Eat Your Heart Out You Jet Jocks
#4
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Longwood ,
FL
Posts: 2,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The USAF and Navy have been flying QF-86's, QF-4's for many years from Tyndall, China Lake NAS and Point Mugu NAS.
The F-16 is just the latest fighter to have been droned.
I was at Point Mugu on a flight test op for 9 months in 1984, where I watched the QF-86's depart for St. Nicholas Island where the pilot deplaned. It was flown from there as target.
The F-16 is just the latest fighter to have been droned.
I was at Point Mugu on a flight test op for 9 months in 1984, where I watched the QF-86's depart for St. Nicholas Island where the pilot deplaned. It was flown from there as target.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kitscoty,
AB, CANADA
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it all comes down to the practical experience and knowledge gained from the simulated combat that makes it worth the dollars. I'm no expert but what I do understand is that there is a very big difference between sitting in a simulator and actual BVR or close quarters air combat. From what I have gathered a pilot simply becomes better the more real world experience that is gained. I'm sure there are some actual pilots on here that can confirm or deny what I am saying.
Dale
Dale
#9
My Feedback: (24)
Second, these aircraft are primarily used for weapons testing, not routine training. Routine ACM training (i.e., "mock dogfights") is done with electronic systems which record aircraft tracks and calculate "kills" based on typical weapons capabilities. Shooting a live weapon at a live aerial target is reserved for the most special cases and is usually part of a test of the weapons system, not a test of the pilot.
Third, many of the "shots" at aerial targets are not done with live warheads - similar electronic systems to that used in ACM training calculate whether or not a "kill" has occurred and the aerial target lives to fly another day.
These are not just expensive "skeet" that your average Joe fighter pilot gets to shoot at on a daily basis.
You can read more about the Qf-4 program - to be replaced by the QF-16 here: http://www.fencecheck.com/content/in..._Target_Drones
Bob
Last edited by rhklenke; 01-22-2014 at 10:49 AM.
#10
My Feedback: (8)
Semper Fi
#11
My Feedback: (24)
I agree with you Scott what a waste of our tax $$$$ If they were sold as SCRAP at least we could receive some bucks back.. I don't know how many talibans who have pilot training , or even aircraft . Just who are we practicing for ?????? Can't be China as we owe them TOO many Dollars,
Semper Fi
Semper Fi
BTW, I personally think we could easliy do without the F-35, and less than one of those would pay for hundreds of QF-16's! However, that's just my opinion...
Bob
#12
My Feedback: (8)
Bob
A LONG time ago we used drones to test sparrows & sidewinders(50/60's) and most of those worked as advertised, per the contractors and Ideal situations but when used in combat they failed most of the time in Vietnam ... IMO the US should be spending our bucks on RPVs not on maned aircraft . A/C , pilot training ,and who knows what else which will cost the tax payer a lot less .
Semper Fi
Joe
A LONG time ago we used drones to test sparrows & sidewinders(50/60's) and most of those worked as advertised, per the contractors and Ideal situations but when used in combat they failed most of the time in Vietnam ... IMO the US should be spending our bucks on RPVs not on maned aircraft . A/C , pilot training ,and who knows what else which will cost the tax payer a lot less .
Semper Fi
Joe
#13
My Feedback: (24)
Bob
A LONG time ago we used drones to test sparrows & sidewinders(50/60's) and most of those worked as advertised, per the contractors and Ideal situations but when used in combat they failed most of the time in Vietnam ... IMO the US should be spending our bucks on RPVs not on maned aircraft . A/C , pilot training ,and who knows what else which will cost the tax payer a lot less .
Semper Fi
Joe
A LONG time ago we used drones to test sparrows & sidewinders(50/60's) and most of those worked as advertised, per the contractors and Ideal situations but when used in combat they failed most of the time in Vietnam ... IMO the US should be spending our bucks on RPVs not on maned aircraft . A/C , pilot training ,and who knows what else which will cost the tax payer a lot less .
