This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It would be nice to see some discussion of the relationship between the variants and the type version identifiers, as given here:
I know *I* get confused... 70.250.176.223 ( talk) 22:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Block(s) | MDS Designation | Type/Version | Customer(s) |
---|---|---|---|
01 citation needed | YF-16 (Prototype) | 60 | USAF citation needed |
01 | F-16A | 61 | USAF |
01 | F-16A | 6D | RNLAF |
01 | F-16A | 6F | RDAF |
01 | F-16A | 6H | Belgian Air Component |
01 | F-16A | 6K | RNoAF |
01 | F-16B | 62 | USAF |
01 | F-16B | 6E | RNLAF |
01 | F-16B | 6G | RDAF |
01 | F-16B | 6J | Belgian Air Component |
01 | F-16B | 6L | RNoAF |
05 | F-16A | 61 | USAF |
05 | F-16A | 6D | RNLAF |
05 | F-16A | 6F | RDAF |
05 | F-16A | 6H | Belgian Air Component |
05 | F-16A | 6K | RNoAF |
05 | F-16A | 6V | IAF (originally intended for Iran) |
05 | F-16B | 62 | USAF |
05 | F-16B | 6E | RNLAF |
05 | F-16B | 6G | RDAF |
05 | F-16B | 6J | Belgian Air Component |
05 | F-16B | 6L | RNoAF |
05 | F-16B | 6W | IAF (originally intended for Iran) |
05 | F-16B | 62 citation needed | Aeronautica Militare |
10 | F-16A | 61 | USAF |
10 | F-16A | 6D | RNLAF |
10 | F-16A | 6F | RDAF |
10 | F-16A | 6H | Belgian Air Component |
10 | F-16A | 6K | RNoAF |
10 | F-16A | 6V | IAF (originally intended for Iran) |
10 | F-16A | 61 citation needed | Aeronautica Militare |
10 | F-16B | 62 | USAF |
10 | F-16B | 6E | RNLAF |
10 | F-16B | 6G | RDAF |
10 | F-16B | 6J | Belgian Air Component |
10 | F-16B | 6L | RNoAF |
10 | F-16B | 6W | IAF (originally intended for Iran) |
10 | F-16B | 62 citation needed | Aeronautica Militare |
15 | F-16A | 1A | Indonesian Air Force |
15 | F-16A | 27 | RSAF |
15 | F-16A | 2J | RTAF |
15 | F-16A | 5G | PAF |
15 | F-16A | 61 | USAF |
15 | F-16A | 6D | RNLAF |
15 | F-16A | 6F | RDAF |
15 | F-16A | 6H | Belgian Air Component |
15 | F-16A | 6K | RNoAF |
15 | F-16A | 6V | IAF (originally intended for Iran) |
15 | F-16A | 9E | EAF |
15 | F-16A | 9P | FAV |
15 | F-16A | AA | PoAF |
15 | F-16A | DG | PAF(embargoed) |
15 | F-16A | HN | RTAF |
15 | F-16A | 61 citation needed | Aeronautica Militare |
15 | F-16A | 6H citation needed | RJAF |
15 | F-16B | 1B | Indonesian Air Force |
15 | F-16B | 28 | RSAF |
15 | F-16B | 2K | RTAF |
15 | F-16B | 5H | PAF |
15 | F-16B | 62 | USAF |
15 | F-16B | 6E | RNLAF |
15 | F-16B | 6G | RDAF |
15 | F-16B | 6J | Belgian Air Component |
15 | F-16B | 6L | RNoAF |
15 | F-16B | 6W | IAF (originally intended for Iran) |
15 | F-16B | 9F | EAF |
15 | F-16B | 9Q | FAV |
15 | F-16B | AB | PoAF |
15 | F-16B | DH | PAF(embargoed) |
15 | F-16B | HP | RTAF |
15 | F-16B | 62 citation needed | Aeronautica Militare |
15 | F-16B | 6J citation needed | RJAF |
20 | F-16A | TA | ROCAF |
20 | F-16B | TB | ROCAF |
25 | F-16C | 5C | USAF |
25 | F-16D | 5D | USAF |
30 | F-16C | 1V | NASA citation needed |
30 | F-16C | 2Y | HAF |
30 | F-16C | 4J | IAF |
30 | F-16C | 4R | TuAF |
30 | F-16C | 5C | USAF |
30 | F-16D | 2Z | HAF |
30 | F-16D | 4K | IAF |
30 | F-16D | 4S | TuAF |
30 | F-16D | 5D | USAF |
30 | F-16N citation needed | 3M | USN |
30 | TF-16N citation needed | 3N | USN |
32 | F-16C | 4G | EAF |
32 | F-16C | 5A | ROKAF |
32 | F-16C | 5C | USAF |
32 | F-16D | 4H | EAF |
32 | F-16D | 5B | ROKAF |
32 | F-16D | 5D | USAF |
40 | F-16C | 1C | USAF |
40 | F-16C | 4R | TuAF |
40 | F-16C | AC | RBAF |
40 | F-16C | BC | EAF |
40 | F-16C | CJ | IAF |
40 | F-16D | 1D | USAF |
