Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

F-16V

@BilCat: The references listed beside the "F-16V Block 70/72" didn't even use that term. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency also didn't even use "F-16V Block 70/72", and instead used "F-16V", "F-16 Block 70/72", or "F-16C/D Block 70/72". See the reference below. If you have reliable sources yourself that it's stated as "F-16V Block 70/72", please reply. RPC7778 (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Future operators

Several editors have added a "Future operators" section for Ukraine. Bulgaria and Slovakia were also added in the most recent case. The addition of the section has repeatedly been reverted as there is no consensus to include such sections in military aircraft articles apart from the occasional "Potential operators" section. Since the number of attempts to add the section have risen over the last few days, it's probably worth having a formal discussion. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging BilCat, Poklane, and The Legacy. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Operators with aircraft on firm order do not have to be separated as Future operators. A future user with a firm order is effectively an operator. WP:Air does not do this in any other aircraft article that I am aware of. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

ZLEA I concur with Fylayson. The Legacy (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

New Article

F-16V Block 70/72 Vipers are 4.5 gen fighters. There should be a different page on that. E/F versions can be also transferred there. Shahed0078 (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Shahed0078 I'm not sure that they meet WP:AIR/N for subtypes and variants. Sure, they're newer, but being classified as 4.5th generation fighters does not mean that they need their own article. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

There are significant differences between a 1978 and a 2023 fighter. In fact it evolved into a completely different item. For reference you can consider the eligibility of MiG-35 or MiG-29M for their own pages compared to the MiG-29. It will also relieve some data load of the F-16 page. Shahed0078 (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with ZLEA. Some examples of 4.5 gen variants that don't have their own wiki pages are the Su-30SM, the Saab Gripen E/F, the JF-17 Block 3, and the Eurofighter Typhoon Tranches 3 & 4. A good guideline for notability may be if the media and government sources start referring to the F-16V as a significantly different aircraft from older versions (as they do for the F-15E Strike Eagle and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet).

However, even if this happens, per WP:AIR/N: "Rather than creating separate articles for each subtype of an aircraft, it is common to create a combined article on all variants of an aircraft, treating them in more detail than the summary "Variants" section in the major article about a type." We already have a Variants article for the F-16 that has seen extensive work and puts all the variants detail in one place. TROPtastic (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

As TROPtastic points out, there is already a variants article for the F-16 that takes care of the length issue. The F-16 Block 70/72 is no more different from the Block 50/52 than the Block 50/52 was from the Block 1. It is not a major leap in technology that makes it vastly different from the main F-16 line, but rather the result of decades of gradual improvements. The MiG-35 and MiG-29M, on the other hand, were themselves major leaps in technology that set them apart from any previous variants, with the MiG-35 being considered a new type altogether. This, coupled with the length of the main Mikoyan MiG-29 article, made them prime candidates for their own articles. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

About taiwan "invested" in the development of the F-16V

If all chinese sources and taiwanese media are excluded, are there any official sources (or other sources) that prove taiwan "invested" in the development of the F-16V? 14.199.160.12 (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Why would Chinese and Taiwanese sources be excluded? Taiwan News is not listed in WP:RSP as either reliable or unreliable, so there are currently no grounds to exclude it. If you believe that Taiwan News or any other source used in this article is unreliable, feel free to bring it up at WP:RSN. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Quantity of F-16

We have the quantity built included in the "main" Info box. How about a quantity active? Certainly many older F-16 are NON operational is some form. Could the quantity built have any false high reports - perhaps from ungrades of existing airframes. Wfoj3 (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin themselves stated in June 2018 that "4,604 F-16s have been procured by 28 customers around the world". It is highly unlikely that this figure is inflated by upgrades to existing airframes, as such upgrades do not result in a new manufacturer serial number. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Should number of produced aircrafts need to be updated in 2024? That number from 2018 probably obsolete by now. I watched on YouTube yesterday that currently there is a long line of orders on F-16, so some nations does not want to wait long and order korean FA-50 block 20 instead.

Also If more that 4604 was produced and 2145 F-16s operational, then what happened with more than 2400 of F-16 that is not operational? Slavic Positron Cannon (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Slavic Positron Cannon: If you find a decently reliable source that indicates the current production total (and doesn't double-count refurbished airframes), you should add it to the article! As to your question about why some 2,400 F-16s aren't operational, if boils down to several factors: some airframes are get too worn out to ever fly again (metal fatigue is a dangerous thing), some F-16s have been written off for damages, and still others may be in deep storage due to obsolescence (some F-16s are around 50 years old). ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Where would the Ukrainian F-16 loss fit?

Unsure of where the Ukrainian F-16 loss would fit best, operational history or notable accidents and incidents. I’ve added it into operational history for now, but might move it depending on what the investigation states or add it to both. Sterge08 (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

If it is not a combat related loss, then probably accidents section. However accidents for combat aircraft generally need to be significant or noteworty to be covered. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Fnlayson is correct. If it's not a combat loss, then it usually goes in the "Accidents and incidents" section if it is noteworthy. Per WP:AIRCRASH:

Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-prominent. They account for many more accidents and incidents than larger civil aircraft. Military aircraft accidents may be suitable for inclusion in the relevant List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft. For accidents involving light aircraft (maximum gross weight of 12,500 lb (5,670 kg) or less) or any military aircraft the standard for inclusion is:

• The accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or
• The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft). - ZLEA _T\^C 23:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)