Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Polish F-16U ???

Can someone cite a source for this use of the designation “F-16U”? I am unaware of the Block 50/52+ ever being called the “F-16U” – for Poland or any other customer. I have only heard it used during the 1990s for the UAE, before the F-16E/F Block 60 designation was assigned. Askari Mark | Talk 03:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be confused with the F-16 MLU (Mid Life update) Check out this site [[1]] No such Des. exists "f-16 U" ANigg 06:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wild Weasel?

Under the versions section, the Wild Weasel is listed as a separate version, which is not the case. Wild Weasel is a nickname, pure and simple, that the F-16 inherited when it took over these duties. An F-16 Block 50/52 fitted with the HARM targetting system and HARMs is generally referred to as a wild weasel, although the HTS and HARMs can be fitted to -any- Block 50/52 F-16.

Also, I think it is misleading that the 50D/52D are listed under Wild Weasel, as the D models are trainers, and are not used in any sort of combat situation under normal circumstances.

Bottom line, what I suggest is as follows:

• Remove 'Wild Weasel' from the 'Versions' section, as the Wild Weasel is not a version of F-16, it is a nickname for the particular role played with the particular configuration outlined above.

--kunwon1 10 Mar 2006

• Wild Weasel has been removed. Kunwon1 16:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting fact that might be added to the discussion on Wild Weasel. The 35th FW in Misawa AB Japan adopted the heritage "WW" tail flash replacing "MJ" in the late 90's. This was due, obstensibly, to pressure from some Capt's and Maj's in the wing who were huge proponents of bringing the Wild Weasel concept back to the Viper from the Rhino/Thud heritage. The resistance initially was corporate from those who wanted to distance the single seat single engine fighter from those underperforming 2 person aircraft. Luckily for us, "Calvin" and his merry men prevailed in the quest and WW was re-instated in the Viper force. Interesting side note, the same person who was the proponent for the WW tail flash also was one of the main architects of the initial 3 Air Tasking Orders of OIF while working as the Master Air Attack Plan chief in an undisclosed location in the desert. Of course, this message will self destruct in 5 seconds...--CUJO

the regestered name of the F-16 is "Fighting Falcon"...to the best of my knowledge, if anyone thinks otherwise, just click my name and post something, i'll get it. cheers Zeetoboy 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the F-16 never participated in the wild weasel operations, this fighter cane after the vietnam war. Cheers Zeetoboy 03:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed a few things

Removed 'All aircraft feature helmet-mounted-cueing allowing off-boresight air-to-air missile firing.' from Block 50/52, as this is a false statement, not all 50s/52s have HMCS, in fact until recently, most did -not- have it.

Changed reference to DFLCC to reference both the FLCC and the DFLCC under the negative static stability section

--kunwon1 10 Mar 2006

Fighter Mafia

The Figher Mafia involvement in the F-15 and F-16 is rather more complex than what is said in the article, from what I could find out on a web search on the term. Basically, the USAF was under the control of what had become known as the "Bomber Mafia" during the fifties and sixties, whose idea of a "fighter" was a missile-armed interceptor with which to shoot down bombers. In fact, even after Vietnam this idea remained mostly unchanged, and the next fighter in the pipeline was more of the same, only bigger and better. The "Fighter Mafia" proposed a different idea, which placed agility over speed, and got their wish in the F-15, which was essentially both an interceptor *and* a fighter. Some of them didn't like the compromise though, which is what lead to the LWF program, and eventually the F-16. --SebastianP 02:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Bubble Canopy

Does a bubble canopy really count and an innovation? The concept has been around since the 1940s... Gabe 16:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, its predecessors (F-4, Century series) did not and as far as I know no prior jet aircraft had bubble canopies. A quick scan of WWII photos shows only late-model P-51 Mustangs with bubble canopies, and even they had the front bows separating the weaker rear windows from the front, which was strengthened against bird strikes. A proper wording may be "one-piece bubble canopy", though it certainly did bring back the bubble canopy.

The F-86 had a bubble canopy. Bubble canopy denotes 360degree viz. The P-47 had a bubble canopy. The F-80 had a bubble canopy. One-piece, as noted above, was the innovation.--Buckboard 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the one-piece canopy requires the whole unit be strong enough to withstand bird strikes, not just the part forward of the front bow. As a result, pilots can no longer eject through the canopy and must wait for it to be discarded first, legthening the eject process. (spewing random aviation trivia... perhaps that should find its way in there)

--Mmx1 02:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Further addendum, the F8F Bearcat was the first Navy fighter to feature a bubble canopy.

--Mmx1 00:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

"This distinguishes the F-16 from its predecessors, many of which were not designed for all-weather operation (F-104) or were extremely expensive / made for aircraft carrier operations (F-14)."

Context:

From the very beginning, the F-16 was intended to be a cost-effective "workhorse," that could perform various kinds of missions and maintain around-the-clock readiness. It is much simpler and lighter than its predecessors, but uses advanced aerodynamics and avionics (including the first use of fly-by-wire, earning it the nickname of "the electric jet") to maintain good performance. This distinguishes the F-16 from its predecessors, many of which were not designed for all-weather operation (F-104) or were extremely expensive / made for aircraft carrier operations (F-14). It was also the first US fighter aircraft to match the English Electric Lightning's capability of pulling 9g turns during flight.

It is ambiguous what "this" is, nor how it relates to the rest of the sentence.

Have removed the sentence and moved the line abt the Lightning to the intro.

Also, the F-16 was originally intended as a lightweight daytime air-to-air dogfighter only. See the Block 10/ADF variants. Only later did the Air Force realize it needed a cheap tactical "bomb truck" since the A-7 was retired and the F-15's motto was "not a pound for air to ground".

--Mmx1 02:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Aerodynamically unstable by design? What exactly makes the aircraft unstable by design? Scale models of the F-16 have no problem at all flying without computer-assisted corrections.

The F-16 is unstable because her center of gravity is behind her center of lift. I guess the scale models somehow make sure their center of gravity is where it is supposed to be in conventional aircraft - in front of their center of lift --Echoray 18:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The YF-16 was the world's first aircraft to be slightly aerodynamically unstable by design. Really? They noticed that stabilty detracts from manouverabilty at least as early as world war one. The Sopwith Camel is an example of an intentionally slightly unstable aircraft from that period. --LiamE 13:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

In the discussion of designing an aircraft, most are designed to be neutrally stable. The aircraft is always slightly fighting all attempts to change course by aerodynamic design. This reduces manueverability a little bit because it is also resisting the pilot's attempts to turn the beast. The F-16 has no such resistance to course changes, and would be most unforgiving if the computer did not constantly keep the pointy end forward.JaderVason 18:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that WWI aircraft had this lovely tendency to try to kill the pilot. Due to the lack of a computer to keep this in check, the pilots had to do so themselves. Some WWI planes were even more notorious than others. Kim Bruning 03:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all relative. The Camel was designed to be stable enough for a skilled pilot to keep it in the air (just!), but if you were an unskilled pilot, you'd be flying underground pretty soon. It was possible to fly it using reflexes, however, and many pilots went on to do so. The instability of the aircraft was a great advantage.

This is all mostly true. The aircraft actually would, under full power, tend to stay stable. The center of gravity was just forward of the lower wing and right at the center of lift of the upper, and there was a slight dihedral to the lower wing that allowed the plane to "settle" into level flight. However, compared to similar successful designs like the Spad, the wings were slightly shorter, with larger control surfaces. It also had a massive rotary engine, which was the secret of its success. The rotary engine gave the plane a very large rotating mass in the counterclockwise direction, and due to Newton's third law this translated into a tendency to roll right. The Camel could slice to the right faster and tighter than any other plane of its day, including the Fokker Dr.I triplane (which had a higher moment of inertia due to the big wing stack). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liko81 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For many years, however, there was a limit to how much instability you could build into an aircraft, because ultimately it had to be flown by a human pilot. Into this mix comes the F-16 with total computer control. Suddenly, they no longer have to make it stable at all. I have heard it said that if you were to try to fly the Viper without the computer, it would require you to have abilities equivalent to:

• Sitting on the bonnet of a ferrari at 250Km/h, pushing a bicycle backwards, and
• Balancing a church on its steeple.

In other words, the instability is much greater than previous fighters, and since the computer's doing the work, it can be as bad as the designer likes.Johno 14:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the word "current" to the "largest and possibly most important fighter program" part. More F-4 Phantom IIs were produced than F-16s; the major difference is that we're still producing the F-16 today. --The Centipede 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Poland order

Just a minor error I spotted. I noticed Poland is listed as having ordered 45 F-16's. They have infact ordered 46 Block 52 F-16 C/D's (the new type with the conforming fuel tanks etc), not 45.

Be bold and fix the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Actually its 48 fellas [[2]] ANigg 06:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Armament

I was hoping to find some information about what weapons are loaded on the various weapon stations on the F-16, it would also be nice to find information about Alternate Mission Equipment such as fuel tanks and others...

There's such an enormous variety of armaments which "can" be affixed to modern aircraft, especially one as versatile as this, that it would be rather fruitless and uninteresting to list them all. The site F-16.net (external link in the article) has much more esoteric information on such details.

That and the variety of users and versions would make such an entry extremely long and esoteric.

--Mmx1 19:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Vel einradhin iet ai shur'tugal, there are generally two AIM-9 sidewinders on each wing. most people believe that the rest of the weapons below the fuselage are bombs. true.....to an extent. the F-16 can hold a numerous amount of bombs, yes, but there are usually multiple AIM-120 AMRAAM air to air missiles and one fuel tank on the center pylon of the fuselage. during the desert storm. many F-16s doubled as fighter bombers, the combat mechanics replacing the AMRAAMs with as many bombs as the aircraft could hold, almost exceeding it's max takeoff weight. this fed the "only 2 missiles" steriotype, which is 93% not true, hope i was of assistance Zeetoboy 16:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the AIM-9, modern variants have been upgraded to carry the AIM-120 on the wingtip rails as well. Generally this configuration is used on strike elements in packages that include escorts so they have maximum stand-off capability against aircraft and thus less chance of being caught in a furball and having to drop stores. Generally-speaking, the hardpoints can be loaded as follows:

• Wingtip (1/9): AAM hardpoint. Handles AIM-9 or AIM-120, any variant
• Outside under-wing (2/8): AAM hardpoint. AIM-9, AIM-120 or AIM-7.
• Middle Under-Wing (3/7): All-purpose hardpoint. Can handle any store in the F-16's catalog except for droptanks. This includes all AAMs as above or up to 2000 lbs AG payload (iron bombs, GBUs, CBUs, or AGMs including the Maverick and HARM).
• Inside under-wing: Bomb/tank hardpoint. No missiles (insufficient clearance between the rail and fuselage), but it can handle any single bomb up to 2000lbs and some duplet and triplet carriers.
• Underbelly: module hardpoint. Can be mounted with an ECM pod, but can also carry a recon camera or droptank.

