There are multiple problems to deal with, when you are converting a manned aircraft into a remotely controlled one. Let me try and explain with a car example.
The car has 3 pedals. accelerator, brake and gear shift pedal. now, to make it remotely controlled, you have two options.'
a. you replace the entire system
b. you place artificial mechanism which will push the pedals
in an aircraft, you will also need the helmet mounted system. now that will mean placement of cameras for targetting off-bore.
as of now, i am over simplifying it. but hope you got an idea. We do not have a working plane. let alone converting into a remotely controlled ucav.
A ucav built from the ground up, considers a lot of factors. Which is why you today find ucavs in majorly ground targetting. And not in air to air combat. that jump is a major leap.
i remember @
gambit discuss this similar in another thread. i am sure @
Oscar can also through light on this.
Maintenance often joke that the pilot is a 'stick actuator'. But while it is a joke and everyone takes it as such, it is also the truth.
When you design a
MANNED aircraft, you make provisions to actuate the controls that actuate other mechanisms to change the aircraft's flight conditions: pitch, roll, and yaw.
If you remove the human 'stick actuator', what are you going to replace him with? You can install the replacement 'stick actuator' in the cockpit where the human version normally sits, or you can install the replacement elsewhere in the chain of mechanisms that go from the cockpit all the way back to the hydraulic actuators.
For the F-16 with its fly by wire flight control system (FBW-FLCS) I can already imagine at least two locations.
First...The control stick is connected to several transducers that senses displacement when the human pilot move the stick. I can install some kind of electrical device that will induce voltage differences at those transducers to simulate the human pilot moving the stick. For any aircraft that uses FBW-FLCS, this is technically feasible.
Second...I can go directly down to the FLCS computers themselves. I can tap into the electrical connections and alter the voltages there to simulate signals from the cockpit. For any aircraft that uses FBW-FLCS, this is also technically feasible.
Lastly...I can also go all the way back to the hydraulic actuators themselves and induces commands there. But there would be serious problems with this approach because the entire system is designed to be continuously self monitoring. If there is a displacement at the end of the chain, were there any commands from the start of the chain? If there is a displacement of the hydraulics for a pitch up maneuver but there were no command signals from the cockpit, that would be considered an 'uncommanded maneuver' and the system would flag a fail. How to deal with that flag depends on the original design in the first place, F-16 or Airbus, and that would require an entirely different discussion.
So while I do not know how Boeing did it with the F-16, I am willing to speculate that the replacement 'stick actuator' is either at the cockpit or at the FLCS computers themselves with the cockpit the easiest since the cockpit is supposed to be the source of all commands. Just induce voltages at the stick and rudder pedal transducers, and let the rest of the system believes that there is a human pilot producing those commands.
For US, given the already available fleet of unused F-16, it would be cheaper to turn the F-16 into either a training tool or a full blown weapon that is without a pilot. But for the rest of the world, in the end, it would be financially and technically easier to produce a UCAV from paper. From the start, you set the mission requirements and produce a vehicle from there. Remember that in flight, weight is a penalty so from paper, you will be able to control what goes on to the design.
what a joke this starfighter is... 
what if u can launch it towards mars and conquer it aswell... with its super capabilities it will easily achieve it... 
