Slashdot Mirror


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

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

30 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. Oh hell yeah! by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    F-16s aren't so obsolete because of the airframe or performance so much as avionics and weapons systems.

    So 'upgrade' them to drone management, free them from the G-force limits of human pilots in the cockpit, and boom!

    If they become part of a hive mind, so much the better!

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  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 Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Yes indeed, Mr. Harry Potter, I'm sure they never imagined you would have a jammer spell. Those defense engineers are so dreamy!

    2. Re:No by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      That works great until there is a jammer.

      When jammed, a drone will compete its last mission.

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

      Nearly any plausible scenario has the US going up against small, overpowered nations.

      The only non-allies with sophisticated capabilities are Russia and China, which both have nukes. Conflict with either of them will mean exchanging ICBMs, not fiddling around with drones.

    3. 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.
    4. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      From the system requirements section: "Always-on Internet connection required for software license verification by Raytheon."

    5. Re:No by ganv · · Score: 2

      I think it is pretty hard to disrupt a drone that was designed to withstand EMP. It doesn't take a very heavy conducting shield to protect integrated circuits. And the penetration depth means it is exponential decay inside the shielding so you can't overcome it by simply using "more juice" unless you can create exponentially more juice. Jamming communication might be more effective. But autonomous systems are not so dependent on communication. And there are counter-measures to most common jamming methods. In short, the main vulnerability of drone air forces seems to be cost to engineer and build robust survivable drones. And I fear that vulnerability is not going to be enough to keep them from becoming very common.

    6. Re:No by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 2

      Considering the fate of the last several top of the line Russian/Soviet air defense systems, probably not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    7. 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?

    8. Re:No by supremebob · · Score: 2

      Come on... anyone who's watched Futurama knows that you send waves of waves of your own men against the kill bots until they reach their programmed maximum kill count and shut down!

  3. Reminded of the argument about postal jeeps by TWX · · Score: 2

    So back when the US Postal Service decided to retire the postal jeep in favor of the Grumman LLV, rather than offer them for sale they decided to have them crushed. They played both sides of the argument. When asked why they were being retired they said because they were no longer good for delivery, and when they were asked why they were being crushed instead of sold they said that they didn't want the competition buying and using them. So they were too good to sell, and too bad to leave intact?

    This point with the F16 and other airforce aircraft strikes me the same way. "X is too poor an aircraft for modern missions." "X is useful as a drone aircraft with no pilot." Which is it? I mean, we're in an era where asymmetric warfare is the norm. If we were specifically geared-up to fight the Soviet Union throughout eastern Europe then perhaps the weapons systems that we currently have might be getting obsolete against what Russia has in the pipeline, or even against potential adversaries like the Chinese, but we're generally fighting opponents that use consumer-grade drones to drop handgrenades on their opponents, or against opponents that don't even have what we would consider to be proper uniforms or unit structure. It seems a little silly to declare existing technology obsolete when it's meeting the needs.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. 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.

  4. Didn't we already have a movie about this... by thejynxed · · Score: 2

    ...if I recall, one of those autonomous drones got hit by lightning, went haywire and decided it wanted to blow up all sorts of things.

    --
    @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    1. Re:Didn't we already have a movie about this... by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Number 5 is .... Alive!

      Not malfunction, not malfunction...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Didn't we already have a movie about this... by desdinova+216 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was thinking more likely http://www.imdb.com/title/tt03...

    3. Re:Didn't we already have a movie about this... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Number 5 is .... Alive!

      Not malfunction, not malfunction...

      Gotta admit, Stephanie had pretty nice software.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  5. Implication by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    So the Pentagon finally realized that the F-35 is SO bad it needs an F-16 escort? And what's the logic behind sending a non stealthy aircraft as wingman for a stealthy one?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Implication by bobbied · · Score: 2
      The F35 isn't all that stealthy.... It's better than the F-16, but the F-16 shows up on radar like a 100W light bulb in a small dark room so that's not saying much. The stealth really just makes it slightly harder to shoot down with a radar guided weapon and those are hardly ever used when you are close. Usually the weapon of choice is IR tracker guided, which is *really* hard to defat using stealth and flares are pretty effective countermeasure....

      I've always thought it was funny when the DOD tried to sell the F35 as necessary because it was stealthy... For close air support, who cares about stealth? Yea it helps you in the air to air world or ground to air (i.e. it helps you get to and from the target) but if you have air superiority and stay above 10,000 feet going to and from the battle lines it's not going to help your survival rate that much. If you don't have Air superiority and you are flying ground attack close air support missions, you are going about this all wrong. Personally, give me an F-18 and the ordnance load it carries over stealth thank you, and buy a pile of F-22's to fly CAP over the area shooting at anything flying w/o the proper IFF codes for the day.

