Crave

The U.S. Air Force has awarded Boeing a new contract worth up to $30 million for the next phase of development on the Advanced Tactical Laser.

The ATL is a C-130H aircraft outfitted with a 12,000-pound high-energy chemical laser module that would be used as a weapon against ground targets. It's the smaller sibling of the Airborne Laser, a highly modified 747 under development that packs a similar weapon but that would be used against ballistic missiles.

The Advanced Tactical Laser will use a rotating ball turret to fire its laser weapon at ground targets.

(Credit: Ed Turner, Boeing)

While the 747-centric ABL is designed to fire its laser through a bulbous nose apparatus, the ATL totes a belly turret reminiscent of the manned versions used in some World War II bombers.

The new Extended User Evaluation contract marks the start of a transition for the ATL, which Boeing has been working on as an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration project. The EUE phase means another round of ground and flight tests, along with "hands-on operation" for the Air Force and other potential users.

Why use a laser when the Air Force already has a wide array of missiles and bombs at its disposal? (The standard gunship variant of the C-130 can already be equipped with 40mm and 105mm cannons.) "Little to no collateral damage," Boeing says, thanks to the laser weapon's "ultra-precision engagement capability." That is, think laser pointer with extreme prejudice.

In addition, the laser would presumably strike more or less silently--no thump-thump-thump or rat-a-tat-tat. (Note, 11:30 a.m. PDT: A reader writes in to say that high-power lasers operating in the atmosphere are anything but silent, perhaps because of ionizing the air - a la lightning.)

For use against missiles, mortars, and the like, laser weapons are intended to heat up and weaken the metal skin of the projectile, causing it to rupture while in flight. Against ground targets, the ATL could, say, zap fuel tanks or even vehicle tires--if it could hold focus long enough.

Boeing has done a lot of crowing about its 787 Dreamliner--and had to eat its fair share of crow along the way, too.

Power on: A Boeing technician plugs an external power cart into the first 787 Dreamliner. To see more, click on the image.

(Credit: Boeing)

Almost a year after rolling a bright, shiny mock-up of the plane out onto the public stage, then running hard into a series of supply chain problems that knocked ambitious assembly plans askew, the company now has a handful of Dreamliners at various stages of early readiness. The first of them this month finally went through its Power On sequence--technicians plugged in a power cart and started a sequence of bringing electricity into various systems, from the flight deck on back.

The testing of "distribution, conversion, control, and consumption of electric power," which Boeing says ran over a bit more than a week this month, was a milestone for the Dreamliner, from which the company expects many happy returns. It has long touted the 787, a fly-by-wire aircraft (that is, flight systems previously handled by pneumatics now are controlled by electronics), as the fastest-selling new commercial jetliner ever.

The first test flight for the plane now is scheduled for the fourth quarter, with commercial service due to begin sometime in 2009. (Way back at the splashy July 2007 debut, Boeing had hoped for a first test flight by last September, and commercial service starting in May of this year.)

The A160T Hummingbird comes in for a landing May 9 at the U.S. Army's Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona after a high-altitude hovering demonstration.

(Credit: Boeing)

A disparate pair of aviation R&D projects at Boeing have hit milestones recently.

The A160T Hummingbird, a helicopter-style unmanned aerial vehicle, last week flew for 18.7 hours without refueling, an accomplishment that Boeing described Wednesday as an "unofficial world endurance record" for UAVs between 500 and 2,500 kilograms (about 1,100 to 5,500 pounds)--a record that's pending certification by a key aeronautical sanctioning body.

But the record books aside, the flight also helps to show the Hummingbird's mettle as a potential aircraft for military use. During the flight, the turbine-powered unmanned rotorcraft carried a 300-pound internal payload--which in eventual real-life operations might be supplies for ground troops or gear for in-flight surveillance--and flew as high as 15,000 feet. When it finished, it still had about 90 minutes worth of fuel in reserve.

In a test flight last September, the Hummingbird carried a heavier load for a shorter period of time (1,000 pounds and eight hours). The A160T variant first flew about a year ago, taking up where an earlier piston-powered version left off.

Another May milestone for the A160T Hummingbird, which is designed to fly autonomously, involved so-called hover-out-of-ground-effect flights at 15,000 and 20,000 feet. The ability to hover at the relatively high altitudes would make the UAV more effective for missions in mountainous areas and help keep it out of range of some ground-based air defense weapons, Boeing said.

Measuring 35 feet long with a 36-foot rotor diameter, the Hummingbird in service is expected to fly at 140 knots for more than 20 hours. Boeing Advanced Systems is building the UAV for DARPA and for the Army and Navy.

The Advanced Tactical Laser aircraft in flight.

