Question About A Real Rhino

[SIG600]

Bud in my unit took an approach end cable after blowing a tire on takeoff last week. No shakes, no puking, no Mayday calls...just a standard approach end cable arrestment with a shredded left tire. Amazing.

Must be contageous. I had to take a field arrestment last week too. However according to Dave, I wasn't nervous at all. Uh huh... as I cinch down my lap belts and double check the position of the party handle.

 

[bcangf16]

Talked to an F-4 guy at our airshow recently. F-4's are still flying using contract pilots to ride while being remotely piloted. This is so they can check out on a console while a pilot can still take over if needed. Kinda like riding on the back of a motorcycle..........Mostly for Tyndall drones.

 

[skybert]

That must suck when they shoot the drone down..

 

[727C47]

its a non-union shop...

 

[Huggyu2]

Remember: just ignore Dave. Pretend his posts do not exist.

 

[ExAF]

Yeah

Remember: just ignore Dave. Pretend his posts do not exist.

And quit quoting him so those of us who ignore him don't have to see his dribble.

 

[Big Wave]

A litttle background on the whole "drone" thing, hopefully answering some questions:

--F-4s are given a "return to service" inspection at Davis-Monthan ("the boneyard"), and then sent to Mojave to be given remote-control capability by BAE (becoming "QF-4s")
--The 82d Aerial Target Squadron (Tyndall) and its Det 1 (Holloman) are America's last F-4 phylers--they are active-duty units charged with administering and supervising the drone operations and maintenance contracts
--QF-4 "riders" are officially called "safety pilots"; with a click of the autopilot disconnect paddle (front of the stick), the "QF-4" becomes an "F-4"--quick disconnects are a real necessity under high G/low altitude/dynamic maneuvers (or worse, during botched landings)
--QF-4s are flown "manned" for the following reasons: to give remote-controllers (all Lockheed-Martin contractors; all highly-experienced ex-fighter pilots) their continuation training (area maneuvers and takeoffs/landings); to fly "dress rehearsals" of live-fire missions (to ensure that both shooter and target achieve the required parameters of the shot); and between one and hundreds of "data gathering" missions (where QF-4s are placed in front of whatever missile/sensor is being tested, in order to validate lab-bench data)
--Most of the missiles fired have instrumentation packages vice warheads; a large percentage of the unmanned QF-4s launched are also landed (to be used again another day)--as missiles/sensors get better, this recovery rate drops
--USAF QF-4s do not have a "camera" in the nose; the remote-controller has instrumentation similar to any PC flight sim; when QF-4s are flown unmanned, they are escorted through the takeoff and landing process by a manned QF-4 (to act as additional "eyes and ears" of the controller)
--Live-fire testing against "full-scale" targets (i.e. converted fighters) is required by Title X, United States Code (otherwise, we would use the much-less-expensive subscale drones--MQM-107 and BQM-34--all the time)
--'Tis a much more honorable fate for these mighty airplanes than being turned into bulk scrap in the Arizona desert

 

[stonewall]

A litttle background on the whole "drone" thing, hopefully answering some questions:

--F-4s are given a "return to service" inspection at Davis-Monthan ("the boneyard"), and then sent to Mojave to be given remote-control capability by BAE (becoming "QF-4s")
--The 82d Aerial Target Squadron (Tyndall) and its Det 1 (Holloman) are America's last F-4 phylers--they are active-duty units charged with administering and supervising the drone operations and maintenance contracts
--QF-4 "riders" are officially called "safety pilots"; with a click of the autopilot disconnect paddle (front of the stick), the "QF-4" becomes an "F-4"--quick disconnects are a real necessity under high G/low altitude/dynamic maneuvers (or worse, during botched landings)
--QF-4s are flown "manned" for the following reasons: to give remote-controllers (all Lockheed-Martin contractors; all highly-experienced ex-fighter pilots) their continuation training (area maneuvers and takeoffs/landings); to fly "dress rehearsals" of live-fire missions (to ensure that both shooter and target achieve the required parameters of the shot); and between one and hundreds of "data gathering" missions (where QF-4s are placed in front of whatever missile/sensor is being tested, in order to validate lab-bench data)
--Most of the missiles fired have instrumentation packages vice warheads; a large percentage of the unmanned QF-4s launched are also landed (to be used again another day)--as missiles/sensors get better, this recovery rate drops
--USAF QF-4s do not have a "camera" in the nose; the remote-controller has instrumentation similar to any PC flight sim; when QF-4s are flown unmanned, they are escorted through the takeoff and landing process by a manned QF-4 (to act as additional "eyes and ears" of the controller)
--Live-fire testing against "full-scale" targets (i.e. converted fighters) is required by Title X, United States Code (otherwise, we would use the much-less-expensive subscale drones--MQM-107 and BQM-34--all the time)
--'Tis a much more honorable fate for these mighty airplanes than being turned into bulk scrap in the Arizona desert

Good summary. I worked a lot with the 82d when I was doing OT out of Eglin. Pretty cool capability, all in all. Of course, I'm dreading the first time I shoot a missile at QF-16, but I know the day will come.

