Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 12 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon at the Reference desk.

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 28, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 7, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
April 24, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
March 21, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 2, 2012, February 2, 2016, February 2, 2019, and February 2, 2024.
Current status: Delisted good article

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

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:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Aviation: Aircraft

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: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

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)[reply]

Pinging BilCat, Poklane, and The Legacy. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:23, 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]

ZLEA I concur with Fylayson. The Legacy (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2024 (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. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:12, 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. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:00, 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.

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)[reply]

@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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]