Jump to content

Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

F-16I Sufa

An article on the F-16I Sufa had recently been created. It currently has no sources, no major links, and has less info than the F-16I section in this article. Of course, those issues are easily addressed, but will the article ever be much more than a stub? I can't see the differences of the F-16I as warranting a separate article. Should we just redirect back here? - BillCJ (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I say make it a redirect to this article. - Ahunt (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The other planes listed in the infobox as "Variants" do, but most of them are substantially different and not just an avionics swap. I would change the article to a redirect and drop the F-16I from the infobox. SDY (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the others. There's not enough differences in the F-16I variant to split off a separate article. Now an entire article for all the variants would be a good idea. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, per consensus so far, I've converted the page to a redirect. - BillCJ (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And just noting that the consensus here reflects what the draft Notability guidelines for aircraft would recommend. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Current sales / Operators sections

I moved the Current sales proposals section to the separate List of F-16 Fighting Falcon operators. This section was almost as long as the list above it.

Also, see this article's peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/F-16 Fighting Falcon. Add improvement comments if you have them. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the move was a good idea. I haven't touched that section yet because I thought most of it should go to the list and only a little remain here. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I hadn't thought much about this section myself, until you brought that up. I was cutting the section back and realized the F-16 operators article had the Future and cancelled orders section. So I moved the rest there. Some parts were already covered so I didn't lengthen the operators article too much. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


I can start moving the quantities and other text from the Operators section to List of F-16 Fighting Falcon operators if there are no objections. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine with me; if there's something we want re-included, it can always be added back. The only text that I would think perhaps useful would be total aircraft receipts. I don't think we should try to maintain current inventories; readers can go to the operators list or – more preferably – to the respective air force articles. (Unfortunately, many of the latter don't have such info, so the List is probably it, if at all.) What do you think – include or exclude order quantities? Askari Mark (Talk) 18:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

The infobox image has recently been changed - seems very dark to me with the brown background, should we change back to the previous image? MilborneOne (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure if a better one can be found. There's been issues with the last 3 infobox images. The current one Image:F-16 June 2008.jpg is too dark. The previous one Image:USAF F-16C Profile.JPEG has shadows over it. The earlier one Image:F-16 Fighting Falcon.jpg does not show the whole plane well enough or something. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Not that many on commons that are flying and show the planform, possibly only two candidates Image:F16A FAP linksup KC-10.jpg or Image:RNoAF F16A.jpg. MilborneOne (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I looked through several pages of F-16 thumbs on defenseimagery.mil and the current one (June 2008) was the best one I saw. My monitor at home is brighter, so I thought it was fine. af.mil/photos/ is another place to look if someone feels up to it. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the new one looks dark to me, too. I trawled through af.mil/photos/ and here’s the best two images I could find: Fighting Falcon from the 555th Fighter Squadron at Aviano peels away from a KC-135 after refueling (needs cropping) & F-16 Misawa F-16 at Red Flag in 2006 (could use Photoshopping to remove distracting cloud shadow). Askari Mark (Talk) 04:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

New F-16 variants article

I just wanted to let everyone know that I've just completed a new article, F-16 Fighting Falcon variants, based mostly on material from this article. It covers everything except the basic models and blocks. I plan to trim the variant listings here to brief entries, and integrate the model/block material into the Evolution section. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Captions

Any reason why most of the captions have had full details of each aircraft added this is not an F-16 fan site and most details are not really notable - most should be reverted to a simple caption? MilborneOne (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We've had discussions with Dave before about his over-complicated captions and line breaks, and the fact they don't work for WP. I've done a mass revert back to Jeff's last edit. I'm not sure why we have to go through this every month or two, but apparently we do! - BillCJ (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Captions tell the history of an aircraft - if you are going to have a picture of an aircraft then you need to tell its story and background - this is only common sense if not for readability then for accuracy in reference. If you were to google F-16 this article is one of the first to be found so this make accuracy and completeness essential in these article (and it does not add too much more in size). If wikipedia was a dictionary then a simple caption would be ok but tbut wikipedia is more then it is becoming a valuable reference tool as such accuracy and details is essentialDavegnz (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Now that we have gone into the WP:BRD mode, my opinion is that the caption should be essential information and while I can see Dave's side, it does seem to be "information overload" at this point. What about having the caption "point" to a set of notes or sources when needed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
Dave, I've removed your personal attacks against me. If you add them back, or make more, I will seek appropriate action. Btw, the main text is there to tell the history of the aircraft, and that's where most editors put their research, not in the captions. All of us here have our own ideas of how WP should work, but we submit to the general consensus in order to get along with others. - BillCJ (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Reminder, that this is where we hash out "content issues" not anything else, and look at the top header, we keep a civil discourse going, that way, things get done. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
The captions also had vague abbreviations/acronyms. Those should be spelled out on the first usage or something along those lines. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
We have been here before - is not the image page the ideal place for all this detail. Captions are not to tell the story of individual aircraft they are to illustrate different points in the article. The now removed accusations that other editors are two lazy to find the information is not called for most editors in the project have a library of resources and information it doesnt mean it is suitable for Wikipedia, I have to support BillCJs reversion. But as Davegnz has brought the subject up at project perhaps we need to move over to there (again). MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


