plane is currently parked in the boneyard in Tucson if you'd like to gaze upon your investment.

Look at all those billions of taxpayers dollars soaking up the Sun. I see

B1B x18 = 5.1 billion in 1998 dollars
C5A x28 = 4.7 Billion 1987 dollars
F15s x~100 = ~3 billion 1998 dollars

 

[Ns1]

No need to make the laser airborne. The weapons we're outfitting on naval vessels will more than do their job. Anything they cannot destroy will be hit by rail guns.

I am pleased that this isn't just a Unreal Tournament thing.

For example, in the late 2000s, the U.S. Navy tested a railgun that accelerates a 3.2 kg (7 pound) projectile to hypersonic velocities of approximately 2.4 kilometres per second (8,600 km/h), about Mach 7.[3] They gave the project the Latin motto "Velocitas Eradico", Latin for "I, [who am] speed, eradicate". (In the vernacular usage, "Speed kills.)

 

[zinfamous]

So that's what happened to Epcot center?

As long as they kept Walter Kronkite's narration about the "World of the Future!", then it would have been worth the money.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

No Democrat should ever complain. It's all stimulus. It's all wealth redistribution.

I.e., Breaking windows (or alien invasions according to Krugman) should make us all wealthy because ALL government spending is created equally and thus good.

 

[tracerbullet]

The plane is currently parked in the boneyard in Tucson if you'd like to gaze upon your investment.

What's w/ the copy & paste effects on it? Other planes there look that way too. Odd.

 

[IronWing]

What's w/ the copy & paste effects on it? Other planes there look that way too. Odd.

Are you talking about how the planes appear and disappear when you zoom in/out? If so, the photo date changes when you zoom in on google maps. The zoomed in photos were taken earlier. If you use Google Earth instead you can zoom in closer on the plane w/o losing it as the zoomed in photos are more recent in Google Earth.

If you're talking about the weird 3D effect, that is google trying to project building (and plane) heights from insufficient stereo data.

Edit: In older versions of IE, the photos show the date changing thing with zoom. With FF, the pseudo-3D thing happens.

Edit edit: Newer versions of IE allow one to zoom in w/o the pseudo-3D crap.

 

[norseamd]

Maybe I just do not know that much about railguns but why is there fire? Railguns only use bullets accelerated by magnetics. There are no cartridges or explosives that are used in launching the projectile.

 

[norseamd]

Look at all those billions of taxpayers dollars soaking up the Sun. I see

B1B x18 = 5.1 billion in 1998 dollars
C5A x28 = 4.7 Billion 1987 dollars
F15s x~100 = ~3 billion 1998 dollars

There is no way all those airplanes would just be trashed for nothing. If they are not still being used then they are sitting there waiting to be scrapped for parts to support the operation of the rest of their model lines that are still fully operational.

 

[IronWing]

There is no way all those airplanes would just be trashed for nothing. If they are not still being used then they are sitting there waiting to be scrapped for parts to support the operation of the rest of their model lines that are still fully operational.

Most are mothballed and could be brought back into service though most are so old now that they would be of limited value. Some have been cannibalized for parts. The B-52s were chopped up as part of an arms control treaty.

 

[rudeguy]

Most are mothballed and could be brought back into service though most are so old now that they would be of limited value. Some have been cannibalized for parts. The B-52s were chopped up as part of an arms control treaty.

Yep.

There are also different stages of "mothballing". Some would take very little work to get restored, others would take a complete overhaul. I watched some documentary on what I think was a B52 being brought out because another B52 was destroyed and they needed to replace it. In a couple months it was flying, then it got a complete retrofit and was more advanced than some of the new planes.

I think we learned our lesson in WW2 that having a backstock of planes, ships and vehicles is a good plan. Even if they sit and rot in the sun, its better than having to start from scratch. Sitting in that "graveyard" isn't all that different from sitting in a hangar.

 

[WackyDan]

That radar platform was parked in APAC during all the test launches that North Korea had been making. To give you an idea of how long that thing had been operational and towed here and there to monitor various activities of our presumed enemies... I first saw that platform in 2002 sitting in port in Hawaii. It had already been operational for years. I'd say we got some use out of it both as a test bed as well operational platform for monitoring asshats.

As for the airborne laser... Say what you want, but that is another system that was never meant to be an operational platform. It provided immense data and design thought to a new crop of small powerful lasers we are seeing produced today.

The space program is totally worth it though right?

 

[WackyDan]

Look at all those billions of taxpayers dollars soaking up the Sun. I see

B1B x18 = 5.1 billion in 1998 dollars
C5A x28 = 4.7 Billion 1987 dollars
F15s x~100 = ~3 billion 1998 dollars

Some of those B1B's were brought out of retirement and used in Afghanistan and some are still bombing ISIS.

C5A's have largely been replaced by the C-17 if smaller. Some of those C5s are at the limits of their design for hours/cycles.

Those F15's are early models or "problem childs" or surplus as budgets get cut.

You should see the rows of F-16's out there... That bone yard is also the same facility that rebuilt the wings/wing box for the A-10s as they reached their original design limits for hours.

Those planes get refurbed and sold to allies in some cases. Mostly, they are preserved and used for parts to keep other planes flying. Many get used as drones for testing missiles. I've toured Davis-Monthan a few times. Impressive place that returns more value to the US taxpayer per dollar than what it costs to run the facility.

http://www.airplaneboneyards.com/davis-monthan-afb-amarg-airplane-boneyard.htm