Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military Transportation United States

The F-16's Replacement Won't Have a Pilot At All (popularmechanics.com) 206

Posted by EditorDavid from the droning-on dept.
"The next combat aircraft to enter the U.S. Air Force inventory will not be a manned sixth-generation fighter or even the Northrop Grumman B-21," reports Aviation Week.

"By fiscal 2023, the Air Force expects to deliver the first operational versions of a new unmanned aircraft system (UAS) called Skyborg, a provocative portmanteau blending the medium of flight with the contraction for a cybernetic organism." The Skyborg family of aircraft is expected to fill an emerging "attritable" category for combat aircraft that blurs the line between a reusable unmanned aircraft system and a single-use cruise missile. As the aircraft are developed, Skyborg also will serve as the test case of a radical change in acquisition philosophy, with ecosystems of collaborative software coders and aircraft manufacturers replacing the traditional approach with a supply chain defined by a single prime contractor...

At the core of the Skyborg program is the software; specifically, the military aviation equivalent of the algorithm-fed convolutional neural networks that help driverless cars navigate on city streets... The autonomy mission system core — as integrated by Leidos from a combination of industry and government sources — will be inserted into multiple low-cost UAS designed by different companies, with each configured to perform a different mission or set of missions...

"Even though we call Skyborg an attritable aircraft, I think we'll think of them more like reusable weapons," says Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics.... "I expect that the pilots, depending on the mission, [will] decide: Does the Skyborg return and land with them and then go to fight another day, or is it the end of its life and it's going to go on a one-way mission?" Roper explains. In some cases, the pilot may decide a target is important enough that it is worth the loss of a Skyborg, even if its service life has not been used up, he adds.
"The Air Force's goal is to build up a large fleet of armed, sort-of disposable jets that don't need conventional runways to take off and land," reports Popular Mechanics: Skyborg will be available with both subsonic and supersonic engines, indicating both attack and fighter jet versions. The basic design (or designs) will likely be stealthy, carrying guided bombs, air defense suppression missiles, and air-to-air missiles inside internal weapons bays. Interesting, according to AvWeek, the Air Force is considering Skyborg as a replacement not only for the MQ-9 Reaper attack drone but early versions of the F-16 manned fighter....

Unmanned jets like Skyborg promise to remake the U.S. Air Force and other air forces. Manned aircraft have become increasingly large, difficult to develop, and expensive. This in turn means the Pentagon can afford fewer jets, ultimately leading to a smaller Air Force. Unmanned jets, on the other hand, are smaller, easier to develop, and cheap — allowing the Air Force to buy lots of them... The drone will grow the fighting arm of the U.S. Air Force, move air power away from air fields, fly alongside fighter jets, and escort traditionally undefended assets like the E-3 Sentry.

And it promises to do it all affordably. If the Air Force really can get Skyborg into the game by 2023 it will dramatically change the shape of aerial warfare.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The F-16's Replacement Won't Have a Pilot At All More

The F-16's Replacement Won't Have a Pilot At All

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday July 11, 2020 @03:39PM (#60287090)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:What took them so long? (Score:5, Funny)

      by infolation ( 840436 ) on Saturday July 11, 2020 @04:06PM (#60287136)
      Not for the Mitsubishi Zero,

      • Re:What took them so long? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Saturday July 11, 2020 @04:55PM (#60287254)

        Modern aircraft have to turn at supersonic speeds for evasive maneuvers. The F-16 can handle about 9 G. An unmanned aircraft refitted for unmanned flight may manage up to about 12 G, then they tend to fail mechanically. The Us Air Force doesn't like to publish specifications for drones, or missiles: I'd bet they can take considerably higher G's.

        • Re:What took them so long? (Score:4, Informative)

          by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Saturday July 11, 2020 @06:13PM (#60287412)
          According to wikipedia, the sidewinder missile's warhead features a safe/arm device requiring five seconds at 20 g acceleration before the fuze is armed.