From what I have been able to see when looking at BillCJ he only likes captions like B-57 in a hanger and B-57 flying - useless information. Captions should spell out who, what, when, where (this a the basic when taking an class on basic writing). Real aviation historians want details - I say as a aviation historian that if you have a photo then you have to give its history. Bill say that this information should be spelled out in the artile, fine - lets delete all photo captions and go back to cave paintings.
Bill also did not mention that when he reverted back to an earlier version that he also destroyed a lot of information that was added to the notible section - this is vandalism and I feel that maybe Bill need to be removed from being an editor for a few months
MilborneOne states that an image is to illustrate different points in the article - this is a garbage statement if every I heard one - if that was the case lets remove every picture that has B-57 sitting in a hanger and YOH-5A LOH or even Croatian Bell-427 landing (gee an airplane landing) -lots of details lots of research there. As far as specificilly with MilborneOne I did a random sample of his article (aviation) and a vast majority do not have any phots associated (in fact most of his articles seem to have been lifted right out of Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation or The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft - doe not take much to to copy work already published Davegnz (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that all work must be "already published", see:WP:No original research. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • And that Milb1 or any other competent editor does not merely "copy" a published work, as that is a copyvio. Such accusations are unwarranted. Btw, are you seriously suggesting that "serious historians" only read WP articles for the pictures? :) - BillCJ (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic, we are gathering opinions as to a content issue. All the requisite alterations will be restored once the decision is made as to how to frame captions for this article. Recall that the issue may need further clarification and discussion at the project level to set some guidelines. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC). Please centralize all discussion to this page to gather a consensus before making any revisions to the article over the issue of caption styles. 19:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

I'll weigh in here to say that I believe that the style of captions being advocated by Davegnz are information overkill for an encyclopedia, although they would be perfectly in place for a monograph or other specialist work. In any writing, "more detailed" does not necessarily mean "better"; the genre and context need to be taken into account. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


I agree with Rlandmann. Moreover, the multi-line, centered captions are not only unattractive, but their information is gobbledy-gook to most readers. Likewise, terms such as "CO ANG" mean nothing to most readers. There does need to be a better consensus on what content is appropriate for captions, so may I recommend that this issue be taken to the WP:AIR page content for a centralized discussion of the project's preferred captioning style(s). Askari Mark (Talk) 03:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

* * *
I look at a lot of articles (such as BillCJ and many others and it reminds me of books that were published in the 1950 - lots and lots of facts boring, dull uninteresting pictures - picture with no history surrounding what is being published. In the 1980-90's, a lot of True Aviation historians (i.e. Roger Freeman, Jeff Ethell, Warbirds Worldwide, etc..) found that aviation historians wanted and needed history recorded. The captions of their books detailed who, what, when, where, etc... As we progressed into the 2000's, I am finding that today’s writers unfortunately, want to dumb down the article - instead of giving all the details to allow the readers to decide how much level of detail he wants - Again, unfortunately, BillCJ (as well as others) want to take the Dick & Jane approach to aviation history.
This is suppose to be an online reference/encyclopedia - often when you Google an item, the wiki article is the first reference to pop-up so this will be (unfortunately) the first and only reference many will have for a subject. A subject has to include everyone that references and item, whether it be a 4 year old doing his first model airplane, the aviation historian, the F-16 Buff. These articles are also used by serious models who want the details.
Articles only tell part of the story - you need the pictures to compliment and point out what the article is discussing. In the same vein, the pictures need the same level of detailed study (if possible) and care that is place in creating the entire article. Having a great and fantastic article (such as the F-16) with kindergarten captions makes the entire article pointless.
It is also unfortunate that other editors like Askari Mark feels that detailed captions are meaningless to most readers - again, you can not have an online reference/encyclopedia without filling crossing the t and doting the i's. Without detailed captions, it like having no reference section - sure you can print captions that state " Gee an F-16 in Flight " - especially when it is clear that the airplane is sitting on the ground. Or the case of one article "Aircraft is on a bomb-run" when it was clear from the picture that the bomb-bay doors were closed, no guns in the waist position and the detailed history showed the aircraft actually was a trainer and never left the United State...
BillCJ also mentioned " are you seriously suggesting that " serious historians " only read WP articles for the pictures? " - it is a proven fact that 90% of all information processed by humans come from Visual" data (i.e. pictures, etc...) - this is the reason Picture books are popular with preschoolers. The first thing a majority humans look out when reading any thing is the pictures - if the pictures are interesting then many people will stop and read. If an aviation historian comes across an article that details the subject matter then he will stop and read the contents.
It is also been said that this article is not for the F-16 Buffs - if this is the case, then
  1. why have technical specifications
  2. why have details on each variation??
  3. Why have the nuts and bolts of each individual user??
  4. Etc, Etc, Etc...
Why have detailed information regarding anything regarding the aircraft if this subject is not going to reach out to those who can say yes, this is true (i.e. the historian/buff) - If you are going to have the nuts and bolts in the article then you have to carry this same thought patterns over to have the nuts and bolts details in the photo captions.... (for example: B-52 Specifications, B-52 Costs, B-52 Variants) etc... this type of informations IS for the Aviation Historian / Buff and generally not for the casual reader (which is MY point in having detailed captions).
If we dumbdown the photocaptions for the "causual reader, then this level of details Specifications, costs, variations also needs to be removed as it will only confuse the " casual reader " and will lead to people calling all such information " gobbledy-gook ".
If we dumbdown the photocaptions or call detailed information " gobbledy-gook to most readers " then terms such as: Wing area, Airfoil, Zero-lift drag coefficient, Drag area, Aspect ratio, Maximum speed:, Combat radius:, Ferry range, Service ceiling ,Rate of climb, Wing loading, Thrust/weight, Lift-to-drag ratio are "gobbledy-gook to most non-aviation readers"
BillCJ has also mentioned that Wiki is not the place for F-16 Buff's to write article - This is complete opposite what the founders of wiki wanted when this project (wikipedia as a whole) dreamed many, many years ago - Wiki was to be a place where people with a passion for a subject could write about a subject that they know about and meet others with the same passion who could expand upon their ideas -
This my 2-cents on the matter - I want details in my articles and I want details in my pictures !!! Davegnz (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Dave, this discussion may be better suited for the Aviation Project Group talk page as it seems to have more than just the F-16 article as a point of contention. Why not move it there for a greater number of editors to see your concerns and have a better chance to engage in a free flow of ideas and thoughts. FWiW, I realize you put a lot of time and effort in researching individual details, perhaps there is a means by which some of the information can still be accessed, perhaps a sub- or daughter article? Bzuk (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Dave, your comments are always interesting, as I get to read about so many things I never actually said or wrote! To most people, that's simply called lying. - BillCJ (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't believe that "that detailed captions are meaningless to most readers"; at issue is not whether detailed information belongs in the encyclopedia, but rather where it best belongs. In my mind, the fact that Wikipedia employs thumbnails for images rather than larger, higher-resolution images indicates that the thumbnails are intended for illustration, not history. Given that, the detailed information belongs in the description on the image's own page. That page even has its own talk on which further information can be provided and discussed. External links better fit on the image page than in the captions. (Putting external links in captions is inconsistent with MOS anyway.) True Aviation historians don't have problems with clicking on thumbnails to get further details as well as a more viewable version of the image. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
For information further discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Captions. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Scrolling lists

Per WP:REF#Scrolling lists:

Scrolling lists, for example of references, should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such lists will display properly in all web browsers.