I can't find it on the internet right now, but the armament section is wron gon the number of CBU's the f-16 can carry. It is routinely loaded with 4, 2 on station 3 and 2 on station 7 with a TER-9/A

Also the configuration used by the 14FS in Misawa, Japan during OSW and OIF was 3 AIM-120's 1 AIM-9 and 2 AGM-88's. Also known as the 501 scl.

I can't put the info up about the 14th FS because it is original research (I was in the 14th from Jan 2002 to Jan 2004) 66.142.153.71 (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nickname

I'm sure I have read in Tom Clancy's Fighter Wing that this bird was nicknamed 'Viper' after the fighters from Battlestar Galactica, or at least the pilots remember it for the show, not the project. Any comments? User:CronoDroid 19 NOV 2005

We don't put nicknames of fighter jets, it because too long of a list, and really not that useful. --Steven 00:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, "Viper" is the nickname prefered by the plane's pilots (IIRC, most other AF pilots call the F-16s "Lawn Darts"). Is there any allowance for putting in single prefered nicknames (rather than the long list of alternative ones) for planes in the articles where widly prefered nicknames exist?--Raguleader 15:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at various other articles, it seems to me that "we" refers mainly to the editors of the F-16 article. Is there an actual Wiki standard regarding nicknames in articles?--Raguleader 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

During the official welcome ceremony on 9 November it was unveiled that F-16s in Polish service would be named Jastrzab (Hawk).

Climb performance?

The article says:

• Service ceiling: 55,000+ ft (15,240 m)
• Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min

Who would ever want to fly anything that takes over a minute to reach its service ceiling :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• But it fits to the objective of the plane. Now we have F-22 to climb faster from shorter runways. F-16 designed to destroy air defence of its enemy so first of all, it should work good on its own sevice ceiling effectively. With respect, Deliogul 18:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

related to performance, I'd like to know what this means Thrust/weight: F100 0.898; F110 1.095? The thrust-to-weight ratio article in no way explains this data, and measures it in kN. --Mrg3105 10:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As the article states, thrust-to-weight ratio is dimensionless and can thus be measured in any measure of force that you want, since the units of force for thrust and weight cancel eachother out. The F100 and F110 are merely the available engine types for the F-16, incase youere wondering about those. - Dammit 11:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, thank you...I think I would prefer something standard like kNs to be applied to all aircraft powerplants.--Mrg3105 01:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• The Thrust IS listed in both Imperial and Metric units. If you missed it, you need to look again. Make up your own units for thrust to weight, doesn't matter... -Fnlayson 03:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Lightning

The article says, "...to match the English Electric Lightning's ability to execute 9 g turns." Need to cite a source for this, or simply say "the F-16 was the first US fighter to execute 9 g turns."

No other operational aircraft of the 60s was able to manage more than 7 g or so. The Lightning has higher wing loading even than the notoriously unmaneuverable Phantom, although the Lightning is far more agile due to lighter weight and lower moments on all axes. It would be unlikely to be able to reach 7 g except possibly at high supersonic speeds.

In addition, during the last ten years of its (extended) service life, Lightning pilots were restricted to 4 g because of airframe fatigue issues.

Randall randallcameron@kpmg.com.ye

F-16 without a Drop Tank

From all the pictures provided in the article, its seems like drop tanks come in default with F-16s. Is there any pictures that of F-16's not carrying a pair of these? --Steven 22:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes Steven, I have plenty of pics-- but the common configuration for any combat service includes 2x370 gal wing tanks. In reality they have rarely been dropped, even in combat -- Bryan "CUJO" (Cujof16@hotmail.com) 1850hrs, F16A/B/C/D/F

The reason for this is the F-16's operating range without drop tanks is basically only good enough for a couple of laps of the airfield.

This is incorrect; the F-16 carries about 7,000 pounds of internal fuel, placed wherever space can be found including behind the cockpit, in the strakes and some in the wings. The two 370-gallon tanks between them add about 5,000 pounds (data from GlobalSecurity F-16 Specs). At cruise altitude and velocity, the aircraft can remain airborne for between 1-1.5 hours on internal fuel, subtracting what's required for AB takeoff. The droptanks are used for long-range or long-loiter missions like CAS, deep strike and CAP, just like they have been since their invention. They are rarely dropped because when empty they're just an aluminum shell, well within the F-16's bringback capacity, and they only marginally impact performance in that state. Now, the aircraft at full AB at ground level burns about 50,000 pounds an hour, so takeoff can use up to 1,000 pounds of fuel just to get the plane in the air, and a turning fight will very quickly use up gas, but at 85% thrust, 20,000 feet, the aircraft can burn as little as 3500 pounds per hour to cruise at about 300 knots.Liko81 (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The design of the F-16 took into account that aircraft always seem to end up carrying drop tanks, so from the outset it was designed to get to the patrol area on external fuel, then fight and return on internal fuel. I personally see this as being a little optimistic, given the Viper's tiny internal fuel tanks, but hey, what do I know. :) Johno 14:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Y'all are wrong, but I won't go into specifics. Look into F-16 operations in the first Gulf War. Also look into Air-to-Air point defense missions. --Colputt 00:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A-16 Close Air Support varient

At www.f-16.net, it metions the A-16 Block 60, or F/A-16, close air support varient of the "Fighting Falcon". It was chosen over the supersonic A-7 Corsair II, (YA-7F), and was supposed to replace the A-10. The A-16 had a 30mm gun pod on the fuselage, and a few other air-to-ground weapons. After it was decided to have the USAF keep the A-10 "Thunderbolt II" aka "Warthog", instead of giving them to the US Army and US Marine Corps, (and because of the F-16 was not very good at providing CAS in "Desert Storm", [the fuselage-mounted 30mm gun pod was tried once and proved worthless], and the A-10 performed above and beyond expectation in the war), the A-16 was cancelled.204.80.61.10 20:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Let's Feature The Viper

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/F-16 Fighting Falcon/archive1

It appears the most common complaints were the lack of inline citations. I've been adding some of them myself - let's propel this article into featured status! Joffeloff 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There are 8 or 9 of them now, so well done there. Any problems anyone sees with the article mention here, then I or others will attend to them. Once that is done I would love to see it return to FAC, given it was I who origionally nominated it in the first place... User:Tom walker 08:54 GMT, 17 July 2006

I agree, but it needs another peer review.--Buckboard 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why Does Searching "Zionist Devil Bird" Lead to this Page?

Infinitys 7th 01:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

REPLY: Potentially from that arcane, and inappropriate, reference you may have from those on the "receiving end" of the Israeli F-16s in the middle east.

I have to wonder Infinitys, what in your life was happening that you found a need to even search for "Zionist Devil Bird"??

Viper ref

"the General Dynamics codename for the project during its early development."

I removed the above and challenge it (but saved it here for the benefit of debate). First of all, the source is anecdotal, without credentials. Letters to AF link are no different than postings on this page--and without credentialed sources, that constitutes "original research and analysis". Secondly, that "source" is ever-changing. I scrolled through four pages before stopping--it's the job of the person posting the source to make it accessible, not me to go searching for it. If it is to be re-used, at minimum it needs to cite the date of the letter and the identity of the writer. If General Dynamics ever published anything claiming a "Project Viper" and that this is the source of the nickname (which I seriously doubt, since I've been personally aware of the moniker since 1979 and never heard this claim), then that substantiates the claim. Otherwise it's of dubious veracity.--Buckboard 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, someone told me that one of Tom Clancy's nonfiction books mentioned that the nickname for the F-16 came from the Colonial Vipers of BattleStar Galactica. I don't have the book, so I can't check personally, but would a nonfiction Tom Clancy book be a valid source if someone has it?--Raguleader 15:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, found a source for the Viper nickname, a quote on www.f-16.net from a Lieutenant Colonel Pat "Gums" McAdoo, one of the first pilots to fly the production F-16s at Hill AFB in this article about halfway to two-thirds of the way down--Raguleader 23:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

This isn't just a fun project for the guys. It's supposed to be an objective encyclopedia article. As far as POV articles go, there are worse than this piece for sure; but this article definitely has a pro-imperialist bent to it, as far as the political baggage goes here, and military matters are always political.

It looks like an effort was made in the direction of NPOV -- but I think a U.S.-centric worldview makes it almost impossible from the get-go for a pro-military U.S. writer to actually be objective, no matter how hard he tries (and it's certainly all-male here).

So, considering the nature of this material, I would guess it'd be kinda hard to accomplish a NPOV. But try someone must.

Per Ardua ad Astra, right?

Pazouzou 02:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Pro-imperialistic? It's an aircraft, not a political doctrine. Take your politics elsewhere. --Mmx1 02:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Any particular sections that are especially non-neutral POV? -Fnlayson 03:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo

Shouldn't the AIDC Ching-kuo be put here as a variant of the F-16? After all, General Dynamics had given AIDC help to make the aircraft, and it just looks a lot like a heavily modified F-16. -User:Nicholas.tan23:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The F-CK-1 is not a variant of the F-16. It's a case of convergent evolution. The Mitsubishi F-2 is, and the Koreans' A-/T-50 Golden Eagle could be if you stretched the definition, but not the Ching-kuo. - Aerobird 04:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Chilean ex-RNAF

Chile receives surplus F-16s By Anno Gravemaker

The Chilean air force has received the first six of 18 ex-Royal Netherlands Air Force Lockheed Martin F-16AM/BMs during a ceremony at its Cerro Moreno airbase.

...

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/09/12/208936/Chile+receives+surplus+F-16s.html 81.86.144.210 21:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed?

Where the article discusses the "predicted rash" of FBW accidents that never materialised, someone has suggested "citation needed." I remember this time - it was pretty common knowledge in a world which had never seen the explosion of FBW technology, and "everyone knew" that it was dangerous. Is it necessary for a writer to cite sources for something like this? It would be like citing sources for "most aircraft have wings" . . . . :)

I've seen numerous videos of F-16's crashing due to FBW issues so I really don't think citation is needed ... its just common knowledge.

EE Lightning designed for 9 g?

The article claims that the Lightening is the only other plane capable of performing 9 g turns. This claim seems highly suspect. The Lightning article does not mention this at all. Given that I've heard of P-51s pulling 12 g and living to tell the tale, and that many aerobatic planes are stressed to 20 g, nothing about this claim seems credible anyway. Maury 22:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did you hear about P-51s doing 12g turns? Need a cite for that. I'm also curious about the overal performance of specialized aerobatics planes compared to combat jets which presumably must be designed to be faster and more rugged, given their combat mission.--Raguleader 01:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

20g in what aircraft? The Pitts was designed for 9-10g if I remember correctly. Sean Tucker's custom Pitts S-2S is strengthed to between 11-12g if I remember the article correctly also. Maybe some of the monoplanes, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. PPGMD 02:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The Su-26 is capable of 12g's and that is one of its selling points (being the most maneouvreable aerobatics plane in the world) http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/civil/su-26/history/ I even provided a source for you. That said ... many aircraft can do much higher G's but it often kills the pilot or airframe. For example Su-27 pilots attempted Cobra's at higher and higher speeds after they learnt how to do them. At least 2 died from doing it over Mach 1 and possibly generating as much as 20g. Both times the aircraft was intact when it hit the ground with a non-responsive pilot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.231.41 (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Raguleader: "Where did you hear about P-51's doing 12G turns?"

