Talk:Boeing YAL-1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article title[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Provived you have a consensus. You do not. The move has been reverted. - BillCJ 00:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Needs more sharks[edit]

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

Article[edit]

This has some info that could be added - I don't know enough about it to do it myself I'm afraid. Smartse (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a subscription-only service. Unless you can give the rest of us a view of the article, few people here can read it. — BQZip01 — talk 23:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video?[edit]

Apparently we have a video here of it firing it's laser on a car bonnet, http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/02/video-of-laser-weapo.html it's pretty unimpreessive, not sure if it's real but really hope not to be honest :P One would expect something more awe-inspiring from something this seemingly sci fi and expensive. --dr-spangle (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was fired from a C-130. It depends on how far away this was and what the intended effect was. If all you are trying to do is weaken the side of a theater ballistic missile, this is all you need. If they did it at a range of 25+ miles, that also would have been impressive. Also, the laser appears (or rather doesn't appear) to be invisible and perhaps an IR beam. In any case, this isn't the YAL-1. — BQZip01 — talk 03:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article reads like a defense contractor release[edit]

Seriously, no offense to the fine folks of the corporations feeding off the trough of public funds expended to keep us safe from the threat of theatre level ballistic missiles launched at the continental United States- I hope you caught that- but there isn't what I'd call a balanced view on this boondoggle. An excuse to spend money on a nonexistent threat. Let's hope those "terrorists" who can float their barge halfway across an ocean to get close enough to take a shot at us haven't heard of Never Dull. Something about mirrors and lasers not mixing well? Am I leaking classified info? Batvette (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. This isn't the place to espouse your personal views.
  2. If there is something you feel is unbalanced, please state specifically what the problem is, a reference for your assertion, and I (and others) will do what we can to make the article more balanced.
— BQZip01 — talk 18:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First major contributor[edit]

Fnlayson, I assume you are an experienced Wikipedian. As such, you probably know that Wikipedia’s standard for the formats and dialect to be used in articles is strongly influenced by the first major contributor. Akradecki was the first major contributor to this article (∆ here). Your edit summary (“his article has used military date format for a while”) is not supported by the facts as revealed by the history of this article. Moreover, the date format to use in articles now follows “strong national ties”. Besides the fact that the article has long and consistently used American-style dates, your argument implies that this article ought to follow the military format. That argument comes up short because the article, while military in nature, is not the sort of article that would have a readership that is predominately comprised of military folk. Clearly, this article receives a general-interest readership.

Anyway, I don't want to get sidetracked on what “ought” to be. Wikipedia has guidelines that exist to prevent edit wars. The first major contributor used American-style dates and American-dialect English. As such, this article must stay that way. Just because *some* dates were later added in the military/European-format doesn't matter—particularly since the result was inconsistency in the article. Greg L (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to post this same message twice. Most all of the dates in this article were in military format counting the references. Why did you not bother to fix all of them then? -Fnlayson (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I did make the article consistent (after many months of encroaching inconsistency). I’ll go back and look.

Lest you think I am an “American-date-format”, I am not. I am the first major contributor to Kilogram and to Thermodynamic temperature and I used Euro-style (“military”) dates in both. But for articles on Boston Red Sox or pretty much any article with a strong national tie to America—including this article—American-style dates are best. That Akradecki was the first to add mm/dd/yy dates to this article in quantity, his style must prevail to prevent edit wars. He did the right thing, IMO, anyway. For me though, it is all about writing in a way that is most natural for the likely readership. Greg L (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DATE#Strong national ties to a topic: "In certain subject areas the customary format may differ from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military use day before month, in accordance with usage in that field." The "first major contributor" rule doesn't apply here. - BilCat (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here. Let me read that back to you with proper emphasis and some actual facts: According to MOSNUM here, “In certain subject areas the customary format may differ from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military use day before month, in accordance with usage in that field.” (my emphasis). The usage in the airborne laser field and the Missile Defense Agency, as evidence here on the Missile Defense Agency home page, is non-military dates. And there is this citation: DoD 4120.15-L, Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles. U.S. Department of Defense, May 12, 2004. Take a look at its cover page.

Sorry, but please adhere to the rules. And no editwarring over this. The Boeing YAL-1 project is one overseen by the U.S. Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency. Their convention is plain. The first major contributor and MOSNUM are both clear here. Greg L (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first major contributor thing is just a tiebreaker here. WP:DATE says "Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." There's no doubt due to the part BilCat quoted. Also, picking just one document to show precedent is not accurate. Looks at multiple reports at dtic.mil to make a fair judgment. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)If you don't want an edit war, don't keep reverting. I won't revert myself, I promise! - BilCat (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AvLeak on applying YAL to UAVs[edit]

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_08_16_2013_p01-01-607382.xml

Seems to be a relevant enough article on applying the technology lessons from the YAL to a UAV platform. Why is this considered to be off topic? Hcobb (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you will need to point out where it mentions the YAL-1 because I cant see it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
c.f. second page.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_08_16_2013_p01-01-607382.xml&p=2 MDA canceled the YAL-1 747-400F-based Airborne Laser testbed after making its final flight last year.

