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

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#41

Post by dfsegoat »

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…

I wouldn't describe it as delicate - these things are meant to make it home after taking multiple direct hits from 23mm+ or a hit from a man-portable AA missile - and they have tested that durability:

http://warthognews.blogspot.com/2011/07/from-archives-oif-st...

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s314/Lethal_014/EMLandv1a...

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#42

Post by sandworm101 »

burfog wrote: post #40
sandworm101 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

>> the A-10 can withstand 50mm shells hitting the cockpit armor.

No. Wherever you read that is dead wrong. 0.50 caliber glancing rounds yes, the sort of thing from a machine gun. And it is meant to survive nearby air bursts from 37mm AA shells, their shrapnel, but not direct hits. A hit from a 50mm exploding shell would rip the plane into pieces no matter where it impacted.

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#43

Post by dfsegoat »

mitchty wrote: post #13
zrail wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it most of these airframes aren't fit to fly with a crew anymore because they've aged out. Airframes that don't get into this program get scrapped.

Indeed, the F16 was originally designed for about 8 000 hours of service time. And most airframes appear to have lasted about 20 years. Once your aircraft gets to the point it will start to fail, why not use it as a few as a target?

They are still pushing the airframe through 12k hours.

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#44

Post by plan6 »

protomyth wrote: post #29
plan6 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Next up, live fire testing moves to Holloman Air Force Base, N.M. The military will ultimately use QF-16s for weapons testing and other aerial training." http://www.boeing.com/features/2013/09/bds-qf16-09-23-13.pag...

When you shot at a drone its called "weapons testing".

You are correct. It seems like they don't plan to use them intentionally to carry nukes. They could perhaps be fitted with one and possibly wire it into the self-destruct mechanism, but that would take a lot of work, I'd think.

They do carry a bomb, though- it's not meant for combat, but could be abused for such to make the entire plane a bomb carrying device, if it were taken over:

"Granted it is removable, but they also carry, as it was described to me, a 2000 lb class (or maybe more reasonably it was 500#, but the 2k figure seems to stick out in my memory for some reason) HE warhead in the spine for range control/destruction purposes if anything goes awry. Long story short, it would take a lot more money and a lot more testing to ever make them combat capable."

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27741

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#45

Post by sandworm101 »

dfsegoat wrote: post #41
sandworm101 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I wouldn't describe it as delicate - these things are meant to make it home after taking multiple direct hits from 23mm+ or a hit from a man-portable AA missile - and they have tested that durability: http://warthognews.blogspot.com/2011/07/from-archives-oif-st... http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s314/Lethal_014/EMLandv1a...

Nobody would debate that the A-10 is a beast. If you are going to be raked with ground fire it's where you want to be. But we have to look at the entire mission profile. The A-10 is slow, making it more susceptible to shoulder-fired missiles, causing it to have to fly higher on the way to and from the mission. Higher means greater exposure to radar-directed weapons, not the A-10's strong game. Or it can fly lower, reducing its range and requiring airfields closer to the fight, airfields which are more difficult to protect. Flying low also reduces tanker options. There are a hundred factors. The evaluation of weapon systems really does require a committee.

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#46

Post by throwanem »

plan6 wrote: post #44
protomyth wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you shot at a drone its called "weapons testing".

You are correct. It seems like they don't plan to use them intentionally to carry nukes. They could perhaps be fitted with one and possibly wire it into the self-destruct mechanism, but that would take a lot of work, I'd think. They do carry a bomb, though- it's not meant for combat, but could be abused for such to make the entire plane a bomb carrying device, if it were taken over: "Granted it is removable, but they…

Those are absurdly high figures for a range safety package - it's a self-destruct system, meant to terminate out-of-control flight by making the platform no longer airworthy. You don't need a Mark 82 to do that.

Indeed, a firsthand source [1] describes the QF-16's range safety package thus:

> A small ball of flames burst from the middle of the aircraft, followed by thick black smoke, but no sound. The sound followed soon after with a deep reverberating boom.

> The extent of the damage went undetected at first, due to the amount of smoke billowing from the wreck. Once it cleared, it revealed the F-16 had been split in half between the cockpit and the wings.

Something on the scale of a 500- or 2000-pound bomb, as this random forum commenter suggests, would've scattered pieces of aircraft all over the hardstand, in which it would also have left a hole.