40 | F-16D | 4S | TuAF |
40 | F-16D | AD | RBAF |
40 | F-16D | BD | EAF |
40 | F-16D | CK | IAF |
42 | F-16C | 1C | USAF |
42 | F-16D | 1D | USAF |
50 | F-16C | CC | USAF |
50 | F-16C | HC | TuAF |
50 | F-16C | TC | HAF |
50 | F-16C | Unknown | RAFO |
50 | F-16C | VL citation needed | FACH |
50 | F-16D | CD | USAF |
50 | F-16D | HD | TuAF |
50 | F-16D | TD | HAF |
50 | F-16D | Unknown | RAFO |
50 | F-16D | VM citation needed | FACH |
52 | F-16C | CC | USAF |
52 | F-16C | DA | RSAF |
52 | F-16C | KC | ROKAF |
52 | F-16C | JC | Polish Air Force |
52 | F-16D | CD | USAF |
52 | F-16D | DB | RSAF |
52 | F-16D | KD | ROKAF |
52 | F-16D | JD | Polish Air Force |
52+ | F-16C | XK | HAF |
52+ | F-16D | RD | RSAF |
52+ | F-16D | XM | HAF |
52+ | F-16D | YD | IAF |
60 | F-16E | RE | UAEAF |
60 | F-16F | RF | UAEAF |
Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | RMAF |
The image File:F-16 VISTA.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 12:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is about variants, so IMO, the upgrade programs are of secondary importance to the actual configurations. I've done what I can to move the configurations listed under programs to the major upgrades section. I hope an expert can pick this up where I left off.
It is certainly worth noting if the configuration was the result of an upgrade program, however. If anyone deems it worth the effort, it seems like there is enough information here to begin separate articles for the actual upgrade programs. 70.250.189.85 ( talk) 23:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It isn't clear what the organizing principle behind the "special production variants" is. What is "special production"? I'm assuming that this essentially means "licensed production" by non-US manufacturers, or partial licensed production, but it isn't stated. This section could probably use an introductory paragraph explaining this, or otherwise clarifying what is special about the production. 70.250.189.85 ( talk) 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It is hard to glean the key essentials of the variations from this article, without reading it in detail. I would like to create quick summaries of the key points for each variant in a small infobox or table, or something similar.
Haven't really settled on what is essential yet, but am currently thinking of including:
Most of this information is available in the article, but it is very frustrating to get at this information, since it is organized in an ad hoc way. I'm having a hard time assessing how comprehensive various facets of the article are because of this. 70.250.189.85 ( talk) 02:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the GF-16 for real? I've heard of maintenance trainers, which this seems to be, but I've never heard of any kind of designation for these F-16s, and it wouldn't seem to indicate particular "configuration" variant, AFAIK. If this is real, can we get some more details about the actual configuration of these aircraft? Are they in any way different from the others of the same model? 70.247.170.9 ( talk) 21:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not certain, but my educated guess is that the CK-1 aircraft (belonging to Israel) mentioned in the article refers to the aircraft construction number CK-1, since CK seems to be a type version associated with Israel. For example, here, CK-7 seems to be an Israeli bird. Could an expert please verify and source this?
