Boeing Turning Old F-16s Into Unmanned Drones

dryriver sends this news from the BBC: "Boeing has revealed that it has retrofitted retired fighter jets to turn them into drones. It said that one of the Lockheed Martin F-16s made a first flight with an empty cockpit last week. Two U.S. Air Force pilots controlled the plane from the ground as it flew from a Florida base to the Gulf of Mexico (video). Boeing suggested that the innovation could ultimately be used to help train pilots, providing an adversary they could practise firing on. The jet — which had previously sat mothballed at an Arizona site for 15 years — flew at an altitude of 40,000ft (12.2km) and a speed of Mach 1.47 (1,119mph/1,800km/h). It carried out a series of maneuvers including a barrel roll and a 'split S' — a move in which the aircraft turns upside down before making a half loop so that it flies the right-way-up in the opposite direction. This can be used in combat to evade missile lock-ons. Boeing said the unmanned F-16 was followed by two chase planes to ensure it stayed in sight, and also contained equipment that would have allowed it to self-destruct if necessary. The firm added that the flight attained 7Gs of acceleration but was capable of carrying out maneuvers at 9Gs — something that might cause physical problems for a pilot. 'It flew great, everything worked great, [it] made a beautiful landing — probably one of the best landings I've ever seen,' said Paul Cejas, the project's chief engineer."

Comments

Still dangerous

[eclectro]

If after self destructing, an F-16 engine falling on you could still wreck your day.

Re:Still dangerous

[DarkOx]

Probably why they mostly flew over water eh? Sure you might still be in a boat or something but the gulf is big; so if it happended to hit you'd be having a really really bad day statistically speaking.

Re:Still dangerous

[almitydave]

True. However, the summary indicates testing was done over the Gulf of Mexico, although the article isn't clear. It does say they exceeded Mach 1, which is generally prohibited over populated areas except in emergencies, so that's another indicator they were over water.

And military pilots are expected to be able to handle 9G with a G-suit, but only briefly, and the structural limits for the F16 are beyond a human's limits for sustained G-forces, so there's a potentially great improvement in performance.

As an aside, I read that the Blue Angels (and presumably the Thunderbirds) pull sustained 7G during their maneuvers without a G-suit, which is impressive.

Re:Still dangerous

[xQx]

The other interesting thing is, you will notice that all aircraft always only perform positive G maneuvers (ie, to turn left, you roll left, then pull up.) The human body can sustain far less negative G's.

It will be very interesting to watch these aircraft perform in a combat situation now that they are not limited by the physical issues with a human in the cockpit.

I imagine it would be very difficult to catch a fighter jet that has the capability to perform a 'split-s' maneuver without first inverting, or can perform 'S' maneuvers by just rolling right, then pulling up then pulling down - rather than the traditional way of rolling right, pulling up, inverting, then pulling up again.

They might only be shooting at them now, but it doesn't look like it will be long before pilots just sit in cockpits on an aircraft carrier and control their aircraft in combat.

Re:Still dangerous

[afidel]

There's not enough spectrum to replace the entire fleet of manned craft with drones, not to mention the fact that any enemy beyond cave dwellers will figure out how to jam the drones (ARM missiles only go so far to helping with the problem).

Re:Still dangerous

[Anubis IV]

Sure, but it's better than having the whole thing land on someone's place. Not to mention that it flew from Tyndall AFB to the Gulf of Mexico according to the article (which is odd thing to say, considering Tyndall is on the Gulf Coast, but I assume it means that it flew out over deeper waters), which means that self-destructing would mean it wouldn't make it back to land to cause damage in the first place.

Also worth noting: if you think that would ruin your day, consider the fact that the space shuttles had self-destruct capabilities as well, in case they went out of control. Imagine that landing on your house. Actually, to get a bit grim (and not at all in the direction I originally planned for this comment), for some of us we don't really need to imagine, since we helped clean up the wreckage spread out across Texas following Columbia, most of which wouldn't have killed anyone from impact. In fact, related to that, the source for that fact about the self-destruct is a family friend who's now a retired astronaut that flew on four flights. They offhandedly mentioned the self-destruct (which earned me a well-deserved remark from them that made me feel like the ass I was after I said something along the lines of "that's so cool!") shortly before flying on STS-109.

For those of you not keeping score, STS-109 was the last successful flight that Columbia flew. STS-107 was its next and last one. And as you might guess from the numbering, 107 was originally scheduled to fly first, but due to delays, NASA swapped the two missions in the schedule. It's the sort of thing that really does get you thinking about what a person means to you and what life would be like if they were suddenly not a part of it any longer.

Anyway, I'm way off-topic. Suffice to say, self-destruct = a good thing to have in case something goes very wrong.

Re:Still dangerous

[icebike]

Depending on Which Runway they used, this plane probably never crossed over civilian areas.

Re:Still dangerous

[cavreader]

While this could be a bad thing for aviators it is a good reuse of mothballed jets that cost millions of dollars. They have configured all types of jets as drones going back to the 60's. In WW2 the US tried to convert a B-29 to fly without any humans on board. They had some success but the war was near it's end and the project was dropped. One of the Kennedy's (not sure which one) was actually killed in an early test during this project.

Re: Still dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

Joe, the oldest, was killed in WW2. He was the one being groomed for greatness. John was plan B

Re:Still dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm...while this is partially true (humans don't do negative G well) what is also true is airplanes don't do negative G well. It takes a lot of structure to make a 40-50,000lb airplane that can pull 9G's in one direction. Making one that can do it in two directions would also make it really heavy. Also, various liquids essential to operation (like fuel and oil) perform very poorly in the -G environment for more than about 30 seconds. Sure you could engineer your way out of that, but more weight and more cost.

Airplanes do best when all their G goes down, the way they spend 99% of their life. The G-limit on Predator/Reaper class UAVs is something like +2.5, no negative.

Re:Still dangerous

[Maxo-Texas]

I think we may be congratulating Captain Dunsail's within a decade.

Question: What happens if you jam GPS and all electronic signals to or from the planes?

Do they crash?

Re:Still dangerous

[xtal]

The spectrum problem is why you need to have them think for themselves to accomplish a mission objective. This is the only solution to the jamming problem, which IMO is a bigger issue than spectrum.

It's coming..

Re:Still dangerous

[xQx]

Since they still know their speed, bearing, altitude and attitude, they wouldn't necessarily crash.

If I were programming the logic with very little on-board processing power, I would have them automatically ascend to a set altitude then fly straight and level until they regain consciousness.

If you had a fair-bit of on-board processing power, you might look at flying them up to a random high altitude, then execute a quasi-random set of evasive maneuvers while heading along a bearing that was set at the beginning of the mission - ie. towards friendly territory - in an effort to regain consciousness.

Either way, it would make it a much easier target and far less of a threat.

Re:Still dangerous

[jkflying]

Modern military autopilot systems can use camera-based navigation by recognising terrain features from satellite images. Once you have enough processing power, GPS becomes pretty irrelevant.

Re:Still dangerous

[gigaherz]

If you replace 80kg (average human) of flesh with 80kg worth of computers and batteries, I think you'd have a considerable amount of processing power available to you... unless the electronic control devices (actuators & sensors) weight considerably more than the manual kind, which I doubt.

Re:Still dangerous

[knorthern knight]

Actually, it works out even better than that...
* human = 80 kg
* 7-G-resistant flight suit = 10 kg (estimate)
* oxygen tanks for pilot with several hours of oxygen weigh how much??
* no need for additional batteries/power, becaus the pilot would need power pump oxygen for breathing, plus illuminate instruments at night

Re:Still dangerous

[xQx]

If you think about it critically, these aircraft have onboard radar (and other combat sensors), and a flight log.

So, it would know where it last was, how far and in which direction it has traveled since loosing GPS, and what the wind-speed was on the way to where it is.

It would likely also have contour maps of the terrain it is flying over, and ground sensors.

So, with a modest bit of on-board computer power you could have it hit a high altitude and head home via the least-risk path, execute a long list of pre-determined evasive makeovers, have it open fire at anything it has a 99% confidence is an enemy entity - or for some real fun, have it work out where it is on the map, then fly about 30 ft above the terrain at mach 1.6 in the general direction of home.

Re:Still dangerous

[gigaherz]

Or, with over 100kg worth of military-class computer components and supporting hardware, run an AI able to complete the mission on its own.

Re:Still dangerous

[jacknifetoaswan]

The crux of your comment is spot on, but whenever they do destructive tests like this, they always clear all vessels out of the target area.

Re:Still dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

But you would let a WIN-ME computer loose on it's own?

Re:Still dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

easy to do, cut the seats, MFDs, and control systems out of the plane. newer planes are fly by wire anyway so you interface the AI with the flyby wire. Bonus points if you tear out the transparent canopy and lifesupport as well. that is probably half a ton right there you do need. You can fit a whole lot of computer in a half ton block the size of an original VW Bug.

Re:Still dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

So, it would know where it last was, how far and in which direction it has traveled since loosing GPS

GPS was loosed by Clinton in 1996 when he let us civilians in on it, so WTF are you talking about "loosing" GPS? It wouldn't do you much good if it hadn't been loosed.

Re: Still dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

And no one would ever know....

Re:Still dangerous

[tinkerton]

And an empty cockpit. No seat, no ejection and no dashboard.
On the other hand you have to think in percentages. An F16 weighs over 8 tons and it has 3000-3500 liter internal fuel capacity, so all the weight loss from getting rid of the pilot is your plane has weight x 4 minutes later in flight (at roughly 1l per second).

