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

DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

darpa.mil

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 357 posts

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#321

Post by energy123 »

cloudie78 wrote: post #311
energy123 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

F-16s are reusable missile trucks. F-35s are reusable missile trucks with a smaller capacity but with stealth and better telemetry. Reusability is just common sense economics. A JDAM costs only $30k USD.

Once you consider the full picture it doesn’t make sense. There’s a reason why Russia and Ukraine are lobbing ballistic missiles and cheap drones at each other. There’s a reason why Iran conflict looks the way it does.

I can provide explanations for these observations.

Russia and Ukraine is like this because they lack F-35s. This is what an air parity war looks like. Air parity wars are qualitatively different phenomena, and should not be conceptually clustered alongside air superiority wars during analysis.

Iran: Strategic outcomes are irrelevant to the question of unit economics in airpower. The amount of JDAMs they've dropped and the amount of money they've saved by using JDAMs instead of ballistic missiles is actually insane. Israel, for example, used over 20 Sparrow ballistic missiles to assassinate Khamenei, but they did this for an explicit tactical purpose and generally prefer to use reusable aircraft (as does any modern airforce who are fighting an air superiority war). If you would advocate for using ballistic missiles instead of JDAMs, why would this cause a different outcome, and why would this cost less money than using JDAMs? Regarding Shahed one-way attack drones, they aren't much cheaper than JDAMs and they're significantly less effective. They also do not provide a platform for forward telemetry like F-35s and ISR drones do.

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#322

Post by thesmtsolver2 »

willy_k wrote: post #316
thesmtsolver2 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

*Shuts off Internet access to Chinese labs (womp womp, no blatant distillation of US models)*

And what’s wrong with distillation? In its own right, and especially considering how those models were trained in the first place - in what world is it right that US firms are free to use copyrighted / otherwise non-public works however they like, while others are ostensibly in some moral wrong for just using the product (completely normally) and then using the outputs in a way that threatens US firms.

Who said blatant distillation was wrong?

It just shows that Chinese “labs” are dependent on the US.

Also, from a scientific perspective, distillation is decades old and contributes nothing scientifically.

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#323

Post by cloudie78 »

energy123 wrote: post #321
cloudie78 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you consider the full picture it doesn’t make sense. There’s a reason why Russia and Ukraine are lobbing ballistic missiles and cheap drones at each other. There’s a reason why Iran conflict looks the way it does.

I can provide explanations for these observations. Russia and Ukraine is like this because they lack F-35s. This is what an air parity war looks like. Air parity wars are qualitatively different phenomena, and should not be conceptually clustered alongside air superiority wars during analysis. Iran: Strategic outcomes are irrelevant to the question of unit economics in airpower. The amount of JDAMs they've dropped an…

> Strategic outcomes are irrelevant to the question of unit economics in airpower.

lol

> look at how much cheaper expensive bombs are than expensive ballistic missiles are

Right, to drop a JDAM you need to be within 30km of a target. Any 70s era SAM can prevent that since they usually cover an area of 150ish km if Serbia could shoot down an F-117, then it can shoot down an F-16. I’m using Serbia as an example here because they operated 60s era Soviet SAM systems, and that’s the floor for Iranian capabilities.

F-35 is a joke too, evidenced by checks notes 0 sorties over Iran in the last two months.

So, with that out of the way, since a plane costs 30mil for F-16 and 80-100mil for an F-35, both equally useless against near-peer much less peer level adversary, a ballistic missile is suddenly much MUCH cheaper option.

The way to defeat air defences is saturation, you want 30-100 of 10k/unit one-way drones to exhaust the air defences, just aim them at the launcher sites or the radars. That’s 300k-1mil for a saturation, and then let’s say another 6 million for 6 JASSM cruise missiles for total of 6000lbs of ordinance delivery to hit whatever it is you’re actually trying to hit.

Alternate is you fly 3 F-16s each loaded with 4 500lbs JDAMs, so that’s 90mil lost when they get shot down by a MANPADs along the way to the target which will probably be somewhere in the middle of the country and another 1mil lost in one-way drones. Plus the political cost of losing pilots.

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#324

Post by cloudie78 »

ACCount37 wrote: post #313
cloudie78 wrote: post #265

What’s the point of this useless exercise? Once you optimise for G forces, speed, cost, lethality - you end up with a missile. We have those already. And we know this already. Give it more fuel and maybe loitering capability. Something with a jet engine for cruising and a small rocket engine for terminal phase kill. I’ll have my 100mil now please and thank you.

First, missiles are not reusable. "JDAM trucks" are. Jet engines are expensive, you know. Second, US already has a lot of F-16s, and not a lot of dedicated high end drones. US has more F-16s than it has trained F-16 pilots. Things like this enable turning "manned" airframes into "optionally manned" airframes. Which enables using those F-16s for cheaper for routine "JDAM truck" runs, and also for the kinds of missions…

F-16s are reusable until they get shot down and you need to be within 30km of the target to drop a JDAM. Any SAM from 60s onwards can deny entry to F-16/F-35. As soon as F-35 opens hatches to drop a bomb it’s on the radar.

Small jet engines are 20-25k/unit

One F-16 gets you 20-30 ballistic missiles, or cruise missiles.

Math doesn’t math in your case, volume and saturation over high tech gadgets that barely work.

So much so even the US military is waking up to this reality.