All over the place, although I should point out I did not say "turns", I simply said 12g. In the particular case I am thinking of it was during a pullout from a strafing run.

You may be confusing design load with the actual physical limit the aircraft is capable of. Most fighters are built to a 7.33 design load, meaning that pulling anything at or below that limit is guaranteed to not damage the airframe. However there is a 50% design safety factor above that before damage occurs. In that range the aircraft may suffer damage. Above that 50% overhead is the "plastic range", in which the aircraft will likely suffer permanent bending and cannot be repaired. That doesn't mean it isn't flyable in the meantime however, and there are countless cases of precisely this happening.

Although it may be surprising that aerobatic aircraft can pull more g than a fighter, it's not if you think about how that g is generated... by the wings providing a force g x the weight of the aircraft. Modern fighters are very heavy aircraft, and their wings are relatively small in order to improve high-speed performance. An aerobatic aircraft is built to be as light as possible, modern ones typically using more advanced materials than most fighters in order to get there. Because they are so much lighter the total force they have to create is much smaller.

PPGMD: "20g in what aircraft?"

Unlimited class versions are typically rated to +/- 12 g. That means it's plastic threshold is ~17 g, and will not catastrophically fail until something above that. You're right though, 20 was too high.

Ok, now what does any of this have to do with actual question at hand? I ask again: does anyone have any reference to suggest that the Lightning is stressed for anything other than standard 7.33 or 5.33 loads?

Maury 15:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

F7U Cutlass "was popular, being unbreakable in 16 g manoeuvers" [Bill Gunston, "The Encyclopedia of the World's Combat Aircraft", Chartwell Books Inc., 1976, ISBN 0890090548, page 217.] --Colputt 01:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

QinetiQ's Mirach system is targeted by US F-16 Fighters

ANY USEFUL FODDER IN THIS? The United States Air Forces Europe (USAFE) 555th 'Triple Nickel' F-16 Fighter Squadron has successfully completed its first Air to Air missile firing against QinetiQ’s Mirach Aerial Target. In the first week of deployment during Exercise 'Deployed Titan 06' at RAF Fairford, a total of eight AIM 9M Sidewinder missiles were fired against a Mirach 100-5 aerial target drone The USAFE Squadron also carried out laser guided bomb drops against surface targets at Aberporth MOD Range, which is operated by QinetiQ.

Skip MacQueen, 16AF Weapons and Ranges, USAF said: "The purpose of our deployment was to provide the centre piece fast jet element to the RAF’s largest annual exercise. We engaged in simulated combined air combat operations and QinetiQ provided comprehensive ranges services, which allowed us to conduct the first live AIM-9 Sidewinder missile launches against drone towed targets within the European Theatre. This was a significant step up in tactical realism for USAFE missile training and provided the first opportunity for a number of the unit’s pilots to employ one of their primary air-to-air weapons."

QinetiQ's new aerial target system, Mirach, is operated from the MOD range at Aberporth but can also be deployed to the Scottish range sites. The company’s sophisticated mobile instrumentation assists in exercise planning and monitors and tracks the munitions fired by the US aircrew.

USAFE is responsible for combat weapons training of US aircrew assigned to its units based in Europe. The training focuses on precision guided munitions and air to air and air to ground missiles and its contract with QinetiQ allows a large portion of the training to be completed within Europe.

QinetiQ's range services and aerial target systems provide USAFE aircrews with a significant level of tactical training not available on any other European Range. Its Air Range danger areas at Aberporth in Wales and the Hebrides and West Freugh in Scotland provide designated large practice areas for air to air missile engagements as well as defensive countermeasures and combat search and rescue missions.

Increased scope of USAFE training activity on the UK MOD ranges last year led QinetiQ to purchase a number of surface targets along with an instrumented barge for data capture.

http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/2006/4th_quarter/qinetiq_s_mirach_system.html 81.86.144.210 10:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Poland asks US manufacturer to explain problems with new F-16s

ANY USEFUL FODDER IN THIS?

Poland has asked Lockheed Martin of the United States to give details of the technical problems that forced brand new F-16 fighter jets to turn around when they were en route for delivery in Poland, a defense official said.

...

http://www.terra.net.lb/wp/Articles/DesktopArticle.aspx?ArticleID=314026&ChannelId=6 81.86.144.210 20:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Suefa/Sufa

I am fairly certain that the Israeli version סופה should be transliterated as 'Sufa' or possibly 'Soofa'. It certainly shouldn't be 'Suefa'. However, I did not change it myself as I'm not absolutely sure this isn't an incorrect transliteration by the IAF. 89.0.157.123 23:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Roy

"Sufa" seems to currently be the most common transliteration. "Suefa" appeared early on, principally in British sources like Jane's, but Sufa has generally overtaken it. I cannot recall ever having seen "Soofa" before. Askari Mark | Talk 01:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, "Sufa" is the most common transliteration for the F-16I, and as a sidenote; the total program cost for the 102 aircraft ordered by the IASF is around $4.5 billion, which puts the unit cost at roughly $45 million per aircraft and not ~70 million as quoted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gg172 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• With a reference for the order/price, it can be fixed. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yip :-) sorry about that... i forgot to give a reference for the order/price. You will find it on the following pages: www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/f-16i/F-16I, or you can try: www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/f-16i, or alternatively try: www.f-16.net/news_article1002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gg172 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

CG Variant shot down?

cnn and yahoo reporting one went downtoday in iraq, no idea why,could be enemy fire. was on close air support mission.

pilots fate undetermined...

if im not mistaken, isnt this the same variant that went down in the bosnia / serbia battles where that pilot was left behind enemy lines for a few days?

If one reads outside of the propaganda distribution circles, its already been docuemnted that it was hit by enemy fire crashed and burned and the pilot's body is found near the wreckage. Watch the video on ogrish you can make out a corpse in the background.

• It was an F-16CG from the 524th Ftr. Sqn. being flown by Maj. Troy L. Gilbert of the 309th Ftr. Sqn. Further information can be found at F-16.net [3] and grainy footage of the crash site can be viewed at Liveleak [4]. It appears that Maj. Gilbert ejected, but did not survive; the cause of death won't be known until the body has been recovered. The aircraft was in combat, reportedly dropping cluster bombs from low altitude against insurgents, when two Strelas were fired at it. Askari Mark | Talk 19:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested merger

KF-16 → F-16 Fighting Falcon

• Minimal content on KF-16 page. Main text appears to be verbatim copy of KF-16 text in F-16 article. Not enough variant differences to warrant a separate page for a single variant. - BillCJ 17:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support - BillCJ 17:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Aerobird 01:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - --Joffeloff 03:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - --Helioglyph 12:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The South Korean KF-16 are licensed by Lockheed Martin and differ only from a variation with regards to the plane's manufacturer (the KF-16 being partialy manufactured by Korean Aerospace Industries) and as stated by the current article regarding the KF-16 the plane is essentially a F-16C/D Block 52. The more advanced version, with its 2,500 changed parts, can be considered another variant like the F-16ADF and as such the belongs in Section 4.4 (Versions: Other variants) of the F-16 Fighting Falcon article.

• Support - Askari Mark (Talk) 01:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

No contest. Page will be merged. Thanks. - BillCJ 05:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

F-16 Range

Can someone explain to me why all the Soviet aircraft on Wikipedia have their mission range with internal fuel listed and all US aircraft have their ferry radius with extra fuel tanks attached listed, in many cases incorrectly? This article for example translates 3,100miles to be 3,100km when in fact 3,100miles is closer to 5,200km and is an entirely unrealistic range for an F-16. Range in common parlance is the distance a combat aircraft can fly to a mission, have enough fuel to take part in the mission and then return. Ferry range is specified as such because naturally it is double the combat range of an aircraft using internal fuel. The bonus provided by external tanks is included as an extra in brackets so that you do not get confused thinking that you have your maximum range available to you with enough room to carry your maximum ordinance. While I don't have the time to research this I was under the distinct impression that the F-16's ferry range with 3 external tanks is around 3,500km and its mission radius is less then 1,200km. But someone needs to research that further before amendments to the article are made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.231.41 (talk • contribs)

"By range is meant the ability of the aircraft to reach the combat zone and to cover it. Range is determined by the quantity of the fuel carried and the operational profile flown. Half of the value of the combat range is called the radius of action."

F-16A range on internal fuel in interception mission, about 1,300 miles (2,100 km); attack radius at low level with maximum weapon load, 120 miles (193 km), attack radius with six MK-82 bombs, 339 miles (546 km)

F-16A tactical radius, (interdiction mission hi-lo-hi on internal fuel with six MK-82 bombs), 340 miles; ferry range, 2,300 plus miles

F-16A tactical radius, (six MK-82, internal fuel, Hi-Lo-Hi) 340 miles (547 km); ferry range 2,415 miles (3,890 km)

F-16A (basic Block 15) Tactical radius (Hi-Lo-Hi interdiction with 3,000 lb / 1,360 kg of bombs), 360 miles (580 km)

F-16XL Maximum Range, 2,875+ miles (4,630+ km)

F-16C (Block 52) ferry range 2,619 miles (4,215 km)

F-16C (Block 50) radius 923 miles (1,485 km) with two 2,000 lb (907 kg) bombs and two AIM-9 Sidewinder short-range AAMs

F-16C Combat Radius 575 miles (925 km)

--Colputt 01:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

More users

We seem to have a continuing problem with the "more users" filed in the Aircraft Infobox. Everybody and his brother thinks it needs one more added, usually the Turkish or Portugese Air Force, to the point of often deleting the notes stating to only have 3. I recall a guideline in WP:AIR, though I haven't been able to find it, that recommended leaving the "more users" field blank if there were more than 4 users total. Given the current problem, I'd like to propose leaving the field blank for the time being. All users are listed further on in the article, so I see no need to tempt newbies to add their favorite force. Comments? - BillCJ 23:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise: instead of listing three at random, or - as I'd arranged it previously - the three largest non-USAF users (Turkey, Israel, Egypt), the 'more users' field could read - in this case - "24 others"? - Aerobird 00:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It might work, but I may take this up at the template's talk page. Ericg is the project's resident infobox guru, so I may ask him also. I had tried choosing one user from each major continiten, but my European choice (Poland), didn't satisfy anyone either. (: Oh well, such is like on Wikipedia. Anyway, if "24 others" would curb the need to add more, then I'm all for it. - BillCJ 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, with so many users, you either count the three largest users by volume (which could be difficult) or just list the primary and ignore the rest in the infobox. It's a summary, not a list. ericg ✈ 01:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps only write "25 users" and thats all? Names of users are good for machines like PZL TS-11 Iskra, not for F-16 or P-51 Radomil talk 22:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi all,

