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

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#51

Post by s_q_b »

therobot24 wrote: post #23
s_q_b wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IOC = Initial Operating Capability FOC = Full Operating Capability Most contracts have tranches of payment released with each phase: concept, IOC, FOC. IOC has also come to mean, "This works, but we aren't sure enough we got all the bugs." So... I suppose it's more like a military Beta.

just went through the ACQ training this week, IOC means the plane has passed operational testing (IOT&E). Meaning there should be very few, if any, bugs left. The Full Rate Production (FRP) decision milestone was already passed and the contract should already be awarded for production - within the lifecycle of the product we are now in the Operations and Support phase, meaning fielding. FOC just means all unit lots a…

The transition from IOC to FOC is outlined as part of the DoD acquisition contract, but under statute it means, "We've got at least one unit with associated services being run by the customer at at least one location."

That's not a very high bar.

Today, the deployment of a weapons system involves a lot of integration with the existing information technology stack, for "network centric warfare" or whatever the new buzzword is for "using high speed data links for over-the-horizon kills."

In addition to the systems integration, you're usually debugging the human processes such as training and maintenance throughout.

That's where the bugs shake out in the transition from IOC->FOC.

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#52

Post by sandworm101 »

dogma1138 wrote: post #50
sandworm101 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 interce…

Yes, but even a moderate increase in target speed dramatically reduces the range of the missile, along with increasing the time for the pilot to react. Small missiles do not travel at a constant speed. They hit top speed the moment their motor burns out and then coast. By the time they are near their effective range they may be moving slower than the target. If the missile has to chase the aircraft (all shoulder-fired/IR sams) a faster aircraft will be able to remain lower and still out of effective range despite being slower than the missile's max speed.

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#53

Post by dogma1138 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #52
dogma1138 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 interce…

Yes, but even a moderate increase in target speed dramatically reduces the range of the missile, along with increasing the time for the pilot to react. Small missiles do not travel at a constant speed. They hit top speed the moment their motor burns out and then coast. By the time they are near their effective range they may be moving slower than the target. If the missile has to chase the aircraft (all shoulder-fire…

Yes and no, a lock-on within the visual range of the seeker is not going to give an aircraft too much time to outrun it, aircraft at low altitudes aren't going to be able to go supersonic very well anyhow, even if it's a fighter.

Also modern MANPADs have sustained supersonic speed which is why they are only good for 4-5KM, but within that they'll splash you at max speed. A SA-18 traveling at 800M/S+ has only a range of 5000M so there isn't any "coasting" this isn't a movie they fly for 5-6 seconds and either hit something or drop like a rock.

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#54

Post by nopzor »

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.

fly by wire (necessary for aerodynamically unstable aircraft) shouldn't really make autonomous/unmanned flight harder, should it? the computer _already_ knows how to translate "pilot intent" into stable flight.

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#56

Post by nopzor »

dfsegoat wrote: post #43
mitchty wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And already tested through 15k+ hours I think.

Re: Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC

#57

Post by dfsegoat »

nopzor wrote: post #54
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.

fly by wire (necessary for aerodynamically unstable aircraft) shouldn't really make autonomous/unmanned flight harder, should it? the computer _already_ knows how to translate "pilot intent" into stable flight.

I was more trying to say that - to my knowledge - they had never done this with a fly-by-wire fighter. The QF-4 (previous aerial target system) was all hydraulic / analog systems.
Post reply on HN