Re:FIRST POST

[Ghostworks]

You've failed me for the last time, Starscream!

What? Success? Oh. Well good then.

great weapon to use in the middle east

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, now we can bomb the crap out of all of our enemies in the Middle East without the fear of losing pilots. And these things can carry BIG bombs. Think about it.... Syria, Iran, maybe even Iraq again.

Yes, I am being sarcastic, for those who are sarcasm impaired.

Re:great weapon to use in the middle east

[mmell]

What part was sarcasm?

(*smiles innocently*)

Re:great weapon to use in the middle east

[Penguinisto]

An F-16 can carry 4 2,000-lb bombs at the absolute most (and anything after two is risky on the wings).

It has 9 hard-points to hang ordinance on, but two of those (1 and 9) are wingtip rails, which means AIM-9 missiles. It will usually have 1-3 "bags" (fuel pods) hanging off of stations 4, 5 (centerline, under the fuselage), and 6. You'll need them in some combination to get any kind of real combat range (otherwise you're stuck with ~900lbs of internally-stored fuel, which ain't jack.) The big bombs would hang off of stations 3 and 7.

Now anti-personnel and fragmentary bombs? You can pack a buttload of 'em on that, and add in two AIM-9 Air-Groung missles to do some damage (which is what most ground-attack configured F-16's carry).

I am curious if they can slave in a LANTIRN pod kit onto the things and use that to get all-weather capability... though I can't remember if they retrofitted any of the A/B model jets to carry those.

Re:great weapon to use in the middle east

[icebike]

Well, yes, of course.

You didn't actually believe the line about:

the innovation could ultimately be used to help train pilots, providing an adversary they could practice firing on.

did you?

First, this isn't all that innovative, its been done to creating target drones for decades.

Second, this is still a front line aircraft, no matter how many we have in mothballs, because the usual target countries have nothing close. Its also fairly stealthy for its age, and its payload is in excess of 15,000 pounds of munitions even with a full load of fuel. You are not going to be using that quality of plane for a target drone.

Its meant as a delivery platform, piloted from afar, for very dangerous areas.

Re:great weapon to use in the middle east

[ShanghaiBill]

Yes, I am being sarcastic, for those who are sarcasm impaired.

I fail to see any sarcasm. Your post is a simple statement of fact: Military planes exist to carry out military operations. Duh.

Re:great weapon to use in the middle east

[Anonymous Coward]

A B-52 full of JDAMS is waaaaay more capable at mass precision bombing than any F/A aircraft

Let the drones keep the other fighters and missiles at bay, leave the bombing to the heavies

Re:great weapon to use in the middle east

[Anonymous Coward]

You can stop jacking off now

Re:great weapon to use in the middle east

[CthulhuDreamer]

The Block 20 of the A/B model was fitted for LANTIRN, but I think those all went to Taiwan. I have no idea if the European Block 20 MLU program included it or not.

(I'll take useless '80's trivia for $600, Alex.)

Re:great weapon to use in the middle east

[cyn1c77]

An F-16 can carry 4 2,000-lb bombs at the absolute most (and anything after two is risky on the wings).

It has 9 hard-points to hang ordinance on, but two of those (1 and 9) are wingtip rails, which means AIM-9 missiles. It will usually have 1-3 "bags" (fuel pods) hanging off of stations 4, 5 (centerline, under the fuselage), and 6. You'll need them in some combination to get any kind of real combat range (otherwise you're stuck with ~900lbs of internally-stored fuel, which ain't jack.) The big bombs would hang off of stations 3 and 7.

Now anti-personnel and fragmentary bombs? You can pack a buttload of 'em on that, and add in two AIM-9 Air-Groung missles to do some damage (which is what most ground-attack configured F-16's carry).

I am curious if they can slave in a LANTIRN pod kit onto the things and use that to get all-weather capability... though I can't remember if they retrofitted any of the A/B model jets to carry those.

You don't need as much fuel for a one-way trip. And a one-way trip is more acceptable if there is no pilot to lose.

Re:great weapon to use in the middle east

[Richard_at_work]

All F-16s are configured to carry the AIM-120 on the wing tip rails these days, with the AIM-9 being on positions 2-8, usually only one being carried tho as a third AIM-120 is typically carried instead.

Re:great weapon to use in the middle east

[gottabeme]

How is the F-16 stealthy?

Re:great weapon to use in the middle east

[jacknifetoaswan]

The AIM-9X has air-to-ground capability, but to my knowledge, it's never been used in combat in an air-to-ground capacity.

From what I know, the ground-attack F-16s carry AGM-65 or AGM-158 missiles, in addition to a variety of guided and unguided bombs.

Re:great weapon to use in the middle east

[Anonymous Coward]

ordnance.

Re:great weapon to use in the middle east

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you missed the first word in his comment.

Re:great weapon to use in the middle east

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did you get your info? It's laughably WRONG.

Internal fuel capacity is 7,000 lbs. All C/D blocks of F-16s tend to carry 120s on 1 and 9, and have for more than a decade. Stations 3 and 7 are not used for bombs; that's where the 370 gal tanks are carried for most A/G loadouts. A/G weapons hang on 4 & 6.

AIM-9 air-ground missile? WTF are you talking about? Even if you could shoot a heater at a ground target, it's warhead is tiny. Yeah, yeah, Raytheon claims a cape, as noted below, but it was designed (and is used) as a short range, WVR missile; even the 9X.

As for LANTIRN, nobody uses that anymore; we are 2-3 generations beyond that with LITENING and SNIPER. And no, it does not give all-wx capability; TV and IR can't see through clouds or moisture any better than the naked eye.

Re:great weapon to use in the middle east

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that relevant?

Re:great weapon to use in the middle east

[icebike]

I said fairly stealthy. It was part of the design, before we went for very stealthy planes.

Reduced radar cross section is the first developed of five facets of stealth design, and it was a key element of the F16.

The F-16 has a smaller radar cross section than an F-18, or F-15.
(Although once you hang all the external ordinance it can carry onto it, its no longer all that stealthy).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFY0VWGGFtM

The C and D block versions had further work done to reduce their radar cross sections.

Sacrilege

[sycodon]

Such a noble and iconic aircraft turned into a play toy.

50 years from now it will seem like the Air Force scrapping P-51s.

Re:Sacrilege

[vtcodger]

If memory serves me correctly, there's nothing all that new here. Back around 1960, the USAF was flying radio controlled WWII bombers out over the Gulf of Mexico to use in interception tests. Same thing, today? Better technology.

Re:Sacrilege

[Anonymous Coward]

that's nonsense.

a noble and iconic and RETIRED aircraft pioneering a new role as one of the highest performance modern weapon systems ever, capable of intricate maneuvers at higher mach and g than any ever before...

Re:Sacrilege

[osu-neko]

It spent the last 15 years sitting in a glorified junkyard. That's a greater sacrilege than having these birds in the skies again, regardless of the pilots' location...

Re:Sacrilege

[sycodon]

Put another way, in 50 years, at airshows, we will be seeing an F-16 flying and the announcer will say it's one of the last X flying examples in the world.

Sad.

Re:Sacrilege

[icebike]

that's nonsense.

a noble and iconic and RETIRED aircraft pioneering a new role as one of the highest performance modern weapon systems ever, capable of intricate maneuvers at higher mach and g than any ever before...

Exactly. Anyone thinking this is going to be a target drone is as naive as a 10 year old in a whore house.

Re: Sacrilege

[Anonymous Coward]

...playing GTA 5

Re:Sacrilege

[godel_56]

Such a noble and iconic aircraft turned into a play toy.

If I recall correctly the F16 was a Tier 2 fighter, specifically designed to be cheap to buy and cheap to run — quantity was a higher priority than capability, as least compared with its larger two-engined brethren. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but "noble and iconic" seems a bit much.

Re:Sacrilege

[luckymutt]

I don't think a 10 year old in a whore house is going to be very naive. At least not for long.

Re:Sacrilege

[Anonymous Coward]

If memory serves me correctly, there's nothing all that new here. Back around 1960, the USAF was flying radio controlled WWII bombers out over the Gulf of Mexico to use in interception tests. Same thing, today? Better technology.

Yes, but now you are supposed to hate the government because the story has the word "drone" in the title. The fact that the story was published is supposed to be proof that there is something nefarious going on even though the conversion of old aircraft to drones is 40+ years old news at least. The fact that they're using F-16s is also old news; I think I read about it during the Bush II administration.

Re:Sacrilege

[imsabbel]

The F16 was always the bargain bin little sister of the F15 (the "real" fighter jet).

Its main appeal was that it was _cheap_, not that it was good.

Re:Sacrilege

[dywolf]

Yep. pretty any plane could and was modified into a drone, from the 50s up to the present. the designation is to add a "Q" to the name. QF-84, QB-29, QF-4, QF-106, etc. Hell, its how they developed and tested missile technology, since they needed something to shoot at.

now they've just graduated to using F-16s, preseumably using ones from the boneyard that haven't been completely parted out yet.

Re:Sacrilege

[gottabeme]

And those qualities make it iconic. It's an excellent balance between size, capability, and cost. (And it also just happens to be the best-looking aircraft in history.)

Re:Sacrilege

[jacknifetoaswan]

Don Draper certainly learned himself up, right quick.

Re:Sacrilege

[jittles]

And those qualities make it iconic. It's an excellent balance between size, capability, and cost. (And it also just happens to be the best-looking aircraft in history.)

Now THAT is blasphemy. You'll be burning in a hell for all eternity. How could you forget the beautiful and sleek war birds? Especially the P-51D mustang? Go sit in a corner and think about what you just said.