(Credit: Ed Turner, Boeing)

Also this week, Boeing said that on May 13, it fired a high-energy chemical laser--in ground tests--aboard a C-130H aircraft, a step toward in-flight tests later this year in which the laser will fire at ground targets from on high. The directed-energy weapon is designed to fire through a rotating belly turret in the aircraft, known as the Advanced Tactical Laser.

And in a me-too missive straight out of the Cold War, the Russian news agency Novosti reported a patriotic response to the ATL test from an unnamed Russian defense industry "expert." Boeing, it would seem, is late to the game.

"We tested a similar system back in 1972. Even then our 'laser cannon' was capable of hitting targets with high precision," the expert is quoted as saying. "We have moved far ahead since then, and the U.S. has to keep pace with our research and development."

The Advanced Tactical Laser aircraft flies over Albuquerque, N.M.

(Credit: Ed Turner, Boeing)

The first ray guns to be used in combat may well be aerial weapons, and not phaserlike side arms in the hands of foot soldiers.

Certainly Boeing is working in that direction. For several years it's been providing regular updates on the (notably slow) progress of its marquee directed-energy effort, the Airborne Laser, to be carried aloft by a heavily modified 747 that's intended to stop ballistic missiles during their launch phase. Now the defense contractor is touting the steps it's taking with a smaller counterpart designed to strike ground targets, the Advanced Tactical Laser.

As of this month, the high-energy chemical laser that is the actual weapons portion of the ATL is now installed in a C-130H airplane, a well-proven design taking on yet another new mission. The 12,000-plus-pound chemical laser system is taking up residence alongside a separate beam control system, installed at an earlier date, that functions as the tracking and targeting apparatus.

This would hardly be the first time that the C-130, primarily a cargo and troop transport aircraft, has functioned as a gunship. The well-armed AC-130 variant saw much action in Vietnam, and has also flown in subsequent conflicts.

An earlier incarnation of the ball turret, in restored B-17 Flying Fortress aircraft flying in 2002.

(Credit: SSGT William Greer, USAF )

The business end of the ATL will be a rotating turret in the belly of the fuselage--reminiscent of the one-squished-man ball turret of the B-17 Flying Fortress and B-24 Liberator planes used in World War II, hauntingly depicted by poet Randall Jarrell in his "Death of the Ball-Turret Gunner." By contrast, the 747-borne Airborne Laser will fire through the nose of the aircraft.

Sometime in 2008, the ATL is expected to demonstrate its prowess in flight, directing the high-energy laser at what Boeing calls "mission-representative ground targets." In tests at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., earlier this year, a surrogate low-power laser hit targets on more than a dozen occasions, and laboratory testing of the high-energy laser wrapped up after more than 50 firings, according to Boeing.

Aerial tests of the bigger, ballistic-missile-minded Airborne Laser are scheduled for 2009.

Boeing doesn't just have its head in the clouds when it comes to directed-energy weapons. It's also working on a more down-to-Earth Humvee-mounted laser shooter.

(Credit: Popular Mechanics)

Boeing has rolled out the marketing for its laser-equipped Humvee by zapping five IED-like targets on a test range at Alabama's Redstone Arsenal (PDF) in what it called "the company's ability to rapidly respond to warfighters' needs."

Dubbed the "Laser Avenger," the unit consists of a 1-kilowatt solid-state laser mounted on an air-defense Humvee. It works by "shooting an invisible beam just a few centimeters in diameter and 20 times hotter than an electric stovetop" into the offending munition until it combusts internally. It then just "pops" or "fizzles" in a low-level detonation.

"Boeing's investment strategy is to move some of its new directed energy weapon systems into field demonstrations, and Laser Avenger is the first one we're rolling out," Boeing's Gary Fitzmire said in a press release.

This application is hardly new. Ten years ago an ordnance disposal unit at Nellis Air Force Base was using an APC-mounted 2KW YAG laser to nix hundreds of unexploded cluster bombs on its bombing range.

In 2003, the U.S. Army deployed a ZEUS-HLONS (HMMWV Laser Ordnance Neutralization System) to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, where it popped more than 200 pieces of unexploded ordnance (UXO) in six months. It even set a record by "negating" more than 50 UXOs in less than two hours.

While this and other laser units allow EOD teams to stand off at a safe distance and dispose of an IED, they still need to find it. And when it comes to that, the Avenger is just another target on the road.

The company hedged its bets by cutting up some UAVs during the demonstration in a nod to the anti-aircraft market. But as you see by the video, it's not breaking any ground there either.

(Credit: eBay)

If a Ferrari, tank or--heaven help us--a Hello Kitty Hummer limo just aren't "special" enough for you, consider this: a Boeing 727 jet limo.