Any other issues? Hcobb (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:YAL-1A Airborne Laser unstowed crop.jpg to appear as POTD[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:YAL-1A Airborne Laser unstowed crop.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 20, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-01-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing YAL-1
The Boeing YAL-1 is a missile defense weapons system consisting of a megawatt-class chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL) mounted inside a modified Boeing 747-400F. It was intended to destroy tactical ballistic missiles while in their boost phase. Only one YAL-1 was produced, and the program was canceled in December 2011; the aircraft made its first flight on July 18, 2002, and its last on February 14, 2012.Photo: Missile Defense Agency
Archive – More featured pictures...

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Boeing YAL-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing YAL-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Boeing YAL-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Boeing YAL-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Question? A help request is open: newly added archive auto downloads video, is this allowed?. Replace the reason with "helped" to mark as answered.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked, added question. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing YAL-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked.Redalert2fan (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox[edit]

I recently removed the "Y" from the "YAL-1" designation in the navbox for consistency with every other US Military designation navbox (mission modifiers are not generally included). Buffs reverted the change per WP:COMMONNAME, which I don't believe applies in this case, so I with to discuss the matter here. My reasoning is that WP:COMMONNAME applies only to article titles, not the text of a link. While to my knowledge there is no policy or guideline on consistency among templates, it makes no sense to break consistency for designation sequences with only one designation, common name or not, as the YAL-1 was just the designation of the prototype of the AL-1, which was ultimately never built. The template serves the purpose of listing the "AL" sequence, not the nonexistent "YAL" sequence.

On a side note, it should be noted that the "A" may also be a mission modifier as 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system#Basic mission lists "L" as the basic mission designator for laser-equipped aircraft, which makes the "A" an oddity, even if it stands for "Airborne". - ZLEA T\C 03:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Lockheed YF-22, Northrop YF-23, Convair XFY Pogo, Lockheed XFV, Northrop YF-17, and many others. It seems that aircraft that either didn't progress past the "prototype" stage, or where the production aircraft differed enough from the prototype to lend some distinctness worthy of its own article, or when that prototype designation is the far more known and common use title, we keep the Y or X. Also, remember that it is not our job, as Wikipedia, to enforce the Tri-Service aircraft designation system. It's our job to report designations as used in reliable sources. If the military chooses not to follow its own designation system, we aren't here to correct them on it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OuroborosCobra I'm perfectly fine with mission modifiers in article titles, and I am perfectly fine with this article's current title, but this discussion is about how this aircraft appears in the "US tri-service Airborne Laser aircraft" navbox. Look at Template:USAF fighters, which contains all but one of the examples you listed (Template:USN fighters, which includes the XFV, will also demonstrate my point). Look at any of the templates in Category:United States tri-service aircraft designations navigational boxes and you will see that mission modifiers are left out to further illustrate the fact that they are part of one sequence, not separate yet intertwining "F", "XF", and "YF" sequences (the "Covert designations" in the fighters template is an exception due to the unique nature of that sequence). Listing this aircraft as "YAL-1" in the navbox when other navboxes do not include mission modifiers gives the false impression that "YAL" is the mission designator for laser-equipped aircraft. - ZLEA T\C 14:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
YF-22 is indeed mentioned as a specific airframe with a separate article as are several variants Template:USAF_fighters . RB-69 is another Template:USAF_bomber_aircraft. OV-1, OV-10, OV-12 Template:US observation aircraft. You're trying to say that none of these exist, when, in fact they are common. If anything, a separate actual template would make more sense for special mission/research planes. Buffs (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"YF-22" is mentioned in the Fighters navbox because it's a variant article of "F-22". Otherwise the links to 2 different articles would be indistinguishable. As to the basic question here, I've never agreed with removing the status designations from the navboxes. This was done by one or two users about 10 years ago or so, but to my knowledge it was there was no centralized discussion, such as at [[WT:AIR], to establish a consensus to do so. Perhaps there should be. Also, as a navbox, this is a bad one, as there is only one link, and that's to this article. That's not recommended, and it risks being nominated for deletion by the Wiki rules-wonks for not being used for "navigation". I think it'd be better to add links to all the articles that use this navbox so it can actually be used for navigation, not decoration. BilCat (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buffs As Bilcat said above, the YF-22 is only mentioned in the navbox as it is a variant of the F-22 that has its own article. As for the OV-1, OV-10, and OV-12, they are part of the a separate sequence but some or all of the V-1, V-10, and V-12's variants carry the "O" mission modifier, signifying that they fit the role of an observation aircraft despite being part of a different sequence. Listing these aircraft as "OV" in the VTOL aircraft template could create misconceptions that the basic mission designators for these aircraft are indeed "OV", especially in the case of the OV-1, not cover lesser known variants such as the EV-1 and RV-1. The RB-69 appears to have been overlooked by whoever removed that template's mission modifiers. I've removed it for now. - ZLEA T\C 23:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bilcat You make a valid point, there is no format standard for these navboxes, and I think this needs to change. While I do think mission modifiers would cause consistency and sequence continuity issues, there should definitely be a discussion about this. Perhaps we should also discuss the merits of Template:Lone designation as well. - ZLEA T\C 23:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_YAL-1&oldid=1217584527"