4 ms·

Note that QF-16's, not F-16's, are the unmanned/drone version of the F-16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants#QF-16 h

by plan6 10y ago

Note that QF-16's, not F-16's, are the unmanned/drone version of the F-16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants#QF-16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon#/media/File:QF-16.JPG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting... PS- I'd be worried about these being controlled by an AI or hacked. MQ-9's are small and go 300 MPH, so, while they're deadly, I wasn't worried about them as much. F-16's can go 1,350 MPH and can be "well-armed". USAF just bought 30 more QF-16's bring the fleet to 106. Then "Air Force leaders are expected to buy a total of 120 QF-16 target drones through 2019. Optionally Air Force leaders are considering buying a total of 210 QF-16 through 2022. The fleet should last until 2025." http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2016/03/qf-16-target-drones.html http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2016/03/qf-16-targ...

throwanem 10y ago
These are target drones, and unlikely to be armed with anything or operated near high-value infrastructure susceptible to the relatively minor impact damage of which a QF-16 might be capable.
- plan6 10y ago
  F-16's can carry nukes. And why would you have a small very expensive fleet of fast moving drones that can carry bombs? Targets/training only? Wouldn't that be wasteful? Wouldn't those be expensive to just send in for recon or shooting down a plane or even a bombing run that they could use other manned aircraft for? What would they be best suited for? "...the Pentagon is also modifying Turkey’s current fleet of F-16s to carry the bomb.": http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22037 http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22037 I'm not against the USAF trying to improve its defense. But, if a remote-controlled nuclear-armed jet were controlled by an AI, or by a terrorist, that would be a big problem. I understand that it's expensive to find and train good pilots, and it takes a long time. They are a limited resource. So, I can see why you'd want to replace them with drones- you save a lot of money, could expand the fleet more quickly and with less expense, eventually. But, that expense is a safeguard. It keeps really bad things from being able to happen. We shouldn't be making anything nuclear-capable more easily remotely-controllable. And if the US does it, others will. Even if the US were to be completely safe about it, other states might not be.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    from the article "The decision by ACC certifies 15 QF-16s ready and available for target operations, according to an ACC release." As throwanem said these are target drone which we have been doing with the F-4 and other planes for a long time. They have gone beyond their service hours for the airframes. Nobody loads nukes on a target drone. Nobody uses target drones near civilians.
    - plan6 10y ago
      "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.page http://www.boeing.com/features/2013/09/bds-qf16-09-23-13.pag...
      - protomyth 10y ago
        When you shot at a drone its called "weapons testing".
        plan6 10y ago
        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 http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27741
        throwanem 10y ago
jdavis703 10y ago
I've heard of a situation where a disgruntled military contractor who was recently terminated stole a helicopter from base by flying it away. In this case the cause was inadequate physical security procedures. But this is something that happens, and something that people consider defending against.

by plan6 10y ago

throwanem 10y ago

These are target drones, and unlikely to be armed with anything or operated near high-value infrastructure susceptible to the relatively minor impact damage of which a QF-16 might be capable.

plan6 10y ago
F-16's can carry nukes. And why would you have a small very expensive fleet of fast moving drones that can carry bombs? Targets/training only? Wouldn't that be wasteful? Wouldn't those be expensive to just send in for recon or shooting down a plane or even a bombing run that they could use other manned aircraft for? What would they be best suited for? "...the Pentagon is also modifying Turkey’s current fleet of F-16s to carry the bomb.": http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22037 http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22037 I'm not against the USAF trying to improve its defense. But, if a remote-controlled nuclear-armed jet were controlled by an AI, or by a terrorist, that would be a big problem. I understand that it's expensive to find and train good pilots, and it takes a long time. They are a limited resource. So, I can see why you'd want to replace them with drones- you save a lot of money, could expand the fleet more quickly and with less expense, eventually. But, that expense is a safeguard. It keeps really bad things from being able to happen. We shouldn't be making anything nuclear-capable more easily remotely-controllable. And if the US does it, others will. Even if the US were to be completely safe about it, other states might not be.
- protomyth 10y ago
  from the article "The decision by ACC certifies 15 QF-16s ready and available for target operations, according to an ACC release." As throwanem said these are target drone which we have been doing with the F-4 and other planes for a long time. They have gone beyond their service hours for the airframes. Nobody loads nukes on a target drone. Nobody uses target drones near civilians.
  - plan6 10y ago
    "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.page http://www.boeing.com/features/2013/09/bds-qf16-09-23-13.pag...
    - protomyth 10y ago
      When you shot at a drone its called "weapons testing".
      - plan6 10y ago
        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 http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27741
        throwanem 10y ago

jdavis703 10y ago

I've heard of a situation where a disgruntled military contractor who was recently terminated stole a helicopter from base by flying it away. In this case the cause was inadequate physical security procedures. But this is something that happens, and something that people consider defending against.