Forum: Technology

Discussion. Take 18 top condition boneyard F-16s, refirb them to make them UCAVs and stand up the squadron out in the desert somewhere safe and do first hand looks at pushing real strike sorties with the aircraft. Ops, maintenance, planning, command issues etc. It would be a good learning experience for the USAF. What works with fast mover UCAVs and what doesn't.

This would be a money in the bank learning curve for USAF. Even if gross errors were made it would still go into our general fund of knowledge of what it takes to run a fast mover UCAV squadron.

Fund this ( somehow Laughing

)

One example- a two ship UCAV F-16 setup doing a nap of the earth approach to the target, pop up/toss a couple JDAMs from 5 miles out and RTB.

Discuss-

F-16.net Sponsor

Sounds like a good idea elp, which means It will never happen. Just makes to much sense. Very Happy

Expensive for starters but I like your thinking along that area, many new generation UAV's are in the works as we speak and the ones we have operational now are being so modified....well, lets say, kicking butt....piece of cake (and far cheaper).

All this new remote stuff, makes me think I am in a movie when I see it...very cool for us, bad for the terrorist (cheaper for the tax payer too).

The beauty of UAV's is that you can built a boat load for next to nothing and send dozens over a target at a time. If you lose a few, so be it. they can be replaced quickly and cheaply, and without loss of life. I know that right now, they are still basically in the infancy, but before long they will be mass produced. like champagne on a beer budget, but with a harder punch. I feel that they are going to be the mainstay of the airforce fighter corp. in the not so distant future,

Just my Two Cents

I am leaning with that thought myself strongly (based on what I have seen recently) brother.....your right as rain!

I was thinking the Navy could do this too with some worse for wear A model F-18s.

Really the goal for the most part being, getting in a lot of learn to crawl before you can walk issues that are going to come up with fast moving UCAVs. If some of them are dumped in the desert, so what. Part of the learning. I think this would pay big dividends later for the services so when mr. shiney contractor comes along and tries to sell the fast mover J-UCAS-D that at least the services will have some operational info from all concerned on what it really takes to run a squadron of fast mover UCAVs. Heck, might even get really lucky and it could be wildly successful, giving other contractors opportunities to refirb old F-18s and F-16s for this kind of work.

I doubt this is an original idea and wouldn't be surprised if someone already thought of it.

Appreciate skilled maintainers like Meathook etc putting in their two cents.

Been proposed, studied, appreciated, hated, and in the end...not funded. Too many good ideas, not enough $$ for all of them. Heck, not enough $$ for ANY of them. No political statement implied (for or against), but the sinmple fact is the war in Iraq/Afghanistan is kicking our financial A$$.

No way: you need to develop a new and totally messed up UAS like the Global Hawk, so you can suck billions from the gov't. Using F-16's doesn't waste enough money.
Rant off.

UCAV currently do and can have many new operational options for strikes into the "badlands" saving piloted vehicles for the many deep, maximum kill zones that present themselves in any theater of operation (a valuable tool for any theater commander for recon or strike missions).

As many have eluded too here, funding" is the key issue, but winning (or being obligated) the funds to field these new weapons systems and modifications is far more of an easy sale then that of a full up manned, operation fighter squadron with all the equipment that comes with it.

Many concepts and plans have and still are being made (some bare fruit) as we see daily, even then, many on-going and existing missions are still not discussed (testing and real world events).

The reasons for their disclosure (or lack there of) are self evident but I feel this is a major plus for all military services globally, many multi-national deals (agreements) are on-going and technology sharing continues, it is an amazing field and jump in mission concept, design, reducing overall cost and manpower when you consider what it takes to run, then deploy full up fighter wings and all that goes with it.

Money IS available for these projects, still it is a fight to procure it (not because it is a bad idea but many agencies within our government have their own spin where funding should be directed)...sure, you have to bend the "right ear" but the overwhelming evidence of such or the creation of these new UCAV squadrons far out weight the crys to reduce or spend additional military spending. hell, it (new concept and delivery system) is saving billions collectively and extending our punching power simultaneously.

These new vehicles are amazing, far larger then I thought and their extended range and munitions load capabilities....well, lets just say...I am glad we are in on the concept. USAF is ever changing, I for one am glad to still be part of it, even out of uniform.

