Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants

Type Versions?
It would be nice to see some discussion of the relationship between the variants and the type version identifiers, as given here:

info

I know *I* get confused... 70.250.176.223 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've reworked the information I have somewhat to produce the table below. 70.251.33.92 (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have included additional information from this page


 * Would probably be best to merge this info with List of F-16 Fighting Falcon operators. 70.251.150.167 (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:F-16 VISTA.jpg
The image File:F-16 VISTA.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --12:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Major variants and upgrade programs
This page is about variants, so IMO, the upgrade programs are of secondary importance to the actual configurations. I've done what I can to move the configurations listed under programs to the major upgrades section. I hope an expert can pick this up where I left off.

It is certainly worth noting if the configuration was the result of an upgrade program, however. If anyone deems it worth the effort, it seems like there is enough information here to begin separate articles for the actual upgrade programs. 70.250.189.85 (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Special production variants
It isn't clear what the organizing principle behind the "special production variants" is. What is "special production"? I'm assuming that this essentially means "licensed production" by non-US manufacturers, or partial licensed production, but it isn't stated. This section could probably use an introductory paragraph explaining this, or otherwise clarifying what is special about the production. 70.250.189.85 (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like miscellaneous variants to me. Changing it to something like "Other variants" would work.  Or "Other production variants".  Anybody got other ideas? -Fnlayson (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Works for me. The KF-16 listing isn't clear why it is considered a variant, however.  I feel we need at least a demonstrated configuration difference to have a listing.  Probably just needs supporting wording.  70.250.189.85 (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Basic information summary
It is hard to glean the key essentials of the variations from this article, without reading it in detail. I would like to create quick summaries of the key points for each variant in a small infobox or table, or something similar.

Haven't really settled on what is essential yet, but am currently thinking of including:


 * Designation(s)
 * The official one, if such a thing exists
 * Unofficial ones, such as "Desert Falcon" or "F-16XL"
 * Unoffical names should indicate who uses that terminology (manufacturer, customer, etc.)
 * Role
 * Model (F-16A, F-16B, etc.)
 * Manufacturer's Type/Version (Construction Number) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.170.9 (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Customer(s)
 * Main differences from an already described variant
 * In particular, engines and avionics
 * Any new technology, if it is a demonstrator
 * For consistency, suggest that the baseline be the "standard" block configuration, whatever "standard" means
 * Production quantity
 * Was the design ever produced?
 * Was this a single special-purpose aircraft or a class of aircraft?
 * Proposal Year
 * First Flight Date

Most of this information is available in the article, but it is very frustrating to get at this information, since it is organized in an ad hoc way. I'm having a hard time assessing how comprehensive various facets of the article are because of this. 70.250.189.85 (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

GF-16
Is the GF-16 for real? I've heard of maintenance trainers, which this seems to be, but I've never heard of any kind of designation for these F-16s, and it wouldn't seem to indicate particular "configuration" variant, AFAIK. If this is real, can we get some more details about the actual configuration of these aircraft? Are they in any way different from the others of the same model? 70.247.170.9 (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

CK-1
I'm not certain, but my educated guess is that the CK-1 aircraft (belonging to Israel) mentioned in the article refers to the aircraft construction number CK-1, since CK seems to be a type version associated with Israel. For example, here, CK-7 seems to be an Israeli bird. Could an expert please verify and source this?

This seems an important clarification to make, seeing as how the AIDC F-CK-1A/B Ching Kuo Indigenous Defense Fighter (IDF) is also mentioned in the article, with the common 'CK-1' substring. 70.247.170.9 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Specs table
While specs tables aren't generally used in combat aircraft articles (usually just airliners), it might be a good idea here. Just something fairly simple, as we don't have to list as many parameters as in the main specs template. - BillCJ (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, like the one at Harrier Jump Jet ? -Fnlayson (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! I had forgotten about that one! Thanks for remembering. - BillCJ (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Simple as opposed to detailed? My expectation is that this article would have more detailed specs than anywhere else.  Isn't this the ideal article for details?  Where is the main specs template you mention, anyway?


 * I still don't understand why the table is set up in an apples-to-oranges fashion. Why are we comparing YF-16, F-16A, F-16C Block 30, F-16E Block 60, and not YF-16, F-16A, F-16C, and F-16E, irrespective of the Block numbers?  This is confusing to an outsider, especially since the article doesn't attempt to clarify.  70.251.1.149 (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving Variant info from the Main f-16 page
I brought over the block and engine summary table from the f-16 page. I also shortened it to make it a little more compact and readable. While this information is included in the text, It is a very informative and clear little chart. It is such a obvious move (to me) I just did it rather than get a consensus.