[1] http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?pr...

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#47

Post by burfog »

sandworm101 wrote: post #42
burfog wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

>> the A-10 can withstand 50mm shells hitting the cockpit armor. No. Wherever you read that is dead wrong. 0.50 caliber glancing rounds yes, the sort of thing from a machine gun. And it is meant to survive nearby air bursts from 37mm AA shells, their shrapnel, but not direct hits. A hit from a 50mm exploding shell would rip the plane into pieces no matter where it impacted.

0.50 caliber sounds more like the canopy.

Minor correction, from Wikipedia, with references: The armor has been tested to withstand strikes from 23 mm cannon fire and some strikes from 57 mm rounds.

References:

Donald and March 2004, p. 18

Jenkins 1998, pp. 47, 49

Note "strikes", not shrapnel. The armor thickness varies. From some angles, the cockpit can take a 57mm shell. From other angles, it's only good for 23mm.

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#48

Post by protomyth »

plan6 wrote: post #44
protomyth wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you shot at a drone its called "weapons testing".

You are correct. It seems like they don't plan to use them intentionally to carry nukes. They could perhaps be fitted with one and possibly wire it into the self-destruct mechanism, but that would take a lot of work, I'd think. They do carry a bomb, though- it's not meant for combat, but could be abused for such to make the entire plane a bomb carrying device, if it were taken over: "Granted it is removable, but they…

Look, the Air Force has plenty of real combat drones with actual remote weapon controls. This is simply a target drone program to follow up of QF-4 program since we are running out of old F-4s. No sane actor would do anything you suggest since there are purpose built drones that have actually been used to do weapons release. We have enough existing ability to drop weapons that the new Navy drone will actually be used for refueling missions to keep the hours off the F-18 airframes.

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#49

Post by throwanem »

protomyth wrote: post #48
plan6 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct. It seems like they don't plan to use them intentionally to carry nukes. They could perhaps be fitted with one and possibly wire it into the self-destruct mechanism, but that would take a lot of work, I'd think. They do carry a bomb, though- it's not meant for combat, but could be abused for such to make the entire plane a bomb carrying device, if it were taken over: "Granted it is removable, but they…

Look, the Air Force has plenty of real combat drones with actual remote weapon controls. This is simply a target drone program to follow up of QF-4 program since we are running out of old F-4s. No sane actor would do anything you suggest since there are purpose built drones that have actually been used to do weapons release. We have enough existing ability to drop weapons that the new Navy drone will actually be used…

It's also worth considering that, if Skynet decides she wants a squadron of B61-armed F-16s to play with, there are easier ways to get one. Like, oh, lying to people.

Why do people get so hung up on the idea that a superhuman AI can't gain access to weapons if there are no weapons equipped for direct remote control? Why expect a superhuman AI to have difficulty suborning humans through deceit? I mean, don't get me wrong - I tend to think that whole avenue of existential threat analysis owes much more to science fiction and the seductive nature of apocalypticism than to anything in reality. But if those are your priors, this seems a very odd oversight.

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#50

Post by dogma1138 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #45
dfsegoat wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't describe it as delicate - these things are meant to make it home after taking multiple direct hits from 23mm+ or a hit from a man-portable AA missile - and they have tested that durability: http://warthognews.blogspot.com/2011/07/from-archives-oif-st... http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s314/Lethal_014/EMLandv1a...

Nobody would debate that the A-10 is a beast. If you are going to be raked with ground fire it's where you want to be. But we have to look at the entire mission profile. The A-10 is slow, making it more susceptible to shoulder-fired missiles, causing it to have to fly higher on the way to and from the mission. Higher means greater exposure to radar-directed weapons, not the A-10's strong game. Or it can fly lower, re…

The speed of the A-10 wouldn't matter against MANPADs, sub/transonic light-attack/trainers wouldn't fare any better. A block-2 stinger missile travels at mach 2.5, the SA-18 Igla can do almost Mach 3, and the 9K333 "Pussy Willow" (no, I didn't made it up but GJ NATO) is presumed to be even faster, tho it's very new and still not a lot of operational information about it. If they get a lock on you within their interception range even a fighter aircraft would not outrun them.
Post reply on HN