          (Admittedly that doesn't mean its control surfaces can exert 20g's, or that it could withstand them along another axis)

        • Re:What took them so long? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by catmistake ( 814204 ) on Saturday July 11, 2020 @06:18PM (#60287420) Journal

          Modern aircraft have to turn at supersonic speeds for evasive maneuvers.

          I'm not sure that is true anymore. I know there are a lot that know way more about this, but the era of dogfighting, I read, was over. The F-35 engages from 2000 miles away. The F-22 kills you from 1800 miles away, and there is no way to know it is even there. What is maneuvering for? The F-16 is a different creature, but the object is the same I think, air superiority. It is a cool machine, but why is it even needed? Seems to me small bombers would be a better application for pilotless jets. But, disclaimer, what do I know?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by caseih ( 160668 )

            It maybe read over and over, but it will prove false over and over. Any conflict with another power will likely involve it. Back during Vietnam, military doctrine was there was no need for dog fighting. Over the horizon missiles was where it was at. They quickly learned that doctrine has limitations, and dogfighting is still important. That's still true today. My cousin is an instructor in the air force, teaching pilots how to dog fight.

            • It maybe read over and over, but it will prove false over and over. Any conflict with another power will likely involve it. Back during Vietnam, military doctrine was there was no need for dog fighting. Over the horizon missiles was where it was at. They quickly learned that doctrine has limitations, and dogfighting is still important. That's still true today. My cousin is an instructor in the air force, teaching pilots how to dog fight.

              I don't mean to be smart, but can you say when the last dogfight was by anyone? I'd bet it was the late 1980's... in Top Gun. I have not read extensively. I was curious about the strike fighter and the raptor, looked over the wikis, read some articles elsewhere. These make dogfighting unnecessary because they engage from so far away. They could dogfight, but there is absolutely no point. Maybe autonomous jets will bring it back... if maybe an enemy has them also? I'll bet anything these new pilotless jets a

              • I don't mean to be smart, but can you say when the last dogfight was by anyone?

                That we know of?? India and Pakistan, half a year ago or so.

                As for major powers like the US and Russia over the past three decades, it's hardly remarkable that fighter planes didn't see much action against each other during what was a cold war.

              • Re:What took them so long? (Score:5, Informative)

                by catmistake ( 814204 ) on Saturday July 11, 2020 @08:24PM (#60287700) Journal

                It maybe read over and over, but it will prove false over and over. Any conflict with another power will likely involve it. Back during Vietnam, military doctrine was there was no need for dog fighting. Over the horizon missiles was where it was at. They quickly learned that doctrine has limitations, and dogfighting is still important. That's still true today. My cousin is an instructor in the air force, teaching pilots how to dog fight.

                I don't mean to be smart, but can you say when the last dogfight was by anyone?

                Answer my own question.

                There has been only one dogfight involving a U.S. aircraft in the last 20 years: in 2017, a U.S. Navy pilot shot down a Syrian fighter.

                October 8th, 1996 There have been a series of aerial clashes between the Greek and Turkish air force, many involving close-in dogfights, the most recent of which occurred on October 8th, 1996 over Aegean Island of Chois.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by caseih ( 160668 )

                  I don't imagine it's very often at all. Come to that, neither does the air force fire missiles over the horizon very often in combat. But they practice both. Pilotless aircraft will change the calculus no doubt. Currently, though, fighter pilots practice dog fighting on a regular basis to stay sharp.

                • Re:What took them so long? (Score:4, Interesting)

                  by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Sunday July 12, 2020 @02:33AM (#60288556)

                  Back during Vietnam, military doctrine was there was no need for dog fighting. Over the horizon missiles was where it was at. They quickly learned that doctrine has limitations, and dogfighting is still important.