Re:Sacrilege

[Anonymous Coward]

The F-X program was intended to be a joint USAF-Navy fighter program. The Navy pulled out of the program because it was too heavy to land on carriers. In an amazing coincidence, they had a missile (The Phoenix) and an engine, they were building a fighter around these, and the Navy suggested that the USAF should just use that instead of the F-X. Of course, the last thing the USAF wanted was a Navy plane, so they got Col. John Boyd involved. Based on the Energy-Maneuverability theory he had developed with Tom Christie, he cut the F-X weight in half, got rid of the swing wings, and saved the program, which became known as the F-15.

The F-16 was designed from the ground up for fighter combat, based on the E-M theory. Supposedly only an experiment, not intended for production, the Lightweight Fighter program yielded the YF-16 and the YF-17. The YF-16 won the competition, and it was so impressive that the USAF made it heavier and less maneuverable, and made it into the F-16. With people realizing that maybe fighters didn't need to be so big and heavy as the F-14 and F-15, the Navy needed to get in on the new trend, too, but they weren't going to take a USAF plane, so they took the YF-17, made it heavier and less maneuverable, and made it into the F-18.

You should go read about John Boyd. He's probably the most influential person of the 20th century that you've never heard of.

Re:Sacrilege

[blunttrauma]

The Navy flew F4 Phantom drones out of NAS Point Mugu for years as targets for missile testing. Google: qf-4

Re:Sacrilege

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason they are using F-16s now is because they finally ran out of F-4s to drone.

Re:Sacrilege

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly you are being too sentimental.

When I worked on a test range in the 1980s they had a stable of hundreds of F87 Sabre jets that were in line for drone modifications and were the primary air-to-air and ground-to-air target used on the range. The Sabre is no less "noble and iconic" than the F16. Nor as the F4A which were also used as target drones when I was there. Now the entire stock of both F87 and F4A are completely gone: blown out of the sky in the testing and development of new weapons.

Of course it was sad to see them go but it was far better to used sunk-cost old fighters then to let a new "$1000 hammer" contract for custom designed drones. As a tax payer I have zero problem with using what you have already paid for.

Re:Sacrilege

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the A-10!

Re:Sacrilege

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Anyone thinking this is going to be a target drone is as naive as a 10 year old in a whore house.

Nah, you're just being a dumb. The military has been making "Q" series target drones out of old airframes for many decades and there is really no reason to suppose this is anything different.

Note the "old". Airplanes don't have an infinite lifespan, especially not high performance high-G fighter airframes. Metal subjected to repeated flexing and stress develops metal fatigue, and eventually loses strength and/or cracks. So, after some number of flight hours (how many is determined through a combination of engineering analysis and regular inspection of flying airframes), old fighter jets are deemed to be at end of life and are stored mothballed in a boneyard somewhere (usually in the desert, to reduce corrosion). Partially out of the possibility of needing to reactivate them in a dire emergency, partially to keep them around as a supply of parts for flyable airplanes.

But say you want to test an air-to-air missile, or do live-fire training, and you want to test against a target which can actually maneuver like the real thing. That's where "QF-xx" conversions come in. Take a flyable mothballed fighter jet, install a cheap short range radio control system so it can be flown from the ground, shoot it down. Who cares if the airframe is technically unsafe for high-G maneuvers thanks to being at end of life? It only has to survive one or two of them on its final flight...

The only reason they've made the first QF-16 is that (a) the US has a lot of old F-16s (it was bought in mass numbers and has been in service a long time) and (b) the US has run out of flyable F-4 Phantom II jets to make QF-4s, which were the previous standard target drone.

If the military wanted a drone with the performance of a F-16 to use for operations, they'd convert airframes which weren't at the end of life and install the kind of control systems which let pilots in the US fly missions in Iraq. And they may yet do that -- but this isn't it.

Re:Sacrilege

[Anonymous Coward]

In 50 years, we'll all be long dead -- killed by drones.

Lockheed's Gonna Be Pissed

[Anonymous Coward]

'nuff said

Control signal jamming

[Phoeniyx]

While we are on topic, what would prevent an enemy missile from having an onboard jamming unit to jam the control signals coming from a remote pilot to the plane? Does == ? Or are these planes equipped with a Borg shield adaption (i.e. rotate frequency) mechanism that makes jamming very difficult?

Re:Control signal jamming

[Phoeniyx]

Curses slashdot. You made me look like a tool by pre-processing my message! I meant to write "Does [jamming] == [sitting duck mode]"? Now it just says "Does [blank] == [blank]".. No more angle brackets! :-@

Re:Control signal jamming

[Lumpy]

Physics.

the onboard jammer would have to be HUGE to affect anything outside of a short range, or the thing would have to be on top of it, so you might as well just use a heat seeking missile and blow it up.

Re:Control signal jamming

[vux984]

I think that's his thought... jam the plane when you get close to it. Just how close does it have to get? If the drone remote operator can't fire counter measures and take evasive action once the missile is within X meters due to jamming, the missile is going to have a much easier time hitting the target.

Re:Control signal jamming

[ShanghaiBill]

what would prevent an enemy missile from having an onboard jamming unit to jam the control signals coming from a remote pilot to the plane?

Anti-radiation missiles. Any source transmitting with enough power to jam the signal would be a very conspicuous and short lived target.

Re:Control signal jamming

[Anonymous Coward]

In Viet Nam they made entire planes just full of jamming equipment to let the other attack planes get closer to targets without having to worry about SAMs as much. I believe one was called the EA-6B. From the story they were used in Iraq to prevent remote explosive detonation. If its good enough to stop a remote detonator its good enough to stop remote control, just a matter of frequency at that point.

Re:Control signal jamming

[Anonymous Coward]

The plane could easily go into fully automatic evasion mode if it detects that it's being jammed when the missile is very close.

Re:Control signal jamming

[PlusFiveTroll]

Jamming is dangerous. Start jamming something and you are going to get an ALARM or a HARM right up your antenna.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile

Re:Control signal jamming

[rickb928]

You can count on it, both airborne jammers and ground-based.

And when 'they' figure out where the ground facilities are, and the uplinks, expect to see vans packed with goodies trying to jam there also.

For the drone wars, SAMs and AAMs are the secondary threats. Communications will be the primary weakness, and the effort is surely underway to degrade or defeat that. Obvious tactic.

And equally obvious to secure the command link, even if the video feeds aren't. At least until the little buggers become autonomous.

But I'm not much worried. If you can keep an F-4 from being shot down, you can keep the comm channel secured. Or something like that.

Re:Control signal jamming

[rickb928]

It doesn't have to be big at all. Within a few miles of the drone, around 100W would be enough to swamp a satellite link. Get the jammer high enough, it can radiate down and cause trouble, IF it can find a way to render the link unusable for a few moments. At the right time. Like when the drone is maneuvering towards the ground. Assuming the drone doesn't have a failsafe to survive loss of comm and avoid the ground. Of course then, if it's headless, it will need some intelligence to avoid the ground fire and other stuff while it regains contact with its master.

All good fun. Wish I were in the business again. Real electronic warfare still fascinates me.

Re:Control signal jamming

[Lumpy]

Yeah. go ahead and try to jam a directional satellite link with a general area jammer. there is 60db of attenuation alone if you are not above the aircraft.

Re:Control signal jamming

[JWSmythe]

From the evil dictator perspective...

If I knew jamming would make me a target, I'd put jammers out in remote locations, so they'd waste their ordinance on worthless targets.

Re:Control signal jamming

[mirix]

My Serbian friends have told me that a $50 microwave with the door taken off can destroy a $200k HARM.

Sounds like urban legend to me, but, pretty comical if true. You'd think Raytheon would be out deploying microwaves if it were the case.

Re:Control signal jamming

[vux984]

You realize we're speculating about a short range jammer right on a missile itself right? Not sure HARM etc really applies here.

Re:Control signal jamming

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, but I'll have to jump from the 70s tech all the way to 80s tech to do it.
Missles can shoot down satellietes.

So now we need a plane from the 70s and a missle from the 80s and suddenly all the drones are worthless.

Re:Control signal jamming

[Anonymous Coward]

As another poster said, put the jammers in remote areas. At $200K each wasting munitions is costly..

Re:Control signal jamming

[phantomfive]

Use preview.

You don't look like a tool, you look like someone who had their formatting messed up. It's happened to all of us, once. No big deal.

Re:Control signal jamming

[ColdWetDog]

From the Countermeasures Department, Evil Dictator Removal Group:

We find your remote jammers, land some special ops troops and jack into your control systems.

Have a nice day. What's left of it, anyway.

Re:Control signal jamming

[AHuxley]

Very true, other nations will just re task their many deep cover clandestine forces for additional distant 'drone' related missions.
Whats the cost of a crash program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon for a middle power in 2020?

Re:Control signal jamming

[Maxo-Texas]

Imagine the jammers are less expensive than ALARMS or HARMS and there are dozens of them flying around.

Re:Control signal jamming

[gd2shoe]

Think about how jamming works. You shine a great big light in the same frequency that the receiver is trying to listen in on. If the design team is thinking about this contingency, suddenly you've got a great way to measure the location of a particular class of AA missile. (for evasive maneuvers or for counter fire)

Re:Control signal jamming

[Anonymous Coward]

Not nearly as dangerous as one is led to believe.

