Is it possbile to install an airborne laser on a B-52?

Imagine a B-52 air battleship built for shooting down ballistic missiles as well as doing bombing runs as well as using the laser for other purposes besides shooting down missiles.

The ABL by itself is just a plane to shoot down missiles only on a 747 platform thats in my view not design to help defend itself if a hostile plane barrels down on it, while a B-52 equipped with countermeasures and perhaps air to air missile capability.

Would the B-52 airframe be capable of doing both missions? Or it would degrade its capabilities, like for example installing a laser weapon would mean less room for its bombs and missiles.

Yes with a but.............

The Buff has shown itself to be an adaptable airframe for just about anything. If money is no object then it may be able to do so however.....

Im not sure the weight of the COIL laser and its related equipment would be a fit. While big, the BUFF is fairly narrow when compaired to a 747-400F and may not have the payload capacity for it. Nor could you retrofit the turret ala the ABL because fo the cockpit. In the -400 its mounted high.

Now a solid state laser in the gigwatt range that placed in a turret on the top or bottom of the airframe may do the trick. However, i suspect that you would have to convert the 8 engines to 4 CMF's to be able to generate the power needed for this.

If thee was an airframe for it, the Big Girl would be it. But wasn't she decomissined?

reply to post by FredT


So in essence it would require a new airframe that could meet the needs for my imagined air battleship to fit all those capabilities. A wider body, a longer nose, and big powerful engines.

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by FredT

 

So in essence it would require a new airframe that could meet the needs for my imagined air battleship to fit all those capabilities. A wider body, a longer nose, and big powerful engines.

Yes, something like, say the 747, would be a good choice

Oh you got me there. But...can this airframe handle the stress in combat, because this plane was origally design for commercial usage, not combat like the B-52.

Originally posted by deltaboy
So in essence it would require a new airframe that could meet the needs for my imagined air battleship to fit all those capabilities. A wider body, a longer nose, and big powerful engines.

If your going to use a COIL laser then it may be out

The MTOW for a Buff is 488,000 pounds and its 159 feet long
The MTOW for a 747-400F is 875,000 and its 231 feet long

The 747 would also offer you much better fuel burn IMHO that a fully loaded BUFF and much better performance overall.

The 747-8F would be an bigger improvement over the -400 which is the basis for the ABL and has a projected MTOW of 970,000 with more fuel and more range



Given that, there is no reason as to why you could not make the 747 the flying battleship you envison. AF-1 has numerous countermeasures built in. The carter administration looked at a variant that would carry cruise missiles. You could easily give the craft an a2a capacity and perhaps an conformational AESA radar system that would allow you to scan the airspace in almost 360 degree fashion. If the space taken by the COIL laser permits you could place a rotatry launcher in the rear of the craft for a2a, a2g missiles.

Its just a metter of will and $$$$. For that matter you could also consider an A380

Originally posted by deltaboy
Oh you got me there. But...can this airframe handle the stress in combat, because this plane was origally design for commercial usage, not combat like the B-52.

The BUFF is stressed for bombing missions even the low level ones are not geenrating that much because fo the slower speeds than say the B-1B. The Buff would never be expected to pull G's that a fighter planes does. The 747 airframe is pretty robust.

The catfish like vanes on the B-1's nose are designed to limit airframe g-loads. Another such example was the SR-71 / A-12 which was quite fast but the frame was not stressed for alot G's thus took alot of room to turn esp when at speed.

[edit on 12/11/08 by FredT]

You make a very good argument right there, I have pretty much forgotten about Air Force One's own countermeasures, as well as the concept of a 747 cruise missile carrier. Oh yeah FredT, is the 747-8 is expected to be used for ABL platform in the near future?

Originally posted by deltaboy
You make a very good argument right there, I have pretty much forgotten about Air Force One's own countermeasures, as well as the concept of a 747 cruise missile carrier. Oh yeah FredT, is the 747-8 is expected to be used for ABL platform in the near future?

Yes unless canceled

www.boeing.com...

The second unit may be a -400 but at some point Beoing will close the -400 line and the -8 will take its place.

reply to post by deltaboy


One thing I had never considered: The ABL should be effective against airplanes, cruise missiles as well as ballistic targets. Esp at the 200+ range we are talking about here.

Im not sure if you would get a hard kill however as ballistic missiles are basically tubes filled with volitile fuel but you might get a soft kill by blinding the pilot or frying some electronics etc.

reply to post by FredT


Yeah I mentioned about its possible usage for other means besides targeting ballistic missiles.

