General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the
good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please
add the following code to the template call:
Cleanup : Shorten wording where main articles exist. Shorten/summarize long sections.
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.[1] 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)reply
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. -
ZLEAT\C05:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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. -
ZLEAT\C15:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. -
ZLEAT\C18:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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. -
ZLEAT\C04:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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. -
ZLEAT\C02:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
@
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)reply