
Empty F-16 jet tested by Boeing and US Air Force - inovica
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24231077
======
stbullard
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](http://youtu.be/xISpZYajveA)

~~~
rza
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.

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

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

------
CountSessine
_However, a spokesman for the_ Campaign to Stop Killer Robots _warned of the
temptation to use them in warfare._

I had no idea such an organization existed. The future is now, I guess.

~~~
tlb
It's a serious coalition of NGOs.
[http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/](http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/). They
call for a ban on "robotics weapons systems that, once activated, can select
and engage targets without further intervention by a human".

Lots of weapons already meet that requirement.

~~~
state
Could you give some examples?

~~~
tlb
Guided missiles.

~~~
TeMPOraL
They are not selecting targets autonomously; they're just following a
particular target the person shooting them wants dead.

~~~
mjn
A broad reading of the language could include even classic target-seeking
missiles. A heat-seeking missile is a rudimentary heuristic "AI agent" that
makes "decisions" on direction of travel based on looking for hotspots.
Sometimes this hits the target the person shooting wanted dead, but other
times it hits a different target, because the "AI" made the wrong "decision".

It's easy to use scare quotes here, because the automated behavior is so
direct and understandable that we don't really see it as AI. Even when it does
something other than what the human intended, it doesn't seem like a
rebellious robot, just a heat-seeking missile that happened to be near an
unexpected heat source, which it of course followed, and therefore hit the
wrong thing. The general idea that the human is giving high-level orders and a
robot is making local decisions in an attempt to carry them out is not _that_
different though. The main difference is that the local decision logic is
nowadays getting more complex than "find hot thing nearby". But that too is a
gradual trend: even old heat-seeking missiles started getting more complex
logic, to try to avoid being misled by flares.

~~~
tlb
Well put. It's going to be hard to have a bright line test, especially when
implemented by secret software.

The definition of "chemical weapons" is also problematic. Example:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_use_in_Iraq](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_use_in_Iraq)

------
narfquat

      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_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon)

~~~
ISL
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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder)

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

~~~
hxc
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).

~~~
qwerta
Iran captured drone by spoofing GPS signal:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident)

~~~
hxc
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.

------
TomGullen
Just what modern warfare needs, even less proximity. Boeing like to say its
for target practise but quite obviously its real life applications are far
more violent.

Powerful nations will be able to conduct warfare even more secretly (less
witnesses and potential whistleblowers) and reduction in home casualty will
allow them to conduct their wars for even longer.

Can we really trust these countries to use this sort of technology
responsibly? Clearly not. Interesting and clever technology but ultimately
distasteful and sinister.

~~~
jfoster
It seems warfare is moving in an interesting direction, though. Rather than
people being the casualties, infrastructure and drones may be what is being
destroyed.

It might turn out more like the picture you've painted, but I think it's too
early to say for certain. It could be a good thing.

~~~
beloch
Soldiers may be less at risk, but there are always going to be civilians in
the infrastructure. Removing the constraint of attrition on military manpower
may make future conflicts far more dangerous for civilians.

Drones can also be mostly automated, so one person can do a _lot_ more. For
example, the fire-bombing of Dresden took several hundred bombers crewed by
thousands. With semi-automated drones, the crews are eliminated and you only
need enough pilots to man a single wave at a time, with the following waves
waiting on autopilot until ready to engage. In a campaign of sustained bombing
where each bomber makes several trips, the return-trip to base for
armaments/fuel can also be automated, allowing a single pilot to keep dozens
of planes in the air. If they'd had drone-bombers, the allies could have razed
Dresden with a dozen men or so.

Would the U.S. fire-bomb an entire city, civilians and all today? Probably
not, but this technology will not be limited to the U.S. for long. With the
reduced need for pilots, the real limiting factor on air power will be
manufacturing capacity (not the U.S.'s forte these days). Also, with such a
tiny number of pilots needed to run a massively destructive force, it's going
to be easier to select "morally flexible" pilots.

Military drones are a Pandora's box. The U.S. opened it, but other nations are
starting to use them now too. While drones may reduce military casualties, the
negative concerns they raise are numerous and severe. As AI improves, the role
of human pilots may also be further diminished to the point where one immoral
leader (or potentially a hacker) could kill millions. Civilians are going to
be able to build drones easily as well. In fact, this is already happening.

[http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2013/09/german...](http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2013/09/german-chancellors-drone-attack-shows-the-threat-of-
weaponized-uavs/)

As the article says, just adding a grenade could have allowed them to
assassinate the German chancellor. Drone-attacks are going to be a serious
problem in the future.

~~~
unclebucknasty
I wonder if a mutually assured destruction scenario could emerge if we
continue to escalate the use of drones, automation capabilities, and
deadliness of the weaponry that we automate?

Given that actors who deploy automated or RC weaponry keep its own soldiers
out of harm's way, it seems that the natural counter for other parties would
be to develop its own such weaponry as a deterrent. The goal for each side
then becomes to remove as many of its own humans from harm's way as possible.
Thus, escalation may be inevitable and, at some point, it seems that various
actors would have a bevy of such weaponry pointed at one another's human
populations, as well as infrastructure.

------
gwern
> Boeing suggested that the innovation could ultimately be used to help train
> pilots, providing an adversary they could practise firing on.