I apologise for reopening an old issue, but I hate to see content disputes get in the way of information. In this case, it just seems most helpful if we list the largest operators, and the top three seem to be significantly greater than the others (Israel, Egypt, Turkey), and [forgive me if there is more which I am missing, but] the disruption was a half-year ago and quite minimal at that. Do let me know what you think. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 09:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want to disrupt 6 months of peace? It's worked all this time! Just leave it alone, please. However, if you get a consensus (meaning you don not have one yet) to add the top 3 non-US users, I won't fight fight it. But I don't expect the list to stay at those 3 for very long. If I'm wrong, fine, but experience here tells me I'm not. - BillCJ 15:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that altering a status quo can sometimes be a bad idea, however correct me if I'm mistaken, but all that I've seen in the way of opposition is some edit warring by one or two IPs/throwaways, and quite a while ago at that. Would I be correct in understanding that you only oppose this in order to maintain stability, but ideally support it? Does anyone else have thoughts on the issue? Tewfik^Talk 09:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the only concern seems to be edit warring like that from the IPs all that time ago, and as no one here is going to edit-war, I'm going to put the top three, which are qualitatively far more than most other users. Tewfik^Talk 16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it for now, but the first time the "more users" are changed, I'm going to take it out again. I hope you're right that it won't be changed, but I sincerely doubt it. You've but two muslim countries (one Arab) together with Israel, which is just asking for trouble. (Arab and Isreali pics are swapped out in the airliner pages all the time - it's crazy!) Also, those 3 users are all in one region; I like to spread the users out across the globe, but most other editors just go with quantity - that's just my preference, and I don't try to enforce that. - BillCJ 17:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Referencing the quantities each user has in the Operators section would help too. The data listed may not be out of date or something. -Fnlayson 17:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We should certainly strive to avoid conflict, and engineering the entry to avoid certain topics can be a good approach at times. However I'm not convinced that some IP or other not-serious user should be what we define as "conflict" - perhaps if someone goes through the trouble of discussing on Talk then we should work something else out, but a simple disruption should be treated as just that, no? As far as the other points you raise, they are legitimate, but we should keep in mind that the geographic concentration represented by the users reflects the reality of this systems' usage, almost entirely Middle-Eastern. What do you think? Tewfik^Talk 22:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read my contributions from even just the last month, you'll see that I spend a fair amount of time reverting "simple disruptions" - I have no problem doing that. This page has experienced far more than just "simple disruptions" on this issue over the past 12 or so months in which I've been watching this, and we tried numerous solutions to the problem. This last solution has been very effective at reducing the conflict. I hope that I'm wrong about it. However, I've found that "simple disruptions" are what we call problems other people deal with; "major disruptions" are the ones that affect us! Therefore, I am not going to revert any more disruptive edits to the "more users" section, but will simply place the diffs on your talk page, asking you to deal with it, when they happen. I make you a solemn promise that I will not use sockpuppets to try to make this appear to be a problem when it isn't. Again, I hope I'm wrong, and that any disruptions that occur are just simple ones. I do understand your last point on geographich usage, and for nations without huge "rivalries" that's usually the best way to go. - BillCJ 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your analysis about the difference between "simple disruptions" and "major disruptions" sounds spot on ;-) Just to be clear though, the reason that I've insisted is that I find that there are so many issues on WP around which valid content disputes arise, that I feel bad when such seemingly straightforward issues as this also become casualties of conflict. Of course I would never dream that you would sock to prove a point, but if you do, I hope that I can carry out my new mission successfully. My Talk page is at your service. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

USAF Fighters and the F-16

FYI: There's an article in Air Force Magazine online about the AF's fighter fleet and mainly deals with extending the life of the F-16s until the F-35 goes into service. Here's the link Making the Best of the Fighter Force Anyway it looks like a good source for current F-16 info for this article. - Fnlayson 00:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Even better source concerning the F-16 [[5]] ANigg 07:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Flags?

Can we get some Template user flags in on the countries? ANigg 07:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

List of nations operating F-16s

Is there anywhere that these statistics can be/are sourced from? If so, could it be added to the article for Wikipedia:Attribution purposes? -- saberwyn 09:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know for sure. But probably many sources, like the countries' web pages and other web pages. -Fnlayson 18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How about from the horse's mouth [6] or, if you want an independent source, [7]? The former, BTW, lists them in order of acquisition (but doesn't count the US Navy since it's only listing countries). Askari Mark (Talk) 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's not bad. Much easier than figuring out countries that use AH-1 Cobra. -Fnlayson 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Amen Fnlayson ANigg 03:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Advertisements & questions

Adevertisement template: parts of this article read as a advertisments. Please rewrite. (hmmm template is not allowed on talk page?) some examples: with innovations including a frameless, bubble canopy for better visibility, side-mounted control stick to ease control while under high g-forces, and reclined seat to reduce the effect of g-forces on the pilot. It was also the first fighter aircraft to be deliberately built to sustain 9g turns. It is also one of the few jets with a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than one, giving the Falcon 'excellent acceleration, THe histotry: Is the F16 replaced or intended to be replaced now? --> it is not the greatest fight in th eworld anymore? Versions: never is spoke about the low sides of the old versions, then why modernisation are applied. And the PR of it all is... he VISTA program is considered successful, but the thrust vector control (TVC) never made it into fighter versions... Ifosmeone with better writing skills wants to improve please feel free. :Leuk he 19:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

All those claims are factually correct and don't seem like advertising jargon to me. VISTA was considered successful because it worked. It didn't make production due to cost. It is being incorporated into the F-35 instead. F-35s will begin replacing F-16s around 2011, but the US will continue to operate F-16s until at least 2025. I think some of that has been added to article by now, some is still on the way. Highonhendrix (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Currently the History section covers the F-16 development to the mid-1970s. It lack details after that. You can get some of the history by reading through the F-16A tthrough F-16F articles on the F-16.net page. I'll try to answer some your questions. The VISTA program came in the late 1980s. That was probably too late to be implemented. The F-35 Lightning II will start replacing F-16s in a couple years. Hope this helps.. -Fnlayson 20:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Which sections do you feel read like advertisements? -Fnlayson 22:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Thrust -to- weight ration of greater than 1 means to me the plane can go ballistic i.e. up like a rocket rather than "excellent acceleration" (which also happens though I'd tone down excellent). Ok to reword and link to say ... http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/fwrat.html ? Ttiotsw 03:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent seems fitting there. But if you want to change that word to tone down a bit, go ahead. -Fnlayson 04:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Combat service

That article about several F-16 combat victories near Yugoslavia is not ok. Because the Yugoslavian MiG's 29 were'nt in state to operate as normal. The question is just: can we accept this F-16/MiG-29 situations as a real victory?

See also the English wikipedia page about the MiG29 under Operational history: [8] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.94.66.244 (talk) 13:15, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Why two lines about Desert Storm?

It's the most important conflict for every 4th generation aircraft and... 2 lines? I've tried to expand this, but someone cacelled all the well documentated events... because: "2 lines is enough" happy you, happy all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt hg (talk • contribs) 12:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

... Operation Opera 1981

Ok, great raid. But The complex was not destroyed... severly damaged. It would need far more bombs to Destroy such a group of buildings. Look at this photo:[9]. Not exactly wiped out, uh? If you "destroy" something, no one will be able to use it anymore... Iraqis used Osirak nuclear research complex until 1991...if not after that date. And if it was destroyed, what did the US bomb in 1991 [10]? sand? Thanks. Marco

Xflight.de link removal.

Hi there. Some time ago some external links were removed, including one to www.xflight.de (F-16C Reference Library) that looked interesting since that site had much detail about the F-16 cockpit instrumentation, it even had real-looking photos of many of the F-16's cockpit gauges and switches (at least, they look real). As now, I'm NOT an expert in editing Wikipedia (just added very few things here and there) and I don't know if that link is against Wikipedia's guidelines and rules, but that link looked fairly interesting IMHO. I'm not sure, but I recall that some of the material on the site matches what's written in Falcon 4's flight simulator manual, so it may be authentic (Falcon 4 and his sequel are renowned AFAIK for their realism). Any F-16 cockpit expert 'round here who can confirm this?

Anyway, should xflight.de be kept off the article? And for what reason?

PS: as the warning beside the link said, you're likely to have problems on that site if you switch from German to English and you have Firefox (Win), you'll have to fiddle a little with the menu tree on the left to get things going (i.e.: click once on the flag first, then click a couple of times on some of the menu links and the language should change). IE users seems unaffected. Didn't try other browsers/OSes yet.

Cheers, 151.42.100.49 03:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)BlackKatMike

• I trimmed back on the links a couple weeks ago. On further review, the reference site is better than another one, so I brought it back and removed the other one. Too bad the language thing is scripted and not separate pages taht can be linked directly. -Fnlayson 03:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks pal, I think that site really deserves a link here. I agree with the scripted language thing, the nastiest effect is with Firefox as said before. I think I'll try to contact the site admin (as soon as I'll have 30 secs of free time... i.e. I don't really know when :-)) to tell him. I recall that maybe there's a way to link the English part directly... or at least there was.151.38.108.89 02:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)BlackKatMike

Popular Culture

Please read this.

Please do not add the many minor appearances of the aircraft. This section is only for major cultural appearances where the aircraft plays a MAJOR part in the story line, or has an "especially notable" role in what is listed. A verifiable source proving the appearance's notability may be required. Random cruft, including ALL Ace Combat, Transformers toylines, Battlefield, Video Game appearances, Metal Gear Solid appearances, and ALL anime/fiction lookalike speculation, WILL BE removed.

The F-16 can be seen in movies such as Blue Thunder, Jewel Of The Nile, the Iron Eagle series, X2, and The Sum Of All Fears. It also appears, in a more negative light, in the 1992 TV movie Afterburn.

Due to its widespread adoption, the F-16 has been a popular model for computer flight simulators, appearing in over twenty games. Some of them are: Falcon series (1987-2005), F-16 Fighting Falcon (1984), Jet (1989), Strike Commander (1993), iF-16 (1997), F-16 Multi-role Fighter (1998), F-16 Aggressor (1999), and Thrustmaster "HOTAS Cougar" flight simulator controller (exacting reproduction of those found in the F-16 Block 40/50). The F-16 is also one of two airplanes available in the built-in flight simulator in Google Earth.

