Hacker News Reader

Comment by stbullard | Hacker News Reader

This isn't as novel as this somewhat breathless article makes it out to be: same thing has been done with many retired Air Force planes, including the F-4 Phantom (drone/target version was redesignated QF-4). I do appreciate the Beeb's reaching out to the brilliantly-named Campaign to Stop Killer Robots for comment, however.

Edit: here's a video of some F-15s blowing up QF-4s http://youtu.be/xISpZYajveA

View on HN

Unless there's a new feature the story isn't letting on, they're not excessively robotic, either - more like an R/C F-16 where the pilot controls are replaced by a remote actuation system.

Since the F-16 was purely fly-by-wire and computer stabilized anyway, the difference is where the commands are coming from - there's no additional algorithmic "magic" or computer-controlled decisionmaking power.

Of course communicating a signal good enough to remotely fly a plane going mach is an impressive feat.

Of course! But I'd say more like "was" - remote-controlled fighter planes have been around since at least the Airspeed Queen Wasp in the '30s (!!!), and those were arguably more complex to control remotely as the control systems weren't already directly run by computers. Plus the F-16 actually becomes more stable as its speed increases - at below-mach speeds, it's dynamically unstable and the aerodynamics are patched in by computer, but at mach speeds it becomes dynamically stable and will trend towards straight and level.

I don't think the fastest hobby RC guys are doing anything particularly different from regular RC builders, and they're up over MACH 0.8 now:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1609281

(Amusing fact-of-the-day - the fastest RC models in the world do not have motors. Specially built gliders flown in big winds on just the right shape hills can go a couple of hundred mph faster than even jet powered RC planes…)

If the military can use this technology cost-effectively, they will use it. While the "Campaign to Stop Killer Robots" is amusing, I doubt it will have any effect whatsoever. It's reminiscent of Pope Innocent II trying to ban the use of crossbows against fellow medieval Christians, yet here we are, two World Wars later.

To be fair, crossbows were not used in either World War so the papal edict can be seen as somewhat successful.

The sauterelle(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauterelle) was a kind of crossbow.

It's already being used far more cost effectively with the MQ-9 Reaper.

This is getting attention because the F-16 is in the current inventory. But these aren't the Block 50/52s of today. They're the original versions, rolled off the line in the 80s. It's like an early BMW M3. Yes, it's an M3, but it'll get smoked by a 328 of today.

The worries of NGOs in this case are misplaced. Old target drone F-16s don't have the sensors or electronics to drop the current required ordinance, and the cost of refitting them isn't worth the expense when there are purpose-built platforms that can do this much more cost effectively.

I think it's the optics that have NGOs concerned. A full-sized RC fighter jet is worrisome to anyone who already has concerns about where we're headed in this killer drone era.

Looks like an escalation, irrespective of whether it actually is technologically speaking.

Certainly, but one the main aircraft manufacturer announcing that they can re-purpose existing jet fighter as UAV as a reasonable cost (and possibly develop cheap dual maned/unmaned aircraft in the future) is likely to retain a certain number of customer and/or gain some other. Seeing as the US Mil likes to keep the better weapon inventory for themselves and/or their closest ally.

This and the fact that the USAF seems for their UAV to be 'flown' by a more restricted class of personel compared to the US Army. I don't see this as Boeing announcing they have a new toy militaries can blow up just for training.

Peculiar - an earlier revision of the article did mention this. Then again, it also lacked the Campaign's comment at that time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com