US 98 at Tyndall Blocked Due to Drone Crash

reply to post by Zaphod58


Was the altitude too high for a kinetic engagement?

reply to post by cavtrooper7


It apparently was just after takeoff, but the F-4 can take a lot of punishment and stay in the air. So out would either have to have been a lucky shot, or caused a lot of damage.

The only thing even remotely concerning a cause is one report saying out spun before impact. Another QF-4 was deliberately destroyed by the self destruct charge last week after it went off course returning from an unmanned flight. IIRC the lady non-deliberate loss of one (and I'll double check when I get on my laptop later) was in 2011.

Originally posted by Kevinquisitor
reply to post by Nephalim

 

You are giving them wayy too many ideas my friend!

I'm pretty sure we all are on this forum. I bet they use ATS as a think-tank for their agendas.

Yea that IS the problem though isn't it. The eyes. You never know who they belong to.

Sometimes though, the ideas get to the right people. Good, moral and just people and those think tanks and individuals with bad intentions are then screwed.

I can't wait for the day when the 20-30,000 drones hit the skies somewhere in 2015 (it was approved by congress of course). All capable of being armed with hellfire missiles that can level a house and then some.

Just like that guy that killed thousands behind a drone computer, like a video game, killing has been so desensitized now, so less personal, all a man has to do is push a button and kill the "domestic terrorists"

What a ride were in for.

reply to post by Skjord


Yeah, this is capable of carrying a Hellfire. There aren't going to be 30,000 UAVs capable of carrying Hellfires flying around the US.

I am posting from my phone so I won't go into great detail for fingers sake . The drone runway at Tyndall is in a very remote area of the base and US hwy 98 runs directly through the base. Although the end on the drone runways can be seen from the road the drones are primarily launched north over east bay a large generally unpopulated area. Only when the winds are coming hard from the wrong direction do they launch and land from the hwy side. That being said the QF 4 has been flying without many accidents. Like any aircraft they do have accidents however they have been flying over the area for decades with minimal problems and no civilian deaths or injuries thank know of. Matter of fact due to rules set by Tyndall you rarely see them flying over the cities in that area. Hope this helps clear up some of the fog.

I misunderstood nobody could shoot one of those down without an obvious weapon.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


Then show me how you're going to bring an F-4 down without one. You have to burn through the datalink, and cause a crash, without using an obvious weapon, on a proven system that has flown for thirty years without a problem.

Yeah you're right, some kid in his damn backyard did it. I'm sure you're right.It was deliberate.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


Yeah man. I shudder to think at what would happen if a QF-4 crashed into a house or something. It may not look like it in pictures, but those F-4s are bloody huge. Like a flying tank for chrissakes. All things considered, though, I would think the QF-4s would be more likely to have a critical failure in any of their outdated systems, as it is basically just standard, 50 year old hardware with extra computer systems and actuators "strapped in" to enable pilotless flight. You would think they would use Trainers for target purposes, as they are a hell of a lot cheaper to maintain and a hell of alot more reliable than the Phantoms of yore. Just like with the SeaKing helis up here in Canada, it costs millions of dollars per year just to keep such an out-dated fleet up to "spec" and in operational order. I mean, hell, they could even just wrap an extended fusilage around the airframe of a more reliable drone and it would be bound to work better. Would be complicated, but with all the money that gets wasted on nonsensical projects in the States, wrapping a secondary airframe around an already-in-production drone would be a hell of a lot cheaper than keeping Vietnam-era warbirds air-worthy and then just blowing them up. You'd think they would run out of Phantoms after a while too. Would be better off sold as scrap metal than spread out all over the desert in pieces after an excercise. That way the air-force might have even been able to make money instead of just spending it haphazardly.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Not even close to a likely scenario. Taking down a Phantom with small-arms is a non-possibility unless it's standing still and you're standing right adjacent to it.

reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx


Exactly. And the QFs routinely take off on an automated take off procedure, with an INS system as backup (if they have GPS installed on them), so even if you jam the GPS (if it's even there), you still have an INS system that can't be jammed.

The incident last week, and this one mark the 11th, and 12th incidents involving QF-4s (not all were losses of aircraft, some were only damaged) since FY2000. None resulted in damage on the ground, or injuries not related to ejection.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Damn zaphod, you ever sleep? I ran a 24hr CQ shift and I've seen you on and off periodically all night...
Drones crashing sucks, that's a lot of money there...

reply to post by Arnie123


I'm a truck driver, which means I'm up odd hours, and stopping at strange times. Last night I had to drive until about 10pm, and we pulled into our delivery at 230, so I had to be up for that, now we're waiting to pick up. Some days I won't post much, others I'm up all day and posting like mad.

Originally posted by ANNED

Originally posted by whyamIhere
I did a thread about this last year...It was ignored.

People don't seem to care about these largely untested craft.

That is until it lands on your house, besides the carry some nasty stuff.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Largely untested?????????
The F-4 Phantom II is not a untested aircraft and after conversion they are test flown with a pilot to check the remote system before they are certified for drone use

They have been flying QF-4 target drones for over 30 years since they ran out of the old QF-86 drones. they shoot them down where i live all the time for weapons testing.(china lake)
www.airspacemag.com...
commons.wikimedia.org...:AIM-54_Phoenix_destroys_QF-4_drone_1983.jpeg

Here in San Diego where the build drones they are testing many different types of drones.

So yes....Largely untested. And yes, they are flying over my house.

If you live in other parts of America....I would have zero concern.

reply to post by whyamIhere


Did you bother to look at what this was or what is used for? Obviously not, you heard drone and immediately assumed the worst.

The QF-4 is based on retired F-4 aircraft and have been used as target drones for over thirty years. They are anything but untested.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by whyamIhere

 

Did you bother to look at what this was or what is used for? Obviously not, you heard drone and immediately assumed the worst.

The QF-4 is based on retired F-4 aircraft and have been used as target drones for over thirty years. They are anything but untested.

Please don't tell me what I assumed.

I obviously was not talking about target drones.

I read it....Chose to reply to other posters.

reply to post by whyamIhere


You chose to reply to someone that said the QF-4 was well tested and thirty years old, by telling him they're testing UAVs near you. Which has nothing to do with this accident.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by whyamIhere

 

You chose to reply to someone that said the QF-4 was well tested and thirty years old, by telling him they're testing UAVs near you. Which has nothing to do with this accident.

Isn't there another thread you could kill somewhere else?

You guys insist to bash people with your aircraft prowess.

I concede you guys know a lot of information. Do you have to attack everyone else?

Sheesh...

reply to post by whyamIhere


That was hardly an attack, not do I want to just "bash people with my aircraft knowledge". I'm so sorry for wanting to see actual facts put forward instead of screaming the sky is falling.