- BillCJ (talk) 08:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

F-16 losses in Desert Storm

How many F-16s were lost in Desert Storm? Let’s see:

  1. 87-0228 – lost on Jan 19 to SA-6 [1]
  2. 87-0257 – lost on Jan 19 to SA-3 [2]
  3. 87-0224 – lost on Jan 21 to own bombs, non-combat loss [3]
  4. 84-1379 – lost on Feb 15 while landing in UAE [4]. Its pilot Dale Thomas Cormier is listed as Desert Storm KIA [5] [6], so the aircraft is non-combat loss during the war.
  5. 84-1218 – lost on Feb 17 because of engine fire while on combat mission [7]. Presumed to be non-combat loss.
  6. 86-0329 – crashed on Feb 20 at Diyarbakir, Turkey [8]. Was it combat mission? US Navy chronology of Desert Storm lists it among other losses on that day: “Three additional U.S. aircraft have been lost. An Army helo crashed during combat, killing both pilots. A USMC CH-46 helo and an F-16 were non-combat losses.” This F-16 is also listed in another chronology, which says: “[aircraft] returned to Turkish airspace, pilot ejected OK”. So 86-0329 may be considered as non-combat loss during the war.
  7. 84-1390 – lost on Feb 27 to SAM [9]

All in all, there were seven F-16 losses during Desert Storm, three combat and four non-combat. 92.113.90.97 (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting but not sure it is particularly notable - combat aircraft get lost in combat! MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Currently article says: "In Operation Desert Storm of 1991, 249 USAF F-16s flew 13,340 sorties in strikes against Iraq... with five lost in combat, of which two were due to accidents and three to hostile surface-to-air missiles (SAMs)." 92.113.103.149 (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Apologies I see your point, the combat losses are cited against reference [75] which lists three (two to SAM on the 19 Jan and one to AAA on the 27 February (USAF document contradicts F-16.net but official info is better than fan site). I have tweaked the text. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
"Combat loss" is actually a somewhat vague term. It can refer to an aircraft actually shot down or else lost hors de combat (during or as the result of a combat mission, even if not shot down). It's sort of like using the term "casualties" to represent only killed or killed and wounded. What matters most is consistency of usage, although it would be nice if there were a standard usage in Wikipedia. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarify tag

I just put a clarify tag on this line:

When supersonic, a negatively stable aircraft actually exhibits a net positive static stability due to aerodynamic forces shifting aft between subsonic and supersonic flight.

I think this is intended to mean an F-16, and not "any negatively stable aircraft", which is how it reads currently. (What about a brick? That's negatively stable, and making it supersonic would not make it positively stable.) If anyone knows the truth then please clarify in the article. Tempshill (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that applies to the F-16 and any aircraft with a similar CG/lift point arrangement. I scanned through the Relaxed Stability report (Ref. 41) and have not found anything on supersonic effects like that. Maybe someone else can find it in there or elsewhere. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
With RSS, as one goes supersonic, the stability trends more positively (“net positive”, compared to subsonic), but, no, I’m not sure that every RSS aircraft becomes actually positive in its stability, so I’ve modified the article to clarify this. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

F-16 modified to carry nuclear weapons

I think the fact that Pakistan has modified its f16's to carry nuclear weapons is much more significant than many of the other "variants" mentioned in the article. citation: "Deception" about A Q Kahn (the fall-guy) and Pakistan's nuclear program. ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

The US versions already have nuke capability. I don't see why Pakistan adding it is noteworthy. But List of F-16 Fighting Falcon operators would be the place to mention that with a proper reference since that's Pakistan only info. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it belongs in the list of operators. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-productive edits by User:Hohum

User:Hohum made a series of non-proiductive edits, which I reverted (using rollbacks, as the revert required a lengthy explanation here anyway).

  1. He added {{fixbunching}} templates to 4 images, with no discernable improvements to the output in IE (the majority browser used by readers), and which only added more code to an already very long article.
  2. He removed the upright tags from overlong images in this group. His explanation, upright makes sense for matching vertical height of images, not widths shows a lack of realizayion of the purpose of the upright tag, which is to cut down the length of pics that too long to fit comfortably in a screen set to lower resolutions.
  3. He added an image after the infobox, but before the first paragraph. This can cause problems on some browsers, and is really only worth doing in very short articles. Also, he used px sizings on this pic, which is not recommended per WP:IUP execpt under rare circumstances.

