F-16 jet takes off with pilotless/empty cockpit

[Jimbuna]

The next step toward pilotless aircraft....first I knew of this.

Boeing has revealed that it has retrofitted retired fighter jets to turn them into drones.
It said that one of the Lockheed Martin F-16 made a first flight with an empty cockpit last week.
Two US Air Force pilots controlled the plane from the ground as it flew from a Florida base to the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24231077

[AVGWarhawk]

I think it was only a matter of time. There was talk of pilotless aircraft years ago IIRC. Kind of eerie seeing the jet with no pilot at the controls.

[Jimbuna]

The next step up from drones I suppose.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

The next step up from drones I suppose.

Certainly. Natural progression. What is next is creating aircraft that go beyond what the human body can withstand in terms of g-force, etc. Jets are limited by the pilot.

[Jimbuna]

Rgr that

The firm added that the flight attained 7Gs of acceleration but was capable of carrying out manoeuvres at 9Gs - something that might cause physical problems for a pilot.

[AVGWarhawk]

Imagine if you would a aircraft performing beyond what the human body could withstand. It truly is becoming something similar to a game called Lock-on. Only difference is there is no reset button or save point to continue playing later

[Stealhead]

Maybe it was just a QF-16 flying from Tyndal AFB one of the drones that gets missiles shot at. Looking at the photo that is what that plane is a QF-16 if so this is not a major development.Or at least what it really means is they are testing QF-16 for full drone deployment to replace the QF-4s in this role.They are target drones.Now what they might be planning for the QF-16s is for a mobile flying ability to make a more challenging target for training.


A slight bit of spin in this story if you ask me pun not intended.The live fire test means that something will be firing at the QF-16 not the QF-16 firing at something.

Here is what is really happening http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article29.html i feel that the BBC story is placing spin to make it sound like this is something that it really is not... a combat drone.


News for everyone there have been pilot-less drones since WWII and advanced ones since the late 50's the QF-16 is replacing the QF-4 which replaced the QF-100 which replaced the QF-86 nothing new here just progression to the next good mothballed airframe.

Not to say that advanced combat UAVs are not on the development table but those and a pilot less target drone are so different they do not even play at the same ball park.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

The next step up from drones I suppose.

No. Drones with RC still are vulnerable having the RC signal blocked and so getting lost (crash, hijack, emergency landing and then being picked up by enemy side, like in Iran).

What they will go for thus necessarily are autonomous drones.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Skybird

No. Drones with RC still are vulnerable having the RC signal blocked and so getting lost (crash, hijack, emergency landing and then being picked up by enemy side, like in Iran).

What they will go for thus necessarily are autonomous drones.

Self destruct initiative if the in-flight computer detects commands coming from another source other than the host. The pilot would have the ability to destroy the craft if required.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

The next step toward pilotless aircraft....first I knew of this.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24231077

You are overlooking the economics of the whole thing too. Anything with a jet (we got lots)can be used once retro fitted and with the excess ground pilots wanting to make their promotion "gates", there is no lack of personnel who really know how, including ex airline guys(formerly USAF 10 year captains) with miserable retirements like my old ROTC crowd. Plus when one IS lost there is no loss cost insurance-wise to the family or long term rehab issues(PTSS). For once the battlefield axiom applies: to every expensive problem there is a cheap solution (stinger missiles vs Hind Helos; Liberty ships vs Uboats etc.) and we have the cheap solution to our own expensive (manned plane) problem at hand. Since the Raptor is so expensive and with no practical opponent to fight, unmanned is the way to go. The WWII US bomber, with 4 officers and 6 sergeants had to make 8 trips to "dehouse" German workers and factories and thus pay for itself (break even on men, machine and ordinance) against the rehouse cost of those workers. Cold ruthless calculators 'a calculatin'! The game has not changed much.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

You are overlooking the economics of the whole thing too. Anything with a jet (we got lots)can be used once retro fitted and with the excess ground pilots wanting to make their promotion "gates", there is no lack of personnel who really know how, including ex airline guys(formerly USAF 10 year captains) with miserable retirements like my old ROTC crowd. Plus when one IS lost there is no loss cost insurance-wise to the family or long term rehab issues(PTSS). For once the battlefield axiom applies: to every expensive problem there is a cheap solution (stinger missiles vs Hind Helos; Liberty ships vs Uboats etc.) and we have the cheap solution to our own expensive (manned plane) problem at hand. Since the Raptor is so expensive and with no practical opponent to fight, unmanned is the way to go. The WWII US bomber, with 4 officers and 6 sergeants had to make 8 trips to "dehouse" German workers and factories and thus pay for itself (break even on men, machine and ordinance) against the rehouse cost of those workers. Cold ruthless calculators 'a calculatin'! The game has not changed much.

