Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Curious Introduction

This article states early on: "Designed as a lightweight, daytime Visual Flight Rules (VFR) fighter, it evolved into a successful multirole aircraft." VFR is really an FAA sort of thing to distinguish between aircraft operations, typically by general aviation pilots in light aircraft, in clear weather conditions with those in poorer visibility requiring use of instruments, i.e., instrument flight rules (IFR). As an aside, I believe all commercial aircraft operations are routinely performed under IFR even in clear weather for safety reasons and suspect the military does so also (although don't quote me on this as I've only worked on the engineering side and have no real knowledge of such operational minutia). But, I don't think I've ever heard VFR in the context of distinguishing fighter aircraft capabilities, so this comes off sounding like some sort of enthusiast write-up where an uninformed writer wants to throw in some technical sounding jargon that doesn't really apply to spice up the text - something like you'd hear on the History Channel where wannabes are trying to impress wannabes. The correct terms for what I think the author is trying to get at are "day fighter" and "all-weather," which usually also implies night and beyond visual range (BVR) as well as just plain cloudy (all of which revolve around using RADAR to overcome the clouds, darkness, or distance issues). Basically, the original LWF concept was for a day fighter, whereas the F-16 has been developed into a all-weather multirole (the author did get this term right) aircraft. Jmdeur (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

2003 Incident

We have a picture at the bottom of a thunderbirds pilot ejecting, and ill assume that was due to an incident on the ground? Or is this some aerial trick? Anyway clarification wouldnt hurt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.138.221 (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Come on, don't be lazy! You can always google this, right? If you must, read → U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds#Air shows ←. --Dave1185 ^talk 07:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a March 2010 entry asking to "specify" a better reference. I moved the photo of this incident from the gallery to this section. The Caption to the photo discusses the incident. The request for a better reference should be removed if that is sufficient. Also. the photo should be removed from the gallery.--Komowkwa (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, the reference only lists the web site. It should specify a relevant page on that site. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Galleries

I know there a lot of photos of the F16, but does the article really need two separate photo galleries? Nigel Ish (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont think it needs any at all, we have enough images in the article already and a commons link for the rest. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the galleries should be joined. However, the photos and their captions include information of some value. --Komowkwa (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Edits to add balance/remove POV

I edited the no-fly zone section. Removed "UN-restricted" airspace because of misnomer. Added reference that no-fly zones were considered illegal.

Also I edited the 2006 Gaza war section because it indicated that while civilians and militants were killed, only Hamas and other militants were deliberately targeted. This is very debatable, as is described in various sources, notably the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. My edit notes those killed, but removed reference to intentionality. XXVII (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not accurately sourced as this introduce a WP:POV stance and as already stated a "debatable" contention. Using a blog and a columnist's viewpoint is pointy. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC).

John Pilger is a respected journalist and the ex-Secretary General of the UN is also well respected. Here are some links to additional references on the illegality of the no-fly zones: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

Sources that describe deliberate Israeli targeting of civilians can be seen at [6], [7], [8], and [9] The only thing debatable is if F-16s were used to target civilians. That is why I removed mention of intentionality in the killings. XXVII (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why so many Variants?

Why does this article go to such lengths to describe F-16 variants, when there is a main article for this purpose? 70.251.0.129 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Too Technical

This article is too technical. I can't clean it up if my edits to address it are going to be reverted. 70.250.198.221 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead-in section mentions many technical details, such as the bubble canopy and side-stick controller, that an average reader wouldn't understand; they belong in the description of technical details further down. Moreover, these details aren't in any sense a summary, suitable for a lead-in, as they are hardly representative, and aren't developed in any meaningful way by the article itself. 70.250.198.221 (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Lead is to summarize the whole article, including the Design section. Simply moving that text is not helpful. Let the tag work. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Except the text isn't summarizing; it's just more random technical gobledegook, which makes this article too technical for the average reader. Not sure what tag you're referring to. 70.250.198.221 (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The technical information is an important part of the F-16 story and should be summarised in the lead section (particularly it being one of the first fly-by-wire fighters, which was probably too short anyway, omitting as it does any summary of the aircrafts operational historyNigel Ish (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree the technical information is important, but not everything is equally important, or deserves being included in the summary. Fly-by-wire is certainly important, but technical details such as bubble canopy are really just supporting details. I checked the records, but I don't see where I changed anything related to fly-by-wire. Did I? 70.250.198.221 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Observations on the article

I had a look through the article myself just now to see if it is overly technical, it's not an article that I edit usually (plenty of others doing that). I notice that terms are mainly wikilinked and spelt out in full with abbreviations afterwards as they should be, possibly some avionic descriptions that could be improved ('planar array'?). What did strike me is the article length at 112 kb. Many of the popular aircraft articles have now been split, the Supermarine Spitfire is now spread over five pages I think.

• There is a variants article, F-16 Fighting Falcon variants but the text there seems shorter than that remaining in the main article. Suggest moving it and leave two paragraphs behind.
• How about F-16 Fighting Falcon operational history, another large section ready for a split? If these two sections were emptied we would be left behind the design and development and specifications (the essence of the aircraft) and might then be able to better judge whether it is too technical or not. It is an unavoidably technical subject, we can only do our best to make it accessible to all. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Design section is another option for splitting off. The Operational history text could be moved to the F-16 Fighting Falcon operators article. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it's up to you guys, 'variants' and 'operational history' seem to have become the standard split off titles for the more popular aircraft types. I would not split off the design section myself, don't think that I've ever seen that done. Also happy to help and actually do this, to me it is just like archiving a talk page with the addition of adding an infobox and choosing a good image. Certainly at FA review they would say 'why haven't you split it?' as it currently stands. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone is worried that the split information would be less visible or accessible we can create a navbox dedicated to the F-16 articles. This was done with the Spitfire (there are actually eight articles on it in all), the navbox used is Template:Supermarine Spitfire for example. I am happy to create this as well if desired. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Splitting off the Op. history section is probably the best thing. Shortening other areas will help some, but not as much. The F-16 operators article is long enough as is. A navbox would need to list the main F-16 article, Lightweight Fighter, F-16 Fighting Falcon variants, F-16 Fighting Falcon operational history, and F-16 Fighting Falcon operators. Maybe the F-16 Agile Falcon, F-16 VISTA, and General Dynamics F-16XL derivative aircraft articles also. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't see why a navbox would need to list Lightweight Fighter, F-16 Agile Falcon, F-16 VISTA, or General Dynamics F-16XL. The latter three *should* all be adequately covered by a link to F-16 Fighting Falcon variants. I don't see why Lightweight Fighter deserves to be in a navbox at all. 70.250.178.31 (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Much of the text in this article is complicated by discussions of minor variations that could be better handled in the more appropriate variants article. I tried making some of these changes a year or so ago, and I was reverted continually. Note that this article still retains a an extensive development of the F-16A/B, C/D, and E/F aircraft models, despite the fact that the variants article exists.