Hope this helps. (Note: please do not add respones in between my comments here - it breaks up the number formatiing.) - BillCJ (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. My edits ([10]) were in good faith and attempted to improve, if only slightly:
  1. While IE sees no problems, Firefox has a bunching effect with edit tags, pushing all that overlap the images down to a group at the bottom of the images, making section editing confusing. A significant proportion of people use this browser. Adding 100 extra bytes to a 138,000 byte article didn't seem to be much of an overhead to cater to them.
  2. The images that I removed "upright" from are not big enough to cause problems on screens set to any reasonable resolution. I don't think it would even effect 640x480, as squashing my browser window down to that size doesn't. While this was partly done because fixbunching lumps all of the image widths together for text formatting, I also think that when you have a series of images on top of each other, it improves reading flow to have them all the same width.
  3. Adding an image under the infobox in this article caused no issues for Firefox3 or IE7 (tested with both) .. Also, now your suddenly worried about "some browsers" when you weren't in (1)? Wikipedia:IUP#Displayed_image_size only says "generally" images shouldn't have forced px sizes, but when they do they should generally be less than 550 wide and cater to 800x600 resolutions. I used px sizing because of the rare circumstance of putting the image directly under a 300px wide infobox which doesn't scale. Any other size would look wrong. Hiding the TOC does make the image invade the text space slightly.
As far as I can see I have taken due care to: not make the article significantly longer, not damage browser compatibility, not damage low resolution browsing, follow WP policies and guidelines, but have; (only slightly) improved compatibility and reading flow, and added a quality image into a space that was otherwise unused. The article obviously has no shortage of excellent images, but white space in any publication begs to be filled with quality content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hohum (talk • contribs)
I’m unfamiliar with {{fixbunching}}, but comparing the before and after views, it seems to me – using IE – that it creates further white space to the left of the images and that’s about it. Removing the upright code, of course, makes the narrow images wider, which actually makes it look “cleaner” IMHO, as long as fixbunching is being used, since adding it leaves only a few isolated strings of text hanging out to the right, which gets cleaned up when the images are of equal width. If anything, having all these pics run together on the righthand side, some of which outspan in height the section of text to their left, is very cluttered-looking. This might be ameliorated by moving the cockpit image to the “Cockpit and ergonomics” section. Hohum, would you let us know how well this works with Firefox? Thanks.
Oddly, Bill’s reversion seems to have introduced an unusual feature I hadn’t noticed before: the edit hotlink for the “Operation Desert Storm (1991)” section overlaps the TuAF formation image to its right. The following section’s hotlink is comfortably located further to the left. Is anyone else seeing this? Askari Mark (Talk) 20:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Not on Firefox! - the problem with all this tweaking is that everbody sees a different article. Different browsers and different screen sizes. So in the end the tweaking only helps a small minority, one users white space is anothers cluttered screen. Best left alone in my opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Um, so which "alone" is it best left at? Askari Mark (Talk) 22:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Askari. I don't think you'll tend to see the "bunching" issue in IE. FF users currently see four edit tags next to the "Desert Storm" heading. One for that heading, plus three for the preceding sections from where the images are placed in the page-code. It's hardly a show stopper, but it's easily fixed for a minor overhead (100 bytes plus normalising image widths). The other way of sorting it out is not having multiple images at the start of a section that they don't physically (and in this case logically) fit into. There is plenty of space for the cockpit image to go a paragraph or two into the "Cockpit and ergonomics" section as suggested, the Turkish F-16's image would be better next to the Aegean Incident section a paragraph or so lower than it currently is, etc.
MilborneOne makes a good point. We see different things in different browsers, which is why I often check my edits in both FF and IE at various browser sizes. My edits didn't seem to cause any display problems other than requiring the "tall" images to have the same width as the "wide" ones. Does anyone see a display problem with the 300px image under the infobox in this [11] revision? Hide/show the TOC to be sure Hohum (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine to me either way, Hohum. I certainly don't like all of that white space to the right of the TOC, but I've avoided adding pics there because I don't know what it looks like on different browsers, especially with the TOC option set to "off". Here, in IE it offsets only the first two paragraphs of the Intro, which doesn't have a pic itself. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Pakistani Losses

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE3DD143DF931A35756C0A961948260

Should this article mention the air-to-air loss of a Pakistani F-16A during an engagement with Afghan Air Force aircraft in 1987? Some sources say that the F-16 was shot down by another Pakistani F-16 butthey also only say that it 'appeared' that it was lost in such a way. http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article14.html The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan insisted that THEY had shot down the F-16 although the New York Times did not state what aircraft were used specifically, this article says the Afghan aircraft were MiG-23MLD http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_337.shtml Semi-Lobster (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Tail numbers

I'm getting a little annoyed by the continuing use of tail numbers and/or serial numbers in articles without a solid description of all the assumptions that go into them. This is Wikipedia, folks! How about some exposition! 70.250.176.223 (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this any help United States military aircraft serials. MilborneOne (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that has helped a bit (although it doesn't explain foreign sales), and I found a good link from that page, but it's not easily found from here, where I think a lot of confusing information is put forward here out-of-context.
What I would like to see is a link to some external article(s) that clarify subtle distinctions like the following: 1) the difference between a registration number and a serial number (both called "tail number")--have modified tail number to make it disambiguate. 2) the fact that serial numbers are called "tail numbers"--I don't see this fact in United States military aircraft serials, but I saw it in a linked article. 3) Mention of "construction numbers" which seem to be used frequently and present an alternative to serial numbers for identifying individual aircraft. 4) The relationship between the MDS designations (F-16A, F-16B, F-16C, F-16D, F-16E, F-16F) and other desginations (KF-16, F-16I, A-16, F-16A(R), F-16XL, etc.) as seen in F-16 Fighting Falcon variants. 5) An explanation of what a F-16CG/F-16DG is. Is this a MDS designation or something else? 6) A cross-reference between the various MDS designations and the type versions and blocks.
As I hope you can see, there's plenty of room for confusion... 70.251.240.158 (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • 1) Probably not all relevant to F-16 but tail number, serial number and registration are all really the same thing. Civil aircraft are registered and military ones have serials a tail number is just a slang word for either normally used by Americans. All represent an external identity for a particularly airframe, although it may not be permanent.
  • 2) The serial number article probably doesnt mention it because it is an unofficial term and in some areas of the industry may mean a different thing.
  • 3) A construction number (C/N) or sometimes manufacturers serial number (MSN) is the identity the aircraft builder gives the aircraft it is not painted externally but is the permanent identity of the airframe whoever owns it. Normally stamped or etched on a metal plate somewhere, normally in a wheel well on military aircraft and near the entrance door on airliners. Not sure where it is on an F-16.
  • 4) Perhaps have a read of United States military aircraft designation systems
  • 5) Perhaps a F-16 expert may answer that one.
  • 6) Again something for an F-16 expert to answer.

Hope that helps. MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've got it pretty well sorted out for myself, now. I'd like for this kind of information to stand on its own better in this (encyclopedic) context, for the benefit of others like me, and those even less initiated. That said, I think I can make some contributions to that end:

F16 disambiguation page

Not many people watch any given disambiguation page, so I am posting this here. Doesn't this article apply as the primary topic of 'F16'? It just seems weird to me that the page F16 is a disambiguation page. True, the aircraft is generally written with a dash (F-16), but I'm sure that the amount of people typing in F16 in search looking for the Swedish military base is negligible. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 01:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The fighter's designation includes a dash. So trying to make F16 redirect to "F-16 Fighting Falcon" is just wrong, in my opinion. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with having the DAB page at F16, that's why it's there. It's easy to argue that this article is a primary topic F-16, but less so for [F16]]. Besides, there are some more items that can be added to the F16 DAB page, though none are quite to the level of the F-16. Anyway, give it a few months, and a certain editor who improves DAB pages will probably change F-16 to redirect to F-16 anyway, if he is consistant! - BillCJ (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

New F110-GE-132 Engine

It provides 19,000lb of force, rather than the 17,155 of the GE-100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Equipment

What kind of support equipment is typically required to maintain the F-16? 70.251.33.92 (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not an easy question to answer. Quite a range of test and support equipment is needed to operate and maintain the F-16. There is a 'Support Equipment Recommandation Data' book (so called SERD list) that lists all the needed equipment (i estimate from memory some 500 items). This list contains a range of equipment from the ladder to climb into the cockpit to all the equipment needed at a depot (automatic test equipment or ATE) to test and repair all kind of avionics. It does not list common tools (screwdrivers, drill bits etc). Sometimes under the term 'support equipment' also the trainers or simulators or the mission support equipment (planning tools) are included (these are not listed in the SERD list).--Butch2 (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Morocco as an Operator

(copied from User talk:Fnlayson

I'm going to revert your change of my edit to the F-16 operators on the main page for Morocco. There are several reasons why:

1) Morocco does not operate F-16s at present. 2) The wording on the page is "operators", not "orderers" as you have suggested in your revert. 3) You haven't provided a citation to make me see it your way. 4) Listing Morocco on the main F-16 page would be inconsistent with the sub-page, which does not list Morocco as a current operator. 5) Morocco doesn't show up on the map on the main page. Weak argument, yes, but true. 6) I don't care if you mess with the column layout, but you shouldn't rely on this layout. Everyone's browser will display this differently.

If you feel strongly about putting it back, please provide a citation, at least. 70.247.170.9 (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Morocco's order is cited at List of F-16 Fighting Falcon operators#Potential orders. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Added the IDFs F16s bombing of Gaza and mentioned the hundreds of civilians, Hamas and others killed. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

I am not sure why "hundreds" killed has been changed to "many". I don't think the numbers are controversial. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

I'm not certain any of this is notable. Fighters are used in combat, and bombs do damage to things and people. It doesn't really matter what kind of jets were used. There are articles that cover this,and that's where this all belongs, not here. - BillCJ (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Saying "killed hundreds" looks like sensationalism to me. And more like a newspaper or tabloid and not an encyclopedia. Specifically that does not follow Wikipedia policies such as WP:NEU. Also a single source for things like this could be using numbers that were inflated or something. Not the place to get into that kind of stuff though.. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes "many" is probably better than hundreds - sorry! I guess I have seen too many reports of the thousands of casualties and hundreds of deaths. I used Israelis F-16s instead Israel Defence Force or Israelis Defence Force because I am not sure which one is right - "Israel Defense Force" is I think is the normal option rather than "Israelis Defense Force" but I guess that doesn't matter. Also I wasn't sure whether it was worth mentioning these were US made F16 given that they are made in various places. I was looking in the article for information about whether they were Israelis made because it seemed to me the US was being blamed for supplying the IDF with all its weapons whereas Israel makes a lot for itself - but not F16s. I think I read something about Israel doing all its own electronics or something on the F16 and was at one stage being an alternative to the US for maintanance deals for other countries but the info here is only on the Venzeula stuff and it looks like it still uses US avionics. Any best wishes , (Msrasnw (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC))
Altered the statement to remove numbers killed not really relevant to an aircraft article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Grouping Operational Details

There are three sections here that seem pretty similar/redundant: operators, operational history, and notable incidents, but they are all separately presented.

Perhaps an overall organization something like the following would be better?

Operators

  • Operational History
  • Notable Incidents

70.250.184.212 (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Long Article

I just wanted to point out that while this article has lots of good content, much of it is impenetrable to non-military folk. The extensive discussion of variants and operations seems to distract from the overall message. There is an article already for F-16 Fighting Falcon variants, that seems to duplicate the content here. I suggest we follow the model that the List of F-16 Fighting Falcon operators lays out, and move this content to sub-pages.

In particular, I suggest:

  • Removing the duplicated variants content. A short summary paragraph or two should suffice, and there already seems to be one.
  • Creating a separate sub-page for the operations the F-16 has been involved in. Fourteen sub-bullets (as currently exist) is far too many to not be distracting, as MilborneOne seems to suggest also in this change.

