
Unmanned F-16s Declared IOC - clouddrover
http://www.c4isrnet.com/articles/unmanned-f-16s-declared-ioc
======
davb
"Initial operating capability or Initial operational capability (IOC) is the
state achieved when a capability is available in its minimum usefully
deployable form. The term is often used in government or military
procurement."

Military MVP?

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_operating_capability](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_operating_capability)

~~~
s_q_b
IOC = Initial Operating Capability FOC = Full Operating Capability

Most contracts have tranches of payment released with each phase: concept,
IOC, FOC. IOC has also come to mean, "This works, but we aren't sure enough we
got all the bugs." So... I suppose it's more like a military Beta.

~~~
therobot24
just went through the ACQ training this week, IOC means the plane has passed
operational testing (IOT&E). Meaning there should be very few, if any, bugs
left. The Full Rate Production (FRP) decision milestone was already passed and
the contract should already be awarded for production - within the lifecycle
of the product we are now in the Operations and Support phase, meaning
fielding.

FOC just means all unit lots are fielded.

~~~
s_q_b
The transition from IOC to FOC is outlined as part of the DoD acquisition
contract, but under statute it means, "We've got at least one unit with
associated services being run by the customer at at least one location."

That's not a very high bar.

Today, the deployment of a weapons system involves a lot of integration with
the existing information technology stack, for "network centric warfare" or
whatever the new buzzword is for "using high speed data links for over-the-
horizon kills."

In addition to the systems integration, you're usually debugging the human
processes such as training and maintenance throughout.

That's where the bugs shake out in the transition from IOC->FOC.

------
zrail
This is nothing new. The USAF has had unmanned F-4 phantoms for decades that
are used for target practice and live fire weapons testing. The F-4 fleet is
being replaced with surplus F-16s.

~~~
dfsegoat
You are right for sure. But they have never had a 4th gen (fly by wire /
designed to be aerodynamically unstable;) fighter with this capability.

In my (potentially uninformed) opinion, It is definitely a big milestone
because it opens the door to 5th gen fighters becoming UCAVs - almost like
making the GPS guided JDAM weapon out of a 1960s dumb bomb by "bolting on" the
JDAM module as a cheap aftermarket kit.

~~~
dogma1138
That's one of the current proposals for the A-10, since there are plenty of
people in the armed forces that want to keep it for CAS, the air force doesn't
like it as much since it's not "sexy" but the marines, infantry, and armor
troops that are saved by CAS love the old ugly thing.

~~~
sandworm101
Likely A-10 replacement, imho.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion)

Strait-winged, turbofan, six wing hardpoints and an internal bay, extended
loiter time, only $20mil+$3k/hour operating costs ... this thing has serious
potential.

~~~
dogma1138
Might as well go with an F-35 then, it can carry more stuff.

The A-10 can't be replaced by effectively a trainer with a light ground attack
option.

The A-10 is a flying tank, it's main gun is very useful for CAS and it can
carry a lot of armaments and more importantly take a lot of punishment.

The A-10 is simply not sexy, the air force doesn't want it, it might not even
want to provide CAS roles in general.

The USAF offered the US army to take the A-10 fleet in house the Army doesn't
want it since logistically it can't really support fixed wing aircraft at this
point, maybe the marines would take it in.

The A-10 isn't expensive, it's probably the most cost efficient aircraft the
US has produced since WW2, it's simply not a sexy Gen 5 FBW doodad.

~~~
gaius
_Might as well go with an F-35 then, it can carry more stuff._

But is too expensive to ever risk danger-close. Whereas A-10's have had
mortars fired _over_ them in certain circumstances...

~~~
dogma1138
The USAF is going to have plenty of F-35's to spare, and it it can carry
standoff munitions for CAS, not unlike light attack aircraft which you aren't
going to be placing into direct line also.

The A-10 was designed to take a beating, it has redundancies on top of
redundancies, and armored cabin and fuel tanks, you can blow half of it's tail
and it will still land (tho an F-15 has landed with 1 wing ;)).

Light attack/trainers are OK but they aren't in the same league.

------
dfsegoat
Sort of puts our defense spending and progress in perspective when the USAF
takes a $21M 4th gen fighter - when most of the world's air forces _still have
4th gen fighters in development_ , mind you - and basically uses it like the
cheap clay target shooting skeet you can buy at Walmart.

~~~
zrail
As I understand it most of these airframes aren't fit to fly with a crew
anymore because they've aged out. Airframes that don't get into this program
get scrapped.

~~~
mitchty
Indeed, the F16 was originally designed for about 8 000 hours of service time.
And most airframes appear to have lasted about 20 years.

Once your aircraft gets to the point it will start to fail, why not use it as
a few as a target?

