Options
Aircraft
xxtimbo
Posts: 8,877 Forum Member
✭
Heard on internet radio that they have succeeded in flying a pilotless F16 on a test flight over in America.
He said the test flight was on sep 19th... just a few days ago.
The result is that the pilotless F16 is now a very lethal drone..... armed to the teeth !
He said the test flight was on sep 19th... just a few days ago.
The result is that the pilotless F16 is now a very lethal drone..... armed to the teeth !
0
Comments
It was in the news a few days ago.
It is probably as lethal as the reaper or predator drones. both of which can be armed to the teeth
There's some footage of the F-16 "drone" here. The empty cockpit looks pretty weird!
That video is a.fake, designed to divert attention from the real top secret project.
Major Robert Deebel is the Invisible Man.
S'funny how the idea of humanoid robots is usually seen as solely the remit of sci-fi and how there are probably far more practical ways of automating things in real-life.
I'm not sure that's strictly true though.
I mean, sure, you can build cars and planes and tanks that can be remote-controlled and, if you're really clever, you can build them in such a way that there's room for humans to jump in and operate them too but, alternatively, if you could build some kind of self-contained humanoid robot then you've got yourself something which you can bung into any piece of existing kit and have the capability to remote-operate it.
Be interesting to know how extensively modified the F16 had to be to make it remote-operable.
I suppose it shouldn't really be that hard to control the systems cos it's all fly-by-wire anyway and the main issue would be installing all the kit needed to give the operators sufficient feedback to allow them to operate it at a high enough level of awareness that it could be a match for a human-controlled adversary.
I suppose, on the most basic level, such a thing would probably be designed for strike missions against ground targets rather than air-to-air combat, which'd require far more sophisticated feedback systems.
Make that any aircraft. It's been feasible for years but there's a certain amount of passenger reluctance to fly in an aircraft with a little box in charge.
After all, most people, myself included would like a real live human being flying the plane, someone who has a vested interest in getting that plane safely back on the ground.
As far as the F16 is concerned, if is an older aircraft and there's plenty spare at Davis-Monthan AFB...
Limitation of aircraft is the G forces on the pilot.
Its sole purpose is facilitating weapons trials and training by serving as a real target to shoot down on weapon ranges.
I thought they already had ...
Possibly not THAT expensive...for one of the mooted uses for it is as a target drone, an unmanned fighter aircraft that would give a pilot in training a proper run for his money in gunnery training!
It was very common during WWII for manned aircraft to tow drogues etc. for pilots to fire at...but as air warfare progressed to missiles, especially those with some sort of independent target seeking ability :eek: this was regarded as too risky, though earlier, remote-controlled aircraft were built in small numbers for the purpose.
Once in the Med, one flew around and around the fleet without incurring damage until it landed short of fuel.
It wasn't a "purist" radio-controlled aircraft, just as the F-16 isn't; it was a two cockpit Moth Major fuselage with Tiger Month wings...and was designed with normal pilot controls in the front cockpit and pneumatic servos etc to operate the controls in the rear...so that the aircraft could be flown normally if necessarily, and to ferry it to training locations. Indeed, the world's last surviving Queen Bee is one that was converted just after the wear to conventionsal two-pilot flight!
The weight saving of a second pilot, Irvings, 'chute etc. meant that the Queen Bee could ALSO have a fuel tank five times larger than a Tiger Moth!!!
I would n't mind a model plane, very small,
say a glider... maybe no engine, that I
could launch and then control remotely and watch it glide on the wind....
and then be able to land it in any old field.
It would be more dangerous than a reaper! For a start, an F16 is much faster and can carry far more ordinance, if they turned it into a combat drone that is, which isn't what they are doing here as far as I am aware
I still think it will be sometime before they are used in active duty. More than likely they will first be deployed to run reconnaissance mission, with little or no risk of being engaged. The price of the aircraft is huge. So they will want to make sure that it is fully working before they deploy in a real combat situation. So until then they will get humans to fly them.
What's stopping you???
Funny thing is, when you look at it from a different POV, spending all that money on converting an F16 actually just leaves you with a rather large, clumsy drone that requires a long runway, much more maintenance and has a honking-great radar signature.
About the only thing it really has going for it is that it's a large weapons-platform compared with a standard drone.
AFAIK, you're supposed to join a club, pass exams and get an official licence before you're allowed to fly r/c planes these days.
never really bothered with any of that myself but I believe it's the way it's supposed to be done.
Seriously??? :eek: