U.S. Air Force Sends Robotic F-16s Into Mock Combat

U.S. Air Force Sends Robotic F-16s Into Mock Combat

Kind of creepy in a skynet sort of way. But I guess this is the future. A mix of manned and unmanned fighters whenever we fight.

The pilots in the 5th gen aircraft while the unmanned are 4th gen. Not a bad idea. Mixed with an arsenal plane like a B-52. Even more firepower.

I was just thinking. They need to have an arsenal rigid airship. That thing could stay up for days.

The U.S. Air Force Research Laboratories and Lockheed Martin have demonstrated a mixed formation of manned and unmanned F-16s in a simulated combat environment.

The Have Raider demonstration at Edwards Air Force Base in California included two phases, Lockheed announced on April 10, 2017. The first phase, Have Raider I, focused on formation-flying. Have Raider II sent the pilotless F-16 on a mock bombing run through “dynamic” enemy defenses.

“This demonstration is an important milestone in AFRL’s maturation of technologies needed to integrate manned and unmanned aircraft in a strike package,” Capt. Andrew Petry, an AFRL engineer, said in a Lockheed press release.

“We’ve not only shown how an unmanned combat air vehicle can perform its mission when things go as planned, but also how it will react and adapt to unforeseen obstacles along the way.”

a reply to: grey580

They need to have an arsenal rigid airship.

And watch it destroyed by the weather. The airships were not abandoned because they were overly robust. And there's a reason airships have not faired well since when people have tried to jump start airship development.

a reply to: anzha

That's a shame. But I guess you're right. If something is that buoyant it will get pushed around in bad weather.

I wonder if they could come up a hybrid airship that could mix a fixed with with neutral buoyancy. Or just use the TR3-B as the arsenal craft.

a reply to: grey580

It's a beautiful idea ruined by physics. Alas.

A Zaph question: How much weight (mass) would be saved if they yanked the cockpit on the F-16s? Probably not much.

The stupid thought was to use the volume for a fuel tank, but that would be a major reworking and almost assuredly impractical.

a reply to: anzha

I can imagine the problem with fuel in the front could be balance related.

a reply to: anzha

If you remove too much weight from the nose of the aircraft (ejection seat and maybe instruments would be about it) you would have to replace it with an equal amount of weight, that didn't change over the coarse of the flight like the burning of fuel would, to maintain the center of gravity of the aircraft and keep it under control. I'm thinking the addition of the coms. gear to make the aircraft semi autonomous adds about as much as a pilot weighs anyway.

Depending on the type of airship, they can fly higher than the weather.

Sorry guys, this has already been posted here - Have Raider ll.

Please add your thoughts to last month's thread.

This is now closed.