Boeing Turning Old F-16s Into Unmanned Drones 239
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."
great weapon to use in the middle east (Score:0, Insightful)
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:Still dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org], 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.
this is the future of aerial combat (Score:5, Insightful)
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:great weapon to use in the middle east (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Still dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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:bah, B-52s (Score:4, Insightful)
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.