Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

c4isrnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#31

Post by jdavis703 »

plan6 wrote: post #14

Note that QF-16's, not F-16's, are the unmanned/drone version of the F-16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting... PS- I'd be worried about these being controlled by an AI or hacked. MQ-9's are small and go 300 MPH, so, while they're deadly, I wasn't worried about them as much. F-16's can go 1,350 MPH and can be "well-armed". USAF…

I've heard of a situation where a disgruntled military contractor who was recently terminated stole a helicopter from base by flying it away. In this case the cause was inadequate physical security procedures. But this is something that happens, and something that people consider defending against.

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#32

Post by dogma1138 »

dfsegoat wrote: post #7
zrail wrote: post #2

This is nothing new. The USAF has had unmanned F-4 phantoms for decades that are used for target practice and live fire weapons testing. The F-4 fleet is being replaced with surplus F-16s.

You are right for sure. But they have never had a 4th gen (fly by wire / designed to be aerodynamically unstable;) fighter with this capability. In my (potentially uninformed) opinion, It is definitely a big milestone because it opens the door to 5th gen fighters becoming UCAVs - almost like making the GPS guided JDAM weapon out of a 1960s dumb bomb by "bolting on" the JDAM module as a cheap aftermarket kit.

That's one of the current proposals for the A-10, since there are plenty of people in the armed forces that want to keep it for CAS, the air force doesn't like it as much since it's not "sexy" but the marines, infantry, and armor troops that are saved by CAS love the old ugly thing.

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#33

Post by sandworm101 »

dogma1138 wrote: post #32
dfsegoat wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right for sure. But they have never had a 4th gen (fly by wire / designed to be aerodynamically unstable;) fighter with this capability. In my (potentially uninformed) opinion, It is definitely a big milestone because it opens the door to 5th gen fighters becoming UCAVs - almost like making the GPS guided JDAM weapon out of a 1960s dumb bomb by "bolting on" the JDAM module as a cheap aftermarket kit.

That's one of the current proposals for the A-10, since there are plenty of people in the armed forces that want to keep it for CAS, the air force doesn't like it as much since it's not "sexy" but the marines, infantry, and armor troops that are saved by CAS love the old ugly thing.

Likely A-10 replacement, imho.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion

Strait-winged, turbofan, six wing hardpoints and an internal bay, extended loiter time, only $20mil+$3k/hour operating costs ... this thing has serious potential.

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#34

Post by dogma1138 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #33
dogma1138 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one of the current proposals for the A-10, since there are plenty of people in the armed forces that want to keep it for CAS, the air force doesn't like it as much since it's not "sexy" but the marines, infantry, and armor troops that are saved by CAS love the old ugly thing.

Likely A-10 replacement, imho. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion Strait-winged, turbofan, six wing hardpoints and an internal bay, extended loiter time, only $20mil+$3k/hour operating costs ... this thing has serious potential.

Might as well go with an F-35 then, it can carry more stuff.

The A-10 can't be replaced by effectively a trainer with a light ground attack option.

The A-10 is a flying tank, it's main gun is very useful for CAS and it can carry a lot of armaments and more importantly take a lot of punishment.

The A-10 is simply not sexy, the air force doesn't want it, it might not even want to provide CAS roles in general.

The USAF offered the US army to take the A-10 fleet in house the Army doesn't want it since logistically it can't really support fixed wing aircraft at this point, maybe the marines would take it in.

The A-10 isn't expensive, it's probably the most cost efficient aircraft the US has produced since WW2, it's simply not a sexy Gen 5 FBW doodad.

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#35

Post by Tloewald »

sandworm101 wrote: post #33
dogma1138 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one of the current proposals for the A-10, since there are plenty of people in the armed forces that want to keep it for CAS, the air force doesn't like it as much since it's not "sexy" but the marines, infantry, and armor troops that are saved by CAS love the old ugly thing.

Likely A-10 replacement, imho. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion Strait-winged, turbofan, six wing hardpoints and an internal bay, extended loiter time, only $20mil+$3k/hour operating costs ... this thing has serious potential.

It's not clear to me how tough this plane would be (especially relative to the A-10).

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#36

Post by gaius »

dogma1138 wrote: post #34
sandworm101 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likely A-10 replacement, imho. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion Strait-winged, turbofan, six wing hardpoints and an internal bay, extended loiter time, only $20mil+$3k/hour operating costs ... this thing has serious potential.