Also, much of the background information is explained in the Lightweight Fighter article, and is duplicated here unnecessarily. This is what I mean by poor delegation of technical topics. I'm strongly in favor of delegating many of these topics and shortening this article's length. 70.250.188.119 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The variant info problem would be solved if better use was made of the 'variants' article as I mentioned above. I note that the lightweight fighter section does have a link to the main article and there may be some duplication there that could be usefully trimmed. All I would say is that it has to be done with consideration and no haste, removing material is often more difficult than adding it. Nothing is lost if it already exists somewhere else but it is a judgement call how much and what exactly is left behind in the main article (which editors who are closely involved with the article might find difficult to do). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It would make sense to me to focus the discussion of the LWF to the impacts that are relevant to the F-16. 70.250.188.119 (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How about just one comment about the LWF and then switch to FSD? Hcobb (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Jargon

For the record, I'm going to add a bunch of tags to the article to identify things that are jargon. Why am I doing this? Because:

• I've repeatedly flagged this article as being too technical, and nothing has been done.
• THIS IS WHAT THE TAGS ARE FOR

If you think it isn't jargon, then please explain why you think so here, rather than just reverting my edits. 70.250.198.35 (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it isn't "jargon". Get a dictionary. - BilCat (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Providing a citation from a dictionary would be more productive. 70.250.198.35 (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"weapons carriges" means the carriage of weapons. Which word don't you understand, Carriage, or weapons? - BilCat (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, it's in a dictionary! That means you should be able to provide a citation, right? 70.250.198.35 (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not needed, because the words are simple to understand. Just think what you think it means,and you're probably right - it's not that difficult. Seriously, if you're having trouble understanding "weapons carriege", then Simple English WP might be better for you to use. - BilCat (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember hearing something today about "civility". Where could I have heard that? 70.250.198.35 (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That is being civil. I never once called you stupid, accused you of being biased, or even used a large amount of curse words, as you did today. I didn't even compare consuses building and following to mass suicides carried out by cults in South America. I merely suggested that Simple English might be better for you if you have difficulty understanding simple concepts such as "weapons carrieage". How is that being uncivil? - BilCat (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted an arbitrary and unneeded alteration to the article, use wikilinks if you are not sure about terminology. FWiW, this is now considered: WP:BRD. Bzuk (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC). FWiW, B, remember WP:DFT and interacting with WP:Dick's is not worth it... Bzuk (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it is! - BilCat (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's all get back to the job at hand... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No use. Some anon IP will destroy it anyway. Outta here! - BilCat (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverting after being asked to go to the talk page, is considered Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and is not conducive to editing in a collaborative manner. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC).

Combining Operators and Operational History

I made a change to combine the operators section and the operational history, but it was reverted. Would the reverter please explain what the rationale for this is? It seems natural to me that these sections are related, and should be combined, but I'd like to understand a reason why they should not be. 70.250.198.221 (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I've now requested the same change here 70.250.198.221 (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, I found this text at the bottom of the template for WikiProject Aviation:

Finally, remember that you're in no way obliged to follow all, or even any, of these guidelines to contribute an article.

I wonder what that means? Unbiased editors, I ask you, does that sound like it grants the authority to revert my changes without a follow-on discussion? 70.251.33.111 (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It means that the guidelines do not have to be followed if there is a consensus to go a different way. Please remember that WP Bold-Revert-Discuss also applies, which is exactly what happened to your edits - you made bold changes, were reverted, and now we're discussing them. Also note that in all these discussion, hardly anyone has come to your defense, much less supported your changes. It is up to you to build a consensus to support your changes, major or minor, and that hasn't yet, for whatever reasons, bias or other. Changing consensus doesn't generally happen by being combative and dismissive to everyone on the page, or the editors in general. I'm really don't think you can accomplish that here at this point. There are avenues on WP to ask for outside input can be made, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment. - BilCat (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I added the Royal Norwegian Airforce in the 'combat mission' section. How can I add a reference (http://www.mil.no/start/article.jhtml?articleID=37420) ? Znuddel (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Add a reference tags. See WP:REF for specific instructions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please allow me some breathing room!

I'm getting really pissed off with the constant reverts that are being made to my edits to make this article less technical. Is there really a reason why this article needs to include an expansion of OODA in a parenthetical remark? Also, why is it necessary to include (E-M) as a parenthetical comment, within a link, no less! Even the goddamn E-M theory article doesn't have (E-M) in the title, so why the hell should we insist on it?

No, no, don't bother explaining. Just revert me, because the article is perfect the way it is, and since you disagree with me, reverting first makes sense. No need to discuss when you can just revert. After all, everybody's discussed the importance of leaving these acronyms littered throughout this article, and there's broad consensus that they make the article better... 70.250.179.89 (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to make a series of edits in a short timeframe, such 30 minutes to an hour, you might consider using the {{inuse}} template, and removing it once your finisged with that session. This will help avoid the "instant" reverst that often cause edit conflicts that make the session even more frustrating. You'll still run the risk of being reverted, but at least it'll happen fewer times. - BilCat (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the fair approach would be to actually evaluate the edits by their merit. I've already indicated my intention to make this article less technical, but I'm being reverted because I'm actually going forward with that. 70.250.179.89 (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Some edits were partially reverted. Acronyms should be spelled out on first mention per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Making the reader have to click on a link to understand what an acronym stands for hurts the article's readability, not helps. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the acronyms included in this article are not included in a way which explains them. They are simply included because the acronym exists, which makes the article overly technical. There are other ways to approach this than being super-technical. OODA is a great example of this. There's no need to include this acronym in the article, as it doesn't actually help the exposition at all. If you need to expand acronyms to meet the style guide, so be it, but don't use that as an excuse to include unnecessary or poorly explained acronyms. 70.250.179.89 (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You removed the spelled out versions of a couple acronyms and left only the linked acronyms. That's what I was referring to. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Then why did you revert everything? 70.250.188.119 (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

We understand your desire to make it less technical, it's the excecution of it that is being questioned. There is a difference between being too technical, and in using technical terms and trying to explain them in an understandable way. Modern aircraft are quite technical and complicated, and we have to use the technical terms associated with the aircraft and its systems quite a bit in decribing it. Simply removing all the technical terms usually just makes the text less understandable and more obscure, which is why your edits today were reverted. - BilCat (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Nothing is being questioned. There hasn't been any topical discussion at all. All that has happened is reverts. If you want to move the discussion forward, then please explain how the acronym OODA is relevant to the article, and why it's necessary to include it, as I've already explained that it's unnecessary technical jargon that I'm trying to get rid of.

And please don't talk down to me. I know that modern aircraft are quite technical, but I still feel there's considerable room for making this article less technical. Please explain how I made the article more obscure by my edits. 70.250.179.89 (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know you well enough to understand the extent or limits of your intelligence or comprehension. I'd rather over-explain than under-explain in such circumstances. - BilCat (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't explained how I made the article more obscure. 70.250.188.119 (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note, however, that some improvenments were made to the text as a result of your edits, and weren't just blind reverts. That's all part of the process of collaborative editng on WP. It happens to all of our contributions at some point. In the end, hopefully, a better product emerges as a result. - BilCat (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, where was the discussion that led to the consensus that my edits were unacceptable, but the reverts and changes were fine? 70.250.179.89 (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The edits/reverts and their edit summaries were the discussions. - BilCat (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So the reverts "wins" over my "discussion" in the edit summary and on the discussion page? 70.250.188.119 (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the article wins. - BilCat (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In other words: Use your your valuable editing skills on something more worthwhile. 110.175.228.227 (talk)

Article name/move

Following the change to the guideline on aircraft article naming at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) all United States military articles have been changed to the manufacturer-designation-name convention. One exception so far is this article. The proposal is to move it to Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon as the more common name rather than General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, any support for either name and comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is more reasons for using General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. Using Lockheed Martin seems to be a recentism thing. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I support Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon. The aircraft is still in production, and has been a Lockheed/LM program for 17 years now, so that's hardly "recent". The RFP was issued in Jan. 1971, so to 1993 that is 21 years. If the F-16 is still in production in 2014, a likely scenario, it will have been a Lockheed product for a longer time than a GD product, and LM will still be responsible for the aircraft for many more years. - BilCat (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It may very well be produced 4 more years. I still feel that General Dynamics conceiving/designing it and producing more F-16s than Lockheed/Lockheed Martin tilts the scale to GD. We need input from others here.. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I asked for more input at WT:AIR just an hour or so ago. It's too bad the companies didn't have shorter names: "General/Lockheed F-16 Fighting Falcon" would have been fine with me! :) - BilCat (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer General Dynamics, but mostly because that's how I learned what it was. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

General Dynamics was the original designer/producer and makes most sense to have it designated that way with a emphatic lede section indicating present status as a Lockheed Martin product. Essentially, the same design as it was conceived, is another reason to keep the General Dynamics name. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC).

Why not split and have a GD historical article? Hcobb (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I would support General Dynamics as the original designer and the producer of the largest number of F-16s. - Ahunt (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I also support General Dynamics for the article name. Reasons as per Ahunt above. --Denniss (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

General Dynamics was the original designer/producer and makes most sense to have it designated that way with a emphatic lede section indicating present status as a Lockheed Martin product. Essentially, the same design as it was conceived, is another reason to keep the General Dynamics name. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC).

• IMO, I would support renaming as "Lockheed Martian F-16 Fighting Talcum(sic!)" (I know, I know... my bad, don't change this part as it is making my side split right now due to me typing with my 2 eyes half-closed!) per BilCat's explanation, with further emphasis being placed in the infobox listing GD as designer and producing it from 1974 to 1993, while LM took over from 1993 till present day. (see Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye for comparison) Sums things nicely and makes more sense, eh? Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 22:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Martian and Talcum?? Spell check error or something. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• You know darned well what I meant, right? (I'm still in stitches~!) =P --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 22:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sure, but still thought it was funny. :) Got my attention too. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) No, Lockheed Martian is producing the new version of the F-22 "designed for outer space exploration and domination". See Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor#Censorship of theories of cross-use of operating system in spacecraft on this talk page for further info, tin-foil hats needed. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• And good old Bill just went underground with this comment... *lol* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 22:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

At least Northrop and Grumman did us a favor by keeping Grumman in the title when they merged. I would have hated to have to decide between Grumman E-2 Hawkeye and Northrop Sclaed Composites E-2 Hawkeye Northrop Scaled Composites E-2 Hawkeye! - BilCat (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Fn, you see that? Bill has been infecting me silently ever since I got on WP... *grin* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 22:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Go to sleep, Dave: We don't want Whalejets having problems coz your were up too late on WP! - BilCat (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Going off in another 21 minutes... Toodles~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 23:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'd call it the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon in deference to the original manufacturer and designer. Have an "also known as the Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon in the first sentence. We don't call it a "Boeing MD-80" or "Boeing MD-11" even though Boeing made both for several years. N419BH 23:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with N419BH, if we look at several notable examples such as the C-5, C-130, C-141, DC-8, DC-9, DC/KC-10, MD-11, MD-80, F/A-18 Hornet etc. etc. etc, the general trend has been to give the original manufacturer/designer. One exception that comes to mind would be the Super Hornet - which is designated as the Boeing Super Hornet - but seeing how this aircraft featured significant upgrades over previous models/variants, it's appropriate. In the case of the F-16, we could create a separate article for any variants designed after Lockheed/Lockheed Martin took over GD's manufacturing business (provided we have enough material). Vedant (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your inputs I have moved the article to General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon as the majority view. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As the son of one of the engineers who designed the F-16, thank you for keeping it listed as a GD aircraft (Specifically, the Convair division, where Dad worked for over 30 years). It was never a Martin, Lockheed, or Boeing aircraft....it's always been a General Dynamics work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.109.4 (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Specs proposal

I was thinking, why not just list the stats for all the F-16 variants in a table form, rather than just one variant? Some of the aviation-based wikipedia pages on airliners, such as the Boeing 737 page, have such a set-up, which is fantastic AVKent882 (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There is little difference between the variant blocks. But a table of the main variants is available at F-16 Fighting Falcon variants#Specifications for comparison. -fnlayson (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not just put a table like that in the main section, but add figures such as wing-area, airfoil type when applicable, gross-takeoff weight (full fuel-load, no armament), both afterburning and dry thrust figures, maximum speed at altitude and sea-level, rather than just altitude, the ferry range, service-ceiling, rate of climb, wing-loading, thrust-weight ratio and so on. The basic form already exists to produce the table, you'd simply add a few extra items to it and so on. It would effectively cover the variants of the F-16 rather than just one right in the specifications section, rather than a different page AVKent882 (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - we normally only show the specs for one variant and as Fnalyson says it is all in a sub-article if you want the information. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would also oppose as specification tables were deprecated in 2004, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Aircraft specifications. The airliner articles with tables are non-standard for the aircraft project. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The F-16 variants page is probably a better location for multiple specifications, rather than here, but I disagree with the above comment that there is little difference between blocks. An A- and B-model F-16 is significantly different from the more heavyweight C-, D-, E-, and F-models. Certainly avionics make a big difference, but I've often heard it said that the Block 60 (E- and F-models) are a completely different aircraft from the early A- and B-models. 70.250.179.129 (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• In general there is little difference in the specs from one block to the next block. The difference from one variant to the next involves some 2-3 block steps. Thought this was implied in my post above, but I guess not to everybody. -fnlayson (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand Controversy

The Centre for Strategic Studies New Zealand article mentions a controversy surrounding the purchase of F-16s that is not mentioned in this article. I would think it should be. 70.250.179.129 (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dont think it is particularly notable to the aircraft more to do with NZ politics, as an aside it also appears to have NPOV issues in that article. MilborneOne (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, and that entire article is unreferenced now. -fnlayson (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it would be better to have reliable refs on this, and that it is a bit political, but still think it needs mention if that can be done. Nobody is challenging the controversy itself, are they? Perhaps not notable enough for this page, focusing on the aircraft, but more appropriate for the operators page. 70.250.179.129 (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, F-16 Fighting Falcon operators or possibly F-16 Fighting Falcon operational history would be the better place for specifics such as this. -fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely internal Kiwi politics and nothing about the F-16 per say has anything to do with it. They could have Raptors or Super Hornets or Su-whatevers and exactly the same events would have occurred. Hcobb (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ventral fins

These are mentioned, but I have no idea what purpose they actually serve. Stability would be my first guess, but I don't know if these fins are fixed or movable. Hellbus (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Americans simply copied these from the Chengdu J-10, but this article has some details on a new twist (pun intended) to put on these fins.