Read some of the reports out of the air war vs Serbia. It is unlikely that the rest of the army was quite as good as the air defense unit which shot down the F-117, but I don't think they lost an actual radar emitter to HARMs. Thanks to decoys, and occasional scans. (They lost some decoys, but not the radar that was being protected.) They and other ground forces were monitoring the airwaves as well, and would shut down if the call for an anti-radiation missile was used. Amusingly that partially led to rescue of said F-117 pilot by A-10s with broken radios. (Who just (in the clear) gave the call for a launch, while being painted.)

The air war makes a very interesting read, if you look for things about it. It does kind of reinforce the idea that you can't win by just air power. Also look up the losses claimed vs suffered, it makes for sobering numbers about how effective things are, against competent or at least halfway competent opposition. (Airstrikes against Serbia would be a scary case, as they have far more up to date systems.)

Re:Control signal jamming

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for a moment, consider, early V1's unknowingly were deceived by someone using a "electric" razor. How much radiative power in an early electric motor. I've read that even the latest links to sat's are unencrypted, just the users encrypt. How much weaker then is the military communications. How many backdoors are there in the "foreign" made systems. After all few military grade computer chips are made here anymore. Security?

Re:Control signal jamming

[durrr]

You mean that a $200k HARM can destroy a $50 microwave with the door taken off. Doesn't sound too unlikely, microwaves do run on quite high power after all.

Re:Control signal jamming

[dwye]

You mean microwave ovens with the door interlock wired around so that they can broadcast to the skies, and attract all the HARM missiles? Serbians already did that.

Hopefully, newer HARMs can ignore oven frequencies.

Re:Control signal jamming

[Anonymous Coward]

You're one of these children who, when someone says "If I punched at you," you say "I'd dodge it!" then when told "Then I'd kick you," you respond with "And I'd JUMP it!" Then you pat yourself on the back for being a mighty ninja.

You're not as clever as you think you are.

Re:Control signal jamming

[JWSmythe]

If not microwave ovens, there are all kinds of fun ways to generate signals.

But hey, if a cheap microwave oven does the job, that's good enough. Walmart has some for $36. That seems like some pretty affordable. I would think it would need a better antenna than the shell of a microwave would provide.

Well, that's nothing I'd be experimenting with. No one is shooting missiles at me.

Efficient for Risky Missions

[BoRegardless]

& using near obsolete aircraft to boot at low cost. What is not to like?

Re:Efficient for Risky Missions

[icebike]

Near obsolete?
These are still very capable aircraft, with a wide variety of weapon systems.
They exceed the capabilities of all but two or three nations, and we have them in numbers, both on active duty and in reserve.

Don't right them off as obsolete yet.

Re:Efficient for Risky Missions

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't right them off as obsolete yet.

Nor should you write them off as absolute.

Re:Efficient for Risky Missions

[Nimey]

I don't think TFA said what version of F-16 this was. Might have been an A model, which for all practical purposes is obsolescent.

The pictured F-16 looks to have the old-style air intake for the F100 engine, fwiw.

Re:Efficient for Risky Missions

[icebike]

Well as one of the first reliable fly by wire planes, I could believe they would start with an old airframe for simplicity, one they can actually afford to lose. They may actually use one or two of these as targets, but not for any of the stated reasons. Training fighter pilots no longer requires actually shooting something down.

Trying new munitions, maybe laser weapons, maybe.

My money is still on heavy ordinance delivery, in highly contested territory.

Re:Efficient for Risky Missions

[Anonymous Coward]

Defence budgets are rarely "low cost".

Re:Efficient for Risky Missions

[jacknifetoaswan]

They've been doing this for decades with aircraft that have outlived their useful lives. Even though this is probably still more capable than the aircraft that half the aggressor nations we'd ever face would field, we've got better and badder systems to deliver heavy ordinance. 9,000 pounds of bombs simply isn't enough to justify the cost of turning these things into more badass Predator drones.

These will be used for both destructive and non-destructive testing and training, and there's zero chance they'll be used for ordinance delivery. An MQ-9 Reaper can deliver almost 4,000 pounds of ordinance, and this can carry a little more than double that. The upcoming Predator 'C' variant, the Avenger, will be able to carry almost 7,000 pounds of ordinance, is stealthy, is faster than the Predator or Reaper, and can loiter for up to 18 hours.

Re:FIRST POST

[Penguinisto]

IIRC, wasn't StarScream an F-15/F-14-ish looking variant? The F-16 only has one engine.

(Man - I feel *old* - I remember working on the F-16 A/B models )

They might as well.

[Lumpy]

The aircraft was useless as a fighter. It cant carry anything and is just a lawn dart.

Re:They might as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an air frame the military will use until 2028, capable of using the latest avionics and weaponry. That's hardly useless.

Re:They might as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Against whom? It doesn't scare the Russians, and it doesn't scare the Europeans. The US could go bombing someone's desert again I suppose...

Re:They might as well.

[tsotha]

This is just wrong. The block 50 is one of the best fighters in the world even today.

Re:They might as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know anything about it? because it sounds like you dont.

I worked on them, they are useless. and are NEVER used in combat.

Makes a good trainer though.

Re:They might as well.

[roc97007]

The aircraft was useless as a fighter. It cant carry anything and is just a lawn dart.

Seriously? Compared to what?

Re:They might as well.

[icebike]

The aircraft was useless as a fighter. It cant carry anything and is just a lawn dart.

Some Dart.

Some Lawn.

How many Predator Equivalences is that.

Re:They might as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever wonder how many schools or crumbling infrastructure could have been repaired instead?

Re:They might as well.

[Moofie]

Go home. You're drunk.

Re:They might as well.

[jacknifetoaswan]

Go look at the Constitution and find the place where the federal government is charged with building roads, water treatment plants, and providing education. I'll wait.

Meanwhile, the part about general defense is clearly defined.

Worlds most expensive RC Model

[Eddy_D]

Really...

Re:Worlds most expensive RC Model

[cusco]

They should let a private company buy a bunch of these things, connect them to a simulator, and rent out time on the system (with pre-programmed fail safes in place.) Wouldn't be quite the same as flying an F-16 yourself, but damn it would be fun.

Re:Worlds most expensive RC Model

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you have the landscape data and modern games' graphics are fairly impressive: why would it be more fun than simulating one of those on a new version of Flight Simulator instead of the camera output on your screen? Except for the idiotic risk of actually crashing millions of bucks possibly into something living...

captcha: consort

Re:Worlds most expensive RC Model

[gottabeme]

Yes, please!

Re:FIRST POST

[PlastikMissle]

Yeah came here to post that. Starscream and most of the Seekers were F-15s in the original cartoon.

Not really news

[DaveAtFraud]

The U.S. military (Navy and Air Force, especially) has been repurposing obsolete aircraft as radio controlled target drones since not long after WWII. The only newsworthy part of this story is that they landed the F-16 after putting it through its paces. Previous target drones were intentionally one use only.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Not really news

[Deadstick]

Previous target drones were intentionally one use only.

Au contraire. The Air Force and the Navy both had F-86's modified so they could be flown either by a live pilot or by RC. The Navy had a squadron of them, called QF-86's, in California that provided drone services for all military users on the West Coast.

Pilots would make a number of unarmed sorties against live-pilot machines to practice the techniques, then take a few actual shots at unmanned ones. Live-fire missions were done out over the water, so if a drone was damaged and unsafe to land, they could safely deep-six it.

Every flight of a military aircraft goes into a logbook, and if a drone wasn't manned, the entry for pilot name would be NOLO: No Onboard Live Operator. Navy pilots referred to those missions as "shooting down Ensign Nolo".

The Culver Aircraft Co. produced a small piston-powered aircraft that worked the same way in the post-WW2 years called the PQ-14; a few of them found their way into private hands, with the remote controls removed.

Re:Not really news

[rickb928]

And F-100s, F-104s, F-4s. Probably others I won't bother to look up.

No, not new, not even a new purpose. Unless they shoot back. And a cheap way to develop the concept of unmanned fighters. Which are inevitable.

Re:Not really news

[icebike]

If you believe this is to be uses as a target drone, I have a Bridge in San Francisco I'd like to sell you.

Re:Not really news

[triffid_98]

The only newsworthy part of this story is that they landed the F-16 after putting it through its paces

That rather depends on whether you believe these are going to be used as 'target drones' or drones that take out 'targets'.

We literally have thousands of F-15 and F-16's either in mothballs now or scheduled to be decommissioned in the near future.

Re:Not really news

[DaveAtFraud]

The only newsworthy part of this story is that they landed the F-16 after putting it through its paces

That rather depends on whether you believe these are going to be used as 'target drones' or drones that take out 'targets'.

We literally have thousands of F-15 and F-16's either in mothballs now or scheduled to be decommissioned in the near future.

And if we've had the ability to fly these (or other similar obsolete fighters like F-4s and F-14s) on one way missions for decades, why haven't we turned them into attack drones already? We've used F-4s as target drones so the technology for remote control is there.

Simple answer: we don't need that capability any more than we need to bring back WWII era battleships.

What our current drones do that repurposed old fighter planes don't do is have fantastic, unrefueled loiter time. There are reasons why Predators and Reapers run on old prop technology: they don't have to fly fast to accomplish their mission and that little internal combustion engine sips fuel compared to guzzling it like an F-16 or F-15. I'd worry more about what the X-47B will evolve into (and I'd be surprised if the Air Force doesn't have a similar program). And the X-47B is the first drone capable of air-to-air refueling.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Not really news

[jacknifetoaswan]

What is its use, then? Dropping ordinance on American citizens in the US? Dropping ordinance on terrorists in Afghanistan? Syria?