Those games count as minor seriously. If nobody wants to see F-22 Raptors appear in Flight Sims means neither this jet. Those games are fiction appearances.(TougHHead 05:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

I've checked the recent edit history of the F-22 page, and I can't find the sim you're griping about being removed. Can you provide us with the diffs for when it was added and removed,and the article link for the sim? Also, you need to be careful of the tit-for-tat arguments - they won't get you very far with serious editors. Thanks. - BillCJ 06:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with BillCJ regarding this. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting colors and markings on 1 Texas ANG F-16C marking squadron's 90th anniversary. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

F-16

Lockheed Martin needs to keep makimg the F-16 for the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.25 (talk • contribs)

• Not likely going to happen with the F-35 coming into service over the next few years and years left on the jets the AF has already. -Fnlayson 00:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• The U.S. Air Force has mortgaged everything to acquire the F-22. IMO they will also give up the F-35 if it means they can have more F-22s. They are falling all over themselves trying to reduce costs so that they can plow whatever congress will give them into the Raptor. IMO it is very short-sighted, but the Generals get paid the big bucks to make those decisions. --Colputt 23:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

U.S. F-16 production will be halted once the F-35 hits full production, no question, but it's not going to exit service anytime soon. The mainstays of the fifth-generation USAF arsenal, the F-22 and F-35, are both astronomically expensive, and even though the F-35 will be ordered in numbers sufficient to totally replace the F-16 that will take years.

I do understand the desire for the Raptor and, when it comes out, the F-35, even though they are more expensive. First off, you'll eventually be using two aircraft designs to fill the roles currently performed by 4; the F-15C and F-16 for air superiority, and the F-15E, F-16 and A-10 for strike roles. Both the F-22 and F-35 are multirole, though the F-22 will probably be used almost exclusively for air superiority (can't have a $120 million fighter exposed to AK-47 fire in ground runs; send the $40 million F-35 to bomb that army base). Second, the U.S. had been falling behind before the introduction of the Raptor; the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F/A-18A-C are all 30 years old or older, and Europe and the CIS have since introduced several fighters that threaten our air superiority capability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liko81 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be mistake to replace the A-10 with anything but new A-10s. Unless Lockheed can somehow incorporate the Warthog's massive cannon into an F-35, such a move would be counter-productive. And even if they did, the F-35 may not have the loitering and slow-speed maneuverability that make the A-10 so good at killing tanks. I know, I'm not completely on-topic with that, but I wanted to express my opinion. Highonhendrix (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

First, the F-15 may be old, but it still boasts an 104-0 combat record. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand your point that the F-15 is getting up there in age, and it's important to keep up with the competition...but it's hard to make a case against a jet that has yet to take a single combat loss from any enemy aircraft.

Second, the F-22 will almost certainly stick to air superiority once the F-35 goes into service. As the F-35 is basically a more conventional, tanked up, ground attack version of the F-22. Matter of fact, one of the reasons the F-35 is so much cheaper than the F-22 is because most of the F-35's technology....has already been developed and implemented in the F-22. Saving millions in r&d costs. ----Abalu

Mexico

Please please correct me if im wrong. is mexico about to purchase F-16's block 50?? does anybody have any information on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homan05 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

F-16

Lockheed Martin needs to keep makimg the F-16 for the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.25 (talk • contribs)

• Not likely going to happen with the F-35 coming into service over the next few years and years left on the jets the AF has already. -Fnlayson 00:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• The U.S. Air Force has mortgaged everything to acquire the F-22. IMO they will also give up the F-35 if it means they can have more F-22s. They are falling all over themselves trying to reduce costs so that they can plow whatever congress will give them into the Raptor. IMO it is very short-sighted, but the Generals get paid the big bucks to make those decisions. --Colputt 23:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

U.S. F-16 production will be halted once the F-35 hits full production, no question, but it's not going to exit service anytime soon. The mainstays of the fifth-generation USAF arsenal, the F-22 and F-35, are both astronomically expensive, and even though the F-35 will be ordered in numbers sufficient to totally replace the F-16 that will take years.

I do understand the desire for the Raptor and, when it comes out, the F-35, even though they are more expensive. First off, you'll eventually be using two aircraft designs to fill the roles currently performed by 4; the F-15C and F-16 for air superiority, and the F-15E, F-16 and A-10 for strike roles. Both the F-22 and F-35 are multirole, though the F-22 will probably be used almost exclusively for air superiority (can't have a $120 million fighter exposed to AK-47 fire in ground runs; send the $40 million F-35 to bomb that army base). Second, the U.S. had been falling behind before the introduction of the Raptor; the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F/A-18A-C are all 30 years old or older, and Europe and the CIS have since introduced several fighters that threaten our air superiority capability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liko81 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be mistake to replace the A-10 with anything but new A-10s. Unless Lockheed can somehow incorporate the Warthog's massive cannon into an F-35, such a move would be counter-productive. And even if they did, the F-35 may not have the loitering and slow-speed maneuverability that make the A-10 so good at killing tanks. I know, I'm not completely on-topic with that, but I wanted to express my opinion. Highonhendrix (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

First, the F-15 may be old, but it still boasts an 104-0 combat record. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand your point that the F-15 is getting up there in age, and it's important to keep up with the competition...but it's hard to make a case against a jet that has yet to take a single combat loss from any enemy aircraft.

Second, the F-22 will almost certainly stick to air superiority once the F-35 goes into service. As the F-35 is basically a more conventional, tanked up, ground attack version of the F-22. Matter of fact, one of the reasons the F-35 is so much cheaper than the F-22 is because most of the F-35's technology....has already been developed and implemented in the F-22. Saving millions in r&d costs. ----Abalu

Vs India

I'm not clear on the relevance of India chasing off PAF F-16s in a short duration war to the capability or use of the F-16. I'm not going to change it, but can someone else comment?Mzmadmike (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You have to understand the nature of the rivalry between India and Pakistan. Any opportunity for one side to show up the other is taken by certain people on either side. Not all all like that, of course, but enough do on WP that it makes editing any topic touching on either country very interesting. As to the source, it appears to be more of an editorial than a legitimate neutral article. The relevant section appears to be copied wholesale. I'm not sure that it qualifies as an objective source. - BillCJ (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As if to prove my point, this diff occured about 20 minutes after I wrote the above comments. Note that an Indian Air Force pic was removed by an IP from Karachi, Pakistan. Oh the joys of sibling rivalry! - BillCJ (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the same type of thing happens regarding articles referring to Israel or Arabs. Anything bad about Jews is constantly being removed and replaced by a reference or comment reflecting negatively on Muslims and vice versa. There's sort of a shadow war going on in certain areas of Wikipedia. It's ridiculous to say the least. Highonhendrix (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Current Sales Proposals

How about a reference to some of this about IAF interest in F-16s? This section seems to contradict itself, first saying they want "up to 126" planes, then saying it's really "up to 200". References, please. Highonhendrix (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of refs (33) in the Indian MRCA Competition on the topic. If you want to wade through that page, you should be able to clear up the issue. Hopefully. If you find the answer and a good source, you can add the ref to the text here, or, if you're not sure how to do that, place it here, and I'll get to it soon. - BillCJ (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Has plenty of text and all standard pieces of WP:AIR: infobox, footer, specs. Needs to go through A-class peer review before its status can be upgraged. Karl Dickman talk 03:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 20:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding F-16 cost facts and data

@LawrenceGroves: - kindly revert your edit. The section is tagged as having undue weight. Having it here put the article at risk of losing its Good Article status. You asked "what is a GA?", see WP:WIAGA for the answer. Mjroots (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion above, by my count 3 of the 4 participants felt it was good to keep the cost figures, which are PURE FACT. Please tell me why having FACTS in an article, facts I may add that show the range of costs for the F-16, from "holy crow" expensive to a "great deal" second hand, hurt this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LawrenceGroves (talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have discussions with users who edit war against consensus, and use multiple IPs and usernames to bypass protections and edit warring restrictions. If you'll remove the disputed section as a measure of good faith, we can have a civil discussion of the issues here. Otherwise, we have nothing to discuss, and you'll just end up being blocked for edit warring which may happen anyway. - BilCat (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Are we on the same page? As I stated, 3 of 4 of the participants in the above discussion suggested that the facts, all properly researched and cited, remain in the article. On what grounds have you, unilaterally, decided these contributions are: "undue weight and misleading original research?"

I think it is somewhat disingenuous to wave wiki rules in my face, as if form is more important than content ... content which are verifiable facts that unquestionably improve the knowledge of the subject matter of the article, and have been freely and generously contributed by several editors, donating their real time and psychic energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LawrenceGroves (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 December 2017

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. WP:CONSENSUS is determined not by a head-count, but by arguments based in Wikipedia policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

F-16 depicted in art

Perhaps you might consider extending the "media" section to include art of historical consequence, as Media is a relatively short section. The General Dynamics F-16A Fighting Falcon was depicted by artist Mark Waki (Brigham City, Utah) in the 1982 oil painting, The Fighters-USAF Lightweights, as a tribute to the three best known single-engine American fighter planes at that time: Major George E. Preddy's North American P-51D Mustang, Captain Joseph McConnell's North American F-86F Sabre and the General Dynamics F-16A Fighting Falcon. The P-51 was the best WW2 fighter plane, the P-86 was the best fighter plane in the Korean war, and the F-16 was considered the best of its time designed for the future. This art was painted for the Air Force and is part of the United States Air Force Art Collection. The original painting hung in the office of The Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF, or SAF/OS), Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense. Verne Orr (November 12, 1916 – November 27, 2008), was the 14th Secretary of the Air Force, appointed by President Ronald Reagan and served in this position from 9 February 1981 to 30 November 1985. Here is one source of information: http://www.markwaki.com/ Klossoke (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)klossoke

First flight

@Fnlayson: The idea of putting the official first flight into the infobox stems from this article being featured on the Main Page via Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 2, wherein we state, The F-16 Fighting Falcon, the most numerous fixed-wing aircraft in military service, made its first flight. Except that this date reflects its official first flight, and so readers may be confused when they come to the article and see a different date in the infobox. Thus, it makes sense to me to list both dates in there. I'm not sure why you have an objection to that. —howcheng {chat} 17:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought my edit summary would be clear enough on this. The Infobox should be a summary and not list every detail. The "Finalists selected and flyoff" subsection does cover both 'first' flights. There should be another aircraft with two first flight similar to this but can't think of one now to check that article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Combat Range should be changed to Combat Radius.

Ferry Range

The maximum distance an aircraft can fly with maximum fuel and no ordnance.

Combat Range (a. k. a. Maximum Range)

The furthest distance the aircraft can fly with maximum fuel and maximum payload.

Combat Radius (a. k. a. Radius of Action)

The maximum distance (along a predefined route) an aircraft can fly from its home base with ordnance, carry out a mission and return without refueling.

It changes from mission to mission depending on the payload, height and actions to carry out.

The rule of thumb is that the radius of action is one-third of the maximum range.

Example: The F/A-18 Hornet has a combat radius of 537 km (330 mi) on a hi-lo-lo-hi mission.

For all these concepts, it is assumed that there is no refueling.