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMSDM09_2047/PV2009_2538.pdf

Hcobb (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that Lockheed-Martin has a time machine? :P The F-16 first flew in 1974, and the J-10 in 1998. Hellbus (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Striked~! I am striking off this nonsensical discussion, go to an external forum if you must discuss such nonsensical topic that does not improve the actual article in any way possible. Please note that Wikipedia is not a social networking website like Blogspot, Facebook or Twitter. Thank you for you cooperation. --Dave1185 ^talk 01:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Unstruck! Sorry, but an asking for an explanation of the reason or the fins is a legitimate topic for the article. You and I sometimes stray off-topic with sacrastic comments too, Dave, even on article talk pages. Anyway, the US industrial espionage community is extremely smart: They stole something from China 30 years before China had the technology to implement the design. This way, they throw off suspicion. Thats why the Russians always get accused of stealing from the West - they should have developed the Su-24 in the 1940s, the Tu-144 in the 1950s, and the Buran in the early 1960s. :) - BilCat (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So should we ref that paper (link above) or is wiggly fins too obscure? Hcobb (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it's notable enough to include here. I vaguely remember hearing something about ventral fins on an aircraft allowing it greater maneuverability, but I can't remember whether it was the F-16 or some other aircraft with similar fins. This is a case of my mind being like a steel trap - rusty, and illegal in most of the US. Hellbus (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are thinking of the F-16 AFTI? 219.89.117.150 (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

They are fixed. The purpose is to try to regain some horizontal (and a little vertical) stability in a straight line - the f16 is about as aerodynamically unstable as you can make a non-computer-assisted control plane, so the pilots need every bit of help they can cram on. The rudder and tailfin is almost useless at speed too, due to its small depth. It's part of the price they paid for having the tightest turning circle of any jet until vector thrust or computer assisted flight was invented.00:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)~

More Observations

In the section about movies that the F-16 has appeared in, I believe the aircraft that the article is referring to is the FA-22 Raptor. I do not recall seeing the F-16 in the movie. If someone else could confirm my belief I would appreciate it so that we can make the change. Kwilkins3 (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Which film is that? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Article split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion closed as this section is no longer about improving the article, and Wikipedia is not a forum.

---

What's required to get this article split into smaller pieces? 70.250.198.35 (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Somebody proposes that part of the article is moved into a sub-article, normally better to only propose one area at a time. Other users will comment and discuss the merits, if we have a clear consensus then the discussion is closed one way or the other. If the consensus is not clear then other methods (like a poll or WP:RFC) can be used to build a consensus, the default position is the status quo. MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, can the variants section be moved into a sub-article? There is already a sub-article for this purpose. 70.250.198.35 (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The variant article already exists and appears to duplicate a lot of the content of the main article. It would seem reasonable to include anything missing in the variant article that is in the main article, and then create just a variant summary here. Not sure why it wasnt done before when the variants article was created. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. 70.250.198.35 (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, is there consensus on this already? 70.250.198.35 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• For what exactly? You have not given any details on exactly what you want to split. There are already the Lightweight Fighter, Operational History, Variants and Operators articles split from this one. -fnlayson (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  MilborneOne said to propose one area at a time to split. I have proposed the variants section. I'm wondering if there's consensus to go forward with that. 70.250.198.35 (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) The variants article exists already at F-16 Fighting Falcon variants. I was asked to comment on the article size, it is within the guidelines of WP:SIZE and has been split already as noted into four more sub-articles which is quite normal for the larger aircraft articles. At the current size of 86 kb it is about right and I don't believe that a further split is warranted at this time. I don't know much about the F-16 but this article looks fairly balanced to me. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm shortening the Variant entries. The entries can be shorter here since the separate Variant article has the details. -fnlayson (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  I'm confused. Was there a consensus to do that? 70.250.198.35 (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the variants were already off from this article a year or two ago. -fnlayson (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This and every other article on US military gear could conceivably be seperated into 2 parts:

Imagine you're from the Ukraine, or.. hmm maybe somewhere americans dont hate; I don't know, Antarctica. You've never heard of a "f16" before. Why do you visit this place?

1) Because you want to know *what* the thing is (an extremely agile fighter plane), and maybe if that gets you interested *how* it works (tweaked subsonic wings, fly by wire control, etc.) , and *why* it does (details and references for all of the above).

2) There is another class of visitors: Those dedicated to (american, in this case) war history. They want to know *where* this thing was used, *when*, and alot of other stuff that I'm not qualified to ask, since I'm not one of these people. I suspect they're usually looking for a reference, or they may just be evil geniuses wanting to buy one. I don't know.

In any case, it really gives me the shits when I am reading through these articles about their features, development, and so on, and suddenly I reach a section called "operators" or "history" or something like that, and have to scroll through a bunch of shit I don't care about to get to "technical specifications". I'm sure the 'historians' (for want of a better word) feel the same way about having to read a bunch of technical junk they don't understand right off the bat. Maybe this is the way the US military produces documentation for these things, but this is wikipedia; it's for the common man, by the common man, and we can do better.

Everyone is different, but can you not divide the information between these 2 parts, and make everyone happy? It's not an ideal solution for sure, but it does seem to be a logical best-of-both-worlds division to me. Especially when an article gets too large, as is apparently the case here.110.175.228.227 (talk)

All WP articles with over 3 headings have Tables of Content. These can be used to find the sections a reader is interested in, thus avoidung inopurtune loose bowel movements. By the way, Americans do hate Antarctica, because it's cold, penguins live there, and there are no natives to conquer, and because it's near Australia, which we hate more than the Ukraine. - BilCat (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Very funny. And way to miss the point.13:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.228.227 (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LWF Redundancy

As Bzuk noted in a recent edit, there is significant redundant information between this article and the LWF article. Any thoughts for how this should be handled? 70.250.198.35 (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The LWF article covers all the details on the program itself including the history, the program itself and the outcomes. This F-16 article only needs relevant details of how the YF-16 winning the ACF competition lead to the F-16. All the other LWF-related info can easily be reached at the LWF page. And if there is a substantial need for information collated on the YF-16, then a YF-16 page would be appropriate just as there is a YF-17 page. I re-wrote the Development/Origins section here as a proposal. Chalky (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The text is this article is a summary of what is in the LWF article. The text here is about 1/2 as long or less. And some text should be cut down more. There should be enough information here to understand the LWF basics without having to refer to LWF article. I believe this idea is covered in WP:Summary style. -fnlayson (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Common name rule

Is "General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon" really the common name for this aircraft? It seems a bit wordy. I would guess that "F-16 Fighting Falcon" is probably more common. Remember, the common name rule applies to article titles. The common name rule states, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." The common name rule is a Wikipedia policy, not a guideline.