~~~
dfsegoat
They are still pushing the airframe through 12k hours.

~~~
nopzor
And already tested through 15k+ hours I think.

------
plan6
Note that QF-16's, not F-16's, are the unmanned/drone version of the F-16.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants#QF-16)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon#/media/File:QF-16.JPG)

PS- I'd be worried about these being controlled by an AI or hacked. MQ-9's are
small and go 300 MPH, so, while they're deadly, I wasn't worried about them as
much. F-16's can go 1,350 MPH and can be "well-armed".

USAF just bought 30 more QF-16's bring the fleet to 106. Then "Air Force
leaders are expected to buy a total of 120 QF-16 target drones through 2019.
Optionally Air Force leaders are considering buying a total of 210 QF-16
through 2022. The fleet should last until 2025."

[http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2016/03/qf-16-targ...](http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2016/03/qf-16-target-
drones.html)

~~~
throwanem
These are target drones, and unlikely to be armed with anything or operated
near high-value infrastructure susceptible to the relatively minor impact
damage of which a QF-16 might be capable.

~~~
plan6
F-16's can carry nukes.

And why would you have a small very expensive fleet of fast moving drones that
can carry bombs? Targets/training only? Wouldn't that be wasteful? Wouldn't
those be expensive to just send in for recon or shooting down a plane or even
a bombing run that they could use other manned aircraft for? What would they
be best suited for?

"...the Pentagon is also modifying Turkey’s current fleet of F-16s to carry
the bomb.":

[http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22037](http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22037)

I'm not against the USAF trying to improve its defense.

But, if a remote-controlled nuclear-armed jet were controlled by an AI, or by
a terrorist, that would be a big problem.

I understand that it's expensive to find and train good pilots, and it takes a
long time. They are a limited resource. So, I can see why you'd want to
replace them with drones- you save a lot of money, could expand the fleet more
quickly and with less expense, eventually.

But, that expense is a safeguard. It keeps really bad things from being able
to happen. We shouldn't be making _anything_ nuclear-capable more easily
remotely-controllable. And if the US does it, others will. Even if the US were
to be completely safe about it, other states might not be.

~~~
protomyth
from the article "The decision by ACC certifies 15 QF-16s ready and available
for target operations, according to an ACC release."

As throwanem said these are target drone which we have been doing with the F-4
and other planes for a long time. They have gone beyond their service hours
for the airframes.

Nobody loads nukes on a target drone. Nobody uses target drones near
civilians.

~~~
plan6
"Next up, live fire testing moves to Holloman Air Force Base, N.M. The
military will ultimately use QF-16s for weapons testing and other aerial
training."

[http://www.boeing.com/features/2013/09/bds-
qf16-09-23-13.pag...](http://www.boeing.com/features/2013/09/bds-
qf16-09-23-13.page)

~~~
protomyth
When you shot at a drone its called "weapons testing".

~~~
plan6
You are correct. It seems like they don't plan to use them intentionally to
carry nukes. They could perhaps be fitted with one and possibly wire it into
the self-destruct mechanism, but that would take a lot of work, I'd think.

They do carry a bomb, though- it's not meant for combat, but could be abused
for such to make the entire plane a bomb carrying device, if it were taken
over:

"Granted it is removable, but they also carry, as it was described to me, a
2000 lb class (or maybe more reasonably it was 500#, but the 2k figure seems
to stick out in my memory for some reason) HE warhead in the spine for range
control/destruction purposes if anything goes awry. Long story short, it would
take a lot more money and a lot more testing to ever make them combat
capable."

[http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27741](http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27741)

~~~
protomyth
Look, the Air Force has plenty of real combat drones with actual remote weapon
controls. This is simply a target drone program to follow up of QF-4 program
since we are running out of old F-4s. No sane actor would do anything you
suggest since there are purpose built drones that have actually been used to
do weapons release. We have enough existing ability to drop weapons that the
new Navy drone will actually be used for refueling missions to keep the hours
off the F-18 airframes.

~~~
throwanem
It's also worth considering that, if Skynet decides she wants a squadron of
B61-armed F-16s to play with, there are easier ways to get one. Like, oh,
_lying to people_.

Why do people get so hung up on the idea that a superhuman AI can't gain
access to weapons if there are no weapons equipped for direct remote control?
Why expect a superhuman AI to have difficulty suborning humans through deceit?
I mean, don't get me wrong - I tend to think that whole avenue of existential
threat analysis owes much more to science fiction and the seductive nature of
apocalypticism than to anything in reality. But if those are your priors, this
seems a very odd oversight.

------
lifeisstillgood
I kind of understand why they want to develop the capability, but also am
dubious of its value for a plane designed around a human pilot.

So, if the plane is going to do anything useful, it needs to get to its target
intact and ready, and to be honest that's more about logistics and geography
than human or not pilots. Maybe it can stay on-station longer but that sounds
more like a duty roster benefit than a tactical advantage

The real benefit of pilotless craft I assume will come from designing it to do
things that would kill a human inside it - presumably speed, manoeuvres etc.
But then that means rebuilding a whole aircraft with new wings and weapons
that can withstand such strain. And is that actually a win?

So, I am not sure where inammgoing with this except it feels that a lot of
military spend is not tied to political aims or military benefit. Air craft
carriers sit in that weird zone for me too (the UK is without one right now
and I am dubious it's worth getting another)

~~~
throwanem
The use of manned target drones is somewhat frowned upon in the military
aviation community.

------
eternalban
OT but F-16s look great even after all these years. Did it have a principle
airframe designer?

~~~
nopzor
Harry Hillaker. He was part of the 'fighter mafia'. It's fascinating history.

~~~
eternalban
Thanks! Will look him up.

------
coldcode
It doesn't say how they are flown, is it remote pilots or some kind of AI? The
latter would seem a scary concept at this point. Imagine it being hackable...

~~~
protomyth
[http://www.boeing.com/defense/support/qf-16/index.page](http://www.boeing.com/defense/support/qf-16/index.page)

[http://www.boeing.com/features/2013/09/bds-
qf16-09-23-13.pag...](http://www.boeing.com/features/2013/09/bds-
qf16-09-23-13.page)

------
codecamper
Are we expecting an alien invasion? (and by alien, I mean little green men)

