Empty F-16 jet tested by Boeing and US Air Force
By Leo Kelion
The pilotless jet flew over the Gulf of Mexico on the test carried out on 19 September
Boeing has revealed that it has retrofitted retired fighter jets to turn them into drones.
It said that one of the Lockheed Martin F-16 made a first flight with an empty cockpit last week.
Two US Air Force pilots controlled the plane from the ground as it flew from a Florida base to the Gulf of Mexico.
Boeing suggested that the innovation could ultimately be used to help train pilots, providing an adversary they could practise firing on.
The jet - which had previously sat mothballed at an Arizona site for 15 years - flew at an altitude of 40,000ft (12.2km) and a speed of Mach 1.47 (1,119mph/1,800km/h).
It carried out a series of manoeuvres including a barrel roll and a "split S" - a move in which the aircraft turns upside down before making a half loop so that it flies the right-way-up in the opposite direction. This can be used in combat to evade missile lock-ons.
Boeing said the unmanned F16 was followed by two chase planes to ensure it stayed in sight, and also contained equipment that would have allowed it to self-destruct if necessary.
The firm added that the flight attained 7Gs of acceleration but was capable of carrying out manoeuvres at 9Gs - something that might cause physical problems for a pilot.
"It flew great, everything worked great, [it] made a beautiful landing - probably one of the best landings I've ever seen," said Paul Cejas, the project's chief engineer.
Lt Col Ryan Inman, Commander of the US Air Force's 82nd Aerial Targets Squadron, also had praise for how the test had gone.
QF-16 jet
Boeing said that this was the first time an F-16 jet had been flown without a pilot
"It was a little different to see it without anyone in it, but it was a great flight all the way around," he said.
Boeing said that it had a total of six modified F-16s, which have been renamed QF-16s, and that the US military now planned to use some of them in live fire tests.
However, a spokesman for the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots warned of the temptation to use them in warfare.
"I'm very concerned these could be used to target people on the ground," said Prof Noel Sharkey.
"I'm particularly worried about the high speed at which they can travel because they might not be able to distinguish their targets very clearly.
"There is every reason to believe that these so-called 'targets' could become a test bed for drone warfare, moving us closer and closer to automated killing."
Big deal. There've been "Q"-designated remotely-piloted drone fighters used for target practice for decades. This one is probably easier to outfit that most because of its fly-by-wire controls.
It is only a matter of time until someone comes out with an airliner controlled like this or maybe only one pilot on board to taxi and line up, monitor the systems etc. until the computer or a remote pilot will take over flight operations. The cost saving s to industry would be huge.
Looks like the flying game has changed forever! Enjoy it while we can! We may be in the back only.
That's just your opinion. The truth is we don't know which way this automation thing is going to roll. It may come to pass that before long the airline executives will make piloting an airliner such an undesireable job that they'll have to automate them, just to get them in the air. Maybe consumers, despite their reputation for parsimony, will vote with their feet and the auto-birds won't have favourable load factors. Maybe airlines will charge a premium for travel in planes with real humans in the cockpit.
Then there will always be bushplanes and helicopters, a more rewarding career choice for some anyway. I'm not worried.
P.S. anyway, nothing has changed here, like I said they've had "Q"-designated automatic/remotely-piloted obsolescent fighters for decades. Almost every kind of fighter right back to the first jet generation has wound up as a pilotless drone for target practice. Nothing new to see here, folks. Just another example of reporters seeing the chance for a big story without understanding what the story is about.
frozen solid wrote:P.S. anyway, nothing has changed here, like I said they've had "Q"-designated automatic/remotely-piloted obsolescent fighters for decades. Almost every kind of fighter right back to the first jet generation has wound up as a pilotless drone for target practice. Nothing new to see here, folks. Just another example of reporters seeing the chance for a big story without understanding what the story is about.
I actually found it interesting because I'm old enough to remember when the F-16 made it's debut on the world stage. To see what I still consider to be (based only on appearance and nothing else) a modern fighter at the initial stages of being relegated to drone/Q status brings on a bit of a senior moment for me. It's a sort of "what the..?". I get the same way when I see a CF-18 on a stick, in a museum, or being scavenged for spare parts.
frozen solid wrote:That's just your opinion. The truth is we don't know which way this automation thing is going to roll. It may come to pass that before long the airline executives will make piloting an airliner such an undesireable job that they'll have to automate them, just to get them in the air. Maybe consumers, despite their reputation for parsimony, will vote with their feet and the auto-birds won't have favourable load factors. Maybe airlines will charge a premium for travel in planes with real humans in the cockpit.
Then there will always be bushplanes and helicopters, a more rewarding career choice for some anyway. I'm not worried.
P.S. anyway, nothing has changed here, like I said they've had "Q"-designated automatic/remotely-piloted obsolescent fighters for decades. Almost every kind of fighter right back to the first jet generation has wound up as a pilotless drone for target practice. Nothing new to see here, folks. Just another example of reporters seeing the chance for a big story without understanding what the story is about.
The point is IMHO that this technology has came a long way in the last 5-10 yrs, UAV etc, and you can bet your boot straps that it will find it's way into commercial service in some form of another. Things change, who would have thought that 50 years after the first flight the Concorde would cross the Atlantic in 3 hrs, ILS would be replaced by GPS, NDB and VOR would go away etc.
The only constant is change and it is not unreasonable to have a plane controlled from the ground and a safety pilot keeping an eye on it.
We may not see it but someone will.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by Prodriver on Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I understand your point of view and don't entirely disagree with it, but you must admit there are many examples of things that have been proven to be technically possible, but people don't do them anyway. Also, people like to talk about all the accidents that have been caused by pilots, and I've shaken my head at my fair share too, but I recognise that there isn't a similarly accessible statistic on the number of crises which have been averted by pilots. I hope we aren't about to make a big mistake.
The ones intelligent enough to refuse are the ones you want. The ones who accept, well... we won't worry about them. They'll get a ride of a lifetime of of it at least.
I've heard rumor that some operators would rather pay to have a second pilot than an certified autopilot because a right seater is cheaper than the maintence and certification. (no idea if this is true).
But think of the cost, redundancies etc needed to be in place. In this case they had 2 aircraft escorting the drone and I'm sure the escorts were not carrying flares and rainbow generators incase the self-destruct didn't work.
That is the start of it, I predict a Flight attendant that will start and taxi the bird to the runway flip a switch and the ground pilot or computer will take over. After TO the safety support pilot will tend to the cabin and PX's in the back. He would only be called on to assist in landing and supervision. It's got to be coming! Think of the money that would be saved in training, rooms, pensions, travel costs, scheduling etc, unions etc.
I think the ideas of a role change like the one above would be an easy sell in the transition years as there would be a human in the loop.
Prodriver wrote:Beech 1900 the meat servo is cheaper and cleans the cabin!
OK, I resent that remark. I don't work on a 1900, thank you very much, and I will thank you baboons to leave me out of it. I don't hang out here anymore.
---------- ADS -----------
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself