Boeing to convert F-16 jet fighters into aerial targets

>>33554159

Why not convert them into autonomous fighters? I think they would make an ideal testbed when the time comes.

>>33554159
There's literally nothing wrong with any of this, the F-16s are already made, they're just being converted into targets, which we need.

Are you retarded?

File: 060907-F-6890S-907.jpg (445KB, 1853x1311px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1853x1311px

>>33554159
It's a right of passage you dumbass. The F-4 Phantom went this way and now it's the F-16's turn.

>>33554159
The F-16 has been in service since, what, 1979 or so? The ones being converted are old, clapped-out A-models which were headed to the scrapyard anyway. It's not like they're taking new ones and blowing them up just to make a point.

>>33554251
>>33554404
They didn't have to turn it into target. We have target drones for that

Instead, we could give them to our allies and put a clause that they need to pay Lockmart to upgrade them to block 52.

File: sprey.jpg (9KB, 290x195px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 290x195px

>>33554159
[autistic screeching]

>>33554591
>I'm literally retarded

>>33554250
Why not auction them off to the American public?

>>33554591
Let me repeat: Clapped-out, nearly 40-year-old A-models that were headed to the scrapyard anyway. As in, headed to the scrapyard *because* they're old and the airframes are past their service lives.

>>33554594
Underrated post

>>33554404
>>33554282
This. It's how the military disposes of ancient airframes which are no longer economical to operate. Even the F-106 (which was expensive as fuck for the time) got its wings painted orange upon retirement from service.
>>33554599
Pretty sure Congress banned that practice not long after WWII. Most civilian-owned surplus jets in the US were imported from foreign operators (Canada, etc.). And even there, ITAR now (from 1976) blocks foreign airforces from reselling US-built combat aircraft without Congressional approval, as a contractual condition of the original sale and export.

File: sprey.png (101KB, 500x484px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 500x484px

>>33554594
made in 2 minutes

They have been doing this.

I work the tower at the base where these targets fly and get shot down.

They killed the last F-4 last year and the switch to F-16's has already happened.

They fly with the callsign Zombie and Convict, which is fitting.

>>33554727
Congress should be banned. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

File: 1485913629689.jpg (50KB, 480x765px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 480x765px

>>33554727
>congress uses taxpayer money to pay corporations to build planes for our military
>they make it illegal for those very planes to be purchased by American citizens after their service lives end

>>33554884
Part of check and balance you nig

>>33554905
That's not what "checks and balances" means you halfwit.

>>33554905
That phrase... I do not think it means what you think it means.

File: 11892333_10205989612913626_748800020092344019_o.jpg (112KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 2048x1365px

>>33554821

Forgot pic.

As much as it pains me to know F-16's get splashed as drones, it's a better way to go then rotting in the graveyard.

Giving pilots the most accurate live training possible.

>>33554599
Horrifyingly unsafe and irresponsible. Mostly because the aircraft are so far past their service lives and would fall apart in spectacular fireballs.

>>33555926
Let the buyer beware. And who's to say I don't just want to mount it in my front yard, pointed menacingly at my neighbor's house?

>>33554727
I am not contesting that most were bought from foreign operators but I don't think any came from Canada. Parliament passed a law in the early 60's that ex RCAF aircraft could only be sold to a Nato governments, not individuals. A bunch of ex RCAF vampires ended up in some little 3rd world central american country and it caused an uproar in the late 50s or early 60s.

>>33554159
They've been doing that for years, ran out of F4s a decade ago.

>>33554599
Because then they might end up in the hands of nations we would rather not have them. One can easily see someone with a bit of money, some connections and no morals reselling them to a state like Cuba, Iran or North Korea who would love to have them, if only for propaganda reasons.

File: b-52.jpg (67KB, 954x661px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 954x661px

This guy still gets the job done.

>>33557860
But /k/ has told me that the F-16 is no match whatsoever for the F-35 so I can't see how that could be a problem.

>>33554591
>We have target drones for that

Where do you think we get target drones from?

We don't make them new, we take jets at the end of their service lives and convert them. The Navy will use old warships for target practice, too.

>>33554250
are you insane? they'll go rogue on us and kill all humans

>>33554591
the current target drones are QF-4's - so in other words they are Phantoms with a drone kit.

>>33554159
First QF-16 was built and flown like 3 years ago

>>33554591
Jesus, kid

>>33557897
Fighter airframes are usually designed for a certain number of flight hours as maneuvering accumulates stress in them, a B-52 doesn't have to be limited by the flight hour as such serious stresses don't accumulate and you can thus maintain it pretty much forever

File: _DSC0086.jpg (108KB, 697x750px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 697x750px

>>33554159

boeing likes to kill happy jets

>>33554591
>They didn't have to turn it into target. We have target drones for that
Yeah, worn-out F-4s. Why not finally retire those for fighters leaving service anyways?

They don't use live warheads on target drones, anyways.

>>33554159
QF16s have been flying for years now. Where have you been?