Jump to content

QF-16 Arrives at Tyndall for Drone Transition


Recommended Posts

The arrival of the new QF-16 drones arrived Monday, ultimately replacing the QF-4 Phantom. When you ask an experienced pilot to describe the QF-4 in three words, you might get this response.

"I would say its the last of the iron jets," said Retired Lieutenant Colonel Matt Lacourse. "And that's four but, that's what I would call it."

Lacourse hit a milestone in October, flying 2,000 hours in the F-4. But, the experienced pilot has also flown the F-16 Falcon.

"The last time I fly one of these is going to be on the sad side," said Lacourse. "But, I'm looking forward to flying the F-16 again too."

Flying the QF-16 Monday, Retired Colonel Michael MacWilliam says that the fourth generation jet is an upgrade.

"Our customers that are testing weapons systems will have a much better viable target to train against," said MaxWilliam. "And it just overall performs a little bit better in the air than the F-4 does."

MacWilliam's says the Air Force isn't the only one looking forward to training against the QF-16.

"The department of defense folks that test weapons systems including the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Army are all looking forward to getting the fourth gen target so they can totally evaluate their weapons systems," said MacWilliam.

"Being one of the more mature F-4 guys I may not be one of the first guys to convert to the F-16," said Lacourse. "We'll see, but I'll fly as long as they let me."

March of this year Boeing won the contract to modify the jet to drone status. Spokesperson Wendy Parker says that it adds a whole new level to testing weapons systems.

"I think its really going to help the Air Force with the next generation of pilots," said Parker. "It's really going to bring them up to the 21st century and help them with the weapons and testing that they need."

All six of the trainers should be at Tyndall by December.

Story, video and pictures

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess they don't call the F-16 the electric lawn dart for nothing. ;)

I don't know why QF-16s would be called a waste. They are a very common platform and have performance levels that are difficult to achieve with older jets (how many other airframes can perform sustained 9 gee turns?). Plus, as target drones, they do a lot of valuable things. Without decent target drones, we wouldn't have AMRAAM, later generation Sparrows or Sidewinder missiles performing as well as they do in combat (or even Phoenix when one considers the work done by the Navy's drones operating from China Lake and Point Mugu).

My only regret is I wish BAe systems had won the contract instead of Boeing, because I would love to have seen the first QF-16s painted up like what Two Bobs had on their artwork. Boeing's paintjobs by comparison are kind of boring. BAe also had over three decades into drone development from the QF-86s to the QF-4s and they refined it to a high art IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS JUST IN FROM THE FUTURE:

The Pentagon has just recommended to President Robot-Rick Perry the use of QF-22 and QF-35 for proving the effectiveness of new "counter-counter-counter-counter-counter stealth" electrode missile micro-beam weapon to be fielded by the U.S. Google AOL Time Warner Boeing Kellogg Brown and Root Renault USA Haliburton Euro Disney Air Force, or US-G-AOL-TW-B-KBR-RUSA-H-ED-AF starting this year, 2042.

Edited by Exhausted
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, its not like every QF-16 is sent out to die immediately after being converted. They fly missions in support of testing many other systems. I don't know what the average hours of flight time are before they eventually get shot down or otherwise crunched, but I would be interested in knowing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real waste is when that Legacy Flight F-4 goes down in flames.

In a few years, there will no longer be any F-4's flying. I know money is tight but I really wish the AF could figure out a way to keep a couple of F-4's flying, if nothing else out of respect to all the F-4 pilots and WSO's who never came back from Vietnam.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AMARC sells and parts out too. I would not call salvage a waste like blowing up into nothing is. Sure data and tests are useful but at what expense?

Technically, very, very little. These airframes are already bought and paid for. It is not like they are taking Block 50/52's off the line in Fort Worth and turning them into drones. These are airframes that were sitting out in AMARG in the first place, rotting away for the most part, and now they are being given a "second life". It is way cheaper to do this then to design, build and field a dedicated airframe to use as a drone. As was pointed out, the F-16 can do a lot of things the F-4 can't. It can go faster, turn tighter, and present a much smaller radar cross-section than the Phantom.

Aaron

Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy Crap, It's Waco ! :coolio:/>

Yeah and he's probably saying "Holy Crap, I just posted in an ARC non-modeling thread." :D (trying to make it like the Top Gun reference).

Indeed, target drones do tend to get a lot of use before being transferred to death row and flying NOLO missions. Indeed, there have been examples where drones don't get killed on their first NOLO flights because while the missiles shot at them are live, they usually don't put on a live warhead. So the missile has to do a dead on hit to destroy a drone outright. Some drones have been able to land with only glancing damage to them in years past.

As for other cost issues, since F-16Cs (what are they using, block 25s?) are pretty common, airframe and engine parts are VERY plentiful and the planes can be maintained with a lot less manpower than many of the F-4s, which are starting to get very scarce in the parts and engine department (nothing else in the USAF's inventory uses J-79 engines currently to my knowledge). Yes, it will be sad to see the last F-4s finally go, but the fact that they got to become QF-4s means they got a second lease on life already.

As for seeing an F-4 or two on the airshow circuit, isn't there a Collings Foundation F-4C out there in Steve Ritchie colors? I saw it fly once and the only minor gripe I had was the smokeless engines they had fitted to it made it seem very "unPhantom-like" in the air as smokey exhaust trails were a hallmark of Phantom operations at every Air Force base I lived near as a kid that had them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for seeing an F-4 or two on the airshow circuit, isn't there a Collings Foundation F-4C out there in Steve Ritchie colors? I saw it fly once and the only minor gripe I had was the smokeless engines they had fitted to it made it seem very "unPhantom-like" in the air as smokey exhaust trails were a hallmark of Phantom operations at every Air Force base I lived near as a kid that had them.