                  The reason people make mistakes like this is because they assume they can make a change (eliminate guns aboard fighter aircraft), and everything else will remain the same. They forget that their opponents can make changes too. Missiles require a lot less work to score a kill, so pilots will prefer to use them instead of guns. But if you remove the guns, opposing pilots will alter their behavior to exploit the change you've made.

                  For the same reason, I'm skeptical of an all-drone Air Force. Once you completely eliminate the pilot from your aircraft, the #1 priority for an opposing air force will no longer be shooting down your aircraft/drones. It'll be to jam the communications you're using to control those drones.

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by Xest ( 935314 )

                I'd actually argue with recent advances in low observability in fighter jets that the risk of bumping into each other close range is higher than ever. The only reason it's not really happened recently is because the US has had a near monopoly on stealth aircraft.

                As soon as China and Russia's 5th gen fighters start entering the market I suspect close in combat is going to become a big deal again.

                I read a book not so long ago about British Sea Harrier pilots in Yugoslavia, they genuinely feared the MiG 29s th

          • I know there are a lot that know way more about this, but the era of dogfighting, I read, was over.

            The era of dogfighting is over so long as you are facing an enemy that lacks effective countermeasures.

            The relevant tracking technologies in missiles are all based on EM radiation... passive systems looking at infrared and visible light, and systems that do active illumination such as radar and laser-based methods.

            The U.S. military probably doesnt even use infrared guidance at all anymore due to the existence of effective countermeasures, and the active illumination methods dont work from thousands of

        • Re:What took them so long? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Saturday July 11, 2020 @07:35PM (#60287592)

          Also, pilots need to be trained. Computers just need to be programmed.

          Manned aircraft are designed for six 9's of reliability: 99.9999%, or one fatality in a million flights.

          Unmanned aircraft are designed for four 9's, or one catastrophic failure in 10,000 flights.

          Each additional 9 doubles the cost. So, everything else equal, the unmanned aircraft can cost a quarter as much.

        • AA Missiles are in the 50 G range these days.

        • Except that dogfigthing is kind of in the past with longer and longer ranged missiles. With things like the meteor having an effective range of more than 100 km.

          I think that the real reason to go unmanned is more because of the fact that missile combat is taking over.

          Thus ground attack now: You fly to a predesignated point and launch a missile at an other predesignated point, all the pilot does need to do it to press the button when at right point.

          Air to air combat now: you detect a hostile aircraft in sens

    • There's immense cultural momentum in having crewed combat aircraft. Pilots are Officers, and combat aircraft assignments, particularly fighters, are highly respected and admired. Most senior officers in the Air Force were combat pilots.

      Another way of looking at it - being a combat pilot is exciting, glorious, and gets you laid, and all that is worth the risk of death.
      • This is the kind of thinking that loses wars.

        • This is the kind of thinking that loses wars.

          Yet it has happened over and over.

          We prepared for WW1 by training calvary.

          We prepared for WW2 by building battleships.

          Generals and admirals are always preparing for the last war.

          That is why they should never be trusted to make important military decisions.

          • That is why they should never be trusted to make important military decisions.

            So we shouldn't trust our military leaders/experts to make important military decisions. Who, pray tell, should we trust?

            • People on Slashdot who haven't fallen victim to a broken moderation system??

            • So we shouldn't trust our military leaders/experts to make important military decisions. Who, pray tell, should we trust?

              A random roll of a fair dice would be better than trusting the generals. The army will always recommend more tanks. The navy more ships. The air force more planes. The real answer is more robots.

            • You trust nobody; that's kind of the point.

    • There are really two questions I have:

      1) Can they really get the AI to the point that it's good enough to beat pilots reliably? Or will it be just like the Tesla, running into concrete barriers?

      2) If it's so good, why not build the intelligence into a missile, and then attack from afar using a conventional plane as a carrier? A missile is a lot cheaper than a drone.

      • Re:What took them so long? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by mbkennel ( 97636 ) on Saturday July 11, 2020 @05:54PM (#60287368)

        1) Can they really get the AI to the point that it's good enough to beat pilots reliably? Or will it be just like the Tesla, running into concrete barriers?