Should I go ahead and make these changes? 70.251.151.4 (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Variants have been cut down a lot (more to go). They have all been copied to the variants article within the last couple weeks. The upgrades and main production variant sections should be condensed down more. The Development, Design and Operational history sections are all main ones and seem mostly alright. With number of F-16s made and the timespan, these sections should be long & detailed, but not long winded. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
After looking some more, there are many sections that can be cut down. Some Operational history details could be placed in List of F-16 Fighting Falcon operators. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm suggesting removing the main production variants entirely from discussion on this page except in summary. No headings or subheadings. The sub-page already does a more than adequate job of developing that, or easily can do that, where it may be lacking. Agree that development and design are relevant to the main article at some degree of detail, especially at a functional description level, for example, modular mission computer, but not MMC 8742.12/Q95(V)7 (or thereabouts) as seems to be the tendency. The detail is welcome, but the idea should be to "drill-down" to the detail, not to present it all inline. Part of the beauty of sub-pages is that they help to hide some of this complexity, and re-contextualize the details in more appropriate ways (and comprehensible) ways.
The scope of the operational history covers 30+ years, numerous variant roles, numerous operators, and numerous wars. I doubt that scope can be contained in this article and maintain focus. I would rather spill over into a sub-page than to stifle new content because of the narrower scope here.
Thanks for your response, but note that I'm looking *to do* something about this, not just find out what *has been done*, or what *will be done*. So I would appreciate it if you actually respond to what I should *do*. A simple yes or no comment with some justification would be a good start. 70.250.184.212 (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I stated what I think should be done and working on some of it. How about condensing down the wordy sections. There should be some agreement from other editors to split off more sub-articles, I think. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Per the above, for me, that equates to removing/transferring entire sections, so there is nothing to do except wait. I will look at what you are doing and see if it makes sense for me to do something similar, but it doesn't sound likely. 70.250.184.212 (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
What do I ask? 70.250.184.212 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I fucking give up

This is fucking ridiculous. Every fucking attempt I try to make a real contribution here or at any of the other F-16 sub-pages is reverted. And on what ground? The last two have been because it's not part of the "standard". WTF? What happened to be bold? When I actually read the "standard" Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content, I note a big fat "Please note" section at the top in blue that says, "Oh, by the way, this isn't really a standard". It goes on to say "you should not feel obligated in the least to follow them". Only, *I am* obligated to follow them.

I've tried following "the system". I've discussed, before making changes, after making changes, ad nauseum. It doesn't matter; same results. Look, but don't touch.

Then there's this section that shows me that you (the experts) have had a problem relating to the readers (non-experts), like me, for a while.

In case you haven't been an active participant in my suppression, let me spell the obvious impasse-of-the-day for you:

  1. You (experts) want a separate variants sub-page. Rightly so.
  2. I want to remove crufty bullshit from this page, that really belongs on the sub-page. Rightly so.
  3. I can't do it today, because I'll be forced to deviate from the standard, and it'll be reverted. Either while I'm still around, or behind-my-back in a week or so (when nobody's paying attention--right?).
  4. What about a week from now? Well maybe, if I come back, and still give a damn. Not looking good. Incremental changes, maybe? No, that'd be reverted because it isn't up to expert standards, even though the status quo isn't either and despite the fact that I've put in the time to make a real contribution.
  5. An expert could do it. But let's face it, we've got a bunch of redundant stuff here that the experts haven't removed for months. I know, I've been watching. Check for yourself. I have changes that depend on some of the subpages being created. I've even seen a comment or two that indicates the redundancy goes back further than that. But obviously, if an expert does it for me, it leaves me with nothing to contribute.

Bottome line: virtually nothing changes, and I get immensely pissed.

Further examples of the more general pattern:

  • I can't get any of the crufty redundant variants shit removed from this page.
  • I can't reorganize the variants page to actually reflect some structure.
    • Do you realize the immense chasm that is the leap from discussing an F-16, versus an F-16C, versus an F-16CJ, versus a F-16I Sufa? No. Otherwise you'd have convenient definitions and summaries of things like "C model" and "D model" before moving on to topics like the CJ whatsit and the F-16I thingamajig (or was it F-16IN?). Is I a model? is N a model? is X a model? What model is a "Desert Falcon"? "Agile Falcon"? I'm hopelessly lost at this point.
  • I have to fight to prove that Morocco doesn't operate F-16s yet.
  • I can't get any momentum to create sub-pages, which would relieve some of the intense cookie-cutter pressure that's on these articles.
    • There's clearly enough content here for ~ 8-10 sub-pages, stubs, or whatever.

This is the finest example of hedgemony, bureaucracy, red tape, premature optimization, or whatever, I've seen in a while. I never thought it could happen at Wikipedia.

Unless this changes by the time I come back in a week or two, you'll never see me again. I doubt anyone like me would want to hang around either.

Now--here's the punchline. I'm in the business. I know what I'm talking about 90% of the time. I'm not an expert. Don't care to be. But I get by in the business, even though I can't finish reading this page. Your standards for contributing to this article are *way* too high. 70.250.184.212 (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

