SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Zombie F-16

3998 views
17 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Saturday, November 16, 2013 10:04 AM

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: Pineapple Country, Queensland, Australia
Posted by Wirraway on Friday, November 15, 2013 2:57 AM

Hmmm.... can anyone say SKYNET ?

"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional"

" A hobby should pass the time - not fill it"  -Norman Bates

 

GIF animations generator gifup.com

  • Member since
    March 2009
  • From: Yorkville, IL
Posted by wolfhammer1 on Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:26 PM

Removing the human element removes or severely limits the possibility of mercy and discretion.  While it was not the best movie, Stealth from a few years ago discusses this issue pretty well.  Discretion has always been the hallmark of a true warrior, as opposed to a animal.  You take prisoners instead of killing them all.  You limit civilian casualties within the best of your ability.  Granted that may reduce your combat effectiveness, but when the war is over and it is time to make peace, there will be less resentment to overcome if you have done these things and your ultimate goal of a stable country or region will be more readily achieved.  That doesn't mean that you can't still muck it up and there will always be some resentment regardless of what you do, but having less of it is better.  Look at the lesson of WWII and how our enemies are our friends today, and how little time it took for that transitioJohnn to take place.  

John

  • Member since
    January 2011
Posted by jackball74 on Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:05 AM

There's a chilling short story titled "Flying Dutchman" about the extreme end of automation.

R.I.P. Orange Blossom Hobbies

  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Indiana
Posted by hkshooter on Saturday, September 28, 2013 8:36 AM

The way the news story read this wasn't intended to be a target drone. Like mentioned, that's been going on since WWII. No, this was a completely operational a/c, fully mission capable. They even showed footage of it performing aerobatics.

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: 29° 58' N 95° 21' W
Posted by seasick on Thursday, September 26, 2013 11:47 PM

The QF-16 is just the latest in a long line of remote controlled target planes. The first ones were F6F Hellcats converted to the roll between 1946 and 1952 when they ran out.

Other planes used the same way:

QF-8

QF9F-3/5 Panther and Cougar drones

QF-100

QF-102

QF-86

QF-4

QF-80 (ex-P80)

QF-106

QF-101

This isn't anything new. Its all the political Bull sh-t about drones.

Chasing the ultimate build.

  • Member since
    January 2007
Posted by the doog on Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:07 PM

No problem, hkshooter. Actually, I have nothing else to really say on the subject and thank you for your response and acknowledgement of the complexity of the peripheral issues.

What's noteworthy, in my view, is the way this thread came around to a peaceful resolution again, and how we didn't get it shut down. THAT alone is a nice change from what once was....

Peace and styrene! Big Smile

  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Indiana
Posted by hkshooter on Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:43 PM

Sorry guys, I typed my reply after having a very vocal *** session about the current state of the country's gov't. It wasn't meant as hostile but was actually very honest. The convo would certainly not be suitable for the boards based on political content alone.

But that's not why we are here.

Pilotless a/c are indeed kind of scary and all those images Hollywood uses in movies begin to look more prophetic than they do entertainment. The technology is fascinating but spooky at the same time.

Doog asked a good question about disobeying or disregarding what may be an unlawful order. There's a whole discussion that could be had concerning that, a book unto itself, I think. I know the statement is said but I personally believe the outcome of such an action by a soldier who's decided to test it would be 100% the opinion of a USCMJ judge. And guess who he's likely to side with.

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • From: Phoenix, AZ
Posted by Fly-n-hi on Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:25 AM

That's true and you're right but you can see how I need to clarify when replies become a little hostile...or at least it could be interpreted as hostile.

  • Member since
    January 2007
Posted by the doog on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 8:37 PM

Just be careful, Fly-n-hi. ANYTHING about "Washington" falls into the "political" category, and that's one of the things that got the entire "Off Topic" section nuked a few years ago! The moderators will lock the discussion right down.

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • From: Phoenix, AZ
Posted by Fly-n-hi on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 8:07 PM

hkshooter

On a personal note, if you want to discuss morals in this country you are welcome to PM me. I guarantee the resulting conversation would not be suitable for the boards. 