You read that right. TechEBlog reports that one such item is up for auction on eBay, with a high bid of $269,900 as of this writing. (There's still time--the listing will remain open until Sunday around noon PST.)

It includes a "sunken living room with a dance floor, big screen TV, fireplace, and full bar," according to the listing, and "if you need a nap, go in the rear and see the heart-shaped bed with the infinity mirror."

That's only the beginning. But perhaps the most amazing thing about this 24,000-pound beast, which is mounted on a Mercedes bus that seats up to 50, is that it's supposedly street legal. We're not sure about that, but it would be worth it just to see the look on the state trooper's face when he pulls you over.

Boeing's HALE (high altitude long endurance) unmanned aircraft runs on hydrogen fuel.

(Credit: Boeing)

Boeing is reporting progress in simulation tests of its HALE (high altitude long endurance) aircraft, an unmanned plane that runs on hydrogen.

While it has not yet gone aloft, the propeller-driven HALE aircraft was able to run for a total of three days in a chamber that simulated flight at 65,000 feet. The eventual goal is to get it to fly for more than a week at a time with a one-ton payload.

The turbocharged hydrogen combustion engine, which was developed by Ford Motor, managed to maintained proper torque control while getting better than expected fuel usage, according to Boeing. Boeing was particularly impressed with the aircraft's endurance, according to a company statement this week.

The gasoline version of the engine is used in the Ford Fusion and Ford Escape hybrid vehicles, according to the automaker.

The HALE aircraft is a drone that could be used as a tool for border patrol, communication, telecommunications, general surveillance, battlefield intelligence gathering, reconnaissance missions, and port security.

UAVs are a hot field for development and actual use these days as an economical alternative to manned aircraft. The Pentagon is especially drawn to them: Just last month, the Air Force began flying the Reaper UAV--a bigger, more heavily armed version of the Predator--on missions in Afghanistan. The aircraft have civilian uses, too: NASA has its own (unarmed) version of the Predator, called Ikhana, that is being used to monitor fires in California.

Successful testing of the Boeing HALE aircraft could help convince people that hydrogen power is a viable option for aircraft, Boeing said.

Before there was the A160T Hummingbird, there was the A160, a piston-driven UAV on which the turbine-powered A160T is based. This A160 flight was in early 2005.

(Credit: Boeing)

Like its diminutive avian namesake, Boeing's A160T Hummingbird is a whiz at hovering. And it turns out the prototype aircraft can also hoist a hefty load.

The unmanned helicopter this week flew for eight hours--its longest flight to date--and as high as 5,000 feet while burdened with a 1,000-pound payload. The test flight goes a long way toward proving the Hummingbird fit for use in military operations, where it could ferry supplies, sensors or weapons to the battlefield, perform surveillance and target acquisition, or even rescue pilots who've been shot down.

Over time, Boeing wants to see the 35-foot Hummingbird fly longer, but with a lower weight: 18 consecutive hours with a 300-pound payload.

The A160T Hummingbird flew for the first time in June, and has flown several times since then. It's a turbine-powered version of the earlier piston-powered A160, which dates back to 2002, and the second of a planned 11 A160Ts that Boeing is building for DARPA.

Eventually, Boeing sees the Hummingbird flying for up to 20 hours at speeds above 140 knots and at altitudes reaching 25,000 to 30,000 feet (but hovering below 15,000 feet). A notable element in the design of this unmanned aerial vehicle is the variable speed of its 36-foot rotor; the UAV operator can adjust the rotors' RPMs at different altitudes and cruise speeds to improve flight efficiency.

I finally got around to watching the recent episode of HDNet's Dan Rather Reports titled "Plastic Planes," about alleged safety problems with Boeing's new 787 "Dreamliner" passenger jet. I was interested in the story for two reasons. As I've said here before, I want to buy one of these planes someday-- and secondly, I've long been fascinated with composite materials.

Boeing rolls out the 787 Dreamliner.

(Credit: The Boeing Company)

Vince Weldon, a former Boeing engineer, alleges that the composites used in the 787-- principally forms of carbon-fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP)-- are brittle, insufficiently tested, dangerous in a fire, and vulnerable to lightning strikes.

Boeing, for its part, says the Dreamliner development process has included many physical tests and simulations covering all of these issues, and that the 787 meets all relevant FAA standards.

Although Weldon worked for Boeing for 46 years, his engineering duties apparently never involved designing with composite materials. He offered no facts in support of his allegations, but Rather was happy to let Weldon present his accusations without supporting evidence (literally: Rather was all smiles during the Weldon interviews).

Boeing, in response, referred Rather to vast amounts of engineering test data, although it did not release much (if any) of the actual test data to the show for competitive reasons. (I see nothing wrong with that; if any random crank can force a company to disclose confidential engineering data by making unsupported public accusations, there'd be no such thing as confidentiality for any engineering project.)

