Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[StevoJH]

The point of keeping and converting an aircraft to fly unmanned is not to risk aircrew,taking out systems the manned crew would need and put in some communication remote system so that crew back in Australia could fly remotely is what I am suggesting ,it would be used on high risk operations where is survival is not important but as a one time launch platform , the U.S has only used some of its old f-16,s as targets

How the U.S. Air Force Turns an F-16 Fighter Into a Drone

Unsurprisingly, it’s relatively easy to turn a computer-controlled fighter into a drone.

www.popularmechanics.com

You are not turning a F-111 into a UAV, the maintenance requirements are too high. It is literally the worst possible platform (short of a B-1B) that you could use in that regards.

Its also old enough that its control systems and sensors would probably be quite difficult to integrate for remote operation or automation.

Remote operation still requires pilots current in the airframe, where are they coming from? Even a one off flight would require significant maintenance, where are the maintainers coming from? How familiar are they with the platform? What isn't getting maintained so they can go play with antiques?

 

[StevoJH]

Aircraft such as Australia's old Mirage III are still being flown by Pakistan, our Classic Hornets were apparantly in good condition when when they were retired, the mid-life taipans were stripped and buried somewhere and the Tigers will probably suffer the same fate. Soon Australia will be replacing its C-130J with brand new C -130Js.

I actually dont think those combat aircraft are of any real value to Australia, particularly with the advent of the MQ-28. However preserving the Taipans(too late now) the old C-130Js and even the C-27J could be useful.

Its not just about the platform, its about the ecosystem around them.

Parts, Maintainers, Pilots. There is a significant cost to retain the ability to bring something back into service.

The only one of those examples that could be worth it would be the C-130J's, but they would have a value on the secondary market so I'm guessing that if they are in decent condition they will be sold on.

 

[Takao]

Its not just about the platform, its about the ecosystem around them.

Parts, Maintainers, Pilots. There is a significant cost to retain the ability to bring something back into service.

The only one of those examples that could be worth it would be the C-130J's, but they would have a value on the secondary market so I'm guessing that if they are in decent condition they will be sold on.

100%

Case in point - we put a Black Hawk in deep storage in 2003. Done properly, in accordance with the manuals, so preserved better than the aircraft in a boneyard. In 2005 it took eight months to get back to flying. And, from what I understand, it was always a basket case after that.

Now that was a properly preserved, simple airframe in a climate controlled environment with some of the most experienced maintainers in the Department (not all were uniformed) putting it back. Pulling it from a desert? Well, this B-1 took two years of effort. From what I understand, even pulling the semi-stored Adelaide class back into service was (a) hard and (b) enormous amounts of work.

The secondary and tertiary costs of storage are almost always fully ignored, because so few have any idea what it costs to bring them back. Remember too, the storage money will come directly from the current sustainment bill (which is already too short), and the maintainers will come from the workforce putting modern platforms into the fight.