Is that a drone or an F16 !

Davidth88

It seems the Americans have managed to prove that an F16 could be used as a drone see link

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

This included pulliing 7g turns etc

Interesting reading this , its obvious they pulled this F16 out of Davis Monthan and got it flying.


With this and the pilotless Jetstream I have seen on the tele it seems that pilotless aircraft are really coming on

I did also see they landed a drone on an aircraft carrier , but then couldn't repeat that :-)

Tenger

This isn't the big breakthrough that the Beeb seem to be implying. The USAF have been using mothballed aircraft as unpiloted target drones for many years now. However this is the first F-16 to be converted to QF-16. Obviously the USAF have run short on QF-4's and QF-5's.

I'm not sure however if the previous used drones were used in a more sedate manner. Perhaps this is the first time an unpiloted target drone achieved 7G in aerial maneuvering?

And the US already have weaponised drone in operation. This example is just a remote controlled pilotless jet fighter. It is not weaponised and not autonomous.

Growler!!!

http://www.fencecheck.com/content/index.php?title=The_Final_Mission:_The_USAF%92s_QF-4_Target_Drones

Some interesting reading here. Still can't see what's newsworthy for the beeb and sky news to put it up on their feeds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Model_147

First read about one of these drones in a Tom Clancy novel.

Franticfrank

It is just a full scale aerial target, like many QF-4s that have gone before it. Nothing really new to see here. It will probably get blown up over the Gulf of Mexico by an AIM-120. However, reading about the flight on the BBC, it appears some observers are once again panicking that this "new" drone will be used to kill people. I really don't understand that. The only difference to a regular F-16 is that the pilots are on the ground and that the QF-16 is not even capable of standard military action.

Del2005

Davidth88 wrote: »

It seems the Americans have managed to prove that an F16 could be used as a drone see link

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

This included pulliing 7g turns etc

Interesting reading this , its obvious they pulled this F16 out of Davis Monthan and got it flying.


With this and the pilotless Jetstream I have seen on the tele it seems that pilotless aircraft are really coming on

I did also see they landed a drone on an aircraft carrier , but then couldn't repeat that :-)

Most commercial aircraft fly themselves already, the pilots just tell it where to go. The reason why it isn't being pushed for civil aviation is people don't trust computers and still like to see a bum in the drivers seat even if they aren't in control. There isn't any reason why a modern plane can't fly remotely or by itself.

Oink

Del2005 wrote: »

... people don't trust computers and still like to see a bum in the drivers seat even if they aren't in control.

I would be one of those. You just know that the pilot really wants the plane to stay in one piece as much as you do.

Regarding the QF16s - Do they have to let the missile explode instead of bouncing off or something (it might still take the plane down without an explosive payload but you know...)? Seems like an awful waste of a beautiful plane. Even if it's old. The F16 has always been my favourite.

Del2005

Oink wrote: »

I would be one of those. You just know that the pilot really wants the plane to stay in one piece as much as you do.

If the plane wants to it can ignore the pilot.

Oink wrote: »

Regarding the QF16s - Do they have to let the missile explode instead of bouncing off or something (it might still take the plane down without an explosive payload but you know...)? Seems like an awful waste of a beautiful plane. Even if it's old. The F16 has always been my favourite.

They can do it all in simulations. But missiles have a set shelf life and the plane is also at it's end of life. So which way would you rather an amazing war bird ends it's career, being cut to pieces on the ground or in a big ball of fire in the sky?

Growler!!!

In regard to destroying the aircraft. It is a requirement of the new missiles manufacturer to prove the new weapon works as advertised ie. Destroys its target.

Have a full read of the link I posted above. It mentions this stipulation.

Tenger

Oink wrote: »

.....

Regarding the QF16s - Do they have to let the missile explode instead of bouncing off or something (it might still take the plane down without an explosive payload but you know...)? Seems like an awful waste of a beautiful plane. Even if it's old. The F16 has always been my favourite.

Well with the older QF-4's only about 20% of flights resulted in a destroyed aircraft. Most sorties were more concerned with target acqusition of the drone and usually had an actual pilot in the drone in case the aircraft lost control.

From the 1st link posted above:
Despite having over 60 aircraft on strength, 82 ATRS has a small military staff: six USAF pilots split between the two bases and a few sergeants to oversee maintenance. All other personnel are civilians employed by Lockheed Martin, including pilots, ground controllers, and maintainers. All are ex-military with a tremendous level of expertise – for example, contract pilots typically have over 1000 F-4 flying hours. QF-4s are almost always flown with a pilot aboard, unless a weapons launch will occur. Usually he does not touch the controls but stands ready to take over if ground control is lost or the aircraft departs. The pilots fly the aircraft themselves on chase missions and to maintain proficiency.

Typically, several practice runs precede a test mission, to confirm that all test parameters are being met – many trial runs are less expensive than one failed test. If a missile will be fired at the drone, the actual test will use a NULLO aircraft – NULLO stands for "not under live local operation" but is also Latin for "zero," the number of crew aboard. The NULLO aircraft carries a destruct charge (the warhead from an AIM-9 missile) to ensure the jet’s demise if it is damaged during the test or control is lost.
A NULLO drone will usually complete three or four missions before being destroyed. Except during a lethality test, the missiles fired may lack warheads and the drone’s flight track may be programmed to evade a direct hit. This saves the cost of replacing the drone and prolongs the life of the QF-4 inventory. The drone’s onboard scoring system will tell if the missile achieved "kill" parameters. Occasionally a lethality test will fail to take down the aircraft, an occurrence that confirms the importance of Title 10 testing. The QF-4 attrition rate is about one aircraft per month at Tyndall and one to four per year at Holloman.