If the common name is "F-16 Fighting Falcon", rather than "General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon", then the article should be renamed to comply with Wikipedia article naming policy. --JHP (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft names are quite complicated, and there is generally no single common name for them. This article follows the WP:AIR/NC naming conventions, which attempt to have a comnon standard for aircraft article titles, rather than a haphazard nnaming format based on wihc form receives the most G-hits. Incidently, the form chosen by the project, Manufactuer-designation-name (or 2 of the 3 if all 3 don't exist), is the one found in most aviation reference books, which are the bulk of the "English-language reliable sources" for aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Btw, This article is titled according to WP:AIR/NC naming conventions. Rather than adding the same post to thousands of aircraft article talk pages, it would probably be easier on all involved if you post to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) instead. - BilCat (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The goal of the article title is to have it match what most people are likely to search for, while still being a unique article name. News articles are also reliable sources and probably better represent the name most common in the minds of the public. Very few people actually read aviation reference books.

WP:COMMONNAME states, "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals, and a search engine may help to collect this data. When using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word 'Wikipedia'."

Although not part of WP:COMMONNAME, editors of this article could ask themselves whether they really go around using the term "General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon" most of the time, or whether they more often use an abbreviation such as "F-16 Fighting Falcon" or simply "F-16". If even die-hard aviation aficionados use abbreviated names, it is unlikely that "General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon" is really the common name.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica article title for this subject is simply "F-16".[10] --JHP (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As has been suggested on a number of talk pages you really need to raise this at either Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) or WP:AIRCRAFT. MilborneOne (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

JHP, you must be new here. If you looked at the archives, you would see that reasonable discussion and core Wikipedia ideaology are not welcome here. Instead, you must think like a military historian. 70.247.173.255 (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What is a "block"?

The article does not explain. Is it general terminology or just for Boeing?192.38.5.154 (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

General. See 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system#Block_number for more. This link has been added to the article now. Read more of the article to catch its manufacturers.. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dumping

The United States has been accused of dumping unwanted American aircraft on countries outside the borders of the United States in order to subdue competition from larger regions such as Europe. The article does not mention accusations of predatory pricing by the United States government in order to decimate the aircraft industry of Canada, Belgium and the rest of Europe. Are there figures available to back this claim? For example Indonesia gets F-16 fighter planes for free (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/02/16/indonesia-get-f16-fighter-planes-us.html)

In the recent visit of US President Barack "Krupuk" Obama on November 9–10, 2010 in Jakarta, Force was offered 24 ex-USAF F-16 Fighting Falcon Block 32 for free. (http://www.bipnewsroom.info/index.php?_language=Indonesia&_mainNo=11&_cmsType=HALAMAN%20UTAMA&_contentShow=Ascending&_contentType=Content%20Type&_pageBreak=0&_loginID=&_password=&&newsid=68454&_link=loadnews.php) Now, they still reconsiders to accept the offer. Krupuk also progressing in reactivation of the entire 10 units of F-16 Fighting Falcon Block 15 OCU, which resulted in the reactivation of bakso recently. In a recent interview with Air Chief of Staff Assistant of Planning Barry Biatmoko, he stated on plans on purchase until 2014.

Dumping is a problem for producers in greater Europe. Countries on the front line of the war on terror against Europe such as Belgium have been forced into buying the F-16 despite the security concerns posed by buying aircraft from their enemies. From Indonesia to Africa to Turkey to Belgium, the USA F-16 has Europe surrounded. "I love Avro. I was raised right." Said one politician, "Somebody has to go to Washington and knock the hell out of the place."

A section on F-16 dumping should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.22.199 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, not without specific reliable sources that actually say what you're claiming. I don't think you'll find any legitimate sources that claim the US is an "enemy" of Belgium! - BilCat (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Negative stability flight

I made some minor changes to include:

1. Indicating that positive stability will induce a plane to return to straight and level flight. For almost all aircraft this is more correct than to say it will return the aircraft to the attitude it was in before its controls were disturbed. For example, a plane that is spin rated will not redevelop a spin once you've recovered from the spin if you let go of the controls. It will tend to return to straight and level flight.

1. I don't believe it is true in all cases that an aircraft designed with negative stability will become more stable after transitioning to supersonic flight. It's entirely possible that negatively stable designs could be developed that would get even less stable at supersonic speeds. There are certainly a lot of holes in the ground around Edwards AFB from pilots who experienced negative supersonic stability. I think it's better to limit this claim to the F16 in particular.

--Solidpoint (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Entirely fair changes, it is in need of rewriting, and I approve of your edits so far. You're welcome to proceed if my say is anything. Kyteto (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

HAVE GLASS half empty?

Should we include upgrades like HAVE GLASS II?

http://defense-update.com/20110921_taiwan-air-force-modernization.html

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/TECRO_11-39.pdf

Etc. Hcobb (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ted Harduvel incident

Very surprised this is not listed, this crash led to a massive court case and a film. Adding. --0pen$0urce (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Accidents

Just had a clear out of the accident sections as clearly most of those listed are just not notable for a mention. Military aircraft crash and hit things and each other in mostly non-notable accidents, really need to kill somebody important or hit something important to get a mention, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Fighters are more prone to accidents for various reasons compared to airliners. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, let's whitewash the record. Why would an encyclopedia care about facts? 70.247.173.255 (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:SARCASM is so useful. Buffs (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the F-16, with its one engine, isn't called a lawn dart for nothing. By the way, is this a notable accident? Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

AN/ALQ-131 page

Will we get a AN/ALQ-131 page before the system is replaced by the Electronic Attack Pod Upgrade Program (see http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-175 ) in a decade's time?

See: http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/alq131/index.html

etc. Hcobb (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Silly Specs

Once again we see inflated specs at work. Note how the internal fuel capacity is NOT noted in the spec block. Let's do the math...

Loaded weight: 26,500 lb - Empty weight: 18,900 lb = 7,600 lb Now subtract out the AF factsheet Fuel Capacity: 7,000 pounds internal (3,175 kilograms); typical capacity, 12,000 pounds with two external tanks (5443 kilograms) And we get 600 lb for a loaded weight (half of which is pilot and suit)

So the combat configuration is REALLY only two sidewinders? (And even that is stretching things.)

So add in those typical external fuel tanks and the pods and etc. and we see that the F-35 totally waxes the Viper backwards and forwards. Hcobb (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Designed as a single seat fighter?

The "lightweight" aspect of the Development section allows me to assume that the F-16 was very likely designed as a single-seat fighter (but with two-seat versions available to be used purely as trainers, as is common practice). The Design section refers to "seat" and "the pilot" in the singular, reinforcing this idea.