If this works for most people, how about we strike the chart from the F-16 page. It really should not be there. Buck Claborn (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocks table
Time ago I remember seen a table with block/quantity built or so, can't find it anymore, any help please ? Also can someone tell when USAF received its last new aircraft from factory ? not upgrades, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.158.19 (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ching/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f2/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/t-50/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080820155730/http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/news/62.html to http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/news/62.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081216120036/http://www.boston.com:80/news/local/connecticut/articles/2008/04/07/vermont_air_guard_proud_of_nations_longest_flying_f_16/ to http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2008/04/07/vermont_air_guard_proud_of_nations_longest_flying_f_16/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060720174609/http://www.haaretz.com:80/hasen/spages/740395.html to http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/740395.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080617183614/http://defence-data.com:80/paris2001/pagepa1084.htm to http://defence-data.com/paris2001/pagepa1084.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto": From Gulf War: Bourque P.455 From Israeli Air Force: Israel Shows Electronic Prowess Nov 26, 2007, David A. Fulghum and Robert Wall, Aviation Week & Space Technology From Northrop F-5:  From Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen: </li> <li>From Indian Air Force: </li> <li>From Indian MRCA competition: </li> <li>From Minigun: </li> <li>From List of Pakistan Air Force squadrons: </li> <li>From Republic of China Air Force: </li> <li>From DARPA: </li> <li>From Slovak Air Force: </li> <li>From Indian rupee: </li> <li>From Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II: </li> <li>From Fighter aircraft: "Can U.S. air-to-air missiles hit their targets through today's enemy electronic warfare?", Military and Aerospace Electronics, April 12, 2016, http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2016/04/ew-missiles-challenge.html</li> <li>From South Korea: Korean Social Sciences Journal, 24 (1997). Korean Social Science Research Council. pp. 33–53</li> <li>From STS-107: </li> <li>From Popeye (missile): </li> <li>From Speech recognition: </li> <li>From Tiger: Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, edited by C.T. Onions, entry panther</li> <li>From United States Air Force: </li> <li>From Dassault Rafale: </li> <li>From Israel Defense Forces: </li> <li>From AIM-120 AMRAAM: "US coalition downs first Syria government jet." Retrieved 19 June 2017.</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

New Page for F-21?
The F-21 has been jointly developed by LM and Tata. Considering the 'Make in India' plan, the Joint Venture with Tata, compatibility with Russian missiles, special custom for IAF,

I think the F-21 needs a dedicated page. DoomDriven (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Far too early for that. It it wins the competition, then it will be warranted, as with the Mitsubishi F-2. Please note that in India, winning the competition doesn't guarantee further production, as with the Rafale, but there will be enough controversy related to such a win that a separate article will be needed to cover it all at that time. - BilCat (talk)

Upgrade programs (Turkey)
The given text seems contradictory: "Turkey holds the option to upgrade the remainder of its 100 Block 40s, which could extend the program.[69][72] As of 2019, all F-16s in TAF's inventory are upgraded to Block 50/52+ and being fitted with indigenous ASEA radars.[73]"

If there is remainder of Block 40s, then I don't see how all F-16s in TAF inventory can be upgraded to Block 50/52. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:110E:8523:B8C9:205E:D093:D2B8 (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Which section does South Korean KF-16U goes to?
KF-16U is a South Korean upgrade of KF-16C/D B-52 to F-16V standard with few changes compared to V variant. It does not have CFT and HMD (therefore, AIM-9x-2 also excluded). HMD feature will be upgraded later. Also F-16C/D B-32 (F-16PB, Peace Bridge) were upgraded to F-16PBU. Kadrun (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Block 20 was the official designation for new production, not MLU
There's a bunch of terminology going around on whether the Mid-Life Upgrade (MLU) program jets are referred to as "Block 15 MLU" or "Block 20 MLU". On the side of the latter, there are websites like F-16.net and Aircraft Recognition Guide that use the "Block 20 MLU" terminology. On the side of the former, the archived Lockheed Martin magazine and the intelligence company Janes say that Block 20 was the designation only for new build aircraft (like those that went to the Republic of China / Taiwan), while MLU aircraft are separate and are referred to as "Block 15 MLU" (since that was their production Block before upgrading). The website Air Vectors suggests that the Block 20 designation was applied informally, which would explain the overlap with the Taiwanese Block 20 aircraft. Military-Today.com is another website that points out that the Block 20 designation is for new-build aircraft, with capabilities similar to that of the MLU.

Since a primary source (Lockheed Martin) and a respected defense source (Janes) both describe the MLU jets as Block 15, I propose moving the content of the current Block 20 MLU section to the F-16AM/BM Block 15 MLU section, and adding a note to the end that Block 20 was officially only used for new-production jets but that informal use may describe the MLU. I will carry out this change if there aren't any comments in a week. TROPtastic (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I would also like to add that DSCA also refers to the MLU as F-16 Block 15 MLU. Examples here, here and here. Alin2808 (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding those! I've added them as references along with the others. TROPtastic (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Alin2808 (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

MLU with tape M6.5 and M7.2 supports more weapons
According to https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article2.html, starting with tape M6.5 and M7.2 supports also the AGM-158_JASSM and some more. I am not really an expert, so I did not do any improvements myself. Torsten Knodt (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)