70, part of the trick to editing on WP is learning how to build a concensus, and compromising on the small things to accomplish the big ones. "Be bold" is a good guideline, but it goes hand-in-hand with Bold-Revert-discuss. That's part of the process of how how WP is supposed to work. You've got a great vision for what the F-16 article and sub-pages looks like, but you haven't really taken the time to share that whole vision with the rest of us. On this talk page, another editor who is also "in the business" spent some time trying to outline a direction for the article, but his real life has intervened, and he was unable to complete that for now. There ae other ways to handle what you're trying to without getting reverted at every try. But if your not going to slow down and try to work with the group s a whole, you're probably correct to just move on, for your own sanity's sake.
I'm not interested in putting together a comprehensive vision. I don't know enough about F-16s to do that. I'm sure you'll agree I don't have the patience, either. I've made probably around a dozen comments (this *is* the vision, such as it is) on the talk pages, and get virtually no feedback, so where is the "group as a whole" that you mention? The feedback I do get is generic and self-serving, avoiding any kind of "Yes/No/Factual" position statement that is actually actionable and deferring any kind of decision to the bureaucracy. Not going to join your clique, because I have no interest or time. While I am interested in consensus, I'm not interested in joining a consensus that is deadlocked.
One genuine suggestion is to copy these and the other articles to user sub-pages (you'll need a regitered name to do that right), and work on your vision there uninterupted. Then you can present the completed work here, and others will be able to see what you have in mind. I do that myself, and so does Jeff (Fnl), ans we call those Sandbox pages. It a great way to work on improving something without inteference until you have it completed.
Genuine suggestion? Completed work? I don't recall these highly subjective and loaded concepts anywhere in my experience with Wikipedia. Sounds like manufactured bullshit centered around investment in maintaining the status quo. Please stop approaching me/readers with the mindset that I/they want to be involved at the same level that you do. As a general rule, I/We don't.
Also, there is more than one way to split up an article. Having Variant and Operator pages is good when there is only one major variant, or several large variant groups, as with the F-16 and the F-4 aritlces. Another way is to spin off variants to their own aricles, as with the F-15 and F-15E, and the F-18 and the F-18E/F and CF-18. Given the length of the main F-16 article even after the sub-articles have been created, it might be worth condidering an F-16A/B page, and/pr and F-16C/D page. There is more than one way to skin this cat, it's better to plan it out in advance, rather than just trying to move out stuff haphazardly till the article isn't long anymore. At least that is how it looks if one isn't discussing things in advance. If that is too much work for you, then I can understnad why you're frustrated. But just wait until someone decides to AFD an article you've worked on - now that's the really frustrating part of the WP buracracy! - BillCJ (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not arguing the general case with you here. I'm arguing that the *F-16* page should have separate operators and variants pages, and it already has the variants page, but the work has only partially been done. I get reverted when trying to correct this obvious deficiency. If you're going to throw around "completed work" at me, you ought to start by holding yourself to the same standard. Whatever you mean by "completed work", it's obviously being applied preferentially.
The reason that this becomes "too much work" is bureaucracy. You're not interested in evaluating the merits of what I'm suggesting in the context of the *F-16* page, but rather in making me do the work of defending the more general case. I won't bite. I don't know if it's appropriate in general, and I don't care. That's for your project to figure out, but if it gets in the way of adding value to this page, then your project or "standards" needs re-thinking; it's become bureaucracy.
I'm actually doing what I can to break the obvious deadlock, which is what "Be Bold" specifically mentions as a positive attribute that I (newbie, outsider, whatever) bring to the table. If you don't actually believe any of that, I'm wasting my time.
I appreciate your taking the time to respond. I see that you are sincere, just as most of the others have been. I hope that means you'll take the time to really think about what I've said, and remember what got you interested in Wikipedia in the first place. I doubt it will be anything like the idea of putting forward a "comprehensive vision" (my words) and having to defend it in detail to the world.

70.251.151.211 (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Another wonderful example of Policy Nazis and Wikipolitics driving away, yet again, more experienced and educated contributors. Jesus Christ, it remains me of that Stryker article clusterfuck where ONE admin was able to put his foot down and completely stop any more useful contributions by twisting wikipolicy to suit his needs. When shit like this CONSTANTLY happens, it's no wonder that people give up and move onto wikia sites or whatnot. 67.212.32.54 (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Note the date differential between the last two comments. Please consider that contributions should be limited to the development of the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC).
"Note the date differential". I saw it when I first made the comment. Your point? It's not a discussion archive. I can comment on the discussion page if I damn well please. And as to the development of the article - talk pages are not exclusively limited to that (and if you don't believe me, check some of the larger articles and you'll find that the vast majority of the talk pages are full of debates about wiki policy, which is what I was talking about). So I don't find this to be off-topic. And I'm not quite sure what you were trying to prove by pointing out the dates... It's not like it's an archive or this was written 2 years ago. We're talking about 4 months. 67.212.32.54 (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

LWF/OODA/Boyd Digression

Can we please condense the overly technical and distracting discussion of the OODA loop and John Boyd's E-M theory?

It seems to me that the conclusion that a lightweight fighter is desirable belongs in the LWF page's development. The conclusion that the F-16 embodies the goals of the LWF belongs here, but only needs a sentence, not a paragraph. That conclusion could be supported and be the basis of a small paragraph summarizing the F-16's relation to the LWF.

Don't know why we'd need to mention Boyd or the OODA loop directly here; they are distracting.

Alternatives? 70.250.189.189 (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur; this is an excellent point. Most of the info, if properly cited, could be moved to the LWF page, if it's not there already. One of the drawbacks to WP's open community is that the right-hand and left-hand can operate independently, making duplicate or overlapping content inevitable. That's par for the course, and one reason I'm now watch-listing over 6,500 articles! A brief mention of Boyd in context would probably be fine, but the details certainly don't need to be here. - BillCJ (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The LWF text has been copied from this article to the LWF and maybe a little the other way. The wording can be tighten/culled a good bit but the main points about energy and maneuverability should remain, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Energy is a physics concept, and its relevance here needs development, which is distracting. Maneuverability is a more general concept and is widely understood without development. I'm not suggesting we ignore the implications of E-M theory, just make them more accessible to the average reader by directing them to a development of that topic (if they care).
It's not that I don't care about this, I do, but only minimally. It's a technical argument. Part of the problem with mentioning it here is that it's difficult to understand the context of this result. Are you trying to make a physics point? A strategic one? Something else? It's not clear. Delegating to the LWF article gives a convenient jumping-off point, and illuminates the purpose of the F-16; it's an agile fighter. 70.251.32.227 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
How ironic. You want the article shortened/summarized but write paragraphs on the talk page. ;) The LWF article needs to summarized here so readers don't have to jump to another article to follow. I'm leary of major rewritting of cited text when I don't have the references to check. Well anyway, I'll cut back some more this weekend. Others should help too. OK, a couple of the main references for this appear to be online articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Not really ironic. You're smart enough to understand my lengthy exposition here, right? My audience is different. Here I have you and other committed editors as an audience. In the article, the audience is Joe Six-Pack!  :)
I don't disagree that the LWF can be beneficially summarized here, but I feel going beyond a paragraph would probably be digressing into something better handled in the LWF article. 70.251.32.227 (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! You do good work. I don't have time to really review what you've done at the moment, but I should in the next week or two. I wish I had good reference books for these kinds of things, like you must. If you know of a good reference for the FMS buys for the operators page, I can definitely use it. Have done some preliminary searching, looking for citable sources, and it's been slim pickings. 70.251.149.197 (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Highly unlikely I have anything with the level of detail as the tables in operators article provides. I may have something that lists the totals each nation got though. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think the E-M theory is worth mentioning. The OODA loop doesn't really belong here unless you were briefly mentioning that he discovered it. I should note though that the OODA loop has nothing to do with the E-M theory. E-M theory has to do with sustained agility, the OODA loop has to do with human thought processes. OODA stands for Observe Orient Decide Act. AVKent882 (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

UP TO 11 Hardpoints?