The Predator B (Reaper) and Predator C (Avenger) variants can drop a decent amount of ordinance (3,800 pounds and 6,800 pounds, respectively), loiter for much longer, and operate completely autonomously. The F-16 can only handle 9,000 pounds of ordinance, making this pretty much useless as a UCAV.

This is just a way to use up old equipment in a way that they've been doing for decades. If you really believe this is going to be some super secret way to kill brown people, you're just really dumb.

Re:Not really news

[jacknifetoaswan]

The new Predator C model (Avenger) will be able to fly faster (460 MPH) and loiter for up to 18 hours while carrying a payload of 6,800 pounds. Pretty badass.

Re:Not really news

[Dave Emami]

The U.S. military (Navy and Air Force, especially) has been repurposing obsolete aircraft as radio controlled target drones since not long after WWII.

They were doing similar things even during WWII. JFK's older brother Joe Jr. was killed along with another crewman in a mishap with an explosives-loaded B-24 Liberator. They were supposed to get the plane airborne, arm it, then bail out, but the explosives (equivalent to about 14kt) went off prematurely.

Re:Not really news

[icebike]

Its hardly going to be secret. Neither were Predators.

Look at the variety of weapons you can carry on F16s. You can't get half that on a predator.
Can any of then carry HARM Missiles? No.
AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon? No.

Your numbers are simply wrong:

Predator C:
Empty weight: 1,130 lbs (512 kg)
Loaded weight: 2,250 lbs (1,020 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 2,250 lbs (1,020 kg)

Now tell me again how you are going to hang 6800 pounds on that airframe?

Re:Not really news

[DaveAtFraud]

I'm familiar with that. Didn't really want to muddy the waters by pointing that example out. Also, I think the technology at the time was only barely capable of just flying the plane by remote control once the crew had bailed out. The goal of the target drones was to actually provide a reasonable approximation of a "live" target (as compared to the old target sleeves and such).

Big difference though between just controlling an airplane by remote radio and being able to effectively deliver ordnance from a remotely piloted vehicle.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Not really news

[jacknifetoaswan]

http://www.ga-asi.com/products/aircraft/pdf/Predator_C.pdf

I was slightly off - 6,500 pounds total; but the max gross takeoff weight for the Predator C is over 18,000 pounds. I'm not sure where you got your information, but you're wrong.

That said, just because a weapons platform doesn't currently support a weapons system, doesn't mean it won't. The Predator C is still in development, yet it already has the capability to deliver JDAMs in 500, 1,000, and 2,000 pound variants, SDBs, and Hellfires. Both the JSOW and the HARM are within the Avenger's load profile, so all it takes is some integration. If the DoD saw a need to incorporate that, they'd do it.

Re:Not really news

[icebike]

You do realize you are talking about a plane that really doesn't exist in anybodies inventory yet, don't you?

Exactly ONE was Ordered, but STILL not delivered.
In December 2011, the Air Force announced that it had ordered an Avenger (meaning exactly ONE was ordered for testing) and that it was being deployed to Afghanistan.

To date only 4 have been built an only 3 have flown.
A third and fourth model are being produced, with Tail 3 expected to fly by late summer 2012 and Tail 4 by early 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Avenger

A competition for a final airframe design for the Sea going version isn't even expected until after January 2014.

The latest Predator in actual military inventories is The B Block MQ-1B Predator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator

But more to the point, none of these can be flown in aggressive manner such as a combat aircraft, none has
successfully avoided a missile, none has been in air to air combat.

Did you know that the F16 has never been shot down in air to air combat? It has never lost a dog-fight.
A small number have been lost to ground fire. (Including Scott O'Grady.)

Re:Not really news

[jacknifetoaswan]

Oh no, I get all that. All I'm saying is that the DoD isn't going to invest heavily in an autonomous/remotely-piloted system to run obsolete F-16s against enemy fighters or use them for ground attack. They've got Predator A and B models, and the C model will come online soon. They've got state of the art Falcons and Super Hornets for attack. They've got B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s for saturation bombing. They've got Eagles and Raptors for air superiority. They'll have the F-35 for all these roles (minus strategic bombing) active within the next five years.

Why spend all that money?

The F-16 is a great platform, and honestly, I think the USAF should continue buying them for decades to come. They're small, light, cheap, nimble, fast, and work very well at what they do. That said, I think their biggest draw is that they're cheap. Compared to the F-22 and F-35, they're chump change.

Re:Not really news

[icebike]

Why spend the money?
Because its dirt fricken cheap, sunk costs.
If you can afford it just to shoot it down )target drones), you can afford it to shoot something else down, or deliver heavy munitions loads, while dodging missiles at 9Gs.
And if you lose one or two, you aren't giving up any real secrets to the Iranians or whoever.

The control system is off the shelf stuff (at least off the shelf for military). And it all fits in the f16 cockpit, because it was already a fly by wire plane.

Re:Not really news

[jacknifetoaswan]

You're missing the point...

The systems they're installing on these F-16s are simple systems that allow them to program a predetermined route, or perhaps fly via a data link. It does not allow them to drop ordinance or engage in dog fights with enemy aggressors.

Yes, the airframes are sunk costs, and would be otherwise retired, but the development costs of a weapons system to fly an unmanned fighter into hostile territory, deliver a payload, possibly fight an aggressor with guns and/or missiles, then return to base and land will be very high, much higher than the USAF is going to spend on this. Just the test regime on these aircraft would be several years long, and it would be probably 2017 before they dropped any ordinance, even on a dummy target.

Re:Not really news

[icebike]

You're missing the point...

The systems they're installing on these F-16s are simple systems that allow them to program a predetermined route, or perhaps fly via a data link.

You are totally wrong here.
It has TWO pilots manning consoles, just like a Creech Airforce Base:

Each Reaper drone is operated remotely by a team of two: a pilot and a sensor operator. The pilot's primary function is flying the plane, while the sensor operator monitors the performance of the many different sensor systems (like infrared and night-vision cameras) utilized by the Reaper.

Its exactly the same system, right down to the quoted two pilots. With a Reaper, they can tell it to fly to X/Y coordinates while they have coffee, but they can also can take control of the drone, follow some terrorist on a motor bike to a meeting and launch a missile.

With an F16, they can pull 9g turns, (why in gods name would you program that in a pre-programmed flight path?). Those are maneuvers used in air combat, or missile avoidance.

Look, you can believe what you want, but the state of Missile testing and pilot training no longer requires actual drones to shoot down. That's so 1965.

this is the future of aerial combat

[lophophore]

This is the future of aerial combat. No need to risk a pilot's life, no need for a $400,000,000 F-22 Raptor, if you can turn at 9G, you can outperform just about anything with a human being in it.

I'm all for it. Take them all out of mothballs and make them all into drones.

Re:this is the future of aerial combat

[Anonymous Coward]

Soon. Mothballed Spitfire drones above the Channel, to prevent the mothballed Messerschmitts drones of the EU from causing uproar in the parliament, lower house. "Ballsy move" was the statement received from the Buckingham Palace about the drone situation.

Re:this is the future of aerial combat

[Anonymous Coward]

Well...no. These are full scale targets, not UAVs.

Second, the continuous chant from the ill informed that "drones" are somehow superior due to their ability to turn beyond human capabilities is mildly annoying to say the least. Aircraft have "G" (NzW) limits for a lot of reasons, and the man is only one of them. The much bigger reason is to preserve the life of the aircraft. Fighters are as big as they need to be to hold the fuel, weapons, radar and engines they need to get the job done. A 50,000lb fighter pulling 9G's is putting it's wings under 450,000lbs of load. That's about like a LOADED 757 pulling two G's. That kind of load is really hard on a jet. I've seen a lot of jets "overstressed" (may have even done it myself once or twice) and the pilot never suffered. Sure you could make a smaller, lighter more maneuverable UAV that can pull 20 G's, but would it be able to haul around a powerful radar, a bunch of missiles and bombs and enough fuel to go somewhere useful?

There are some good applications for UAVs and some advantages, but maneuverability is a red herring.

Re:this is the future of aerial combat

[GodfatherofSoul]

Yeah, but the problem with aerial warfare has always been spotting the other pilots first. No amount of cameras is going to fix that problem. I don't remember the exact stat, but 80% or so of planes shot down in combat never saw the guy before he shot, and a large percentage of the rest were close to level (didn't have much time to react).

Maybe AWACS technology has leapfrogged but we'll never know until the next war. I'd hate to commit to drones then find out they're (F)ishbait under the fog of war.

Re:this is the future of aerial combat

[BlueStrat]

Soon. Mothballed Spitfire drones above the Channel, to prevent the mothballed Messerschmitts drones of the EU from causing uproar in the parliament, lower house. "Ballsy move" was the statement received from the Buckingham Palace about the drone situation.

Look out for the Mistels!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkLvyXY1LV0

Strat

Re:this is the future of aerial combat

[xtal]

Modern aerospace engineering has been limited by the human pilot for a very long time. The design of larger aircraft themselves can be optimized without a cockpit to retain even more stress..

Automation, ain't it a bitch?

Re:this is the future of aerial combat

[Anonymous Coward]

I am absolutely NOT for it--for the same reason that I can't stand "non-lethal" weaponry. The more you remove consequences from the use of force, the more readily force will be used. If the only weapons so-called riot police had were standard lethal ones, you'd see a lot more police hesitant to use force because of the fear of a Kent State like incident. That's a good thing.

If you make it easy to go to war, people will go to war more often. We see that now with US "drone strikes" abroad. Nobody will call them what they are--armed incursions into the soverign airspace of another nation. We would rarely do that with manned aircraft or with ground troops, and when we do we have a damned good reason, or since 2001 at least a well sold lie to back it up.