I believe you are correct but the Collings F-4 doesn't get out to nearly as many shows as the AF legacy Phantom did. Also, as a private foundation, they have significantly less resources to deal with a major maint issue. I'm guessing if their F-4 ever lost an engine like the Brits just did with their Vulcan, the Phantom would never fly again.

If the AF doesn't want to incur the cost of operating 1-2 F-4's for the next decade or so on the airshow circuit, maybe they could at least spare the legacy jets from being shot down, donate them to Collings or another civilian foundation and agree to provide some funding to cover O&M costs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you are correct but the Collings F-4 doesn't get out to nearly as many shows as the AF legacy Phantom did. Also, as a private foundation, they have significantly less resources to deal with a major maint issue. I'm guessing if their F-4 ever lost an engine like the Brits just did with their Vulcan, the Phantom would never fly again.

I somewhat doubt that. The J79 is an extremely common engine that was used in a wide variety of roles. I suspect its in the top 5 in terms of numbers produced for all engines in the world. It should not be very difficult to find parts for it... particularly when two air forces still fly them.

Rolls Royce Olympus 200/300 series are by comparison somewhat rare. I could be wrong, but I think only the Vulcan flew them operationally.

Edited by -Neu-
Link to post
Share on other sites

The real waste is when that Legacy Flight F-4 goes down in flames.

In a few years, there will no longer be any F-4's flying. I know money is tight but I really wish the AF could figure out a way to keep a couple of F-4's flying, if nothing else out of respect to all the F-4 pilots and WSO's who never came back from Vietnam.

In today's budget climate, seriously? The Air Force doesn't keep any F-100s, or F-102s, or B-9s, or P-12s flying either.

Do you know how many active duty USAF personnel know the first thing about maintaining the F-4? Answer: zero. Most current USAF members weren't born when the F-4 was still in production.

Edited by Jennings
Link to post
Share on other sites
NOLO

NULLO, actually. At least, that's what they show up on the flying schedule as. "Not Under Live Local Operation."

If the AF doesn't want to incur the cost of operating 1-2 F-4's for the next decade or so on the airshow circuit, maybe they could at least spare the legacy jets from being shot down, donate them to Collings or another civilian foundation and agree to provide some funding to cover O&M costs?

Jeez, I hope not. They're far more valuable in helping prove the next generation of weapons, or supporting avionics testing, etc. etc. And as far as O&M costs, I'd think there's a real serious problem if they paid O&M for a ridiculously obsolete platform when they're severely cutting flying hours for every single front line squadron in the AF. Fly 'em in test support until they're out of hours, then blow them up for weapons testing, or scrap and recycle them. There's enough historically significant F-4s preserved already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it was civilian contractors from BAe that were doing maintenance on the QF-4s as opposed to USAF line guys (with the maintenance guys being ex-USAF wrench turners since they have the experience with them). NULLO, NOLO, I've heard it both ways. Although "NOLO" I think is the Navy designator which I believe just means "NO Live Operator" and writing it down on a dry erase board is a little quicker for writing four letters instead of five.

The Phantom has served for a very LONG time, but no aircraft lasts forever, especially not jet ones. There may even come a time when all P-51s and Spitfires that can trace lineage back to WW2 will no longer be flying, leaving just replicas to take over. Some airframes get very lucky, such as certain F-86s and A-4 Skyhawks that get new leases on life. But just remember at its heart, a military airframe is designed to fight wars. They have a finite lifespan and tend to be more like a money pit to operate than a civilian jobbie. The more complicated the airframe, the more specialized the maintenance needed and pilots that can fly them are becoming few in number. Believe me, the last thing I want to read about thirty years from now is some civilian guy with more money than proper pilot sense plopping an F-4 Phantom warbird into a crowdline or a row of houses because he wanted to fly his "toy" (and it has been happening a bit too often lately with WW2 warbirds it seems). That is not to say that all warbird pilots are bad mind you (they aren't as I know plenty of good ones who take their responsibilities seriously), but there have been a few who I don't think are fit to be in a cockpit, but are because they have enough money to pay for the maintenance bills.

I've seen a lot of great planes fly when they were in active service. I saw an RAF pilot do things with a Vulcan bomber at Randolph AFB in 1983 do things with it I never thought a plane that size could do. I saw an F-14A Plus (GE Engines) do a routine once that would make an Eagle driver jealous. I also saw plenty of F-4s and RF-4s do their thing over Kadena in 1978-79 and at the Offutt Airshows in the 1980s before the Lincoln ANG gave them up for KC-135Rs. I can also recall the characteristic "THUMP THUMP THUMP" of UH-1D and UH-1H Hueys doing their thing in Marine and Army colors in the days of old while today the twin Hueys have taken over in both military and civilian circles (last time I saw a 1H airborne was at KSC as the security forces there use a couple of them still). Everything eventually comes to an end though. Some endings are abrupt, like Concorde (I never saw one fly). Others, they take awhile... like the shuttle (I saw a few of those fly).

I cherish those memories and while it would be nice to perhaps see one of these great birds one day grace the skies again, I accept the chances of it happening are becoming few and far between. But not having the chance to see the birds fly again doesn't make my memories of them any less special.

Edited by Jay Chladek
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...