      The F35 is proof that you cannot make an aircraft that does everything well and if you try to make one that does everything equally well, you end up with one that does nothing well that costs you a lot of money. It's a jack of all trades, but master of none.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Implication by lgw · · Score: 2

      So the Pentagon finally realized that the F-35 is SO bad it needs an F-16 escort? And what's the logic behind sending a non stealthy aircraft as wingman for a stealthy one?

      The F-35 isn't particularly stealthy in the strategic sense, it's just hard to get a missile lock on. If anything, the F-16s will ensure no missile locks onto the F-35 until the F-16s are used up.

      The F-35 has nifty radar that lets it target an enemy without the enemy being able to just home on the radar. The F-16s have never been given that - the avionics are pretty old. While I doubt this is the case, it's theoretically possible for the F-35s to identify targets and the F-16s only turn on their radars when they have a missile in flight.

      Mostly though, I think the F-16s are just seen as expendable at this point, but they're still high performance missile platforms and so why not get some use out of them. Of course, yes, this is an admission that the F-35 isn't going to get the job done by itself.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  6. 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 dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      F-35 is not super stealthy, or it wouldn't be exported, like it happened with F-22.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. 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.

  7. Re:F-35 Control and Command by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oh they fly, sometimes....

    ...in whole or in part, certain restrictions apply, warranty void if exposed to oxygen...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Re:AF pilots are not re-enlisting by sl3xd · · Score: 3, Informative

    Flying in the Air Force has been seen as a stepping stone to flying airlines as long as I remember.

    Being a military pilot has always been seen by many pilots as a way to accumulate a lot of flight time, which is the #1 requirement to be an airline pilot.

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  9. Looks like Stealth predicted the future by Jzanu · · Score: 2

    Good near future sci-fi flick turns out to predict technology a decade later.

  10. Clever move by manu0601 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Next step is a grounded F35 used as a control center for unmanned F16. That will fix the numerous F35 issues.

  11. Heh, F-35s are that bad, eh? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    They need protection by the aircraft they're supposed to replace?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  12. Sounds good until it shoots ME by RubberDogBone · · Score: 2

    The F-16 is a fantastic plane. Effective, fast, and cheap as hell. Why we don't have swams of the damn things I don't understand. It can match or beat 90% of the things our opponents fly, and for the remaining 10%, we could continue to use the F/A-18, F-15 and the F-22 and F35s that we have on hand.

    If we lack pilots for the F-16, making them autonomous sounds great. They are a cheap platform, $20 million or so each. Which is one quarter to one sixth as much as an F-35. At six-to-one costs, flood the damn skies with the things. Even if the enemy shoots some down, overwhelm them in numbers and let the F-35s make easy kills.

    Just keep the sharp end aimed over thataway, thanks

    --
    Sig for hire.
  13. Re:F-35 Control and Command by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    Not a good assumption.

    You do realize there are already over 200 F-35s built, flying normal training missions on a daily basis, don't you?

  14. Re:F-35 Control and Command by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

    Slashdot, the eternal home of F-35 trolling.

    Concerning this particular story, I actually called it a while back. It's a logical extension. The F-35 is focused about bringing a revolution not so much due to its physical design, but the level of fault-tolerant integrated information awareness that it brings to the battlefield. Having drone "wingmen" which are cheaper and not as stealthy but carry more sensors and payload to the battlefield is a natural way to augment the F-35's capabilities. At the same time it helps overcome one of the main weaknesses of drones - the ability to jam them (the main reason that humans are still considered important). When EW isn't in play, the "wingmen" can be kept at significant distance from lead craft, reducing the risk of exposing them; on the other hand, in the case of loss of signal, they can close ranks and improve the gain (since each craft, before loss of signal, knew the locations and flight plan / mission at the time of loss of signal).

    It's really a natural synergy.

    These days, there's nothing about stealth that makes a craft "invulnerable"; stealth craft can be targeted and hit, and the ability to do so keeps improving. But it comes at costs. Radar systems have to be shorter range and/or larger and more powerful (harder to move/conceal and easier to target), and are more sensitive to weather. The locks you get are poor, making it not just harder to get a usable lock, but increasing the effectiveness of countermeasures. Conversely, IRST and LIDAR can offer detection of stealth aircraft at good distance if you know right where to look, or short distances if you don't, but not both at the same time. And there are physical limits (aperture) in this regard, not just sensor / processing limits. And sensors are already highly chilled, so it's not like you can mimic an improved aperture by improving the signal to noise ratio with better cooling. It all comes down to how many photons you're receiving.

    Countermeasures will continue to advance, and the vulnerability level will slowly tick up - but a stealth aircraft always starts out with an advantage in that measure. To top it off, F-35, by virtue of its relatively small size, is more innately resistant to advances in anti-stealth technologies than larger systems that have to rely more heavily on shape and materials technology to gain an equivalent level of stealth.

    There's a long laundry list of things people are going to want to add to F-35 with time, and I know varying people will always complain about random things from the list that it doesn't have at present. And one by one, they'll trickle in. F-35 is not meant to be an endpoint, but a starting point.

    --
    You don't exist. Go away.