Talk:Boeing YAL-1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] LEO ASAT?

Hmm. Anyone have any insight as to whether this would make a good LEO ASAT weapon? -Joseph 04:58, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

In this analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the ABL is thought to have significant capability against low earth orbit satellites: [1] Joema 15:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page name?

Isn't it the policy to lowercase the title unless it's a proper noun? Is "airborne laser" a proper noun? Avriette 07:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In general, you're right. Name should usually be lower case except for 1st letter, unless proper noun. However in this case Boeing always refers to Airborne Laser with each word capitalized. IOW they deem it a proper noun. Therefore the page name as currently phrased is correct. Joema 19:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Russia with love.

The chemical power source of the B-747's laser gun was purchased from the former USSR, it is NOT an american invention! 195.70.32.136 10:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

All references I've seen state the Chemical oxygen iodine laser was invented at Phillips Laboratory (now called the Air Force Research Laboratory) in 1977. If you have authoritative references stating differently, list them here and we can discuss it. Joema 14:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes, chumski. And beavers the size of bears, hmm? -Toptomcat 20:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No, no. The YAL-1 is powered by ballotechnical generators, essentially a big armoured tank vessel with a good chunk of explosive suspended in the middle, wrapped in copper coils. When it explodes, the coils expand or compress for a split of a second before being torn to shreds and up to 2 million amperes will be generated for a hundredth of a second or so. This is what makes the laser flash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk • contribs)
Which "armoured tank"? A T-72 or T-80? - BillCJ 17:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tested Against North Korea?

I honestly believe, that one or two of these planes, fully operational, or in an operational test, orbiting over the sea of Japan are the real reason for the poor performance of the missiles in the North Korean missile test, 2006.

It is my belief that this was not only an opportunity to get Japanese leadership to invest in the program, but to goad Kim Jong-il into his 2006 North Korean nuclear test.

The purpose could be politically or economically motivated, your choice. B4Ctom1 22:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Find a source or leave it out. — ceejayoz talk 03:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't be absurd...the laser (specifically the COIL, the actual weapon laser) isn't even installed in the airframe yet! Akradecki 01:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ABL conceptual artwork

Concerning restoring the conceptual artwork, encyclopedias commonly use such to depict under-development items. For example the Boeing 787 article has several artist's renderings. This is simply standard practice and helps the reader visualize what the item looks like or how it will operate. Joema 17:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

Should be moved to YAL-1A Airborne Laser or YAL-1 Airborne Laser as this appears to be the Wikipedia standard. Other Number Name article are F-16 Fighting Falcon and B-2 Spirit. Articles use the Company Number when the aircraft has more than one name for a designation, see Boeing NC-135 and Boeing RC-135. Most recent use of YAL-1A Airborne Laser --Pmsyyz 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft):
US military aircraft: Number and name. F-15 Eagle, P-47 Thunderbolt. Where there is no name, or where the name is not in general use, use the manufacturer and number instead: Lockheed U-2, Convair B-36, General Dynamics F-111. Where there are many names, none of them clearly the most common, use manufacturer and number: Curtiss P-40, Douglas DC-3.
The key issue here is name. the given examples, in both the above statement and your examples, are "popular names" assigned by the US military or the manufacturer. Sometimes, unofficial names are used in article tiles, as in SR-71 Blackbird, and sometimes official names are not used, as in General Dynamics F-111 and "Ardvark" (officially recognized at its retirement).
Airborne Laser is not a popular name but a project title. We don't normally use those in the article titles for US military aircraft, but instead use manufacturer and number. There are some exeptions, but the current article title is the accepted way to name the article. If you really feel that it should be changed, however, feel free to try to make a more persuasive case why a project title should be used here. - BillCJ 22:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Does "The YAL-1A Airborne Laser, a modified Boeing 747-400F..." in a recent official USAF news story show that this is the name of the airplane? --Pmsyyz 00:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • More likely YAL-1 Airborne Laser or Boeing YAL-1, since the A is a revision designator, like F-16A, F-15E or F/A-18F. -Fnlayson 22:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Concur. The revision designator should only be used if there are other articles about aircraft with the same basic designation, such as F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or CH-53E Super Stallion. YAL-1 Airborne Laser would be an acceptable alternative title, but not YAL-1A Airborne Laser. - BillCJ 23:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Provived you have a consensus. You do not. The move has been reverted. - BillCJ 00:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, this should stay as Boeing YAL-1. Per DoD4120 (the official naming reference), the "name" of the aircraft is listed as TBD, meaning that it is likely a name will be forthcoming when the program gets past the "Y" stage, so per our guideline, the mfr name is used when there's no official name. Granted, the industry media seems to be calling it the YAL-1 Airborne Laser, but media usage doesn't typically drive our usage. Unless there's a compelling reason to deviate from our gudelines, I feel we should remain consistent. Akradecki 00:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs more sharks

Seriously. Project2501a (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)