Robotic and remote controlled combatants need to go the way of chemical weapons--banned by treaty. It's not about risking or not risking someone's life. It's about making the decision makers actually think about what it is they're about to do and not making the use of force against any population an easy thing to do or an easy thing to live with.

Re:this is the future of aerial combat

[dunkelfalke]

Don't be too sure about that, even now fighter pilots can bend the airframe while maneuvering.

Re:this is the future of aerial combat

[AmiMoJo]

In combat the control radio signals would be easily jammed by the enemy. Presumably the US would do the same, so it would come down to either a human pilot vs. drone or drone vs. drone. The quality of the AI will determine who wins, and that's a very very dangerous road to go down.

To make sure your AI wins it needs to be aggressive and kill stuff. AIs have a hard time determining what is a legitimate military target and what is not, even more so than human pilots do. If past military software is anything to go by it will be buggy as well. So we will end up with badly programmed, heavily armed and aggressive drones operating in unpredictable environments full of civilians. Kinda like current drones, only much much worse.

Re:this is the future of aerial combat

[Anonymous Coward]

Pfft. No.

These are being turned into drones to be shot down by manned aircraft for training and missile tests. We've been doing the same thing with F-4s for decades, but we are running out of F-4s. Hence, the switch to mothballed A/B model Vipers.

You were in a what.. ?!

[snotclot]

Charlie: So, lieutenant, where exactly were you?
Maverick: Well, we...
Goose: Thank you.
Maverick: Started up on a 6, when he pulled from the clouds, and then I moved in above him.
Charlie: Well, if you were directly above him, how could you see him?
Maverick: Because I was inverted.
Iceman: [coughs whilst saying] Bullshit.
Goose: No, he was man. It was a really great move. He was inverted.
Charlie: You were in a 4g inverted dive with a MiG28?
Maverick: Yes, ma'am.
Charlie: At what range?
Maverick: Um, about two meters.
Goose: It was actually about one and a half I think. It was one and a half. I've got a great Polaroid of it, and he's right there, must be one and a half.
Maverick: Was a nice picture.
Goose: Thanks.
Charlie: Eh, lieutenant, what were you doing there?
Goose: Communicating.
Maverick: Communicating. Keeping up foreign relations. You know, giving him the bird!
Goose: [Charlie looks puzzled, so Goose clarifies] You know, the finger
Charlie: Yes, I know the finger, Goose.
Goose: I-I'm sorry, I hate it when it does that, I'm sorry. Excuse me.

pilotless fighter

[green is the enemy]

This is probably the next logical step in the evolution of fighter aircraft. Maintaining a reliable wireless link for quick maneuvers might be an issue. Maybe the maneuvering can be semi-automated.

Re:pilotless fighter

[Anonymous Coward]

This is probably the next logical step in the evolution of fighter aircraft. Maintaining a reliable wireless link for quick maneuvers might be an issue. Maybe the maneuvering can be semi-automated.

That's what the macro keys are for!

One Word

[Anonymous Coward]

Muuurica!

Summary problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary suggests the F-16 was made by Lockheed Martin, but wasn't the F-16 a product of General Dynamics? Also, the F-16 was capable of pulling more than 9gs. A human pilot can almost take 9gs on a good day, but the F-16 was thought to be capable of turning with 11gs. This is, in fact, what makes the F-16 so appealing as a drone, the plane can perform better than a human pilot can tolerate.

Re:Summary problem?

[Deadstick]

The summary suggests the F-16 was made by Lockheed Martin, but wasn't the F-16 a product of General Dynamics?

GD sold the F-16 business to Lockmart in 1993.

9Gs!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Um...the F-16 was designed from the beginning to help the pilot maneuver at 9Gs by having a reclined seat and the side stick controller. Above 9Gs or so is when G-LOC rears it's ugly head.

A split S?

[Nidi62]

But Charlie says that's the last thing you should do.

Re:A split S?

[bakes]

Gutsiest move I ever saw, man.

I'M AN OLD FIGHTER JET!

[Anonymous Coward]

You punk kids with your GPS and HUD! In my day it was line of sight plus VOR, no fly-by-wire, and we liked it that way!

Now get off my tarmac.

Latency

[Sulik]

I wonder what kind of latency they're getting for the controls. Seems like you'd want roundtrip latency to be under 50ms, which best case with speed of light transmission, line-of-sight controls and infinite transmission rate would correspond roughly to a limit of 4000 miles away for the operator... (probably much less in practice since you'd need to account for the time to send visual feedback presumably as a compressed video stream)

Re:Latency

[Nidi62]

Convert some AWACS or another larger-crewed aircraft and make them a "mothership" that can loiter maybe 1000 miles (or however close they can get) away from the combat area, with manned fighters to protect it. Instead of radar or communication stations in the back, you have drone control stations. This would allow multiple drone fighters to be controlled from a distance that is far enough to be relatively safe, but close enough for real time adjustments. 13-19 non-flight crew members in a AWACS (according to wikipedia) would allow 1 aircraft to control 10-15 drone aircraft. With an 8 hour loiter time, the drones could stay on the ground until needed, could fly a sortie, return/rearm, and be ready for another one. Or you could break it up into 2 flights of 5-10 aircraft and you could always keep 1 flight in the air.

Re:Latency

[Deadstick]

It's possible to operate drones from an AWACS loitering just outside the combat area.

Re:Latency

[Duhavid]

Then, enemy cracks comm links, cant maneuver the drones, control mother ship is helpless and gets shot down ( by it's own drones potentially ).
Enemy lands drones either where they like, or crash them into targets of their choosing.

Re:Latency

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would latency matter if it were fully autonomous (TFA didn't clarify)?

Fully autonomous aircraft have already made carrier ladings, http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-07/autonomous-drone-lands-aircraft-carrier, one of the most difficult things to do with an aircraft, so why couldn't this be autonomous?

Re:FIRST POST

[rickb928]

I remember working on F-4Ds. Those (or were they -Gs?) were turned into both drones as targets. QF was the designation I think.

As were F-100s, F-104s, even F-86s, almost all as target drones.

Nothing new to see here, unless one of these shoots down something fast. That would be cool.

I guess the command was...

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Do a barrel roll!"

Fighters have low loiter time

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The drones as used by the US now a days are on very long loiter and patrol missions. More than six hours. Fighters have limited range, limited loiter time, and limited combat time. F16 drones might be very good research platforms, but not very useful operationally. Further drone pilots like the stable slow reacting planes. May be there are some training opportunities with a fast agile plane as drone. But still it operational use is not very clear.

Re:Fighters have low loiter time

[Nidi62]

The drones as used by the US now a days are on very long loiter and patrol missions. More than six hours. Fighters have limited range, limited loiter time, and limited combat time. F16 drones might be very good research platforms, but not very useful operationally. Further drone pilots like the stable slow reacting planes. May be there are some training opportunities with a fast agile plane as drone. But still it operational use is not very clear.

Drone fighter aircraft would be perfect in a Wild Weasel type of role.

Been there, done that...

[bobbied]

Um.. this is NOT new. I used to work at a Naval Aviation Depot where they where making F-4's into radio controlled target drones way back in the 80's. The radio controls where a bit more basic, but the Navy still used them for target practice with live ammo. I remember that after the controls where fitted, some lucky test pilot would get to sit in the aircraft and watch while the guys on the ground tested things.

So, been there, done that.... Have a T-Shirt.

Re:Been there, done that...

[ShakaUVM]

Yep. My dad was part of the group that converted F4s into target dummies.

People would sit on the ground with a grown-up RC remote control and pilot them around as targets for human-piloted planes to shoot down.

Re:Been there, done that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, converting old planes to be radio-controlled for use as target drones has been going on since at least 1946, when B-17s were converted to it. (Although at the time, the pilot controlling would be in another aircraft flying close by with visual contact...)

Re:Been there, done that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct, definitely not new, and hardly innovative. More recently (march 2007), Qinetiq in the UK conducted a few tests with a _fleet_ of UAV (all right, not all of them real) controlled from a Tornado jet fighter.

Re:Been there, done that...

[Sqweegee]

I toured through a B-17 last month that was used as a drone control command ship for an other B-17 back in 1951 for nuke testing in the Pacific.

http://www.azcaf.org/pages/sentjourn.html

Re:Been there, done that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the article says that. Last sentence.

QF-4

[supertall]

They've been doing this for years with old F-4s for target practice over the Gulf. Must be running out of lead sleds. QF-4

Re:QF-4

[timeOday]

Indeed: "After 13 years, the number of F-4 airframes at AMARG that may be droned without excessive rework is shrinking. Moreover, the QF-4's ability to represent the performance and signatures of modern fighter aircraft decreases with each new design that appears. The QF-4's successor as a full-scale target looks set to be the QF-16, starting around 2014." Cite

A good fit

[sootman]

The F-16 is difficult to fly due to its natural instability. It's a good candidate to be operated by a computer. (I mean, it can be told where to go by a human, but the second-to-second flying should be handled by a machine.)

Re:A good fit

[Anonymous Coward]

It was operated by a computer when humans flew it, too.

You don't fly the F-16, it flies you.

Re:A good fit

[Nimey]

That was a deliberate design choice. The '16 is fly-by-wire, which needs computer control /anyway/, so they opted for the increased maneuverability that dynamic instability can give.

Re:A good fit

[Anonymous Coward]

It already *IS* flown by a computer - the human pressing on the control stick just tells the computer what he/she wants it to do - all the actual control-surfact manipulation is done 100% by computer.