Yeah you lost me at the point you started rambling about promotions.Sorry but I see nothing in that post that has anything to do with a OF-16 or a UAV I may have missed something relevant in the text wall.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Yeah you lost me at the point you started rambling about promotions.Sorry but I see nothing in that post that has anything to do with a OF-16 or a UAV I may have missed something relevant in the text wall.

He's saying it's cheaper to use existing aircraft than build new ones.

The problem is that a remotely piloted F-16 will still have the same strengths and weaknesses versus a remotely piloted MiG-29 as they did when humans were aboard. Nothing really changes here.

[Oberon]

Yeah, I think that this will be more useful for training purposes than actually using it as an armed drone, so an F-16 pilot can dogfight another F-16 and actually go full 'fangs out' so to speak without having to explain to his CO why he just killed another USAF pilot.
Of course, it loses a little in the fact that the drone can't actually shoot back properly, and although there is a vast stockpile of dry-bones aircraft in the desert, I can't see the USAF being content to burn through it in a large way, although aircraft like the old F-4s which are probably a bit too long in the tooth for any major conflict of the future might find themselves as drones.

There's also the decoy side of it, remember in Red Storm Rising when the carrier group got spoofed by some Kelt missiles? Meant that the F-14 cover spent precious minutes and fuel chasing shadows and were out of position for the real attack. It would be difficult without the proper intercept equipment to know which aircraft were drones and which were not, and that's assuming that the drones are unarmed. You slap weapons on them and you've got a much bigger USAF than there currently is.

Of course, as it stands, you still need the pilots to fly them, albeit from a hut rather than the cockpit, but it's still roughly one UAV to one pilot, IIRC, certainly in a dogfight situation.

So, Skybird is correct, the next logical step is autonomous drones, and I'm pretty certain that this is already being worked on, and when that happens then the risk of drone control intercept is closed, and the human oversight that is needed is reduced, so you could have one pilot for an entire squadron. At this point the boneyards become a very busy place and the numbers game starts to change in a big way.

And/or Skynet...

[the_tyrant]

Hmm, wasn't this is plot of Stealth?


PS: when it comes to autopilot, the Russians are actually huge fans of this technology. It is actually the Americans who don't trust it as much.

Back before the Soviet Union fell apart, the Soviets were already automating their space shuttle clone:

An hour and a half after launch, Buran’s software began its reentry and landing sequence. Propellant was transferred forward from rear tanks to meet center of gravity requirements, and the orbiter maneuvered itself so that it was leading with its tail, orienting its engines for the deorbit burn. The burn was nominal, and half an hour later with its nose pitched high, Buran entered the atmosphere off the western coast of Africa.
To get around the winds still blowing at Baikonur, the orbiter was programmed to approach the runway from the east. But the onboard computer was tasked with making its own decisions in the final landing phases, taking into account realtime data. It was tense for those watching the telemetry. When Buran changed its approach profile at the last minute to dissipate more energy, technicians worried that a flaw in the programming was about to result in a crash landing.
Battling headwinds and crosswinds, the orbiter touched down just one second earlier than planned, traveling at 163 miles per hour. The drogue chutes deployed, slowing Buran until it rolled to a stop at 10:25.24 local time. The end of the mission was publicly marked by a brief and businesslike announcement from TASS.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...assumptions/2/

[Oberon]

The Soviets were very big on automating technology, I guess they wouldn't need commissars for computers (). If I recall correctly the original plans for the Alfa SSN called for it to have a crew no bigger than about twenty, and everything else would be automated. Unfortunately the design bureau was writing cheques that technology couldn't cash and so the compromise and re-designing began and thus the 'Golden Fish' was born.