Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Air Force Converts F-16 Jets Into Wingman Drones (businessinsider.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the air-to-ground dept.

New submitter Zmobie writes: In a new program, the U.S. Air Force has converted and tested F-16 planes as drones that are able to fly with complex mission parameters. The program is designed to use retiring F-16 jets to act as autonomous "loyal wingman" for manned F-35 jets and fly their own strike missions. Business Insider reports: "The U.S. has used F-16 drones before as realistic targets for the F-35 to blow up in training, but on Monday it announced fully autonomous air-to-air and ground strike capabilities as a new capability thanks to joint research between the service and Lockheed Martin's legendary Skunkworks. [...] But having F-16 drones plan and fly their own missions is only part of a much larger picture. The future of the U.S. Air Force may well depend on advanced platforms like F-35s commanding fleets of unmanned drones which can act as additional ears, eyes, and shooters in the sky during battles." Further reading: TechCrunch, Popular Mechanics, Engadget

8 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. F-35 Control and Command by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You assume the F-35's can even get airborne.

    Not a good assumption.

  2. No by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The future of the U.S. Air Force may well depend on advanced platforms like F-35s commanding fleets of unmanned drones which can act as additional ears, eyes, and shooters in the sky during battles."

    That works great until there is a jammer. In other words, it works fine against small, overpowered nations against whom there are already a myriad of options.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:No by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You might remember that there already have been a few wars since 1945. You can quite quickly face an equal or near-equal enemy in a proxy war.

      Or even face an actual enemy with modern gear if the US (or this time someone else, it's not like other nations can't be dumb) is stupid enough to sell them, like 1979 to Iran.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:No by necro81 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You might remember that there already have been a few wars since 1945.

      Correction: turns out 1945 was the last time we officially were at war. At least, if you're talking about how how it pertains to the Constitution.

      Korea: just some misadventure by the 38th parallel. War never actually declared.

      Vietnam: just some misadventure on the Mekong. War never actually declared. I think this movie summed it up best: Bob Hope doesn't play at police actions.

      Cold War: a convenient shorthand for simmering tensions between two nuclear-capable factions. War definitely not declared.

      All those fun and games we had down in Central and South America? That's just the military and intelligence agencies off at summer camp. War never declared.

      Remember that time when we put the beatdown on Saddam Hussein because he invaded Kuwait? Nope, not a war.

      You better believe we would never go to war to stop a genocide in the Balkans.

      Remember that other time we put the beatdown on Saddam Hussein, because he supposedly had weapons of mass destruction? That wasn't a war either. Can you believe it?!

      And the gift that keeps on giving in Afghanistan? We still haven't gotten around to declaring that a war.

      Now, I'll grant you - those last two were A-OK due to an authorization for the use of military force. I'm not sure what Iraq had to do with 9/11, but G.W. can't be wrong.

      Still, it ain't a war unless Congress says so.

      Isn't it?

  3. Kinda defeats the purpose by OYAHHH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Defeats the purpose of a F-35 doesn't it? Let's build a super stealthy aircraft and then have multiple none stealthy aircraft going into battle with it. Basically the F-16s will be saying, "There is an F-35 in the neighborhood, look harder and you will find it.

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
    1. Re:Kinda defeats the purpose by rocket+rancher · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Defeats the purpose of a F-35 doesn't it? Let's build a super stealthy aircraft and then have multiple none stealthy aircraft going into battle with it. Basically the F-16s will be saying, "There is an F-35 in the neighborhood, look harder and you will find it.

      You have a point...almost. The *exact* same argument was used way back in the Dark Ages (1970-1990) when the US DoD was struggling to find a way, any way, to counter the increasing numerical gap and decreasing technological gap between US forces and Soviet forces. One just had to look at a sitrep from the Fulda Gap in southern Germany -- Warsaw Pact had 270 Soviet tank divisions and 4500 aircraft vs NATO's meager 115 divisions and 1500 aircraft -- to see that the balance of military power was tilted very heavily in the USSR's favor. The Sovs could suffer nearly 3:1 losses and still win the day.

      The were two ways that the US decided to address the imbalance. The first and most (in)famous was the development and deployment of tactical nukes into Germany. Truly not a good idea. Once it leaked to the press that the Americans had decided that nuking Germany was ok to stop the Russians, PR was so bad that they had to be withdrawn, with a serious loss of face for the Americans.

      The second was the development of "force multipliers." The deployment of multi-role combat aircraft like the F-16 in the 70s and F-18 in the 80s that could engage targets in the air or on the ground was one way of addressing Russia's 3:1 advantage.

      Another force multiplayer (and the reason why you are not quite right) was the development and deployment of airborne warning and control systems (AWACS) that could detect and direct NATO's numerically inferior assets to converge on incoming Soviet assets. NATO didn't have to have numerical parity if it could determine where the axis of attack was and direct resources to meet it. This (it turned out) was a huge win for NATO. The Westinghouse radar on the E-3A AWACS could see for a radius of 600 miles and could easily discriminate between ground and air targets. But the take away here is that its range meant it could sit well behind the forward edge of battle, effectively immune from counter attack.

      Yes, as you point out, and as AWACS detractors forty years ago pointed out, the enemy knows it's there. But knowing it's there and being able to do something about it are two different things. Seriously -- a stealthy F-35 is not going to be your priority target when it is the easier-to-see and (probably) easier-to-kill F-16 that is raining hell on your infrastructure.

  4. Re:Reminded of the argument about postal jeeps by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well, if you were selling the F-16, that would most certainly cut into the F-35 sales. Consider: For one F-35 that may or may not ever be actually battle worthy, you could get 5 F-16 that have proven time and again that they are.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Re:Reminded of the argument about postal jeeps by Tinsoldier314 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your premise that, "X is too poor an aircraft for modern missions." "X is useful as a drone aircraft with no pilot." makes sense when you consider the risk of losing the most valuable thing, the pilots. Your premise framed another way, "X poses too high a risk for pilot loss in modern missions" and "X with no pilot can continue to provide value at low risk".

    Personally, I love the idea of using older platforms as meat shields in the worst case and cheap force augmentations in the best. For missions where the F16 would've been just fine, we can continue to use it without fear of putting pilots in danger.

    I just don't see a downside.