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Page title should be changed

General Dynamics has not produced the F-16 since 1992, when it sold the line to Lockheed. Consider changing name of this page to "F-16 Fighting Falcon" and leaving out the manufacturer name.Who8myfish? (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Nothing wrong with the current unless you have evidence that it is better known as a Lockheed product, we dont ignore the manufacturer so F-16 Fighting Falcon goes against the grain. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sept. 2019: A Belgian F-16 crashed down in France

https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000108835832/belgisches-kampfflugzeug-stuerzte-in-westfrankreich-ab

I don't know if that's mentionable. --Neun-x (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

India vs Pakistan shootdown claims

I have removed the paragraph. Per WP:NOTNEWS and article scope. It might be worth including as a couple of sentences about it being claimed, or with more details in an article about the India-Pakistan conflict. This article is about the F-16, not a blow-by-blow of claims and counterclaims. (Hohum ^@) 14:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It may not have happened - No proof India shot down Pakistan F-16

Biased One-Sided Narrative

Here on this change here, @Fnlayson: Narrative is too much one-sided and biased. I included third-party unbiased news sources to balance out the narrative with facts. While the current narrative includes the tail number, pilot, squadron, and even squadron ranking is not considered excess detail, but adding the Indian side of the narrative with facts is? Kindly consider merging my changes. Devojoyti (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There's more detail on the F-16s because that's what this article covers. This content has already been edited back and forth many times over the past year. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, good Sir/Ma'am. However, let me include narrative of both sides. Not outright strong false claims as, "reportedly shot down two Indian Air Force fighters", including tail number & squadron name of Su-30MKI which was never proved to be shot down. All these are empty claims. Seems too bold of a statement made with no credible basis. Devojoyti (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

The F-16 did not receive the nickname Viper due to any snake resemblance. We called her viper, because she looked like a ColonialViper in Battle Star Galtica a tv. Our drivers even adopted their call signs untill leadership order it stoped. The nick name Viper stuck, and at the time she still didn’t have the Fighting falcon designation. 134.228.156.123 (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - BilCat (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - BilCat (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Armenian-Azerbaiyan conflict 2020

Greetings

There are reports that indicate that the F-16 is being currently used by the Azerbaiyan air force in the current conflict against Armenia. The planes would have been provided by Turkey.

Sources: https://caucasus.liveuamap.com/en/2020/27-september-azerbaijan-uses-f16-planes-and-turkish-bayraktar https://t.me/ararathau/2128 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eipic (talk • contribs) 10:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Max speed

When you google this plane, google presents what appears to be highlights of this article to users. Part of this states "Maximum speed: 1,500mph", which seems extremely unlikely to me. Most sources I have ever seen say the F-16 can pretty much touch Mach 2, or roughly 1,320mph. That's max speed, and almost never attained. Not sure if this 1,500 claim represents the usual "Mach 2.2" claims, nor where they actuaally sourced it, but it conflicts with the data given in the specs. And it appears to represent information taken from this page. 64.222.111.223 (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Belated thanks. The Air Force Fact Sheet apparently mixed up knots and mph in their Mach conversions, giving a mph speed that was way too high. I've corrected it using a print source. already cited in the specs. BilCat (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon Turkish.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Falcon or Viper?

WUT IS DE NAME OF DE PLANE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.10.115.130 (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon" per article title, anything else are just nicknames. MilborneOne (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the names are explained in the 2nd paragraph of Lead. Please read through that. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It's the viper not the Falcon. Anyone who has ever flown it will call it the viper and if you call it anything else he will correct you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.158.142 (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not the Viper, that was a nickname given by the pilots. The USAF Official name is the fighting falcon. I highly doubt a pilot will correct you over that.

F-16C block 50's climb rate is not 254m/s

The current wiki page about F-16's climb rate is completely wrong: It says the F-16C block50 has only 254m/s climb rate at sea level, and the source is its flight manual. However, I am not seeing any "254m/s" from its flight manual. However the manual proves that it sustains a 1200ft/sec (370m/s) climb rate even in a 4.2G ascending turn, which means it can sustain even higher rate in straight line climb! https://i.postimg.cc/hthftrg7/Figure-B8-37-F-16-C-block50-supplement-manual.png Please let me correct this, otherwise it's misleading and will cause under-estimation of F-16's performance.

If necessary, I can also prove that the F-16C block50 needs to be loaded heavily to drop its climb rate under 254m/s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldtimesake (talk • contribs) 13:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The same problem exists for its service ceiling: https://i.postimg.cc/0jKzPT3Q/TOGR1-F16-CJ11-envelop.png I am pretty sure it is not 50000 feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldtimesake (talk • contribs) 13:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I am citing flight manual, however, Martinevans123 mentioned it is unusual to cite flight manual illustrations as reference. It is weird because it is the most reliable reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldtimesake (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Where did you see "254m/s climb rate at sea level", for the F-16C block50, mentioned in the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

F-16 Block 70 price

In the fall of 2020 Lockheed announced that the price for Block 70 F-16s would be just a few dollars under $54 million each. I believe this was done in conjunction with the US State Department and happened after Lockheed announced a new assembly line for production of ~ 50 aircraft for foreign customers would be done in South Carolina. This was done largely to eliminate questions from customers as to what the baseline cost for a very richly appointed Block 70 aircraft actually was in an attempt to encourage sales. IIRC this was done in an official DOD Procurement Document regarding a large block of foreign sales.

The sidebar on this page is pretty sparse. It seems a poor argument that well-sourced cost information is somehow detrimental to Wiki's mission. Whoever made the decision, the current crop of sidebars is so devoid of facts as to be virtually useless. Definitely a big step backwards for Wiki. I realized this is just my opinion, but it's a well informed opinion. Solidpoint (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Purpose of FBW system for the F-16

While RSS does make the Viper more maneuverable, that was not its primary purpose. The primary purpose of what became to be known as RSS is to make the stabilator a lifting-body that adds to the aircraft's total lift, in contrast to the traditional design, which has it pushing downward (against, really, as the concept is orientation free) opposing the upwards lift of the wing. This result in two airfoils working against each other, creating all the drag associated with lift generated by the stabilator AND the offsetting lift of the opposing wing, while producing zero net lift.

In traditional design the elevator is made so that it will stall before the wing does, so the force lifting the nose (by using the wing as a pivot, and applying a down-force) disappears, allowing the nose to drop and the aircraft to pick up speed and resume normal flight, eliminating the risk of a stall above a minimum "stall speed" well specified for every aircraft currently flying. This is however, obviously, a very wasteful design as the tail is working against the wing while creating more drag for both.

File:Trim Drag vs Speed.png

As speed increases, aerodynamic forces move the center of lift backwards on a wing, resulting in a trim problem the elevator must be used to offset. At speeds approaching Mach 1.0 ALL control surfaces working to maintain the aircraft's trim generate a HUGE spike in drag (denoted as Dm in the attached diagram, A10, where D is total drag, and Di is induced drag). This is known as "trim drag", and is the reason many aircraft experience a pronounced hesitation when pushing through the sound-barrier. The F-16's wing, stabilator (there is no static horz stabilizer & separate elevator, the entire horz control surface moves) and FBW flight controls work together so that at low speeds the tail must lift a lot of weight, then progressively less and less with increased speeds until EXACTLY at Mach 1.0 NO LIFT AT ALL IS REQUIRED FROM ANY CONTROL SURFACE, eliminating ALL trim drag. A brilliant and innovative design feature now copied around the World.

See Pg 12 regarding Trim Drag.

It should also be emphasize that RSS on fighters is longitudinal ONLY. The aircraft is free to drift, skid and slip to allow the pilot maximum performance in a dogfight, and the claim that RSS prevents this is DEAD WRONG. Coordinated flight is for commercial airlines, but is a straight-jacket for a fighter aircraft that will allow it to be easily defeated. Therefore, an aircraft with longitudinal relaxed stability ONLY seeks to depart controlled flight in pitch, but can be flown in an uncoordinated way without risk of the aircraft flying apart in all kinds of weird, imaginary attitudes, as there is nothing in the design that makes the aircraft unstable in yaw or roll, only in pitch, and that in the service of maximizing the lift:drag ratio, not creating a stability problem that them must be solved with a FBW system.

My suggestion is that the section of RSS and FBW be rewritten to reflect these well-known realities.

Solidpoint (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Rate of climb: 370 m/s ?

Well i will say like this, the wikipedia user stated intentionally incorrectly, that F-16C block 50 rate of climb is 370 ms (even higher than F-22) and he uploaded two images (subsequently edited) as a proof. Just for curiosity because i am well aware that 254 m/s is the real number for Block 50/52+ , found in many books and articles, also pages before i decided to investigate topic.

And found very soon what it is.

Where is Error related to claimed 370 m/s?

First of all the user used this image https://i.postimg.cc/hthftrg7/Figure-B8-37-F-16-C-block50-supplement-manual.png as a proof !

But Purposely cut upper section of image from original image found in:

T.O. GR1-16CJ-1-1 supplemental Flight Manual, HAF series aircraft F-16C/D Blocks 50 and 52+

[ Link for original document in PDF: https://info.publicintelligence.net/HAF-F16-Supplement.pdf ]

Original image he cut and later uploaded, is originally Labeled by HAF as "Turn performance-Sea level", I uploaded this image in (far right side of the Talk section screen)

Original image Turn performance found in HAF flight manual F-16C/D Block 50 / 52+

but what is the inappropriate in this case is that he stated for "turn radius" of 1200ft (measured in Ft) also seen clearly in actual image.

He presented it in his explanation as Ft/sec (Feet per Sec) which is two different worlds !

1200ft vs 1200ft/sec ???

turn performance original image and Explanation

Btw. Maximal rate of climb in Turn, is 36,000 fpm or 182.88 m/s .

table of contents HAF

Real turn performance in m/s

Foot/min to m/s (explanation)

_______________________________________________________

Users other image he posted as a proof is https://i.postimg.cc/0jKzPT3Q/TOGR1-F16-CJ11-envelop.png In reality it is related to FLIGHT ENVELOPE.

Flight Envelope

_______________________________________________________________

I request from Wikipedia editors to delete this Incorrect claims about 370m/s and return article in previous status before this Incorrect (latest) change. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Max AB (Afterburner) Time & Distance

F-16 Climb

F-16 Climb 2

Please refactor your post - don't use words like fraud or evil as they could be seen as personal attacks (they certainly are not very civil).Nigel Ish (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You also appear to be reading the diagram incorrectly - the curved lines - labelled Ps= 0 FPS, 200 FPS, 400 FPS, 600 FPS, 800 FPS, 1000 FPS show the turn envelope at a particular climb rate (in ft per second) - the line marked 1200 appears to be another in this series (and therefore indicates the turn rates at 1200 FPS climb rate.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

______________________

Reply to user Nigel Ish

With all due respect, it is not very civil to fabricate things and create falsehood!

that's the last thing Wikipedia needs!

His intention is very clear, i pointed out that he cut out the real name of the picture and presented it as something else . btw. The images i uploaded (far right side), you can see original image ---------------------------------->

"Original image Turn performance found in HAF flight manual F-16C/D Block 50 / 52+" & one named "turn performance original image and Explanation"

you can see in image:

- Turn rate - degrees/seconds (Far left side of diagram)

- Mach number - bottom side of diagram

>>> Watch Image carefully <<<

1. Tightest turn (Radius) is in Feet [for the curved lines]

2. Turn radius - feet [for the straight lines]

No where is 1200 ft/s but instead it is in Feet !

