Hacker News Reader

Comment by narfquat | Hacker News Reader

  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.

Wow, I guess this means they can push the machines to their mechanical limit without worrying about blackouts/redouts/etc. I wonder what kind of crazy maneuvers they can pull off without the biological factor?

Also: I'm not sure how I feel about a $15-18 million target dummy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_...

View on HN

You can save a lot of weight, iterate faster, undertake missions without concern for return, make big wins in the aerodynamic department, get improved situational awareness with strategically sited cameras, and more.

Of course, if someone can interfere with or hack your link with the aircraft, you're hosed. If they can turn it around and attack you with it, it's even worse.

That, and the Blue Angels will be far less romantic when there's nobody at the helm of each finely-tuned airbreathing rocket.

Things change.

(Modern air-to-air missiles are $0.4-1.2M [1,2]. Modern war is expensive; we trade consuming lives at war for consuming economic output at home.)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM

On the contrary, I think the Blue Angles shows will be even more awe-inspiring when the aircraft fly within inches of each other, and perform maneuvers that no human pilot could sustain.

While they don't go into detail on which type of data link which is responsible for controlling the aircraft I am going out on a limb saying that it's controlled via BLOS (Beyond Line of Site) instead of typical LOS, they did not state how far it flew away from that coast so I am just guessing here. I have worked on a lot of predators, reapers, and also inside their GCS'. No one has came close to "Hacking the data link" there has been attempts to jam the signal but no loss of aircraft due to it.

Source: I worked with the Reapers and Predators (deployed and at home) in the Air Force and as s contractor working for L-3 Communications as a Satellite Engineer (Responsible for the datalink).

Iran captured drone by spoofing GPS signal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...

That drone is very different compared to a MQ-9 Reaper or a MQ-1 Predator. The RQ-170 is meant the be stealth and pretty much take pictures and Full Motion Video (FMV) while the Reaper and Predator carry not only sensors but also weapon payloads. The RQ-170 pretty much flies on a track that is uploaded and is not actually controlled by a person after it is uploaded, unlike the MQ-1/9 there is an actual pilot flying via a datalink.

Technically its a "free" target dummy. The plane was sitting in a idle state in the AZ mothball storage area. Generally planes from that space go either into alternate commercial service (several air tankers have come from there), the junk yard, or foreign spare parts buys. There was a great write up in Air & Space magazine on this storage facility.

Given that they were not designed for particularly long loiter times, they would make better cruise missiles than they would drones but as a crack suicide air to air squad they would be hard to beat (the F-16 seems much more capable as an air superiority fighter, not so much on ground attack, Iron Eagle not withstanding :-)

The F-16C is a multirole strike fighter, although retaining the air-to-air capabilities of the earlier versions.

The F-22A is the USAFs Air Superiority fighter[1]. The F-14 and F-15 were the Air Superiority Fighter of the Navy and Air Force although they also became strike aircraft (F-14D and F-15E versions)

A single F-22 could down 4+ enemy fighters without even being seen, and the pilot coming back alive. The F-22 can also close for a gun kill. A Suicide squad of 4 F-16s would be hard pressed to beat that.

Just because a jet can dogfight does not make it an Air Superiority Fighter.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_superiority_fighter

I got to fly back-seat in an F-16 once for 53 minutes and managed to handle a 9.2 G turn and I'm not a pilot or a drone. The first 10 minutes of the flight were amazing, the next 30 were incredible, the next 10 were meh, and the last 3 - well let's just say I was happy to be back on the ground and leave it at that.

How did you get to do that? That must have been an amazing experience.

Neat. 9.2 G for how long?

Usually requires massive abs and leg muscle involvement to keep from blacking out.

[ Too tall to fit in any fighter aircraft :*(, this will have to do: http://is.gd/Tu3E4e ]

That's nothing, the Sprint Missile was able to do 100G acceleration. That's 0-Mach 10 in 5s. So fast air friction made it glow white hot instantly. That what you can do with no human on board.

http://www.nuclearabms.info/Sprint.html

Is there any imagery or video available that shows the white-hot glow happening?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA

I see a bunch of dark missiles. Where is the glowing white one?

It specifically highlights the moment, with a caption on screen.

Starting at 0:50 of the video.

I thought that was cool until I read about the hibex at the bottom of that same page.

"However, it was literally a last ditch missile and was designed to intercept an incoming RV at less than 6,100m (20,000ft) altitude. At that altitude, the incoming RV would be traveling at around 3,000m/sec (10,000ft/sec) so a very fast reaction time was essential to insure interception. In fact, HiBEX was designed to have exited from its silo within 1/4 second and it accelerated at over 400g."

Note though that "interception" was a nuclear warhead (neutron bomb). It would still be all out nuclear war, but you'd rather set off a small nuke a few miles from the silos than have the incoming 25MT beast hit the base.

And I believe a set of very fast computers can acquire data that aren't accessible to a human (merging multiple camera feed, cross corelate with radar, heat signature etc) and compute trajectories and strategies accordingly.

You can still use that data and present it to the pilot in a meaningful way. Not as gauges or numbers but with augmented vision, like seeing through the bottom of the aircraft.

That's also one of the reasons why JSF has taken so long...

Even with ideal information, humans takes conscious decisions in the order of a second, computers can drive below ms, I believe this changes everything when dealing with complex physics like jetfighters flight.

Without a pilot, you could design a pretty radically different jet... good point.

What if we put missiles on our missiles?

I think you're on to something...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetab...

Alternatively, SLAM, the (never made) supersonic nuclear powered cruise missle that would fly across a country popping off nukes as it went: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_Low_Altitude_Missile

That was one scary piece of hardware. Fly a group in formation and completely depopulate large sections of planet.

Even better, how about laser-riding submunitions on our missiles? Sounds cooler, anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_missile

It's missles all the way down...

You can pull way over 20g and still function, as long as you are immersed in water, have your lungs filled with water and get some of that injectable oxygen microparticle stuff to keep you from drowning, or have some liquid of the right density that you can breathe, which is also one of the many reasons why Neon Genesis Evangelion is awesome.

I'd assume that target dummies are usually airframes that are either outdated (an A or B model when we're at D, E, F, G etc) or past their useful (human operated) life, i.e. too many hours, damaged, cracks are forming, etc.

QF-16s are only certified for 300 hours in the air(after conversion) before they are blown up or time expired. An F-16C flies 400 hours between phase inspections in a fighter squadron with more than 3000 hours total airframe time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com