IF it were up to me, I'd develop a few F16 and F-15 UCAV Fighters for the long, deep penetration, knowing due to the extreme mission type, this craft would or could be a write off. Under extreme condition's, this mission, design and series type would be advantageous to the government but on the other hand the aircraft systems (as multiply as they are) could fail hence mission failure.

So, I would keep a fleet of unmanned vehicles with enhanced gross take off weights available, keep in mind, range is an issue and until the capability comes along to in-flight refuel these vehicles (and I don't expect that, least not anytime soon) the operational range factor is a must consideration for any operation or mission.

So the "option" to maintain both makes sense but not money (depending who you ask or how badly the mission must go forward, would be accomplished in theater or accomplished long range, cross country). Lots to consider, all effecting availability and multi mission capabilities.

I like the idea of un-manned for deep, very dangerous terrain or fortifications by an enemy. Satellite, GPS updates, course corrections done remotely, flying high or low (depending) all give us an edge, plus back-up craft standing by (un-manned, are far cheaper to operate, the craft systems smaller, complex in some areas, simple in others all make for a cheaper ends to a means = mission success for tax payers, military commanders providing greater flexibility, command and control.

I am sure all these discussions happen daily within all levels of the US military and foreign military commanders (of course they do, I have sat in on a few of them myself).

Current operational tests and real world events (various locations) provide the perfect place to refine our design and mission concepts. I say get the money, make the craft small, fast and deadly to the enemy...it is happening as we speak saving our pilots for other considerations and missions.

That's my two cents worth Smile

It seems to me the money is available right now. The problem exsists that convincing the powers that be, that this is the time and place to spend the money to fund the research. Once the funds are allocated, then we can begin to see just how far we can take any UCAV project. So many aircraft companies would throw their hats in the ring and we could basically pick and choose. Not to mention the sharing of differnet technologies from said aircraft manufacturers.I truly believe that this is the next step in military aviation, and the sooner the politicians get onboard, the sooner we can step into the future.

Once again, just my Two Cents

I welcome any other commentary opposing this thinking.

18 F-16`s flying N.O.T.Earth missions are still not in any way stealthy and may not get in/out without being seen and shot down. Basically, even if cost isn`t an issue, you still want the mission DONE. That`s the high threat mission.

Take a NEW stealthy UCAV, do the same mission, forget nap of the earth it won`t be needed, they fly in/out undetected (hopefully), land/re-arm and turn around to do it again. You don`t have to scratch around for more F-16s to re-furb`. It will probably be more expensive just to make them more survivable than to go with current UCAV plans. The only advantage the Vipers` would have is speed, but as the F-117 proved, not really the be and end all.

Now, a low threat mission where all you want is to drop bombs on a "wedding party" Laughing

with no DD SAMS to worry about, many would argue that there are already enough platforms out there already to do that mission with little or NO threats to think about.
My question would be, what would be the mission, especially with F-35 on the horizon?

If you just want to find a use for Viper`s sitting around doing nothing except rusting, then it`s as good a plan as any Laughing

Money is NOT available. Spare parts, replacement HMMWVs, etc...

Actually Roscoe (not to be argumentative), I am not sure the circles you are running in, but the FMS folks and programs I am working with not only have the money, it has been allocated for multi-national programs (US included) for not only further development (existing programs) but with future programs enhancements (of course I am not talking about F-16 types at all, I just wanted to make that clear)...I am talking about un-manned existing USAF / FMS systems such as Predator.

I was just in several meetings along that very line (DOS and Pentagon level)in the last three weeks and as little as two days ago.

Maybe you are looking at DCS, not sure but I know what I am involved with right now as an FDO supporting these existing programs and technology sharing issues.

If you are referring to F-16 UCAV, then your spot on, no one is really serious about such events yet, least none that I have heard of.

I would be very interested in what FMS programs involving UAVs you are working...that was my thing when I retired. Lots of political issues there.

I cant answer that but since you were in that program, I am betting you know at least two of the players that are FMS. Which modal did you work, could it deploy weapons then, how long have you been out of the program?

What type of work are you doing now (just wondering)?

Forum: Technology

UCAV F-16 Squadron?