Up-To 11 hardpoints is sort of an incorrect phrase. There are actually 9 hardpoints , plus two additional hardpoints on the left and right sides of the engine inlet (intake). But the two inlet hardpoints are not Weapons, Fuel or Stores mount points in the conventional sense. The inlet hardpoints are for Targeting or Navigation or Recon pods only. Probably two sentences should replace the one. The F-2 (Japanese variant of the F-16) does have 11 hardpoints, plus two on the inlet. This only confuses the matter and makes it all the more relevant that this is changed. I will try to get the time soon to re-phrase that sentence (second para). Will —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.50.152 (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, a hardpoint is a hardpoint. An explanation of the capabilities of each may be a little too specific for an encyclopedia. — BQZip01 — talk 23:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Clarified the wording in the Lead to mention pods. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1999 Kargil War

"After this incident, the PAF ordered its aircraft to stay well within the Pakistani airspace."

Nonsense, no source. I have re-written the section, using a Pakistani source as well to make the article NEUTRAL, a concept that is obviously not familiar to the editor(s) who filled that section with one-sided rubbish. Source being used: http://kaiser-aeronaut.blogspot.com/2009/01/kargil-conflict-and-pakistan-air-force.html Before anyone complains that it is a blog, this is also added at the bottom of the article:

"This article was published in Defence Journal, May 2009 issue. The article also appeared in Air Forces Monthly (UK) - June 2009 issue, under the title 'Himalayan Showdown' and, in Defence and Security of India - Feb 2009 issue, under the title 'Kargil Redux'."

Hj108 (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be the authors blog, so it seems reasonable to trust that it's the real article. Hohum (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
While I have no problem with linking to the author’s original article on his blog in this instance, sure as I’m typing here, someone will see “blog” and rip out the link. I’ve replaced it as a source with the AFM example that Hj108 was so thoughtful to point out. This also has the advantage of providing additional information on the conflict provided in the sidebars to the article. If there is heartburn with this change, feel free to revert me. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Indian Air Force is IAF and not InAF. Also not Israeli Air Force is not IAF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.27.235.41 (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, only your first statement is correct. In English, the Israeli Air Force is often abbreviated as the IAF; while confusing and not technically a correct usage, it is a common informal usage. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Should'nt this be not be included in list of operations. Gurranteed, there was a conflivt going on, but all PAF F 16's did was udertake preventive CAP's within their own territory. Such preventive CAP's are routine among all countries and sholud not be conisidered as operations. Heck even USAF and ANG f 16's were flying CAPS over US cities during 9/11. An even better example is that both NATO F 16's undertook regular CAP's over Europe during cold war. 69.143.1.59 (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the deleted section for now as there didn't seem to be any consensus here yet to delete it, and it is properly sourced now.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the IP, but I’m also aware that removing it will draw in Indian and Pakistani POV warriors to reinsert it (because it was a very important conflict to them). Frankly, too much is currently said about the very little that it was used in that conflict. If it is to remain, I would suggest that it should include the reasons the F-16s were employed in spite of the embargo-driven support problems as well as the impact it had on Indian own changes in tactics in response. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Notable incidents - Bahrain

A Bahrain Air Force F16 reportedly hit the sea between Bahrain and Saudi - the cause wasn't officially released as far as I know, but it was locally reported as pilot error. http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/103803-military-plane-down-near-bahrain-cnn.html http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-148.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.105.200 (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, but this 2003 incident is actually not unusual, however tragic. Please note the problems being experienced trying to locate the crash site of the Air France airliner – a much larger airplane. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

F-16 "design flaws" that lead to crashes?

I don't know if any of you are familiar with a rather poorly done low-budget movie by HBO back in 1992 called "Afterburn," but it's about an Air Force wife turned widow due to an F-16 crash, and she becomes convinced it's the aircraft at fault and not pilot error as stated in the official AF report. She later proves the AF wrong and goes on to successfully sue General Dynamics.

Now when I saw this movie, I had no recollection of anything similar to this ever happening. But, I did look up something and I would like to know if this story is somewhat legit.

A few sites that reference the incident: http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/430319 (I would like to know if this is some official summary of the lawsuit case, is it?) Also, a google books result: http://books.google.com/books?id=wYeNwE7B0zkC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=Afterburn+Harduvel&source=bl&ots=9-XIR2WT19&sig=-zMoF8ne1od6x4GMH5wQ3Emf3A4&hl=en&ei=1CU-Sr7qL4SitwfNnPge&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

It just seems weird that something that was so rare for the time (a supposed successful lawsuit against a defense contractor that size) didn't get that much press. I've certainly never heard of the incident, but I wondered if anyone here can confirm if it's real or not, or if they remember it happening. And, no, I'm not saying this needs to be added to the article. 67.212.32.54 (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have heard of this, although if my memory serves me rightly, it was a class-action suit after a number of unexplained (pilot error) crashes that were eventually determined to be caused by a combination of the aircrafts extreme maneuverability, indirect control system and gimbal lock. I don't think the case succeeded, and was obviously downplayed by General Dynamics. Finding more evidence aside from my admittedly fuzzy memory might be difficult.
If anyone does find proper information, I do think a sentence or 2 in the article would be appropriate, since from a technical standpoint this was a fundamental case that led to widespread use of accelerometers in modern aircraft (and eventually their low cost and small size) today. 203.24.134.243 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

Last USAF Falcon

Should the last delivery be mentioned in the article? http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123010110 Hcobb (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. Most of the operator-related information has been transferred to F-16 Fighting Falcon operators. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon/Archive_3&oldid=1089047315"