Turn radius is measured in feet unit (and can be translated also in meters)

1200ft = 365.7 meters or this is the length of turn radius.

Also you mentioned FPS? (FPS is Not ft/s) it is gravitational FPS system unit, used for (G Load) - gravitational FPS force measure. _____________________________________

in image / section: Load factor - G it is written

Pa = 0 FPS (near 4 G)

-Pascal (Pa) unit is for pressure -FPS is Foot–pound–second system, used for gravitational FPS force measure

Original image (named: turn performance) show Aircraft Turn performance (Turn radius) , NOT Maximal Rate of Climb !

which is the point in this debate.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TRUTH, JUSTICE & RIGHT WAY (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

To add to this discussion. 370 m/s seems extremely unrealistic. 250 m/s is the general sustainable top climb rate for most fighters today. For me it looks like the dude has done his math and 370 m/s is incorrect. I see people inflating numbers like this all the time within the younger aviation community. Its all about dick measuring contests.--Blockhaj (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The diagram in question - page B8-54 of [11] shows turn rate/turn radius at various mach numbers, load factors (G) and constant energy rate (Ps) - measured in f/s - see page 8-4 for an explanation. They are NOT simple graphs. Constant energy rate corresponds to climb rate - again see B8-4 for an example - Ps of "almost 600 fps" corresponds to 36000 ft/min. Page B8-54, for a F110-GE-129 powered aircraft at sea level, shows Ps ranging from -400 fps to 1200 fps - which suggests that instantaneous climb rates of 1200 fps are achievable although this is a very odd way of deriving limb rates and probably counts as OR - in fact we probably shouldn't be using any of these diagrams to derive performance as 1) they are extremely complicated, so complicated that we are in danger of OR, and 2) the fact that the configuration for which this particular figure has been based does not necessarily match the configuration that other specs are from - the specs appear to be covering versions with at least 3 different engines, which will have very different performance. Of course, what really doesn't help is when editors wave accusations of fraud and fabrication about.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Addition appears to date back to here, with the figure then being reverted, readded, with an explanation given here.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

__________

Nigel Ish Again, you talk about oranges and apples, images show NOT climb rate but instantaneous Turn (Turn rate or Turn Acceleration in maneuver) which is something way different than Initial Climb rate. Rate of climb (RoC) is an aircraft's vertical speed, rate of altitude change with respect to time !

Maximal Turn rate is: combination of rate of descent (RoD) or sink rate with sudden change of trajectory, so velocity is much higher than simple rate of climb ! Please do Not mix oranges and apples !!! Turn rate (As Diagram shows) is NOT rate of climb (As You claim)!!!

Real figures and Proof of real Maximal Initial Rate of Climb of F-16 in clean configuration (equiped with 122.8 kN GE F110-GE-100 afterburning turbofan) are presented in EuroControl site (European Air Traffic Controllers) IAS: 175 Kts (324km/h or 201.3 Miles per hour) ROC: 55000 ft/min (279.4 meter per second)

indeeed this is consistent with Lockheed Martin's claims for the Viper at 50,000fpm (254 m/s)!

File:F-16 Performance data from European air traffic controlers site.png

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TRUTH, JUSTICE & RIGHT WAY (talk • contribs) 02:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

---

I believe this is a credible source, and shows climb performance for an F-16 (both engines are noted in the notes, so not sure which this is for, but assuming the 29k thrust). I have added a spec for ROC and given it as 50k fps (or fp/s if you think that's somehow more Kosher) and noted that is from sea-level to 5,000ft. These graphic are a nice summary. I'd upload the images, but even for discussion purposes in the Talk Page Wiki can't seem to grow a pair, so follow the link. This site appears to be one for training European Air Traffic Controllers, and is consistent with Lockheed Martin's claims for the Viper at 50,000fpm. BTW, the conversion from 29k thrust engine to 32k is a bolt-on, field upgradeable kit,which would increase the ROC, but then these numbers are for clean configs with 2x AIM-9Xs, so it's kind of irrelevant to real world performance unless you have a known load-out you're inquiring about. Solidpoint (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

References

---

Oldtimesale

I was a flight control engineer, and I know flight dynamics very well.

I believe you guys know nothing about E-M charts and you are treating F-16 unfairly.

1) When you mention a climb rate figure, you should mention the corresponding altitude and loadlout, otherwise it does not mean anything. The F-16's 50000ft/sec is with some loadout and not at sea level, while other jets in their respective wiki pages use their peak values at sea level and with almost no payload (such as Mig-29's 330m/s. In the flight manual the 330m/s is achieved with only 2 R-60s and at sea level).

2) Climb rate is "instantaneous" for sure. It's not an "average climb speed value" within an altitude interval as you imagined. For instance, if a jet's climb rate is 300m/s, it cannot reach 600m in 2 seconds, but more than 2 seconds.

There is a math proof that the climb rate equals to specific excess power (ps) at 1G normal load factor: http://www.stengel.mycpanel.princeton.edu/MAE331Lecture9.pdf (check page 7). All I need to prove is that the F-16 block 50 in clean configuration has a peak ps greater than 1200ft/sec at 1G normal load factor.

Proof:

Its ps value at sea level at 4.2G normal load factor is 1200ft/sec (already shown by other users)

Ps value decreases as normal load factor increases (due to elevated induced drag)

So a clean F-16C block50 has a peak ps value greater than 1200ft/sec at 1G normal load factor.

So a clean F-16C block50 has a peak rate of climb greater than 1200ft/sec.

Similarly, we can see from the HAF manual that the so called 50000ft/min (254m/s) is in fact achieved with drag index = 50 (6 amraams + pylons) and at 10000 feet, which is unfair to F-16 while other jets uses there peak ps value at sea level with almost no payload.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldtimesake (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

---

DulacYves

As an engineering student who took "aircraft design" as elective, I asked my professeur Didier Breyne about this, and he confirmed the explanation of Oldtimesake is correct. The 1200 ft/s is in fact the rate of climb of F-16 in an ascending turn (Ny = 4.2G), so its rate of climb in a straight line climb should be even faster.

This is furtuer supported by a F-16C block 52 brochure from Polish air force, stating its rate of climb as 340m/s compared to Mig-29's 320m/s: https://i.postimg.cc/J0d7p7Fr/polski-f-16.jpg

The official never claims that "50000 ft/s" is the peak value achieved at sea level. In fact, if that is the peak value, then the F-16 is not climbing any faster than the JAS39 Gripen, which is disputed by Slovakia air force, as they tested and evaluated both aircrafts recently: https://rokovania.gov.sk/RPO/Material/1702/1

With google translation I am getting "the F-16 has significantly higher climb rate and acceleration than the Gripen"

There is a post mistaking "1200ft" for "1200ft/s" which clearly demonstrates that the author does not know how to read E-M chart.

To Nigel Ish: It's interesting as you stated "which suggests that instantaneous climb rates of 1200 fps are achievable although this is a very odd way of deriving climb rates". This is not odd at all, as the flight manual is the most reliable source of flight performance. It tells you all conditions of a performance, including loadout, altitude and drag index. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DulacYves (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DulacYves (talk • contribs) 15:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

What your professor says in a private discussion, no matter who he is, is of no use as a source on Wikipedia. What he publishes in a verifiable form with appropriate editorial control may pass the requirements of a [{WP:RS|reliable source]] here, but is only of any use if it actually talks explicitly about the climb rate of the F-16.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition please do not accuse me of mistaking 1200 ft for 1200 ft/s - that was another user.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

---

My conclusion:

Oldtimesake showed sufficient proof of F-16C block50's climb rate and its condition: peak value = 1200ft/sec, sea level, clean, normal load factor = 4.2.

Others showed some documentation which is lacking in at least one of the following aspects: loadout, altitude, normal load factor, is peak value or not.

I found an article stating the rate of climb of polish F-16C block52 is 340m/s, compared to Mig-29's 320m/s (page 11): https://31blt.wp.mil.pl/pl/pagesf-16-2020-01-15-y/pdf/

A high resolution version can be found here: https://www.mycity-military.com/slika.php?slika=139754_261612848_F-16%20POL%20COMPARISON.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DulacYves (talk • contribs) 15:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

---

I suggest adding a "specific excess power" entry in the performance section, instead of climb rate.

============================================================================================================

TRUTH, JUSTICE & RIGHT WAY Reply to:

Engineering student & Flight control engineer... ?

Let see image - designated (1F-16CJ-1-1-4073A) from supplemental Flight Manual, HAF series aircraft F-16C/D Blocks 50 and 52+

[ Link for original document in PDF: https://info.publicintelligence.net/HAF-F16-Supplement.pdf ]

On upper section (corner of image) is written:

Turn performance - sea level

NOTE: image show us, as written: "Turn performance" or Turn radius (Rate of climb is Not mentioned anywhere)

In the middle of image is drawn chart, where is inscribed in left side the middle of chart:

TIGHTEST TURN (RADIUS = 1060 FEET)

NOTE: measures are only in FEETS (Not in FEETS per Second)

>>> as some Wikipedia commentators persistently misread <<< !!!

quote from you: "NOTE: image show us, as written: "Turn performance" or Turn radius (Rate of climb is Not mentioned anywhere)"

This is where you read things wrong. A chart on turn performance can have information on other topics as well, for instance, ps (specific excess power)

That "1200" means ps (specific excess power) whose unit is feet/second, not feet!

ps = rate of climb, and I have posted the math proof of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DulacYves (talk • contribs) 20:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

[FEETS can be converted in Meters & Feets per Second converted in Meters per Second]

Chart also corresponding with:

[Left side outside of chart] TURN RATE - DEGREES/SECOND

[Lower side outside of chart] MACH NUMBER

And in the center of chart is written 1200, and this is where all misunderstanding arises !

1200 number coresponding for FEETS as chart gauges have inscribed. NOT FEETS per Second because if we look in chart we will NOT find "FEETS per Second" measure inscribed in any place of the chart, we will found only inscribed FEET ! _______________________________________

Conclusion:

Chart show TIGHTEST TURN RATE of F-16

The maximal measured value in Chart is 1200 FEETS (which is 365.7 meters)

---

1200 Feets or 365.7 meters is a length of the radius that F-16 is able to make at designated speed (MACH 0.9)

at 7.8 Degrees/Second, making specific excess power (ps) at 4G in turn. [Upper/Left side inside of chart is written LOAD FACTOR - G ].

Charts are unrelated to the topic - RATE of CLIMB !!!

And are wrongly used as evidence of rate of climb, inflating numbers of rate of climb making that F-16 have 370m\s or better rate of climb than F-22 which is Insane !

Totally ignoring other documents where the value is stated from 254m/s with older P&W F-100 engine to the 279.4 meter per second with two missiles and newer P&W F100-229 engine adding more power but also aircraft is slightly heavier than earlier versions because of newly installed equipment.