Press a little bit to the left, it goes a little bit to the left; press hard to the left, it goes hard to the left. The distance the control surfaces move varies even with the same control-input pressure based on many variables like speed and altitude.

(Note: The F-16 control stick does not *MOVE* at all. It is completely stationary, movement is based on input PRESSURE.)

Re:A good fit

[Anonymous Coward]

The F-16 is actually really easy to fly. The control surfaces already are operated by a computer: the FLCS (FLight Control System).

For the pilot, this is great, as you can actually spend your brain bytes on tactical decisions, rather than stick and throttle inputs.

Re:A good fit

[gottabeme]

Actually it does move slightly. The first F-16s' sticks didn't move at all, and pilots found it too difficult to adapt.

Next military invention

[Hoi Polloi]

Waiting for the drone communications jammers to start coming out. Drone isn't very useful without a communications link.

Re:Next military invention

[ImprovOmega]

Yeah, ground based jammers just make it easy for an ARM to come a knockin'

Re:Next military invention

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true. On the other hand, they are being controlled by satellite, so no ground based jamming will work, and the commands are all digitally encoded, so its kinda tricky to jam. Also, if you are 5 minutes out to target, you can send the plan to the onboard computer and have the plane fly autonomously. Jamming over the target would then not be successful. Also, none have been jammed so far.

AIM-9 is no Air-to-Ground missile

[Anonymous Coward]

AIM-9 is an Air-to-Air IR homing missile.

Re:AIM-9 is no Air-to-Ground missile

[Nimey]

AIM-9X has a limited air-ground capability. OP was probably thinking of the AGM-65 Maverick, though.

Re:AIM-9 is no Air-to-Ground missile

[MightyYar]

That used to be true.

Skynet

[Anonymous Coward]

How come this hasn't been tagged "Skynet"? If this article wasn't the most deserving of a Terminator reference I don't know what would be.

Back to the Future.

[ElitistWhiner]

Welcome back to the future F-16 is the new DeLorean.

Manned fighter or Drone? U can't tell.

Neither drone nor manned fighter, https nor nsa and reporter or terrorist neither...armed and dangerous all

It's called an Immelmann, you jackasses

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a "Split-S."

Old Farts

[Anonymous Coward]

I read this as "Boeing Turning Old Farts into Unmanned Drones"

QF-4 target drones

[gatkinso]

They were flying these years ago. I am sure the F-16 drones are much improved... but it basically the same thing.

Re:QF-4 target drones

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all changed. Same package to fly them.

Re:QF-4 target drones

[Anonymous Coward]

And they are still flying the QF-4 at Tyndall. A couple of them have crashed over the last few months, so maybe the supply is getting low and they're looking to the F-16 for replacements. Sure, there are still a lot of F-4s in the boneyard, but they've deteriorated over time and getting/maintaining support equipment for them is difficult at best. Besides, in their role of flying targets, they hardly represent a typical adversary these days. Any modern fighter in the sky can outperform the old F-4. They're overdue for replacement.

The press seems to be painting this as the vanguard of unmanned fighters. That isn't the case at all. These are flying targets. The prototype was even painted in the QF-4 florescent orange "shoot at me" scheme. They use them for various tests and target practice, but they are hardly meant to be remotely piloted combat vehicles. They already have several kinds of those.

Full disclosure: I work at Tyndall.

'unmanned drone' is redundant?

[schwit1]

Drone: an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drone

Re:'unmanned drone' is redundant?

[drainbramage]

Unmanned does not imply guided.
Unfortunately manned 'should' mean guided, but it is merely implied, not a rule.

Boeing Revealed???

[Anonymous Coward]

Revealed? More like bragging about their first NOLO flight. This isn't a classified contract and it was awarded in 2010. This is the follow-on to the QF-4 Full Scale Aerial Target (FSAT) program, which followed the QF-86 etc.

I flew the QF-4 (both in the manned and unmanned configuration). Target drones are not the same as UAVs. They are targets. They are designed to deliver realistic treat representations and get shot at by our airplanes and that's about it.

The most beautiful...

[kill_-9]

...previously sat mothballed at an Arizona site for 15 years...

Man...what a waste!
The F-16; the most beautiful fighter jet ever built..EVER!

Wish I could have one....

Re:The most beautiful...

[GodfatherofSoul]

I'd say that honor belongs to the Berkut.

Re:The most beautiful...

[kannibal_klown]

...previously sat mothballed at an Arizona site for 15 years...

Man...what a waste!
The F-16; the most beautiful fighter jet ever built..EVER!

Wish I could have one....

Personally I prefer the A-10

But the F-16 is a close second on my list.

Re:The most beautiful...

[dwye]

The F-16; the most beautiful fighter jet ever built..EVER!

Technically, that honor goes to the YF12A, the fighter version of the SR71 Blackbird.

Of course, those were only prototypes for a scrapped program (the design was later redone into the Blackbird), rather than deployed aircraft.

Re:The most beautiful...

[gottabeme]

Agree 100%. There's nothing like a Viper.

Re:The most beautiful...

[gottabeme]

Er...no. Good looking? Maybe. More beautiful than the F-16? Not even close.

Re:The most beautiful...

[kill_-9]

Berkut:
Nice, but the F-16 had a design version similar the Su-37 Berkut way back in the early 80s...as the F-16SFW.
http://www.voodoo-world.cz/falcon/F16SWF.JPG

The F-16 AFTI and F-16 CCV are just as just as beautiful.
The vertical canards under the intake are wicked....
http://crimso.msk.ru/Images6/SC/SC-1/84-1.jpg
http://www.voodoo-world.cz/falcon/old/f16148.jpg
http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/fightersAP07.files/general_dynamics_F-16_CCV_1_big.jpg

Not starting a war here...just enjoy the designs.. :-)

bah, B-52s

[raymorris]

You think F-4 is old? What about B-52s! New in 1952, those haven't been used in combat since ... oh, never mind.

Re:bah, B-52s

[dj245]

You think F-4 is old? What about B-52s! New in 1952, those haven't been used in combat since ... oh, never mind.

The requirements for fighter planes have shifted while the requirements for heavy bombers have not. A fighter plane needs to fly fast, turn fast, and climb fast, while carrying all the equipment needed to shoot down other planes which are trying to shoot down them, and be reliable. If you get technological advancements in materials, computer modeling, etc, you need to redesign the whole plane to be faster, more agile, and to carry new equipment.

In contrast, a heavy bomber needs to carry XXX weight over YYY distance in a reasonable amount of time, and be reliable enough to not worry about falling out of the sky. The B52 has received many upgrades over the years, but changing out the engines every now and then is basically good enough to keep up with the requirements.

for just $25 million, you can

[raymorris]

If you have $25 million to spare, you can probably buy one that was previously exported.

we're jaded. That's pretty cool

[raymorris]

It's sad that after NSA, IRS etc. we're all so jaded we can't just enjoy this as something cool. A remote control plane that's an F-16. That's pretty badass.

Now back to your regularly scheduled realism about the government.

next - Drone M16 tank !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let have a bunch of drone tank - it should be do-able
The next world war - 9 to 5 warrior vs ?

Wait until they start winning all the simulations.

[xtal]

Fighter pilots are done.

Somewhere, someone is running (or should be running) hundreds, thousands, and millions of simulations of air combat simulations training AI techniques. There's hundreds of billions of dollars at stake there.

The computer can monitor all the inputs, and make the best decision and best move, always. Computers can fight in formation perfectly synchronized in real time. Computers don't have egos.

It's taken a little longer, but ultimately - air combat is a exotic game of chess, and we know how that turns out for the human players.

There's a great poetic justice in that some geeks are going to obsolete the fighter pilot.

It is the Gs

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting.
Today the limits of most airframes are beyond the ability of a human pilot.
Flying by wire assisted by sensors could change the battle field air space.

Changes the game a lot more than many would like.

Sitting idle for more than a decade and now flying..... Could be one of the better
ways to spend gvment money I have heard.

Some one was saying "no boots on the ground",,,, oh my, oh my.

Re:Still obnoxious

[Anonymous Coward]

When I worked retail, I enjoyed commenting to the lottery customers; e.g. "another losing ticket", and "can't lose if you don't play". They never proved me wrong.

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[hoboroadie]

Solves the ethical problems of pilot discretion. Which IMHO is the biggest problem of mission objective.

Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

So it can do everything an F16 can do, except it now needs two pilots rather than one. That's an excellent way for beaurocrats to boost their empire.

Re:Still obnoxious

[DarkOx]

Depends. Buying one lottery ticket in a large state lottery may not be such a bad investment; you infinitely increase your chances of wining. Buying the 2-nth tickets is almost always a terrible choice as you get almost no measurable incremental increase in your odds wining for each ticket.

Re:Wait until they start winning all the simulatio

[cdrudge]

The computer can monitor all the inputs, and make the best decision and best move, always. Computers can fight in formation perfectly synchronized in real time. Computers don't have egos.

I take it you've never seen Stealth then?

Seriously though, computers can't always make the best decisions. They can only make decisions as good as what they are programmed to do, and even with that they can only chose which option has the highest probability for success. This doesn't even consider moral/ethical considerations that may come into play.

Re:FIRST POST

[jacknifetoaswan]

Yep! The designation for the remotely piloted fighter aircraft is QF. I'm always sad to see some of our fighting birds go down, but I'm happy that these are really going to go to good use. The previous QF aircraft were much older aircraft, and even in the case of your QF-4, I don't believe them to be an adequate match, when it comes to mimicking the capabilities of fighter aircraft that we might see from an aggressor nation. These QF-16s, while older A/B models, will present a much more realistic target, as they're small, light, very nimble, and very fast. I'd rather see them go down in a blaze of glory than just in mothballs.