Semper Fi
Joe
We're decades away from true autonomy in the air-superiority role (if we ever get there), and an RPV in that role is not good either because the pilot-aircraft link is too fragile. Thus, for the fighter part of the equation, there's going to have to be a human inside the aircraft for the foreseeable future. Granted, our current conflicts are against foes that don't have air-to-air capability, but does that mean we shouldn't have the capability to deal with that?
Also, I'd disagree with the statement that Sparrows and Sidewinders "when used in combat they failed most of the time in Vietnam." They may have failed more than we wanted, but they did work well enough - or else the F-4 would have had a really bad kill ratio, and I believe that the Phantom actually did pretty well in that war. Also, those weapons have a *much* higher success rate these days then they did way back when because the technology has matured - partly as a result from live-fire testing...
Bob
Last edited by rhklenke; 01-22-2014 at 01:43 PM.
#14
My Feedback: (8)
Bob
I guess in my old age I've become a dove .
These statements by president Dwight D. Eisenhower In councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road. the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
IMO As Long as the US economy is so intertwined with military-industrial complex and the US continues to be the worlds police force(US decision not asked by anyone) ,we will spend $$$ on worthless hardware . Just how many B 2, F 22, F 35 do we need ? Close air support aircraft are needed to support the " GRUNTS" but must they be super sonic ? Right know we have enough weapons of mass destruction to take care of country that would attack the US, but our emenies are terrorists . These Bucks should be spent on the secureing US boarders not on these " bankruptcy weapons"
If the sidewinders/sparrows worked so well (after about 4 years of failures)why did we install guns on F4's. and every interceptor since ....and still do ???
Semper Fi
I guess in my old age I've become a dove .
These statements by president Dwight D. Eisenhower In councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road. the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
IMO As Long as the US economy is so intertwined with military-industrial complex and the US continues to be the worlds police force(US decision not asked by anyone) ,we will spend $$$ on worthless hardware . Just how many B 2, F 22, F 35 do we need ? Close air support aircraft are needed to support the " GRUNTS" but must they be super sonic ? Right know we have enough weapons of mass destruction to take care of country that would attack the US, but our emenies are terrorists . These Bucks should be spent on the secureing US boarders not on these " bankruptcy weapons"
If the sidewinders/sparrows worked so well (after about 4 years of failures)why did we install guns on F4's. and every interceptor since ....and still do ???
Semper Fi
Last edited by uncljoe; 01-22-2014 at 03:16 PM.
#15
My Feedback: (24)
Joe,
Well, now you've segwayed from Qf-16's to hard-core politics. I'd be glad to have that discussion with you, but only face-to-face over a couple or three green bottles
Do you know that the richest 85 families in the world have more money than the poorest 3.6 billion people on the planet?!?! The big, bad "military-industrial complex" (that's so 50's! ) that Eisenhower worried about pales in comparison to some of the thieves who actually run the place and the politicians who they buy off. At least Lockheed Martin actually builds something and employs people to do it...
However, we digress...
Bob
Well, now you've segwayed from Qf-16's to hard-core politics. I'd be glad to have that discussion with you, but only face-to-face over a couple or three green bottles
Do you know that the richest 85 families in the world have more money than the poorest 3.6 billion people on the planet?!?! The big, bad "military-industrial complex" (that's so 50's! ) that Eisenhower worried about pales in comparison to some of the thieves who actually run the place and the politicians who they buy off. At least Lockheed Martin actually builds something and employs people to do it...
However, we digress...
Bob
#16
My Feedback: (8)
Sorry about getting into politics ... ......I grew up when the USA was in its apex,and it has been rapidly going down a slippery slope since. with that being said I will stop . I hope you and LOU have a great time at your next Jet event . BTW how old is Lou ? I can image he has progressed from towing your planes with a R/C car to asking for the keys to the family "truckster" If your ever out this way give me a call and I'll show you one of the best flying sites in the west & have a few green bottles to get the dust out of our throats .
Semper Fi
Semper Fi