Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Former good articleGeneral 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.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 28, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 7, 2011Good article nomineeListed
April 24, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
March 21, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... 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

Quantity of F-16

[edit]

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?

[edit]

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]

Requested move 24 June 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved. Clear consensus in opposition to the proposed move locations, with limited openness to other possible move targets. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Pbritti (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– The F-16 is manufactured by Lockheed Martin and not General Dynamics (since 1993). In no current sources is it referred to as a General Dynamics plane. Pats322 (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - The aircraft project moved many hundreds of articles to the MDN format in mid-2010, the discussion/consensus for this is contained in an archive talk page, this article was moved to the current title in July 2010. The title of this article has been discussed three times in its own talk page, here, here and here. Archive search boxes are provided at the head of articles with archives and should be used before making talk page posts, the subject has very likely been discussed before as most of our aircraft articles are 20 years old and well established (stable). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removing the manufacturer's name. However I'm fine with renaming it to Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon. RPC7778 (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm unconvinced that "F-16 Fighting Falcon" without any manufacturer is the WP:COMMONNAME of the type. Sure, some news publications omit the manufacturer when discussing the aircraft's role in various conflicts, but most other sources I've seen do refer to the aircraft with the manufacturer's name. Unless this is shown to be one of the exceptional cases like Concorde, in which most sources do omit the manufacturer when referring to the aircraft, I see no reason to remove it entirely. As for which manufacturer is included in the title, I have seen General Dynamics far more often than Lockheed or Lockheed Martin, which makes sense since the former was the designer of the type even though they built it for only 19 years. "General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon" is also more WP:CONSISTENT with a semi-recent trend of US military aircraft articles being moved to reflect their original manufacturers (i.e. Northrop B-2 Spirit, Grumman E-2 Hawkeye). That said, I admittedly was not entirely on board with that trend, so I don't really care so long as one manufacturer can be demonstrated to be more commonly used than another. - ZLEA T\C 08:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - WP:NCAIR exists for a reason, and that was that before there was a disgusting mis-match of "manufacturer+designation" and "designation+name" page titles. In common useage, "manufacturer+designation (when applicable)+name (when applicable) is by far the most commonly used format for when a type is first mentioned, which is exactly what the page title is. There might be a debate whether the title should start with "General Dynamics" (designer and original manufacturer) or "Lockheed Martin" (current manufacturer), but that's a different discussion than the one being made here. I also find it interesting that the proposer here is a very new editor, and while that's fine, the only support is from an editor who has edited no other aviation-related articles, which raises my eyebrow. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't be just called "Lockheed Martin F-16 "Fighting Falcon"? Random tank edits (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Random tank edits It is only possible if a new article is created for the latest F-16 block 70/72 (F-16 V) version, similar to the Boeing F-15EX Eagle II.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Payload capacity not indicated.

[edit]

In the specifications section, max payload weight is not explicitly mentioned. 2405:201:6024:7010:1124:4CCC:BBB3:2462 (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While not explicitly said, an approximate max payload weight can be determined by looking at the empty/gross weights and the maximum takeoff weight. Since configurations and the particulars of a individual airframes play such a substantial role in payload capacity, I think it's best we don't try assigning a hard number on this point unless there are many reliable sources that do so. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]