        Yes, it is now, most of the time. https://magazine.uc.edu/editor... [uc.edu]

        and won't have the limitations of human piloted aircraft---like always needing to fly back to base when fuel is low enough.

        2) If it's so good, why not build the intelligence into a missile, and then attack from afar using a conventional plane as a carrier? A missile is a lot cheaper than a drone.

        You could, but there are issues of range and expense. Very long range missiles are heavy and expensive. This is basically a reusable cruise missile with air-breathing kerosene fueled engine (much longer range than rockets per pound) with a smart computer, plus much less expensive shorter range missiles and bombs. The skyborg can maintain the expensive AESA radar and get close enough to identify and track targets while the weapons don't need that expense and capability. The net figure is "what's the cost for a diversified multi-capability system over the long term". A few super high end missiles could do some of the missions, but when they've run out they're out.

        And in a 1-way trip, skyborg is a high-end expensive long range missile. But in other circumstances, something like this could help in a swarm with a manned platform and orbit around a light battlefield like Afghanistan and waiting for targets to appear. Cheaper than operating a heavy bomber in the long run.

      • 1) Can they really get the AI to the point that it's good enough to beat pilots reliably? Or will it be just like the Tesla, running into concrete barriers?

        Not a good analogy. A Tesla has to drive without crashing 99.9999% of the time. But a drone that can win a dogfight 50% of the time would be invaluable.

        2) If it's so good, why not build the intelligence into a missile, and then attack from afar using a conventional plane as a carrier?

        What is the point of the conventional plane? Why does it need a human pilot to "attack from afar"?

      • There are really two questions I have: 1) Can they really get the AI to the point that it's good enough to beat pilots reliably? Or will it be just like the Tesla, running into concrete barriers?

        It's quite possible that they will have a pilot, just not in the aircraft. Drones currently do that; with the proper setup you could have a pilot and supporting observers using real time data in a fight. This would make being able to ensure secure communications links and their survivability key.

        AI could augment that; and if needed a pilot could ram an opposing aircraft at no risk to the pilot.

        • Last time I checked, the latency in drones is too slow to make split second decisions, so they need to be at least somewhat autonomous.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

      Sure, but there are other reasons for keeping a pilot on board. It mostly comes from situational awareness.

      One thing to consider is that even war has rules. You can't shoot everything you see, and even more so during peace time. A pilot in his plane will not just have his target, he will see everything that happens around him and will be able to make more informed decisions.

      Computer vision is also limited, a human pilot is better at following his target and interpreting its actions. And humans tend be bette

      • Re:What took them so long? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by weilawei ( 897823 ) on Saturday July 11, 2020 @05:31PM (#60287324)

        For example if the plane sustained damage, the pilot may still fly it and even stay useful.

        This is less and less true of modern airplanes. For instance, the SR-71 was fly-by-wire (first analog and later digital), because a human simply couldn't react fast enough. It used dual ramjets, and some 70% of thrust was produced by the ram action at cruise speed (the plane being pulled along by the frontal low pressure zone instead of mass ejected out the back or pressing on the atmosphere). In a turn, if the pilot disabled the IGV (inlet guide vanes) controller, which adjusted the position of the shock front in the inlet to ensure continued flow at different altitudes and speeds, a simple turn would cause what was known as an "unstart". The flow of air through the inside engine on a turn would stall, because it was physically moving slower and covering less distance. This, in at least one incident, caused the plane to violently yaw and shear itself to pieces due to extreme unequal forces. The flight controller's response to an engine unstart was to immediately cut the other ramjet (much faster than any human could) so the plane didn't self-destruct. Then, you had to dive 20,000 to 50,000ft in order to perform an air start, and only then could you climb back to altitude.