Whoa buddy!  Don't try to make this personal.  I'm talking about the morals of Washington DC and I was VERY clear about that.  That's an argument you might want to think twice about.

Ease down.

  • Member since
    January 2007
Posted by the doog on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 7:36 PM

hkshooter

Fly-n-hi

hkshooter
It's about time we remove the weak link from the fighter. 

I think this is completely wrong.  The pilot is the strongest link.  

The pilot is there, in the action, ready to asses the situation.  He wants to survive and, more than likely, wants a clean conscience when he lands.  Some person in a building in New Mexico or wherever (or worse some bureaucrat in Washington) may not have the same moral inclinations a real pilot would have.  Its one thing to see the combat with your own eyes as opposed to watching it on a TV Grand Theft Auto style. 

Having a pilot also puts someone in harms way, which means that Washington DC will need to be more selective about who they decide to drop bombs on. Drones...who cares if they get shot down.  We can use those to bomb anyone.  Who cares?

When things become automated accountability begins to diminish.

From a performance point of view fighter aircraft have been suffering the limits of their onboard human pilots for decades. Removing them would allow the a/c to perform at a level not possible with a human aboard. That was my point.
I will agree with you to a point and respect your views about the rest. At the same time I have to disagree with a bit. When one is in the military he is to follow orders, bottom line. How one feels about the mission, target, whatever, is irrelevant. He/she is there to perform a mission and accomplish an objective according to the orders set forth by his commanders. It's not for him to decide what's morally right or wrong, whether the target is fit for destruction or not. That's how the military functions and does it's job. If one doesn't want to follow those orders and makes judgement calls on his own accord he may have a guilt free conscience when he lands, but he will also most likely have ended his military career and be facing disciplinary action.
And because he can die and wants to live? Weak link in the system. If the pilot hesitates because his action may lead to his demise then that pilot is effectively diminishing the capability of his a/c, his command, and his mission. Unless he's performing an act of valor that will advance his mission and/or saving the lives of fellow soldiers he's made himself known as a coward. Thanks for making my point with your own comments.

The point you made about putting someone in harms way is all the better reason to remove pilots from the cockpit. Mommy or daddy can go home after the mission regardless of whether the a/c was destroyed or not. Gov't's have little to no problem sending soldiers into harms way, that's been proven time an again. Thanks for making my point for me once again.

On a personal note, if you want to discuss morals in this country you are welcome to PM me. I guarantee the resulting conversation would not be suitable for the boards. 

You know, I don't know if it's so much a discussion about "morality in the country" as it is of morality in war. And I'm not going to get on a soapbox here at all, but think of it this way--yes, you have very valid points--from a perspective of sheer, all-out war, a pilotless aircraft or "drone" is much more risk-free from the point of not endangering a pilot's life in the process.

But I think what Fly-n-hi is saying is something I can see as well. For years, science fiction writers have written stories about automatons and robots--i.e., "the Machines!" -- becoming so autonomous and the "human element" so removed from warfare that it becomes so murderously efficient and unmitigated by mercy or discretion as to exponentialy compound the horror of war.  And if it's not right for a pilot or soldier to decide what's morally right, then why is there--if I'm correct?--the thing about obeying an order that you believe to be unlawful? Isn't there some kind of clause that says a soldier can disobey an order if it's not morally or legally just? (like shooting a civlian or an unarmed combatant?)

I mean, I can see both sides. I think there are enough "what if" scenarios to call both sides of the argument valid in their own right. Smile

Lets not get angry about the other's opinions. We don't need to get this locked down when it's really rather an interesting discussion about technology and the progression of America's fighting tactics/machines.

  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Indiana
Posted by hkshooter on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 5:34 PM

Fly-n-hi

hkshooter
It's about time we remove the weak link from the fighter. 

I think this is completely wrong.  The pilot is the strongest link.  