Might as well go with an F-35 then, it can carry more stuff. The A-10 can't be replaced by effectively a trainer with a light ground attack option. The A-10 is a flying tank, it's main gun is very useful for CAS and it can carry a lot of armaments and more importantly take a lot of punishment. The A-10 is simply not sexy, the air force doesn't want it, it might not even want to provide CAS roles in general. The USAF…

Might as well go with an F-35 then, it can carry more stuff.

But is too expensive to ever risk danger-close. Whereas A-10's have had mortars fired over them in certain circumstances...

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#37

Post by sandworm101 »

Tloewald wrote: post #35
sandworm101 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likely A-10 replacement, imho. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion Strait-winged, turbofan, six wing hardpoints and an internal bay, extended loiter time, only $20mil+$3k/hour operating costs ... this thing has serious potential.

It's not clear to me how tough this plane would be (especially relative to the A-10).

Tough is open to debate. In some ways the A-10 is a very delicate plane. It's radar profile and low speed make it a bit of a sitting duck in certain situations. It can survive ground fire, but not from modern radar-guided AAA.

The scoprion is interesting, once you get past the new look. It's got roughly the same capacity, size and costs of the A-10. But it's a little faster, flies higher, and of course lacks the legendary 30mm. The second seat (either flown or removed for space) adds lots of EW potential that would make it more likely to not be shot down than the A-10. And there might be room for a fancy big gun in that internal bay. I;m most impressed by it's 5-hour loiter/CAS time. Like I said, the concept has potential.

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#38

Post by dogma1138 »

gaius wrote: post #36
dogma1138 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might as well go with an F-35 then, it can carry more stuff. The A-10 can't be replaced by effectively a trainer with a light ground attack option. The A-10 is a flying tank, it's main gun is very useful for CAS and it can carry a lot of armaments and more importantly take a lot of punishment. The A-10 is simply not sexy, the air force doesn't want it, it might not even want to provide CAS roles in general. The USAF…

Might as well go with an F-35 then, it can carry more stuff. But is too expensive to ever risk danger-close. Whereas A-10's have had mortars fired over them in certain circumstances...

The USAF is going to have plenty of F-35's to spare, and it it can carry standoff munitions for CAS, not unlike light attack aircraft which you aren't going to be placing into direct line also.

The A-10 was designed to take a beating, it has redundancies on top of redundancies, and armored cabin and fuel tanks, you can blow half of it's tail and it will still land (tho an F-15 has landed with 1 wing ;)).

Light attack/trainers are OK but they aren't in the same league.

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#39

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

dogma1138 wrote: post #32
dfsegoat wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right for sure. But they have never had a 4th gen (fly by wire / designed to be aerodynamically unstable;) fighter with this capability. In my (potentially uninformed) opinion, It is definitely a big milestone because it opens the door to 5th gen fighters becoming UCAVs - almost like making the GPS guided JDAM weapon out of a 1960s dumb bomb by "bolting on" the JDAM module as a cheap aftermarket kit.

That's one of the current proposals for the A-10, since there are plenty of people in the armed forces that want to keep it for CAS, the air force doesn't like it as much since it's not "sexy" but the marines, infantry, and armor troops that are saved by CAS love the old ugly thing.

They don't like it because it isn't a ticket to a cushy lobbyist position in the industry since Fairchild is gone and isn't a source of new contracts to siphon of tax dollars.

They cook up all sorts of BS excuses about the costs of special support equipment for A-10 (already paid for) while blissfully ignoring the massive waste blown away on JSF and F=22.

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#40

Post by burfog »

sandworm101 wrote: post #37
Tloewald wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me how tough this plane would be (especially relative to the A-10).

Tough is open to debate. In some ways the A-10 is a very delicate plane. It's radar profile and low speed make it a bit of a sitting duck in certain situations. It can survive ground fire, but not from modern radar-guided AAA. The scoprion is interesting, once you get past the new look. It's got roughly the same capacity, size and costs of the A-10. But it's a little faster, flies higher, and of course lacks the lege…

Low speed is not a problem. Compared to missiles, all publicly known manned aircraft are really really slow. Even the SR-71 was kind of slow, and it no longer flies.

Radar profile is a minor issue. Normally, the A-10 would be facing unguided and perhaps IR-guided threats. The A-10 has flares and chaff.

I don't think modern radar-guided AAA is much of an issue given the use case. The radar gets taken out, either by the A-10 itself or by something high and stealthy or even by a cruise missile. The larger systems are not easy to move and hide. For the smaller systems, the A-10 can withstand 50mm shells hitting the cockpit armor.

Post reply on HN