      • Computer will have total 360 view of the whole battlefield and surroundings all, in various wavelengths + data from remote sources. A pilotless plane can arguably make better tactical choices than a human can, because it actually has all of the data in its use in real time. It can react instantly and multitask better. Humans are very limited in comparison.

        The weak link are the data and communication links. Maybe these devices can be blinded, jammed or fed with false information, which they believe then is r

    • Keeping a human pilot on board alive has been the performance limiter in fighter aircraft for at least two generations.

      Perhaps, but replacing the human limitation with the limitation of having to get a signal through enemy jamming in order to control the craft does not seem to be an improvement. I realize that hacking the signal to enable control fo the craft can be made extremely difficult but just blasting the spectrum with noise to drown out any control signal does not seem that hard to do.

      • Not really, since the new systems will be increasingly autonomous rather than remote-controlled, and secondly because who knows what they have in mind to guarantee the comms stay up. For example I'd guess you can control one from a nearby F35 with no link to home base. Or you could launch several of these to create a mesh network that reaches back to the control station. And none of that is even necessary unless our satellites are already dead. Just blasting out RF noise won't work, you can't drown out
        • True, but the problem with a tight, directional signal is that you have to continually adjust the receiver to always point at the source and this is very hard to do when travelling at high velocity let alone when people are shooting at you. It would be interesting to learn what their solution is but I suspect we will not know since that will be very sensitive information.
          • I would guess future platforms will use this:

            "Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) is a fast switching narrow directional communications data link between stealth aircraft.[1] It began as a method to coordinate between F-35 aircraft (the Joint Strike Fighter), but HQ Air Combat Command wants to expand the capability to coordinate future USAF strike forces of all AF stealth aircraft, including the B-2, F-22, and unmanned systems. MADL is expected to provide needed throughput, latency, frequency-hopping an

  • Sounds like they could easily be disabled (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    No human onboard means remote control which could be disrupted as well as guidance systems disruption, either that or we are trusting computer software to kill the right thing

    Either is bad

  • The military (or, more accurately, the congresspersons "representing" the manufacturers) define that word somewhat differently than anyone else.

    In any case, I'm sure these high tech expensive weapons will come in very handy against our most likely future opponents - low-tech groups like the Taliban and Daesh.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fred911 ( 83970 )

      ''high tech expensive weapons will come in very handy against our most likely future opponents - low-tech groups like the Taliban and Daesh.''

      That may be true right now, but they remember the Ottoman Empire and believe that Jihad is ordained and justified. The fact that currently any 12 year old can purchase all the bits to make a UAV easily capable of an autonomous accurate flight of 50 miles, and the telemetry included in the device is significantly more advanced than a piloted Cessna [especially a VFR pi

      • Israel is not a good example, as they practice pre-emptive strikes against claimed enemies outside their borders.

        Pre-crime isn't a solution.

  • Skyborg (Score:2)

    by PPH ( 736903 )

    A malamanteau [xkcd.com] of Skynet and Borg.

  • I think this will fail because of the massive increase in cool callsigns required for all the ghost borg pilots. There are not an infinity of cool callsigns.

    These 100 cool callsigns are already taken: https://aviationhumor.net/the-... [aviationhumor.net]
       

  • '' algorithm-fed convolutional neural networks ''

    Isn't that a mouthful of buzzwords. But as far as I'm concerned any algorithm that allows a device to protect itself from destruction, is defensive by nature, is perfect.

    But, there needs to be a human responsible for eliminating the life of an adversary. The rules of engagement require the ability of a human brain to factor the necessity of such a terminal act. In case of a breach of the rules, a human needs to defend reasoning or suffer the consequences of n

  • Tower this Talon requesting an flyby!

  • Hasn't there been an agreement on the use of robots in warfare?
    How does this not run afoul of three exact same problems but from the sky... It sets a terrifying precedent: if another country can just swarm with Kamikaze killer aircraft I'd say the future just got darker.

  • The F-35 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by guacamole ( 24270 ) on Saturday July 11, 2020 @05:05PM (#60287272)

    Wait a sec, wasn't the F-35 meant to be F-16's replacement? I guess that didn't work out well...