The FAA, however, does have the test results, and says that if the tests don't show the 787 is safe within the limits of today's engineering knowledge, and indeed that it's at least as safe as existing jetliners, the 787 simply won't be certified.

I have some experience with designing and building composite structures myself (as an enthusiast, not professionally-- sometimes using materials purchased from Boeing's retail surplus store, in fact).

In my opinion, Weldon seemed to be trying to mislead Rather and his viewers. He was using terms (such as "brittle") that have meanings in an engineering context that are different from, and sometimes contrary to, their ordinary conversational meanings, which would inevitably lead Rather and his viewers to false conclusions.

For example, Weldon's claims would give most people the impression that the 787's composite materials are "brittle" the way a ceramic tile is-- in particular, I think Rather reached this conclusion during the interview-- but in fact, modern composites aren't like that; they break down in a progressive way that absorbs energy, exactly contrary to Weldon's claim.

In fact, the ability of CFRP to absorb energy is one of the biggest advantages of a carbon-fiber structure over a traditional aluminum structure. Both CFRP and aluminum structures will crumple in an impacts, but because CFRP is so much stronger, it can absorb more energy. Look at this YouTube video of the testing of a CFRP nose section from a Formula One car:

Starting two minutes into the video, there's a closeup of the nose as it collapses against a solid barrier. Although the individual carbon fibers shatter quite sharply, the structure as a whole breaks down gradually, just as the designer intended, dissipating the energy of the crash as the car slows to a stop-- very quickly, but smoothly. The chassis of the race car further back from the nose suffers no apparent damage, and the driver's compartment is totally undeformed. Obviously an airplane crash would produce different effects, but the video contradicts Weldon's first claim.

Similarly, Weldon's other specific claims about carbon-fiber composites are either wrong or just don't justify his conclusions.

I was particularly surprised to see Mary Schiavo, famous for writing a grossly sensationalized book about aviation safety following a brief stint at the US Department of Transportation, brought in by Dan Rather Reports to say that CFRP structures can't conduct the energy of a lightning strike away from the site of the strike because... "They're plastic! And so there is nothing to direct the lightning around [a fuel tank] rather than into it."

But Schiavo is clearly in over her head on this one; she has no business posing as an expert in materials science. CFRP is mostly carbon, not "plastic," and carbon is conductive. While CFRP isn't as conductive as aluminum, it isn't an insulator as the word "plastic" would suggest to most viewers.

Ultimately, if Weldon was correct about the behavior of carbon-fiber composites, these materials simply wouldn't be as widely used as they are in racing cars, military and civilian aircraft, and other systems that operate in high-stress, high-risk environments.

Weldon also seemed to be deliberately taking Boeing's statements out of context. For example, Boeing was quoted as saying that it would be performing regular visual inspections of the 787. In a long section of the program, Weldon and Rather interpreted this statement to mean that Boeing was ruling out non-visual inspections-- but I simply don't believe that's true, and they apparently never asked Boeing to confirm if it is true.

Rather brought in independent experts to describe other inspection techniques, implying that Boeing was not aware of, or was not going to use, these other techniques. But I know from my own reading (I have read several books on this subject, and I subscribe to some of the trade magazines in the composites industry) that these other techniques are already widely used in the aviation industry and would inevitably be part of Boeing's periodic inspection processes. The fact that Boeing did not happen to mention these processes doesn't mean it's decided not to use them.

I think the overwhelming weight of the engineering evidence on Boeing's side in this matter is enough to justify dismissing Weldon's claims out of hand, but there are some troubling personality issues involved in this case as well.

According to OSHA, as reported by the Seattle Times, Weldon was fired for threatening the life of a supervisor. Dan Rather never mentioned this fact, which greatly undermines Weldon's credibility.

The omission, and the uncritical use of claims from people like Weldon and Schiavo who lack the professional credentials to justify them, undermines Rather's own credibility, which was fragile enough in the wake of his bizarre report on 60 Minutes Wednesday about the Killian memos allegedly describing George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. Like thousands if not millions of others, I was flabbergasted by Rather's personal insistence that the obviously computer-typeset memos were actually produced on a typewriter in 1972.

It was apparent to me at the time that Rather had lost the ability to evaluate the credibility of his sources, which is an essential skill for any reporter-- certainly for one operating at the national level.

And now, of course, Rather is suing CBS and Viacom for... well, I can hardly tell what for; the complaint is not very clear. But if I was running HDNet, I'd be very concerned about Rather making such strong accusations with such weak support. If he continues, the network may be forced to dismiss him, which could well lead to yet another lawsuit...