Re: Airborne lasers
From: Derek Lyons (fairwater_at_gmail.com)
Date: 11/19/04
- Next message: Ian Stirling: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Previous message: Earl Colby Pottinger: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- In reply to: Henry Spencer: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Next in thread: Ian Stirling: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:08:50 GMT
henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
>In article <10ppr4i79iu5lc1@corp.supernews.com>,
>Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> wrote:
>>...Keeping a standing ABL patrol up 24 hours a day for even
>>a few days in going to cost a lot of dollars, particularly if there are
>>multiple ABLs airborne simultaneously, covering different patrol areas...
>
>And it's going to be rather hard on the aircraft and crews. This is one
>reason why SAC made only very selective use of B-52 "airborne alert"
>patrols in the 50s and 60s, strongly preferring runway alert even though
>it was theoretically more vulnerable.
There is a course a difference between an aircraft not designed for
high-intensity operations (the B-52) and one designed for the same
(most any commercial airframe). There is also many years of
experience with things like AWACS (and Navy AEW), ABNCP (& TACAMO),
and JSTARS between then and now.
That's not to say that it still isn't hard on aircraft and crews, just
that we've learned how to design for, and cope with, those
difficulties.
D.
-- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
- Next message: Ian Stirling: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Previous message: Earl Colby Pottinger: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- In reply to: Henry Spencer: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Next in thread: Ian Stirling: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|