Where are the retired aircrafts of PAF?

[razgriz19]

 

[Luftwaffe]

1 Mirage III in Hayatabad, Peshawar and I did not pay attention last time when I went but 4-5 years ago there was this F-6 outside a children school in Hayatabad. Also when you are going to Risalpur there is a Mirage.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

one F6 is/ F86 is parked outside Abbottabad Public School and Cadet College Batrasi.

 

[nomi007]

which place it is

 

[gambit]

How expensive is it to turn them into unmanned targets?

@Oscar @gambit

When I was active duty at MacDill, a -16 training base, and that was back in late '80s, I was told that it would be around 600K for a -16 conversion, and yes, they had plans waaaaaay back then for the analog A/Bs while we were transitioning to the digital C/Ds. Add in inflation since then and it is probably over 1 mil by now. Not sure.

A lot of things have to be considered such as weight and balances, which is the highest factor, then it comes to WHAT you want the drone to do.

If the aircraft is to be a test bed, then it will NOT become a true drone, which is completely devoid of any human interface such as control stick and rudder pedals. Rather, the aircraft will often, not always, fly with a human pilot on board to serve as back up controller, observer, and part time test pilot for whatever it is that you are developing/testing.

If the aircraft is to be for weapons development, as in live fire and potentially a destructive last flight, potentially because a missile may miss in a test flight, then the aircraft should be converted into a true drone. Other than the removal of all human interface, it must retain as much as possible its combat characteristics, especially maneuverability, which is crucial in trying to avoid a missile. If a missile failed to hit, it may be a good sign that the missile is not ready for prime time because it was outmaneuvered by the drone. If seduction/distraction tactics are required, then conversion cost will be higher because now you must retain or newly install defensive capabilities such as chaff/flare dispensing or even entire EW systems. You must be able to operate those systems remotely with 100% reliability to either outmaneuver the missile or make the missile work hard to earn its kill, otherwise you will produce false data and lost one valuable testing platform to boot. The worst case scenario is that you do not know that you produced false data because your drone did not performed to its maximum potential, such as dispensing chaff/flare in a consistent manner/pattern, therefore you contributed to the decision to produce a less than capable missile in defense of your country.

 

[Jango]

which place it is

GIKI university.

 

[Armstrong]

@gambit - Could old F-6s be made into KamaKazee Styled Drones that are something of glorified bomb trucks used to attack stationary targets ?

Would it be advisable to do make them into such stand-off weapons or are there better options out there & its not worth it ?

Thank You, Like always - Much Obliged !

 

[dexter]

One - at my university in front of the Dept - NED

I will get you a picture soon .

bro u r from which dept. and which batch ??

 

[Armstrong]

bro u r from which dept. and which batch ??

Apneiii @Secur Bhai - Gynaecology, batch of 2014 !

 

[gambit]

@gambit - Could old F-6s be made into KamaKazee Styled Drones that are something of glorified bomb trucks used to attack stationary targets ?

Would it be advisable to do make them into such stand-off weapons or are there better options out there & its not worth it ?

Thank You, Like always - Much Obliged !

Are there technical barriers? Yes and may be.

I will explain strictly from a flight controls avionics perspective, the actual deployments of such I will leave to you guys' imagination and critical thinking.

If the goal is to turn an F-6 into an unmanned flying bomb, the technical barriers says no on the on-aircraft conversion but may be on how you want to use the aircraft. To be unmanned is not the same as to be un-piloted. The American UAVs are unmanned but they are piloted -- remotely. Sophisticated UAVs have a lot of autonomy, such as navigation from home to target location or in a loitering-to-observe flight pattern. You can even program it with more decision making algorithm to include weapons employment and that is a touchy subject in itself. So it should be clear that unmanned DOES NOT equate to being un-piloted.

These old F-6s will have hydraulics assisted mechanical flight controls system (H-FLCS). I could be wrong on the hydraulics part, but I doubt it. If the aircraft is to be unmanned where should the controlling mechanisms be? When the aircraft was being piloted, we have the stick and rudder pedals and throttle in the cockpit with the human pilot actuate them. Now the aircraft is going to be unmanned, do we want to have the stick and rudder pedals and throttle actuated from the cockpit area, such as a motor at the control stick pivot joint to move the stick fore/aft and laterally? Or do we install motors at the appropriate locations downstream, away from the cockpit area, such as right at the push-pull rods and cables themselves?

Here is an example of a 'push-pull' rod...

FLIGHT CONTROL MECHANISMS

In a push-pull tube system, metal push-pull tubes(or rods) are used as a substitute for the cables (fig.4-11). Push-pull tubes get their name from the way they transmit force.

Either way on how we want to do it, there are NO technical barriers on how we want to actuate the FLCS. The problem lies on whether we have enough room to install the motors that took place of the pilot. There are enough room in the cockpit area, of course. But then again, the cockpit was created because we want a human pilot on the aircraft and long command transmission line, be it electrical wires or metal tubes, have their own problems and potential problems. So why not go straight to the actual locations of where the FLCS mechanisms are? Here is where we may not have enough room because the original design of ANY aircraft prefers to minimize empty space.

Here is where fly-by-wire FLCS have an advantage: Another computer to interface between the FLCS computer and the radio set that transmit and receive remote commands. Done.

May be some minor reprogramming of the FLCS computer itself so that it know the difference between control stick signals versus remote control signals, if there are any differences, but if we make no such differences, no need to reprogram at all. The FLCS computer does not care and actually it SHOULD NOT care. And we are done.

With a mechanical FLCS, we have to worry about mechanical 'slop' or free play whenever there is a gap in the command transmission line. A joint constitutes a gap, such as the ends. Another issue is material fatigue over time and usage so we have to examine each aircraft individually to find out the average degree of wear and tear over the fleet in order to design the appropriate remote control system to interface with the aircraft's FLCS.

But no matter which, there are no technical barriers on the FLCS side. Other issues like air data information can be dealt with without a lot of technical difficulties since these information are passive, meaning we do not control them but only receive what the aircraft senses, so transmitting off what the aircraft senses as airspeed and altitude should be easy.

The stickler is the remote control process itself. Radio transmissions are line-of-sight (LOS) limited, so how far can we keep in touch with the aircraft? The American UAV fleet have satellite relays and even we do not have 100% reliability no matter what the movies says and this is why we want a high degree of autonomy in our UAVs. Does Pakistan have a reliable satellite data link for these hypothetical 'final flight' robotic air warriors? The solution could be a 'hand off' process where there is an airborne LOS controller readied to take over (handed off) from the ground controller, like an AWACS or even with a manned fighter. This is where the technical barriers say 'may be' as we may not have the technical capability to make these transitions transparent and with no or minimal lag.

From here on am sure you and others can come up with ways to make these UAVs work as you imagined, even networking them, but am sure you can also realize the technical issues along the way.

 

[Secur]

bro u r from which dept. and which batch ??

Dept of Material Engineering .

Been there , done that ?

 

[TOPGUN]

I have a pic of the boneyard of F-6's at PAF Faisal, I will post the pic soon .. soon as I can find it took it a few years ago with help of someone my dad knows at the base .

 

[truthlover]

You could, after all... F-86s, F-100's and all these old aircraft fly as drones. And all these aircraft are of the same timeframe as the F-6. Drones existed since 1917(used for training Ship gunners) as such.. now what do you have to say?

Now i just wanna say thanks for the info.Actually i don,t know much about the drones

 

[dexter]

Dept of Material Engineering .

Been there , done that ?

Oh im from civil engineering dept.

 

[Secur]

Oh im from civil engineering dept.

In such case , there is a possibility that you have brushed past me during today's rally