 

[Mud Eagle]

deletedhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/Hacker15E/AIM-7MH2v1.jpg

 

[DaveGriffin]

Bud in my unit took an approach end cable after blowing a tire on takeoff last week. No shakes, no puking, no Mayday calls...just a standard approach end cable arrestment with a shredded left tire. Amazing.

I'm sure it was a spectacular recovery, but without the possibility of a ramp strike or crashing into 8,000 ft. deep of cold ocean water, I bet it didn't have the same sense of urgency that every Naval Aviator faces on every routine carrier landing.

 

[Weasel Keeper]

Good summary. I worked a lot with the 82d when I was doing OT out of Eglin. Pretty cool capability, all in all. Of course, I'm dreading the first time I shoot a missile at QF-16, but I know the day will come.

Yeah, that day will come. The F-4G I was crew chief on (69-7207) has been a reef in the Gulf of Mexico (shot down) since 1998. I agree it's a more honorable way to go than spend an eternity baking in the desert or worse...sold for scrap.

 

[JimNtexas]

Thanks Big Wave for an informative post. I had no idea we had a law that required tests against full sized airplanes.

Back when Dinasoars roamed the earth I got to shoot an AIM-7 at a drone in the Phillipines when I was in F-4Gs. It was a thrill, and it would have been even more fun if the rocket motor on the Aim-7 had actually fired. My pilot was happy though, he got to manuver behind it and fire an AIM-9.

Do line crews ever get to shoot at a QF-4, or are they for testing only?

 

[Big Wave]

Hi Jim(NTexas)--

Combat Archer (the air-to-air Weapons System Evaluation Program--evaluating line men/machines/missiles--run by the 83d Fighter Weapons Squadron at Tyndall) is allocated a small number of full-scale targets (QF-4s) per year. Same rules--if they're not hit by the instrumented (vice warhead) missiles, they get to shoot again.

We had a period when the 83d hit a few of our QF-4s in the tail with instrumented missiles, and we brought the airplanes home. We gave the 83d a hard time for it, as repairing the QF-4s to put them up on their next target mission came out of our operations/maintenance budget..."if you're going to hit them, please kill them, wouldja?"

 

[Weasel Keeper]

I think my ANG F-16C unit is supposed to take part in Combat Archer next spring, but we'll be at Eglin just down the road from Tyndall.

 

[Gorilla]

It saddens me to see these magnificent aircraft shot down. I don't agree that being a fish refuge is a better fate than being correctly stored. Imagine if they had done that with hundreds of P-38's, P-47's, P-51's, and F-86's. You'd have essentially new aircraft ready to restore and fly again. People are so desperate for P-38's; look at Glacier Girl. Guys risked their lives to recover a P-38 buried 100' in ice in Greenland. It was squashed like a bug, yet it flies again.

That said, Combat Archer is cool. Firing an AIM-9 at a drone was a rush. The guys that fly chase have an even better job. They carry multiple warshots AND some 20mm. When the drone is too badly injured to recover, they get to go in and unleash the dogs.

 

[DaveGriffin]

Bud in my unit took an approach end cable after blowing a tire on takeoff last week. No shakes, no puking, no Mayday calls...just a standard approach end cable arrestment with a shredded left tire. Amazing.

"I'm sure it was a spectacular recovery, but without the possibility of a ramp strike or crashing into 8,000 ft. deep of cold ocean water, I bet it didn't have the same sense of urgency that every Naval Aviator faces on every routine carrier landing."

MAGNUM!!

Your anecdote is a great example of my point about the diffence between USN and USAF aviation. What is routine for the every Navy pilot on every carrier flight, is an "amazing' act of airmanship for an AF pilot.

Don't get me wrong, you guys are good, some of the best in the world. And we couldn't fight the GWOT without you. But Navy/USMC carrier pilots are the absolute best, head and shoulders above.

 

[Mud Eagle]

But Navy/USMC carrier pilots are the absolute best, head and shoulders above.

Yup...the next time that the winner of a war is decided based on how well you can land on a boat, the Navy is really gonna kick ass.

 

[DaveGriffin]

Yup...the next time that the winner of a war is decided based on how well you can land on a boat, the Navy is really gonna kick ass.

Mud Eagle,

It's all abou getting as close as possible, as fast as possible, to the bad guys so we can engage and destroy. That's what the Navy/USMC does.

The AFEWs take months and months and months to deploy and become operational.

 

[Draginass]

Dave's no naval aviator. I've never met a Navy pilot that was nearly the conceited d**khead as he is. He's probably a second wiper on the hangar deck dumping the honey bucket out of the CODs.

 

[stonewall]

"I'm sure it was a spectacular recovery, but without the possibility of a ramp strike or crashing into 8,000 ft. deep of cold ocean water, I bet it didn't have the same sense of urgency that every Naval Aviator faces on every routine carrier landing."

MAGNUM!!

Your anecdote is a great example of my point about the diffence between USN and USAF aviation. What is routine for the every Navy pilot on every carrier flight, is an "amazing' act of airmanship for an AF pilot.

Don't get me wrong, you guys are good, some of the best in the world. And we couldn't fight the GWOT without you. But Navy/USMC carrier pilots are the absolute best, head and shoulders above.

The "amazing" was sarcasm, Dave. Should've guessed you wouldn't pick up on it.