4 ms·

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 :-)

alephnerd 3mo ago
Pretty much, but it's building on top of the previous QF program [0][1] where the USAF would retrofit retired jets like the F-4 and older F-16s as drones for target training. They used to be remotely controlled but the VENOM platform is testing complete autonomy. [0] - https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104568/qf-4-aerial-target/ https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1045... [1] - https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/467196/first-unmanned-qf-16-flight-takes-place/ https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/467196/first...
- XorNot 3mo ago
  Also there's just an absolutely bonkers number of F-16s in service today. Using them as Loyal Wingman type aircraft would look pretty appealing cost wise.
  - smackeyacky 3mo ago
    Not when you consider the cost per hour of flight. You want a wingman you’re better off with cheap, cheap to run and disposable
    - XorNot 3mo ago
      No aircraft which can fulfill the CCA type role is going to be "disposable". All the systems in that performance bracket are in the 20-40 million range minimum. The most persistent thing misunderstanding about drones is people imagining that a supersonic capable stealth airframe is going to be really cheap just because it doesn't have a pilot.
      - smackeyacky 3mo ago
        Still, the F16 is 16 hours of maintenance per hour of flight or something close to that. Which probably isn’t terrible compared to other aircraft but doesn’t seem sensible for something without aircrew
        robocat 3mo ago
        To make it safe for the pilot plus anyone in the flight path. Could the hours of maintenance be dropped significantly in wartime: if you don't care about catastrophic failure modes over a foreign country?
        smackeyacky 3mo ago
        I assume there are shortcuts like extending the service life of particular consumables and whatnot. Even something like a Gripen, designed to be run from makeshift airfields needs 10 hours of maintenance per hour of flight. Maybe it’s just hard to build supersonic, combat capable airframes as was suggested above.
    - ls612 3mo ago
      If these are airframes near the end of their natural lives it seems like a reasonable use for them, and safety margins matter less when nobody is on board. It’s certainly a better value proposition than using them as targets on the range.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
ungreased0675 3mo ago
Perhaps counterintuitively, the human is not the weak link when maneuverability is concerned. The airframe is. Pilots regularly fly right at the airframe limits, sometimes a little bit over.
- bilalnpe 3mo ago
  Do they not bother designing airframes to withstand more because the human wouldn't survive it anyway?
  - Terr_ 3mo ago
    Yeah, we already have decades of prior-art for what can be done if you take a flying machine, remove the pilot, and then aggressively specialize the aggression, which are missiles that can experience up to 100 gees.
    - 4gotunameagain 3mo ago
      But in a completely flight envelope and range requirements. It is not a coincidence that missiles that are higher range (cruise missiles) have not retained the extreme maneuverability of short range, solid booster powered ones.
      - deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
  - nradov 3mo ago
    It's all a matter of trade-offs. If you design the airframe to withstand higher G forces that makes it heavier. Thus you sacrifice range and payload. There are very few real world scenarios where the ability to pull more G's is actually helpful.
  - walrus01 3mo ago
    Making the airframe even more rigid and capable of resisting extreme forces also makes the wings and fuselage and control surfaces much more heavy, so you end up in diminishing returns. Look at the 'final' revisions of the F16 sold for export that have had all sorts of pylons and conformal fuel tanks stuck onto them, compared to the original prototype. And that's just making it more heavy and laden down with stuff, not more capable of extreme maneuvers.
tim333 3mo ago
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.

alephnerd 3mo ago

Pretty much, but it's building on top of the previous QF program [0][1] where the USAF would retrofit retired jets like the F-4 and older F-16s as drones for target training. They used to be remotely controlled but the VENOM platform is testing complete autonomy. [0] - https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104568/qf-4-aerial-target/ https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1045... [1] - https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/467196/first-unmanned-qf-16-flight-takes-place/ https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/467196/first...

XorNot 3mo ago
Also there's just an absolutely bonkers number of F-16s in service today. Using them as Loyal Wingman type aircraft would look pretty appealing cost wise.
- smackeyacky 3mo ago
  Not when you consider the cost per hour of flight. You want a wingman you’re better off with cheap, cheap to run and disposable
  - XorNot 3mo ago
    No aircraft which can fulfill the CCA type role is going to be "disposable". All the systems in that performance bracket are in the 20-40 million range minimum. The most persistent thing misunderstanding about drones is people imagining that a supersonic capable stealth airframe is going to be really cheap just because it doesn't have a pilot.
    - smackeyacky 3mo ago
      Still, the F16 is 16 hours of maintenance per hour of flight or something close to that. Which probably isn’t terrible compared to other aircraft but doesn’t seem sensible for something without aircrew
      - robocat 3mo ago
        To make it safe for the pilot plus anyone in the flight path. Could the hours of maintenance be dropped significantly in wartime: if you don't care about catastrophic failure modes over a foreign country?
        smackeyacky 3mo ago
        I assume there are shortcuts like extending the service life of particular consumables and whatnot. Even something like a Gripen, designed to be run from makeshift airfields needs 10 hours of maintenance per hour of flight. Maybe it’s just hard to build supersonic, combat capable airframes as was suggested above.
  - ls612 3mo ago
    If these are airframes near the end of their natural lives it seems like a reasonable use for them, and safety margins matter less when nobody is on board. It’s certainly a better value proposition than using them as targets on the range.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

ungreased0675 3mo ago

Perhaps counterintuitively, the human is not the weak link when maneuverability is concerned. The airframe is. Pilots regularly fly right at the airframe limits, sometimes a little bit over.

bilalnpe 3mo ago
Do they not bother designing airframes to withstand more because the human wouldn't survive it anyway?
- Terr_ 3mo ago
  Yeah, we already have decades of prior-art for what can be done if you take a flying machine, remove the pilot, and then aggressively specialize the aggression, which are missiles that can experience up to 100 gees.
  - 4gotunameagain 3mo ago
    But in a completely flight envelope and range requirements. It is not a coincidence that missiles that are higher range (cruise missiles) have not retained the extreme maneuverability of short range, solid booster powered ones.
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
- nradov 3mo ago
  It's all a matter of trade-offs. If you design the airframe to withstand higher G forces that makes it heavier. Thus you sacrifice range and payload. There are very few real world scenarios where the ability to pull more G's is actually helpful.
- walrus01 3mo ago
  Making the airframe even more rigid and capable of resisting extreme forces also makes the wings and fuselage and control surfaces much more heavy, so you end up in diminishing returns. Look at the 'final' revisions of the F16 sold for export that have had all sorts of pylons and conformal fuel tanks stuck onto them, compared to the original prototype. And that's just making it more heavy and laden down with stuff, not more capable of extreme maneuvers.

tim333 3mo ago

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.