The first specific explanation of this is as late as the Variants section, which says "the blocks cover both single- and two-seat versions", without explaining that the two-seat versions are for training purposes. The Specifications listing goes as far as specifying "Crew: 1".

Should the fact that this was designed primarily as a single-seat aircraft be mentioned earlier in the article (and mentioned more specifically), perhaps more than once? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it was; the earlier F-15 was designed as a single-seat fighter. The 2-seat versions of these have primarily been trainers. Maybe mention it, but this does not seem that critical enough for an in-depth discussion. The specs are for the F-16C, a single-seat variant. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

F-16 Performance

I would like to see this added one way or another. I'm not a pro at this, but found the facts very interesting from this book.

According to the 2000 edition of the book of modern warplanes by Mike Spike, no fighter in the world can match the sustained turn ability of the F-16. (pg 304). Below is a graph showing the F-16’s sustained turn rates at various altitudes and speed. The F-16C is carrying 4 air to air missiles with 50% fuel (pg244)

Altitude	Mach Speed	Deg/Sec	Notes
5,000 Feet	0.5	16	On Par with MiG 29 and F-18
5,000 Feet	0.7	17	Slight but definite advantage over MiG 29 and F-18
5,000 Feet	0.9	18	Slight but definite advantage over MiG 29 and F-18
5,000 Feet	1.2	9	Advantage over MiG 29 and F-18
15,000 Feet	0.7	12	Closely matched by the Mirage 2000C, MiG-29, F-18
15,000 Feet	0.9	13	Closely matched by the Mirage 2000C, MiG-29, F-18
15,000 Feet	1.2	9	Decided superiority over the Mirage 2000C, MiG-29, F-18
15,000 Feet	1.5	5	Matched by the Mirage 2000C
30,000 Feet	0.7	7	Little if any advantage over the Mirage 2000C, MiG-29, F-18
30,000 Feet	0.9	7	Little if any advantage over the Mirage 2000C, MiG-29, F-18
30,000 Feet	1.2	6	Little if any advantage over the Mirage 2000C, MiG-29, F-18
30,000 Feet	1.7	4	Little if any advantage over the Mirage 2000C, MiG-29, F-18

For speed and acceleration, the F-16C carrying 4 air to air missiles with 50% fuel can accelerate from Mach 0.4 to Mach 1.0 in 21 seconds at 5,000feet. At 15,000 feet it would take 35 seconds to go from Mach 0.5 to Mach 1.2. At 30,000 feet the F-16C can go from Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.6 in 59 seconds. It’s said that all of these are better or closely comparable with the MiG-29, F/A 18 Hornet, and Mirage 2000C. Pg 244. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowbeartoe (talk • contribs) 08:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

First flight

I have noticed the Wikipedia page for the year 1974 states that the first flight of the F-16 was February 2 1974 whereas the F-16 article states 20 January 1974 i would edit this myself but am unsure which is true Louisfuture (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

According to a reliable source the prototype became accidentally airborne on 20 January 1974, one tailplane was damaged and it flew for six minutes. The official first flight of 90 minutes was on 2 February 1974. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This article covers this well, I checked 1974 in aviation and both dates are given with an explanation so we're all good. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the top speed mach 2 or 1,500 mph? Those are not equal.

The article currently says that the top speed at altitude is mach 2, then in parentheses it says 1,500 mph. This assumes mach 1 is 750 mph, which is not accurate "at altitude". Mach 1 from 35,000 to 100,000 ft is about 660 mph.

I am guessing the source said "mach 2".Fluoborate (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The source, which is the USAF factsheet [11], says "Speed: 1,500 mph (Mach 2 at altitude) " - 1500 mph corresponds to Mach 2 at about 5000 ft according to [12] - of course, it could mean 1500 mph or Mach 2 - not necessarily at the same altitude.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Air National Guard F-16 destroyed

I added a paragraph about an F16 being destroyed in duty, and it was quickly removed.

On 7 June 1988, an Air National Guard F-16 hit two wild pigs on Jacksonville International Airport's runway.

The aircraft was destroyed, and the pilot's life was spared because he had ejected after the crash.

The person who removed this--without discussion--doesn't think this crash, ejection and destruction is noteworthy because the pilot hit a pig. (it was actually an "enemy pig").

C'mon people.

Richard Apple (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Most accidents involving military aircraft are not notable. See WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Map inconsistency

The map of current and former users contains an error. Thailand -- which is a user -- is shown in BLACK (which is not a code color) and Myanmar (Burma) -- which is NOT a user -- is shown in blue.--Death Bredon (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

F-16 with the highest number of shot downs

The Israeli Air Force F-16A Netz 107 has 6.5 killing marks of other aircraft shot downs. I add a sentence saying it is a world record for an F-16. It was removed on the claim it was unsourced. Going over the killing marks record in http://www.f-16.net shows there is no other F-16 with 6.5 killing marks. The best rival which is not an IAF F-16 is an United States Air Force F-16 with 3 killing marks of other aircrafts. Therefore, I want to restore the claim about the 6.5 killing marks of other aircrafts is a world record for F-16. MathKnight 20:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Comparing some images like that seems to be Original research and may not catch everything. Better sourcing should be used in Good Articles, such as this one. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Israeli F-16s

I think the designation of the F-16 model used by Israel (IDF's IAF) is F-16i and not F-16s, as a lot of the avionics/computerisation inside the Israeli F-16 is Israeli made, making their F-16 different than the F-16s (used by the USA et. al.) Ronbarak (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

F-16s is being used as a plural not a designation refer to General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants for information on designations. MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate info on Greek F-16 crash

On 23 November 2000, a Greek F-16CG crashed after being intercepted by Turkish F-16Cs. http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_299.shtml the source is total inaccurate the plane crashed during an exercise (gun firing) at weapons range close to Larisa city due to vertigo. No connection with interception mission. http://www.rizospastis.gr/storyPlain.do?id=533139 http://www.hri.org/news/greek/ana/2000/00-11-18.ana.html#09 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.246.248.50 (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

f-16.net a WP:RS?

What makes f16.net a reliable source - I can find no mention of what sort of editorial controls the site has or whether it is just another WP:SPS. It wasn't used as a reference when the article passed GA in 2011, but is now used quite a bit. Opinions?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"f-16.net" We should try and avoid it as an WP:SPS with advertising and registered to a guy in Belgium - (note not F16.net which is registered to "Lockheed Martin Corporation"). MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged the most blatent cite - to a forum on F-16.net, most of the rest seem to be in the Aircraft on Display section - which is often problematical for referencing.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

OK but if we dont remove the f-16.net refs then we may have to consider downgrading the article from GA.MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh I believe we can tag the relevant bits Tag serious problems that you cannot fix (Template:Better source perhaps) and try and find a fix before the article needs re-assesing. I presume a reasonable time is allowed for this. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

CAPES can't fly

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140127/DEFREG/301270023/F-16-Upgrade-Dropped-From-US-Budget-Proposal-Sources-Say

Is the sourcing solid enough on this one to include the suggestion of a narrow "S" CAPE? Hcobb (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

30deg reclining seat

Why does the introduction refer to the 30deg seat as one of the F-16's "innovations" when the Saab Draken was using an identical seat in 1955? Just curious..45Colt 21:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Since the F-16's airframe can withstand 9gs, the positioning of the seat was designed to allow the pilot to withstand higher g-loads for an extended period of time. Cheers, Jak474 (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

High-off-boresight missiles links to Gun Harmonisation. Why?