The pilot is there, in the action, ready to asses the situation.  He wants to survive and, more than likely, wants a clean conscience when he lands.  Some person in a building in New Mexico or wherever (or worse some bureaucrat in Washington) may not have the same moral inclinations a real pilot would have.  Its one thing to see the combat with your own eyes as opposed to watching it on a TV Grand Theft Auto style. 

Having a pilot also puts someone in harms way, which means that Washington DC will need to be more selective about who they decide to drop bombs on. Drones...who cares if they get shot down.  We can use those to bomb anyone.  Who cares?

When things become automated accountability begins to diminish.

From a performance point of view fighter aircraft have been suffering the limits of their onboard human pilots for decades. Removing them would allow the a/c to perform at a level not possible with a human aboard. That was my point.
I will agree with you to a point and respect your views about the rest. At the same time I have to disagree with a bit. When one is in the military he is to follow orders, bottom line. How one feels about the mission, target, whatever, is irrelevant. He/she is there to perform a mission and accomplish an objective according to the orders set forth by his commanders. It's not for him to decide what's morally right or wrong, whether the target is fit for destruction or not. That's how the military functions and does it's job. If one doesn't want to follow those orders and makes judgement calls on his own accord he may have a guilt free conscience when he lands, but he will also most likely have ended his military career and be facing disciplinary action.
And because he can die and wants to live? Weak link in the system. If the pilot hesitates because his action may lead to his demise then that pilot is effectively diminishing the capability of his a/c, his command, and his mission. Unless he's performing an act of valor that will advance his mission and/or saving the lives of fellow soldiers he's made himself known as a coward. Thanks for making my point with your own comments.

The point you made about putting someone in harms way is all the better reason to remove pilots from the cockpit. Mommy or daddy can go home after the mission regardless of whether the a/c was destroyed or not. Gov't's have little to no problem sending soldiers into harms way, that's been proven time an again. Thanks for making my point for me once again.

On a personal note, if you want to discuss morals in this country you are welcome to PM me. I guarantee the resulting conversation would not be suitable for the boards. 

  • Member since
    January 2007
Posted by the doog on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:00 AM

Fly-n-hi

Having a pilot also puts someone in harms way, which means that Washington DC will need to be more selective about who they decide to drop bombs on. Drones...who cares if they get shot down.  We can use those to bomb anyone.  Who cares?

When things become automated accountability begins to diminish.

Well said. Couldn't agree with you more. This frightens me.

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • From: Phoenix, AZ
Posted by Fly-n-hi on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 10:18 AM

hkshooter
It's about time we remove the weak link from the fighter. 

I think this is completely wrong.  The pilot is the strongest link.  

The pilot is there, in the action, ready to asses the situation.  He wants to survive and, more than likely, wants a clean conscience when he lands.  Some person in a building in New Mexico or wherever (or worse some bureaucrat in Washington) may not have the same moral inclinations a real pilot would have.  Its one thing to see the combat with your own eyes as opposed to watching it on a TV Grand Theft Auto style. 

Having a pilot also puts someone in harms way, which means that Washington DC will need to be more selective about who they decide to drop bombs on. Drones...who cares if they get shot down.  We can use those to bomb anyone.  Who cares?

When things become automated accountability begins to diminish.

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 6:03 AM

Is there really anything new here - It's been going on with QF-4 since the early 70's & long before that with other aircraft?

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Cameron, Texas
Posted by Texgunner on Tuesday, September 24, 2013 6:59 PM

I just saw that too; I was telling my wife some news about my day when I stopped in mid-sentence.  I agree with you.   We may live to see the end of the fighter pilot.  I have to add that something about it seems somewhat ominous to me...too much "Terminator" viewing I guess.Wink

Gary


"All you mugs need to get busy building, and post pics!"

  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Indiana
Zombie F-16
Posted by hkshooter on Tuesday, September 24, 2013 5:58 PM

Just saw on the news, the AF has been flying pilotless F-16s. Everyone knew it was coming I suppose. It's about time we remove the weak link from the fighter. It's the end of a romantic era were men in planes used true grit, sizable gonads, and luck to battle each other to the death in the air. I submit we have a moment of silence for those pilots who have fought the good fight and gave all, regardless of their country.

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.