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[rufty_tufty]

Just out-source the control of them to teenagers who think they're playing flight sim. End of ethical problem.

That's how these things work, right?
Bonus points if you can have the teenagers who are unknowingly piloting it in the country you are attacking!

Not a new project, but a cool one.

[intermodal]

Boeing has been posting about it even on their Flickr. The QF-16 drones are not armed, but I can imagine they easily could be. Watching these old warbirds get resurrected as drones really makes me question our fiscal commitment to new stealthy fighters. Why build those when we can just build an updated drone version of an existing fighter design for what probably would be pennies on the dollar that cost us zero pilot lives if they go down?

Even if we had to new-build some fighter drones, it would be significantly cheaper to delete all the parts designed for carrying a human payload. Better to flood a sky with a swarm of unmanned fighters than to bear the burden of potentially losing a pilot and the increased cost of extremely advanced stealthy fighters.

In fact, this could obsolete the concept of aircraft carriers as anything but drone recovery vehicles. A drone could be launched without difficulty from just about anything if you can get past the idea of needing to recover it. Or if you redesign it for water-landings. Parachute and raft design maybe, with a crane on a cruiser? With no pilot to recover, the worst that happens is we have to remote detonate it if it sinks.

honestly, no remote cutoff?!

[Thud457]

These QF-16s, while older A/B models, will present a much more realistic target

since that's what we sold to our future adversaries in the first place...

Re:honestly, no remote cutoff?!

[jacknifetoaswan]

Like who?

The US has sold the F-16 to the following countries: Israel, Pakistan, Turkey, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Venezuela.

Of those, all are allies, with the exception of Venezuela, and you can't even say that they're openly hostile to the US, other than Chavez's failed BS tactics. The new president, Maduro, is far more amicable, despite leaning towards a Communist viewpoint. Further, Venezuela only has 9 operational F-16s, and they're A/B models.

Armed version for South Korea?

[Anonymous Coward]

South Korea needs new fighters and its thinking of F-35s.... But... Considering the region and the most likely adversary, could an armed QF-16 pay a rule in a future line-up of fighters?

Mystique of a Fighter Pilot

[cgfsd]

There goes the mystique of a fighter pilot. Now any fat guy in shorts and sandals can belly up to the controls. Wahoo, I have a new job career!

Re:Still obnoxious

[Kelbear]

The probability adjusted value of a $1 dollar ticket to get a 100mil payout with a 1 in 175mil chance of winning is 100 is a little over 57 cents.

Why pay $1 to get $0.57 back?

Lottery tickets and gambling in general is mainly about buying hope. You lose a little money, but get a little temporary hope in the meantime that you get to enjoy until the results come in. Nothing wrong with a little entertainment as long as you know what you're paying for it.

On the other hand, the recent powerball lottery with a $2 ticket, and a 400mil payout has a little under $2.29 payout. A positive return...assuming you welcome taking on the level of risk involved to sink enough money to realize the desired outcome. But it's not crazy to buy a ticket or two when the jackpot is that high.

Future is unmanned drones

[Anonymous Coward]

The fighter jocks will have to get use to sitting in a trailer drinking a super size soda while piloting the drone. It won't matter if you are fat,short,tall if you are good you are the next fighter ace.

Re: FIRST POST

[rickb928]

I knew a few F-4 drivers who could give the F-16 a challenge, having flown both and knowing tactics can equalize the advantage of airframe. Especially with unequal pilot skills. But generally, the F-16 should be both a challenging target and a useful RPV. win-win.

Re: FIRST POST

[jacknifetoaswan]

Agreed. I'm sure that a really good, veteran pilot could make the F-4 do things that a relative newbie in an F-22 couldn't handle, and could probably defeat them, under certain circumstances.

Re:FIRST POST

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the Aerialbots was an F-16 (Sky Dive according to wikipedia)

Just wait until

[nopainogain]

Those guys at Boeing learn to marry the technology in your car's traction control with the unmanned fighter jet. Picture Arnold Schwarzenegger in a pair of cheap sunglasses saying "it has begun".

Re:FIRST POST

[Sporkinum]

I agree. I don't know what the story is as they have been doing this with old fighters for decades.

Re:Wait until they start winning all the simulatio

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously though, computers can't always make the best decisions. They can only make decisions as good as what they are programmed to do, and even with that they can only chose which option has the highest probability for success. This doesn't even consider moral/ethical considerations that may come into play.

Of course it does. You can program those in too. Anyway, these are remotely controlled. There's a guy in a room making all those unethical decisions.

I take it you've never seen Stealth then?

Works of fiction are not good citations.

Next step: autonomous

[Kanopy]

Make them fully autonomous and able to perform together (like swarm robots), and you'd REALLY have something! Don't forget the fail-safes like self-destructing so the enemy can't get the technology, and remote pilot over-ride. An air attack from that kind of *swarm* would be Awesome! Don't forget to have a plane just for filming the whole thing.

Veteran pilot in old ship wins

[oldestgeek]

That was learned with the first MIG defector's ship vs the F86. The best pilot won no matter which plane flown esp. when it was Chuck Yeager.

Re:Veteran pilot in old ship wins

[jacknifetoaswan]

But, that won't always be true, especially in today's world, with look down shoot down radar systems, long range air-to-air missiles, and stealthy aircraft. An F-22 can see a bandit a hundred miles away, from a much greater altitude, fire a missile, and go about his business without the bandit ever knowing the F-22 was there.

In a straight dogfight, using guns, I'd definitely say that the veteran pilot has the battle well in hand, 99% of the time. Thrust vectoring on the F-22 might be the only instance where a greener pilot has the upper hand, but you don't get to be an F-22 pilot without having a LOT of stick time.

Re:FIRST POST

[Molochi]

Heh, I was at recess in third grade when they rolled the YF16 out of the General Dynamics hanger in red white and blue livery. That school was on the Carswell runway so we got to see it put through nice aerobatic displays for a couple of days. I think it was on day 2 the plane's landing gear got stuck and the pilot had to land the plane on its belly on the grass median between the two runways. But that was on the news and I didn't get to see it.

Did they install the sweeping red light in front?

[DutchUncle]

Oh, wait, no internal computing, just a remote control plane. You can buy those from kiosks at the mall. Never mind.

Re: Cost is effectively zero

[BranMan]

I look at it this way: For a shot at a big jackpot I can toss out the $1 or $2 price of a ticket (or go crazy and buy 2 tickets!), and it's effectively a cost of zero. I make enough that buying those tickets is effectively zero % of my income - big jackpots don't come around all the time. For a little fun, and a crazy 'what if?', why not?

Also you mentioned the 400mil payout vs the $2 ticket. But there are a lot of other significant prizes to win, even down to the $4 minimum prizes. Taking those into account would make it more than $2.29, though I won't do the math to figure out how much more.

value of unpiloted weapons

[bryny]

Wenever the topic of the value of a pilots life comes up, it always reminds me of Isaac Asimov's short story, "A Feeling OF Power". It's alway interesting to turn a value proposition upside-down.

http://www.themathlab.com/writings/short%20stories/feeling.htm

The Russians

[Meski]

Have copied this, and are using Antonovs for drones.

pinko or realist?

[Thud457]

I was only half seriously noting that we seem to like to sell weapons hither and yon where it sometimes comes back to bite us in the butt.

That list seems a little longer than what you cite.

Egypt was the example on the tip of my mind.
How sure are you about Turkey in the next 25 years?
Pakistan has serious trust issues as far as I am concerned.
You always have the possibility of "accidental" "friendly fire" from Israel if it suits their agenda. It's happened before.
Any state in the Middle East could flip at a moment's notice.
Given 100 years of meddling in their internal affairs, and any state in Central or South America is a good candidate to give us a bloody nose if they can get in a cheap shot. Particularly if our influence wanes or we're distracted by some other quagmire.

But hey, if we don't sell these guys killing machines, someone else will. And reap the resulting influence and economic benefit.

Re:pinko or realist?

[jacknifetoaswan]

That list definitely has more on it than I expected. I went by the list that Wikipedia has on the main F-16 page, that lists the countries that have used the F-16 in actual combat. I probably should have dug a little deeper.

Looking at the list you provided, Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey are certainly the most likely to be volatile. Egypt certainly does operate a formidable force - 224 in various configurations. Pakistan operates 63. Turkey operates 240, plus another 30 that are likely to come online within the next few years. Also, Turkey's force is probably the most up-to-date, behind our own.

So, that said, with the exception of those three cases, which I agree, could cause trouble at any time, and operate decently sized fleets, most countries have a dozen of these, and many are older models. I look at a lot of this in the same way that I look at the US Navy selling out-of-date Adams-class Destroyers to the Greeks, or Kidd-class Destroyers to the RoC. The money is going to get spent, and the systems are going to be bought, either from the US, Russia, Germany, Spain, or whomever. When we're selling out-of-date equipment, we've got the upper hand. Not only do we have their money, but we know exactly how their systems work and how to defeat them. Heck, even when we sell the latest AEGIS derivatives to Spain, Norway, Japan, South Korea, and Australia, they don't get everything, and nothing that they get is as good or better than what the US Navy gets.

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[N0Man74]

Yeah, that's what we need. Teenage gamers who thnk they are playing an online game.

        Starscream69 has killed RedBaron42.
        RedBaron42: I'm on your team asshole!
        StarScream69: u mad bro? lolz