The one thing I fear about such ABL platform is its vunerability with fighters, unless they have fighter support. I was thinking that instead of a 747 airframe I was thinking maybe a giant B-1 bomber, twice or three times the size of the original airframe that can do all those things we mentioned. Mini AWACs, bombs and cruise missiles, as well as the laser turret with B-1s maneuverability and speed.

You have been watching too many movies, and reading too many comic books.

Lasers do not have that kind of power in any portable form. In fact, even fixed lasers would have difficulty generating enough power to take out the nosecone of an ICBM (which is the only part that would matter).

Could a B-52 carry one - Yes, if one could be developed with enough power and range. But why use a B-52? A C-130 or C-141 would be much more appropriate.

Golly gee whiz, soon we'll all be carrying ray guns too! In your dreams that is.

Originally posted by OldMedic
Lasers do not have that kind of power in any portable form. In fact, even fixed lasers would have difficulty generating enough power to take out the nosecone of an ICBM (which is the only part that would matter).

Could a B-52 carry one - Yes, if one could be developed with enough power and range. But why use a B-52? A C-130 or C-141 would be much more appropriate.

Really? Then why are they putting one on a 747? They've just about got it ready to do a full up test shoot.

So destroying the body of an ICBM in the boost phase doesn't do any good? The warhead is just gonna keep going? The only time the nose matters is if you are shooting at the warhead as it's reentering.

A C-130 or C-141 (if they were even flying them still) couldn't carry a laser nearly big enough to shoot down an ICBM in ANY phase of flight.

[edit on 12/11/2008 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by deltaboy

 

One thing I had never considered: The ABL should be effective against airplanes, cruise missiles as well as ballistic targets.

Although the lasers may have the power to destroy these targets at this time, do they have the ability to track them?

Originally posted by solidshot

Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by deltaboy

 

One thing I had never considered: The ABL should be effective against airplanes, cruise missiles as well as ballistic targets.

Although the lasers may have the power to destroy these targets at this time, do they have the ability to track them?

Now that's the question and the answer would be no at the moment. It tracks the very hot plume of the rocket while in the boost phase. I did just recently see that they are proposing to add the capabilty to track those type of targets, but the agency funding ABL aren't interested in those types of targets so they probably won't get the money to do it.

Originally posted by OldMedic
You have been watching too many movies, and reading too many comic books.

No not comic books but rather the Boeing web site

Lasers do not have that kind of power in any portable form. In fact, even fixed lasers would have difficulty generating enough power to take out the nosecone of an ICBM (which is the only part that would matter).

Why would you take out the nose cone when any kill is just that a kill. The nosecone of a reentry vehicle is resistant to heat but can be damaged by hail etc. I think you are confusing the two with a hard penatrator like a bunker buster. Exploding the missile body in boost phase has the exact same effect destroying the nose cone would....... The missile will not hit its target.

Could a B-52 carry one - Yes, if one could be developed with enough power and range. But why use a B-52? A C-130 or C-141 would be much more appropriate.

As noted above its doubtfull the B-52 has the payload to carry a COIL laser nor does it have the structure needed for the nose turret. The C-130 is way to small for the COIL laser but one is beeing fitter with a solid state laser. If they can ramp that up tot he same output of the COIL laser then we can talk about placing it on smaller platforms.

The C-141 sleeps in the boneyard now and the C-17 is too short for the COIL laser. The C-5 would work fine but there are few of them and they are needed for airlift. Plus they would have the same defensive liabilites that the 747 would have.

Golly gee whiz, soon we'll all be carrying ray guns too! In your dreams that is.

Originally posted by solidshot
Although the lasers may have the power to destroy these targets at this time, do they have the ability to track them?

True enough. I do not know the specs on the IRST system and its sensativities. Certainly not at 200 miles. However, If the airframe were fitted with its own AESA system or could use cuing from other assets, its possible IMHO.

reply to post by FredT


In the fun and entertaining show "Dogfights" they highlighted this form of weapon. The situation they used was a number of F-22 fighters cueing the ABL which in this situation was a modified 737. The AESA on the F-22 was used to track the enemy aircraft while the secure data link was used to transfer the tracking to the 737. The end result though from the enemy view point is devastating. Having your wing man blown away for no reason would cause panic I'm sure.

Also on a installation point the 737 is possible with the rate that tech is moving and the smaller it gets. 5 years down the road with the F-22 in its prime it would be interesting to see if the team working idea would work.

[edit on 12-12-2008 by Canada_EH]

The 2018 Next Generation Bomber could be a good platform for some kind of laser weapon for the air superiority role. Could NGB be a jack of trades bomber, recon, AND sixth generation fighter?