6 ms·

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

by zrail 10y ago

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.

jevinskie 10y ago
I thought the aside in the article about unmanned "missile trucks" controlled by a latest gen manned fighter was interesting.
- zrail 10y ago
  This article is where those quotes come from: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-touts-loyal-wingman-for-combat-jets-423682/ https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-touts-lo... The hard part is developing a strong enough AI to do what they want. Current uncrewed vehicles all have a remote human pilot. Air Force brass wants to do away with that bit. Maybe it's six years out but I would be extremely surprised.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  It's part of a rarely-discussed issue with beyond-visual range (BVR) missiles. For all the hype about technology, they have a horrifically low kill rate against live and aware target. If you look at stats against maneuvering opponents actually beyond visual range, ones with the senors to detect the radar-guided missile approaching, the kill rate is on the order of 15%. Doing the math, the fancy new fighters don't have the missile capacity to confidently down any BVR target, hence the need for a "truck".
dfsegoat 10y ago
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.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  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.
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    Likely A-10 replacement, imho. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion 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.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      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.
      - gaius 10y ago
        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...
        dogma1138 10y ago
        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.
plan6 10y ago
"Where Have All the Phantoms Gone?" (2008) is a good personal story about the QF-4's: http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/where-have-all-the-phantoms-gone-96320627/?preview=_page%3D5&page=1 http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/where-have-all-...

by zrail 10y ago

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.

jevinskie 10y ago

I thought the aside in the article about unmanned "missile trucks" controlled by a latest gen manned fighter was interesting.

zrail 10y ago
This article is where those quotes come from: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-touts-loyal-wingman-for-combat-jets-423682/ https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-touts-lo... The hard part is developing a strong enough AI to do what they want. Current uncrewed vehicles all have a remote human pilot. Air Force brass wants to do away with that bit. Maybe it's six years out but I would be extremely surprised.
sandworm101 10y ago
It's part of a rarely-discussed issue with beyond-visual range (BVR) missiles. For all the hype about technology, they have a horrifically low kill rate against live and aware target. If you look at stats against maneuvering opponents actually beyond visual range, ones with the senors to detect the radar-guided missile approaching, the kill rate is on the order of 15%. Doing the math, the fancy new fighters don't have the missile capacity to confidently down any BVR target, hence the need for a "truck".

dfsegoat 10y ago

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.

dogma1138 10y ago
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.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  Likely A-10 replacement, imho. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion 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.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    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.
    - gaius 10y ago
      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...
      - dogma1138 10y ago
        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.

plan6 10y ago

"Where Have All the Phantoms Gone?" (2008) is a good personal story about the QF-4's: http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/where-have-all-the-phantoms-gone-96320627/?preview=_page%3D5&page=1 http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/where-have-all-...