    • LOL good point. Luckily they now have a plan that will save on maintenance costs, disposable jet engines!

    • That part is just storytelling anyways. I'm sure there will be a long transition period in which F16's will be in service in declining numbers, and these new landable missiles will be increasing, but beyond that I don't see much rationale for claiming it's a direct replacement. Nobody can say whether the f35 or this new system will be doing more for sure anyways, it depends on who we end up fighting and how much they do to screw up our autonomous tech.

  • What? (Score:3)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Saturday July 11, 2020 @05:20PM (#60287296)

    "Attritable airplanes" ... Seriously? .. Rockets are becoming reusable and airplanes are going disposable. To quote Elon Musk, "This is madness."

    Which defense contractor wrote the requirements?

    • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Firethorn ( 177587 ) on Saturday July 11, 2020 @09:23PM (#60287842) Homepage Journal

      "Attritable airplanes" ... Seriously? .. Rockets are becoming reusable and airplanes are going disposable. To quote Elon Musk, "This is madness."

      Retired USAF here, it makes perfect sense to me.

      Remember how most cars look alike these days, compared to the '80s and before? Driven by similar requirements and efficiency. Reusable rockets has been tried before, remember the shuttle? It was only recently that it became practical though.

      The problem the USA has had in making highly capable multipurpose combat aircraft is that in doing so we also make them too expensive to lose. This means that if an enemy can put enough air defenses up around a target, they can actually protect it from attack. We won't risk losing our planes(well, there can always be a target with a high enough priority...). So those planes become even less valuable for their cost, because they can't be used on those hard targets. We end up using expensive cruise missiles or such, or attempting to dismantle the air defense net before gong after the primary target. Both expensive.

      Make a drone that is only a bit higher in cost than a similar number of cruise missiles compared to the munitions that it can mount, there's no human cost in losing it, and yeah, it can be sacrificed if necessary. Given that these airframes have limited lifespan anyways, if you suspect that your mission is going to be a suicidal one for the drone in question, you can do it with your oldest/most stressed airframe to begin with.

  • I don't like the attritable aspect, but this stuff will be awesome for the Air Force. Can you imagine controlling a fleet of them like a video game? Will be great for smartphone-controlled close air support.

  • This wil be fun, once a very naughty boy with a toy redirects a swarm of these towards the Washington Reichstag.

    If it doesn't already do it all by itself due to a glich in The Little AI that Wasn't. :D

  • Then it's their pilotless fighter jet, not yours.
    Also, control lag.
    Also, jamming technology.
    Also, Windows bluescreens on the damned thing, and into the drink it goes.

    Your tax dollars at work!

  • >drones that could fly alongside fighter jets and act as a âoeloyal wingmanâ to a crewed fighter

    Not going to happen. Not with AI. Controlled from the ground, sure. But then what's the point of sending a pilot up to have wingmen? AI and modern computers are great for rote flying of known tactics. But teamwork requires strong AI. Where's the program that knows the pilot is likely to choke with two on his tail, but not if it's a high fight? Where's the program that knows which line from flight sc
  • I call BS on claiming 'combat operational aircraft delivered in 2023' with contract award July 2020. No US military aircraft post WWII has gone from drawing board to operational service in 3 years.

    • I call BS on claiming 'combat operational aircraft delivered in 2023' with contract award July 2020. No US military aircraft post WWII has gone from drawing board to operational service in 3 years.

      Wile I agree, not having to worry about pilot survivability could significantly reduce development time.

  • When you crash all your planes every time you fight someone it's so much easier to get Congress to buy you new toys.
  • I take it that Skyborg software would be done by Microsoft - Now THAT would be scary.
  • What is rather more amazing is that Popular Mechanics still exists - albeit as an online magazine. So, you got to take this article with a proverbial pinch of sodium chloride...

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close