At the end of the Cockpit and Ergonimics section, just before the Fire Control section, the phrase "using high-off-boresight missiles" occurs. The "off-boresight" part links to gun harmonisation, and I have no friggin idea why. I wanted to know what a "high-off-boresight missile" is, so I clicked the link, but the article linked does not offer any information regarding missiles or what "off-boresight" might mean in this context. This sort of blind linking is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.... Obviously, I don't have the knowledge to fix this. Does anyone? 83.209.122.95 (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

We do not seem to have a HOBS article. Best places to start are Helmet-mounted display and Air-to-air missile. Hcobb (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

F-16 armament: AGM-65 Maverick ?

Moved here from User talk:Fnlayson

The page stated '6x Mavericks' were mountable on the F16, however no explanation of what types:

• 6x Mavericks are mountable via the LAU 88A/A launcher rail used on stations 3 and 7.
• A further single Maverick can be mounted via the LAU 117A(V)3A launcher rail on stations 4 and 6.

A total of 8x Mavericks not 6 (didn't spot this mistake till later) are mountable on the F16. 6x Mavericks would of course be a standard load out with stations 3 and 7 used for fuel stores due to the increased drag from the missles.

The LAU 88A/A is only compatible with stations 3 and 7 and the LAU 117A(V)3A can be mounted on stations 3, 4, 6 and 7

AGM 65 versions A/B/C/D are compatible with both launchers but versions E/F/G/H/J/K/L are only compatible for combat on the LAU 117A(V)3A launcher, hence my edit:

• 6x Mavericks versions A/B/C/D (which should of been 8x)
• 4x Mavericks versions E/F/G/H/J/K/L

I personally knew someone that flew in these and ended up arguing over it until he brought out his operating manual for the aircraft, a reference showing something similar to what I read would be this:

http://www.csef.ru/files/csef/articles/4361/4361.pdf

Thank you for tidying up the Hardpoints list aswell, I normally only do minor spelling mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.97.226.4 (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I have a source that covers the number of AGM-65 missiles the F-16 can carry. Any idea why it can carry twice as many of the older AGM-65 Mavericks than the newer versions? Does anybody know? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

File:F-16 June 2008.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:F-16 June 2008.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 16, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-09-16. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a single-engine multirole fighter aircraft originally developed by General Dynamics for the United States Air Force. Designed as an air superiority day fighter, it evolved into a successful all-weather multirole aircraft. Over 4,500 aircraft have been built since production was approved in 1976. Its features include a frameless bubble canopy, side-mounted control stick, and relaxed static stability/fly-by-wire flight control.Photo: Andy Dunaway, United States Air Force

Diamond display formation of F-16s from Royal Danish Air Force

Diamond formation of nine F-16s in mixed configurations from Fighterwing Skrydstrup, Royal Danish Air Force on display at Danish Air Show 2014.

The shown photo was recently featured at Commons. I am not personally knowledgable about the subject, but in case any editors of this page finds its inclusion in the article is relevant, feel free to do so. --Slaunger (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Production

"Although no longer being purchased by the U.S. Air Force, improved versions are still being built for export customers." An interesting table would be production/ how many built per year, and perhaps information on types built that year. (Wonder how these numbers compare to those for Boeing and civilian airliners). Of even higher interest is how are sales doing, is there a potential forecast shutdown date for the production line if no additional sales. Wfoj3 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Feedback

This being a pure fly-by-wire aircraft, does the pilot experience any haptic feedback in the controls? If so, it should probably be mentioned.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 03:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Another F-16 on display: National Guard 47 Bataan Blvd Santa Fe, NM 87508

Another F-16 apparently A variant on display at National Guard 47 Bataan Blvd Santa Fe, NM 87508, don't know the tail # but will try to get a picture # number.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/National+Guard/@35.5705143,-106.0881512,217m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!1m2!2m1!1snational+guard!3m1!1s0x0000000000000000:0x606d8d7700d82066!6m1!1e1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.26.86.23 (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC) 

The F-16's Thrust to Weight Ratio appears To Disagree With Thrust, Dry, Loaded Weights

I also noticed the same is true for the article on the F-15. For Both they appear to site number for the t/w significantly higher then the calculated numbers, from the airframes thrust (after burner/without) and weight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshalcraft (talk • contribs) 00:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Saab 37E "Eurofighter". ???

the Saab 37 Viggen / "Thunderbolt", is right, I assume is right here but the Eurofighter is a completely different later air fighter. I guess a correction is needed. --Zzalpha (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Why assume it's incorrect? It's more likely that was the project name at the time (c. 1975), and since it was never produced, the name was used again for a totally different aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it is correct: The "Saab-Scania 37E Viggen Eurofighter" was covered in Flight International in 17 April 1975. The Flight Archives are such a wonderful thing! Seriously, one can find all kinds of gems like this in them. - BilCat (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Engine designations

Similar to the F-15E article. The correct designation for engines is F110-GE-100. F110-100 or F100-132 is simply incorrect and does not follow engine designation schemes used by the USAF and USN. The current MILSTD for engine designation is here. So the way the engines are written in this article is flat out wrong, and correcting it doesn't make it any harder to read anyways. Besides, the Block 40 uses the F110-GE-100, the Block 50 uses F110-GE-129, which produces slightly more thrust anyways. 45.49.185.241 (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Let's keep the conversations on this issue in one place. I've replied at [[[Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle#Engine designation]]. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding t/w ratio with 50% fuel

I added the thrust to weight ratio at loaded weight with 50% internal fuel, similar to many other fighter jet Wikipedia pages. Thrust is 28,600 lbs, loaded weight is 26,500 and internal fuel is 7,000. [28600/(26500-(7000/2))=1.24]. F-16 Viper (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the source for such details (mainly internal fuel)? You did not provide a source in the article so others can directly verify. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I used the air force spec sheet ("USAF sheet") that is already cited above the specifications for the fuel amount, which lists it at 7000 lbs. F-16 Viper (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, but you did not add that cite with the text you added. That's been done now. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Google Earth icon for this article