Image is ===EDITED & Fraudulent=====  !!! posted here by Oldtimesake at 13:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

user Oldtimesake used HAF image - designated (1F-16CJ-1-1-4073A) [Figure B8-37.]

He Edited original image, He Cut out upper section of Original image [Part where is Written in the Original image]

TURN PERFORMANCE === SEA LEVEL 

and added [in lower part of the image] Red letters:

SEP = 1200 ft/sec

G = 4.2

Which is Fraud and discredit user and whole topic !!!

EVIDENCE of Editing [ORIGINAL image vs EDITED] on the Right side: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->>>

---

Btw. also i have take a look of polish article indeed in the text is stated 310m/s and there is one image where is again stated different value of 340m/s vs Oldest export 38 year old version of Mig-29B, where is stated 320m/s ? What is strange here is if we calculate both aircrafts - weight and thrust, math said that Mig-29 have better Thrust to weight Ratio, also both aircrafts have same generation Turbofan engines. RD-33 Turbofan engine from Mig-29 spool up very fast, even oldest versions (smokey & with low service life) spool up & pull like crazy!!! (In reality MiG-29B from year 1983 have 330m/s, that is the only value that i found in many books that i read about MiG-29, but that is irrelevant to the topic at all)

but again how credible or Biased is the Polish source because of East-West politics, time will tell ? I will stick to European:

===========================================================================

---

Quote from a person who reads the charts wrong: "NOTE: image show us, as written: "Turn performance" or Turn radius (Rate of climb is Not mentioned anywhere)"

This is where he reads things wrong. A chart on turn performance can have information on other topics as well, for instance, ps (specific excess power), which equals to rate of climb.

That "1200" means ps (specific excess power) whose unit is feet/second, not feet!

This is the explanation from HAF F-16 manual:

ps = rate of climb. Positive ps means climbing. The unit is feet per second. 1200 mean the rate of climb is 1200 feet per second.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DulacYves (talk • contribs) 20:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DulacYves (talk • contribs)

---

By UnrealTournament2004

I can confirm the unit of 1200 is "feet per second" instead of "feet", which is pretty obvious.

Just follow the instruction on the manual: find the intersection of "mach 0.9" and "9g", we are on a curve marked by feet per second, which is in line with the instruction on the manual. Please see the figure below:

https://i.postimg.cc/cLX8h6T1/F-16-C-em-chart-explanation.png

This shows that all numbers in red boxes (0, 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200) have a unit of feet per second, because they are PS (specific excess power, which equals to rate of climb). All numbers in green boxes have a unit of feet, because they are radius.

It's hilarious that someone got confused and can't even read correctly. UnrealTournament2004 (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Cutting down the India vs Pakistan section

I recently tried to streamline the section on the history in the context of India vs. Pakistan which I found to be excessively detailed, poorly sourced, and generally tainted by the silly ongoing antagonism that permeates every Wikipedia article even tangentially related.

In that edit, I believe I preserved most of the information while cutting down on details, often poorly or unsourced, such as the names of individual pilots. I also reduced a long history of assertions going back-and-forth between sources from the respective governments while preserving the eventual conclusion according to the only reputable source mentioned, the Washington Post. @Inoxent AR: reverted the change and even felt the need to post a silly Warning on my discussion page. Needless to say, I disagree. K. Oblique 13:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I concur on all points. Maintaining neutrality is important for Wikipedia, which is ultimately what you were trying to do. Wikipedia isn't the place for nationalistic battles to take place, especially in articles. This isn't unique to India and Pakistan, but as they have the world's second and sixth largest populations respectively, we get a lot of users from those counties. BilCat (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

As a suggestion the aircraft project editors could work together to create an 'air wars' article as a child of Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts or use one of the 20 articles in Category:Indo-Pakistani wars. This would work the same as Aircraft in fiction, drawing the undue weight and edit warring away from the aircraft type articles, a summary section would be left behind per WP:SUMMARY. This is a problem affecting all aircraft types involved in the conflicts particularly the F-104, Mig-21, F-86 and Folland Gnat articles, they light my watchlist up daily with claims and counter-claims. I can propose it at WT:AIR if there is support. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me! However, from my editing experience, the types of users who like add this sort of information aren't usually deterred by edit notices and links to other articles, so how much effect it'd have remains to be seen. But I do think it's worth a try to point them elsewhere. BilCat (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Boyd and the "fighter plane mafia"'s involvement

Boyd was a fraud. He and the rest of the "fighter plane mafia" regularly claimed credit for things they had nothing to do with, such as the A-10 and the F-16. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZDfdCj61dY .

I'd argue that the claims he had anything to do with the lightweight fighter program need to be sourced from texts that were not written by or citing him or his friends. 202.63.77.23 (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

That video is not a reliable source, as has been discussed elsewhere. BilCat (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Videos of that ilk, at best, can be used to identify superior or alternative sources. A similar discussion occurred when LaserPig made a series on the A-10; a book on Boyd and associates was discounted upon review of more reliable sources when it came to certain claims in that article. The same is true here: should better sourcing be found that discounts the current sourcing or offers reliable evidence for an alternative viewpoint in the body, we will duly add it. Until then, the video is not a source, as mentioned. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Fighter generation

User:BilCat reverted my edit on General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. I don't doubt your reason exists, but I cannot make sense of "WP:AIR consensus is to list list generatio me in the lead". Isn't the lead the exact place I put the generation? Please help. Thanks. Zaslav (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The point is to not list them because this causes a lot of back & forth editing for no real value. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Many sentences/paragraphs tagged for improvement, while numerous statistics are not cited, failing GA criterion 2b, along with concerns over stability (see recent edit-warring). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The article contains a few cn tags, a failed verification tag, and cites many sources flagged up as unrealible (most natable F-16.net). I think the aircrafts on display section is trivia, and removing that may bring the article closer to GA, but some more work is needed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't usually comment on GA reassessments, but I'll chime in to say that "Aircraft on display" or "Surviving aircraft" are a standard section on aircraft articles, especially for military aircraft. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I would usually agree ZLEA, but a section containing 83 aircraft (1.8% of all of these planes built) seems a bit unnecessary. And this is a plane which is still being not only flown, but built. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

What type of sourcing can be used for those sections? At the moment, it seems to be primarily sourced to F-16.net, which shows up as red in my source-checking script (generally unreliable). To note here User:Mark83 has indicated at talk that they may work on the article :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes I have said I may pitch in, but I am not bothered about this section to be honest. I agree it feels a bit like trivia. ZLEA is right that it’s a standard section, but if user(s) have strong feelings about maintaining this section then they need to work on verifability. Failing that, let’s remove it. Mark83 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

If no opposition makes itself known, I'll remove the sectionin a couple of days. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Section removed by buidhe.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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.

Improvement could have been made with a bit of discussion and collaboration, but no harm forcing the issue this way. I’ll pitch in where possible. Mark83 (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a dispute over whether Lockheed and AIDC have a business partnership

"Lockheed and AIDC both invested in the development of the aircraft and will share revenue from all sales and upgrades," seems to be limited to Chinese media and English-language media with Taiwanese background, but it is not official information from the government, Lockheed and AIDC (or other government-backed medias). Are there other, stronger data to support this claim? 124.217.188.79 (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the invest wording is not accurate per the cited Taiwan News source. The source says "Taiwan and the United States were the initial investors of the F-16V...". The companies investing their own money and the nations investing theirs are two different things. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Referring to the data of Taiwan Media, it seems that this is only propaganda between political parties, and individuals ignore their political motives, but this unverifiable data statement does affect the quality of the information in this article. 124.217.188.79 (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The cited content is not political, so I'm not sure how any political bias would affect the coverage in this case. However, if you truly believe that the source's content is politically motivated, please bring it up at WP:RSPMISSING so it can be properly assessed. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Since I am not familiar with WP:RSPMISSING layout, if you don't mind, can you propose it on your behalf? Thank you in advance if you can help. 124.217.188.79 (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not well versed in Taiwanese politics, so I do not have any grounds to question its neutrality. I especially do not have any reason to question its reliability regarding non-political topics. After doing some digging, however, I have found that Taiwan News has been discussed at least three times ([12], [13], [14]), and it seems the consensus is that it is generally reliable for non-political topics. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

There is really no direct and justifiable reason to question its neutrality. But I think we need to sort out that "companies that invest their own money and countries that invest their own money are two different things." On this issue. And whether statements by a one-sided media (no other references or comparisons) should be used as reference data, F-16V's business partners at least personally believe that there will not be any third-party materials for reference other than Taiwanese background media or unilateral reports by Taiwanese media. Similar to the situation of Lockheed Martin and Fujitsu cooperation on LRDR, it will not be unilaterally reported by Japanese media or Japanese background media. 124.217.188.79 (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Taiwan News itself states that the information in question is from another source. I don't know that the current wording of the article is inaccurate, as Taiwanese media did in fact report that Taiwan and the U.S. both initially invested in the development of the F-16V. As for Taiwan News' reliability, the discussions I linked in my last comment indicate that it is reliable for at least non-political topics such as this. Therefore, we don't need other references to back it up. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it needs to be separated to make clear that the US Taiwanese government's investment and Lockheed and AIDC business cooperation are two separate events. Now at issue is the claim that Lockheed and Aidc are doing business cooperation rather than investment by the Taiwanese government, so the question is whether there is any other strong proof of cooperation, please do not confuse the public. The same problem is that the article refers to other sources and I am curious why there are no other sources other than Taiwanese News that confirm the claim of business cooperation. 182.239.88.165 (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Taiwan News makes no claims of a business cooperation, only that "Taiwan and the United States were the initial investors of the F-16V". It references a Now News article (in Chinese) as the source of that information. As of right now, this article doesn't make a claim of a business cooperation. I suggest you read the section in question and explain the changes you wish to be made. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a need to modify the content is user ip 124.217.188.79 instead of me, I just think that this Lockheed & aidc have business partnership is indeed controversial so make a message to discuss, thank you for the nownews report, in the report, there is indeed "傳台灣可分紅" and "因此仿間傳言台灣可以在升級計畫中分紅", returning to this discussion, the argument should be whether to adopt hypothetical information. 182.239.88.165 (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss rationally, user Fnlayson reported the words "Taiwanese media that Lockheed and AIDC both invested in the development of the aircraft and will share revenue from all sales and upgrades." Change to "Taiwanese media reported that Taiwan and the U.S. both initially invested in the development of the F-16V.", I think this is a currently desirable way to proceed. 124.217.188.79 (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

182.239.88.165 sorry about that. Unregistered users often use multiple IPs, so I assumed you two were the same user. Also, the information in question isn't "hypothetical", it's very much relevant to the topic.

124.217.188.79, the article already says "Taiwanese media reported that Taiwan and the U.S. both initially invested in the development of the F-16V." Are there any other changes to the article you wish to be made. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no other opinion on this and agree that this is a relatively reasonable expression. 124.217.188.79 (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)