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#325

Post by tim333 »

CrzyLngPwd wrote: post #101

So, it's a drone with uncessercary baggage such life support and a pilot that can't stand the Gs well. For some reason I am reminded of Dark Star :-)

It's also a drone with a lot of capabilities current drones don't have. Mach 2, up to 2600 miles range, ~9 tonne payload, compatible with all sorts of missiles.

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#326

Post by energy123 »

cloudie78 wrote: post #323
energy123 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can provide explanations for these observations. Russia and Ukraine is like this because they lack F-35s. This is what an air parity war looks like. Air parity wars are qualitatively different phenomena, and should not be conceptually clustered alongside air superiority wars during analysis. Iran: Strategic outcomes are irrelevant to the question of unit economics in airpower. The amount of JDAMs they've dropped an…

> Strategic outcomes are irrelevant to the question of unit economics in airpower. lol > look at how much cheaper expensive bombs are than expensive ballistic missiles are Right, to drop a JDAM you need to be within 30km of a target. Any 70s era SAM can prevent that since they usually cover an area of 150ish km if Serbia could shoot down an F-117, then it can shoot down an F-16. I’m using Serbia as an example here be…

There's been zero sorties over Iran in the last two months because the war aims in the current round of fighting are narrowly scoped to Hormuz. That's not a commentary on the capability of the F-35.

You mention MANPADs as if it is a significant vulnerability, but there's been only one or two shootdowns of jets by Iran during the previous two rounds of fighting. I encourage you to look at the number of jets shot down in the Vietnam War and the First Gulf War to understand how insane this is.

One way attack drones are not a solution in any conflict with significant strategic depth and against an opponent with air superiority. You cannot protect your industrial base if you sacrifice air superiority due to the opponent possessing F-35s. Which means you cannot pump the volumes required to achieve the kind of attentional effects we see in Russia-Ukraine. This is the reason why it's analytically flawed to bundle air parity wars with air superiority wars in analysis.

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#327

Post by tim333 »

cloudie78 wrote: post #265

What’s the point of this useless exercise? Once you optimise for G forces, speed, cost, lethality - you end up with a missile. We have those already. And we know this already. Give it more fuel and maybe loitering capability. Something with a jet engine for cruising and a small rocket engine for terminal phase kill. I’ll have my 100mil now please and thank you.

They get quite a lot of use in Ukraine shooting down incoming cruise missiles and drones which Russia launches by the hundred. You'd need a lot of expensive missiles to do the same.

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#328

Post by tim333 »

trencedamp wrote: post #281
cloudie78 wrote: post #265

What’s the point of this useless exercise? Once you optimise for G forces, speed, cost, lethality - you end up with a missile. We have those already. And we know this already. Give it more fuel and maybe loitering capability. Something with a jet engine for cruising and a small rocket engine for terminal phase kill. I’ll have my 100mil now please and thank you.

I'm reminded of Henry Ford and his famous "people would have asked for a faster horse" quote. This feels like those people all over again. We know AI can fly things, but why make AI fly an airframe designed in the 1970s around a human cockpit? Ukraine can probably 3d print ten drones that would win in a fight against one of these, for peanuts

>Ukraine’s F-16s have shot down 2,200 of roughly 3,000 Russian drones and missiles it has intercepted, https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/07/23/incredi...

So chalk one up for the F-16s in the F-16 vs drone battle. It'd be hard to catch one when your drone does 200 kmh and the F-16 2000 kmh.

That said this AI thing sounds more like a research platform than finished product.

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#329

Post by cloudie78 »

energy123 wrote: post #326
cloudie78 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Strategic outcomes are irrelevant to the question of unit economics in airpower. lol > look at how much cheaper expensive bombs are than expensive ballistic missiles are Right, to drop a JDAM you need to be within 30km of a target. Any 70s era SAM can prevent that since they usually cover an area of 150ish km if Serbia could shoot down an F-117, then it can shoot down an F-16. I’m using Serbia as an example here be…

There's been zero sorties over Iran in the last two months because the war aims in the current round of fighting are narrowly scoped to Hormuz. That's not a commentary on the capability of the F-35. You mention MANPADs as if it is a significant vulnerability, but there's been only one or two shootdowns of jets by Iran during the previous two rounds of fighting. I encourage you to look at the number of jets shot down…

“Narrowly scoped to Hormuz” yeah because anything more than that apparently is too great of a scope for the US military. Check the latest reports on stocks in Washington Post.

What air superiority? In the Middle East? With what, let me guess F-35? With 25% operational readiness and 13h of maintenance for every 1h of flight? With gym plates in the nose instead of actual radars?

And don’t quote Vietnam as some sort of a success story, especially when the US lost that one fighting against farmers in flip flops armed with AK-47, so of course nothing got shot down.

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#330

Post by cloudie78 »

tim333 wrote: post #328
trencedamp wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm reminded of Henry Ford and his famous "people would have asked for a faster horse" quote. This feels like those people all over again. We know AI can fly things, but why make AI fly an airframe designed in the 1970s around a human cockpit? Ukraine can probably 3d print ten drones that would win in a fight against one of these, for peanuts

>Ukraine’s F-16s have shot down 2,200 of roughly 3,000 Russian drones and missiles it has intercepted, https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/07/23/incredi... So chalk one up for the F-16s in the F-16 vs drone battle. It'd be hard to catch one when your drone does 200 kmh and the F-16 2000 kmh. That said this AI thing sounds more like a research platform than finished product.

1 drone: 10-20k

1h of flight time for an F-16: 25k, not counting the missiles used and ammo.

Doesn’t scale. Ergo, useless.

Post reply on HN