I teach geography and use the Wikipedia links on Google Earth with my students all the time. Much of my slight contribution to Wikipedia has been entering or correcting "coord" entries in articles. I was exploring the Saemangeum Estuary of Korea on Google Earth. At the north edge of waterway is Kusan Air Base. The 'W' icon for this article appears there, over what appear to be a row of F-16's parked on the apron. It seems odd to me that an article about a class of airplanes has a location at all. Why would it use this particular location rather than one of the outdoor museum examples listed in the article? I cannot find a "coord" entry in the source of the article, so I don't understand why the icon shows up where it does. Can someone with more experience in Wiki/GEarth explain? Thanks. Pinwheelman (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132000111400/http://www.vasc.org/exhibits/aircraft/yf16.html to http://www.vasc.org/exhibits/aircraft/yf16.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132012384200/http://www.hill.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5735 to http://www.hill.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5735
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132012385400/http://www.hill.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5736 to http://www.hill.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5736
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140915090316/http://www.museumofaviation.org/F16.php to http://www.museumofaviation.org/F16.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151211055900/http://staffordmuseum.com/exhibitss/ to http://staffordmuseum.com/exhibitss/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"Increasing costs" should be removed

A more reasonable, summary of this marginally important but extant critique would be: "As new F-16 versions integrate more advanced technology, unit costs have increased. For example, in 2013 Iraq purchased 18 F-16IQs as part of a contract for $830 million [cite AIN], for a theoretical cost of $46.38 million each. This is significantly higher than the 1998 fly-away price of $18.8 million ($28.47 million in May 2017). Some (cite [[13]]) have criticized this growth as antithetical to the original concept of the Lightweight Fighter program which led to the F-16."

This would be tacked onto the the end of the "Improvements and upgrades" section, with the current section deleted.

Reasoning: The argument that the F-16 has decreased in cost effectiveness hinges on "effectiveness" remaining similar while costs have increased. Clearly, this is not the case. AMRAAMs, smart weapons, targeting pods, ECM and radar upgrades, uprated engines, etc, etc. On the specific costs cited, these are specifically flawed for unit costs because the way these contracts generally work is that they are gigantic bundles which includes logistics and training equipment that will never touch an airplane. For instance, the cited article at AIN has the 2nd batch of 18 F-16IQs, which doubtlessly includes far less of this non-airplane stuff, as costing $835 million, which is $46.38 million each. This is probably much more representative of the actual unit cost. Why I wonder was this cost discrepancy fact not explored in the current text? Same situation for the Romanian contract cited- the $835 million figure includes logistic and training support, according to Defense Industry Daily. And, same source, there's a follow-on deal: "The $203 million deal includes nine F-16AM single-seaters and three F-16BM two-seaters as well as an overhaul of engines; initial logistics support; training of up to nine pilots, 75 technicians, and four mission planers; two years of on-site support; and updating the fleet to operational flight program (OFP) development software M5.2R standard, with support from Lockheed Martin." The 1995 "fly-away" cost is also misleading since adjusting for inflation, it's about $28.47 million. Is $28.47 million less than $46.38? Yes, but again we don't know what exactly is included in that contract, and these are significantly upgraded airplanes.

The particular contracts can be covered somewhere else, if at all. Maybe under Variants? Prinz eugn (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's an improvement to remove actual cost figures, together with their sources. No problem with adding relevant quotes. But you're right, "cost" and "cost effectiveness" tend to get easily muddled. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, the premise of the paragraph that "costs have gone up significantly" largely falls apart upon closer examination, which could be addressed in the text but only by bloating it with more information. What's happening is that there is a severe misunderstanding of the difference between bundled contract cost and "fly away" cost as written. An analogy would be the difference between buying a delivery company and buying a few delivery trucks. This mistake is unfortunately made in the fluff Time article cited, and probably deliberately made by the cited Polish officials to convince their government to buy new aircraft. This misunderstanding could be addressed by adding in information from Defense Industry Daily and other sources for the other cited contracts breaking down what they actually included beyond aircraft, but that seems to be a relatively lengthy discussion out of place in this article. Without that discussion, however, the cited values are extremely misleading, which is why I advocate for removing that paragraph and at least distributing some of that information elsewhere.

Notable contract information can be included elsewhere in the article (an F-16IQ contract is already discussed under Variants section), or in the articles General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants and General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon operators. In the context of this article, there are barely other mentions of these types of contracts (country buys X airplanes as part of deal for $Y.Y billion), which leads me to believe that they are simply not notable. One exception might be the UAE-paid development of the F-16E/F Block 60, since that resulted in a completely new variant. Likewise, "X official says Thing is too expensive, recommends Other Thing" does not seem notable either.- Prinz eugn (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You may have made some valid points here, but your conclusion that precise information about costs should be removed is ludicrous, and is exactly the thing lobbyists for the arms industry try to do all the time. (The original text said nothing about cost effectiveness, which is a different, if meaningfully concurrent, issue.) However difficult it may be to understand, these cost figures represent REAL money which countries and their armed forces have to spend to get these things (or in the event of "financing" the debt they have to incur.) And I not suggesting that this be some sort of crusade for truth, shining light in the dark nooks of the arms industry, however useful and well intentioned that impulse may be, for this is widely available information found fairly easily on the internet with a bit of search expertise. Sooooo ... suggesting it be deleted because it does not jibe with your seemingly more sophisticated analysis of the numbers smacks of and looks a lot like arrogance on your part. Of course, you could explain your point in detail, remembering not to present original synthesis but providing evidence.

Oh, and do not worry about having to use more words and space, more bloat, to explain your contribution. One thing wiki has is endless space, most of it filled with poorly written garbage. If you have even a modicum of skill with prose, all your sins of excess will be forgiven ... bien sur! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.51.234 (talk • contribs) 1 jul 2017 20:37 (UTC) THANK YOU!

As I said, contract information can be included elsewhere, not necessarily removed. Here are my current issues with the cost paragraph:

1) Where is the argument that the F-16 is somehow "departing" from being low cost coming from? Is this statement actually sourceable? The only time I have seen an argument resembling this it was coming from John Boyd and Pierre Sprey, which is why I added their info and the response by Harry Hillaker. I should note Sprey and Boyd's was never a mainstream viewpoint.

2) The presented costs are blatantly misleading as I have explained above. Comparing fly away costs directly to bundled contract costs is inappropriate. I will address this with additional sources in the text, but note the article does have a Cleanup tag encouraging summarizing existing info.

3) There are numerous issues with the raison d'etre claim. What if the higher cost pays for increased capabilities, making it an efficient use of money? And "Low cost" compared to what? The F-16 was designed to be low-cost compared to other high performance western fighters, namely the F-15. If we compare new versions of the F-16 to newer versions of the F-15 and new designs such as the Eurofighter Typhoon or F-22, the F-16 is still lower cost. All of this seems like way too much original research to include.

I will add more info on the contracts, but I have to note that I still think it would be more appropriate to distribute that info elsewhere. If we take the F-4 or F-15 articles as examples, you simply do not see this kind of detail. Some articles like the Eurofighter one include more info but they have more NPOV "just the facts" framing of "this is what the costs are/were"-Prinz eugn (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's an improvement to remove actual cost figures, No problem with adding relevant quotes. But you're right, "cost" and "cost effectiveness" tend to get easily muddled. --Bolzanobozen (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)