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

5 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. 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?

  2. 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
  3. 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.