They're not even trying, are they.

~~~
sliverstorm
Dogfighting is supposedly becoming a lost skill in the air force, so maybe
it's not as silly of a suggestion as you might think.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Dogfighting will be lost for the same reason the SR-71 was retired: New
technologies came along that superseded them. Doesn't matter if you can
dogfight if you disable the vehicle with a laser from the ground (future) or
you can overwhelm it with surface-to-air missiles (now).

An aircraft is now just a mobile long-range weapons platform.

~~~
sliverstorm
The balance of power shifts all the time. Don't assume today's paradigm will
be the paradigm of tomorrow.

For example, if the skies of tomorrow are filled with inexpensive drones, it's
grossly cost-ineffective to fight with long range guided missiles.

~~~
comrade_ogilvy
>For example, if the skies of tomorrow are filled with inexpensive drones,
it's grossly cost-ineffective to fight with long range guided missiles.

Perhaps. But human dogfighting skills will prove even more worthless in that
future, relative to the guided missiles.

~~~
stcredzero
"Dogfighting" has subtly changed its meaning along the years. What it's always
meant, however is situational awareness of the pilot enabling maneuver to
tactically advantageous positions to prosecute successful attacks. I don't
think that's ever going to go away, whether or not pilots are sitting in the
cockpit or if the weapons are guns, missiles, or lasers and particle beams.

------
geoffsanders
This is hardly news. The Air Force recently ran out of the old F-4 Phantoms we
used to use for target practice, so they've moved on to converting the aging
(and plentiful) F-16 fleet. That's all.

~~~
ckozlowski
Precisely. These are what, Block 10s? They're the oldest in the fleet.

I think what's catching attention is that the F-16 is in the active inventory,
but a modern Block 50/52 is not the same as the original A's that rolled off
the line in the 70s.

These are not going to be used to bomb militants anytime soon. They don't have
the capability to drop the weapons needed, and the costs to provide this
capability (sensors and electronics upgrades) can be met with purpose-built
drones at a fraction of the cost.

It's like the same model car, only 10 years apart. They're technically the
same name and lineage, but wildly different in terms of performance and
capability. That's why we're blasting them.

------
moocowduckquack
Ohh, so that's what they kept them for -
[http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01583/planes-
big...](http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01583/planes-
big_1583925a.jpg)

~~~
moj
Looks like that's a picture of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, and not even the
whole boneyard:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/309th_Aerospace_Maintenance_and...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/309th_Aerospace_Maintenance_and_Regeneration_Group)

[https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.17089,-110.855184&q=loc:3...](https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.17089,-110.855184&q=loc:32.17089,-110.855184&hl=en&t=h&z=15)

------
zokier
"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."

I really don't understand what he is trying to say here.

~~~
ars
That's because he's not saying anything intelligent.

Reporters sometime pressure a source to give them a negative sentence so they
can bring balance to an article. It means nothing except that the reporter
didn't want to seem one sided.

------
SchizoDuckie
So technically... The Netherlands could still decide not to buy the Joint
Strike Fighter, Rip some stouf out of our 'old' F16's, retrofit it with a
souped-up PS4 and it can still go for miles and miles?

That's going to get interesting in Dutch parliament...

------
downandout
It seems logical to me that this would have occurred long ago....I'm sort of
stunned that it's just happening now. There is simply no reason to have humans
in fighter planes or bombers these days, and retrofitting the old equipment
should be relatively inexpensive. We should be retrofitting tanks and
helicopters for this as well.

~~~
jotm
I think it's kind of useless even today without the controller very close by -
flying a supersonic jet capable of 9G maneuvers remotely is way harder than a
slow drone.

The only way to do it well right now would be to have one human piloted jet
(preferably with 2 pilots) as the wing leader and the autopilot ones following
it and executing commands issued by those pilots.

~~~
relic
As mentioned above, these aircraft are actually less stable at slower speeds,
and tend towards stable at higher speeds, so flying a jet capable of great
speeds is much easier at those speeds as opposed to reduced speeds. With
beyond-line-of-sight secure datalinks, there is really no reason to having
manned aircraft in the vicinity. Live-fire exercises with modified, unmanned
aircraft (which are not uncommon at present) as targets are not controlled
from manned aircraft, but from the ground, and not necessarily from nearby.

------
ZanyProgrammer
I'm not sure this is really breaking news-old planes recycled as drones have
been around for a while.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
Here's an example:
[http://www.f-106deltadart.com/drones.htm](http://www.f-106deltadart.com/drones.htm)

------
jotm
Well it's about damn time - pretty much all of our planes are capable of
faster maneuvers _without_ the pilot inside.

This would make old planes useable on the battlefield again (recon, escort,
decoys, you name it)... oh how useless the F35 program will be :-)...

------
themodelplumber
China has a bunch of "UAV" versions of their J-6. Pretty cool looking without
a cockpit. [http://i.imgur.com/B9yXf.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/B9yXf.jpg)

------
Kallikrates
I suppose they are running out of converted F-4 drones.

------
Pr0metheus
I think Skynet maybe working on a similar project :)

------
themstheones
Now that's what I call upcycling.

------
do-it-good
Yeah, that system was beta-tested on 9/11.

------
phy6
[peppy@starfox ~]$ ./barrel_roll.sh -dO -a