This seems an important clarification to make, seeing as how the AIDC F-CK-1A/B Ching Kuo Indigenous Defense Fighter (IDF) is also mentioned in the article, with the common 'CK-1' substring. 70.247.170.9 ( talk) 21:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
While specs tables aren't generally used in combat aircraft articles (usually just airliners), it might be a good idea here. Just something fairly simple, as we don't have to list as many parameters as in the main specs template. - BillCJ ( talk) 00:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, exactly! I had forgotten about that one! Thanks for remembering. - BillCJ ( talk) 01:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I brought over the block and engine summary table from the f-16 page. I also shortened it to make it a little more compact and readable. While this information is included in the text, It is a very informative and clear little chart. It is such a obvious move (to me) I just did it rather than get a consensus.
If this works for most people, how about we strike the chart from the F-16 page. It really should not be there. Buck Claborn ( talk) 17:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Time ago I remember seen a table with block/quantity built or so, can't find it anymore, any help please ? Also can someone tell when USAF received its last new aircraft from factory ? not upgrades, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.158.19 ( talk) 22:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bairforce-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\bairforce-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\bairforce-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—
cyberbot II
NotifyOnline
21:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "auto":
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The F-21 has been jointly developed by LM and Tata. Considering the 'Make in India' plan, the Joint Venture with Tata, compatibility with Russian missiles, special custom for IAF,
I think the F-21 needs a dedicated page.
DoomDriven ( talk) 22:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The given text seems contradictory: "Turkey holds the option to upgrade the remainder of its 100 Block 40s, which could extend the program.[69][72] As of 2019, all F-16s in TAF's inventory are upgraded to Block 50/52+ and being fitted with indigenous ASEA radars.[73]"
If there is remainder of Block 40s, then I don't see how all F-16s in TAF inventory can be upgraded to Block 50/52. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:110E:8523:B8C9:205E:D093:D2B8 ( talk) 00:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
KF-16U is a South Korean upgrade of KF-16C/D B-52 to F-16V standard with few changes compared to V variant. It does not have CFT and HMD (therefore, AIM-9x-2 also excluded). HMD feature will be upgraded later. Also F-16C/D B-32 (F-16PB, Peace Bridge) were upgraded to F-16PBU. Kadrun ( talk) 19:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
There's a bunch of terminology going around on whether the Mid-Life Upgrade (MLU) program jets are referred to as "Block 15 MLU" or "Block 20 MLU". On the side of the latter, there are websites like F-16.net and Aircraft Recognition Guide that use the "Block 20 MLU" terminology. On the side of the former, the archived Lockheed Martin magazine and the intelligence company Janes say that Block 20 was the designation only for new build aircraft (like those that went to the Republic of China / Taiwan), while MLU aircraft are separate and are referred to as "Block 15 MLU" (since that was their production Block before upgrading). The website Air Vectors suggests that the Block 20 designation was applied informally, which would explain the overlap with the Taiwanese Block 20 aircraft. Military-Today.com is another website that points out that the Block 20 designation is for new-build aircraft, with capabilities similar to that of the MLU.
Since a primary source (Lockheed Martin) and a respected defense source (Janes) both describe the MLU jets as Block 15, I propose moving the content of the current Block 20 MLU section to the F-16AM/BM Block 15 MLU section, and adding a note to the end that Block 20 was officially only used for new-production jets but that informal use may describe the MLU. I will carry out this change if there aren't any comments in a week. TROPtastic ( talk) 01:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
According to https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article2.html, starting with tape M6.5 and M7.2 supports also the AGM-158_JASSM and some more. I am not really an expert, so I did not do any improvements myself. Torsten Knodt ( talk) 10:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It would be nice to see some discussion of the relationship between the variants and the type version identifiers, as given here:
I know *I* get confused... 70.250.176.223 ( talk) 22:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Block(s) | MDS Designation | Type/Version | Customer(s) |
---|---|---|---|
01 citation needed | YF-16 (Prototype) | 60 | USAF citation needed |
01 | F-16A | 61 | USAF |
01 | F-16A | 6D | RNLAF |
01 | F-16A | 6F | RDAF |
01 | F-16A | 6H | Belgian Air Component |
01 | F-16A | 6K | RNoAF |
01 | F-16B | 62 | USAF |
01 | F-16B | 6E | RNLAF |
01 | F-16B | 6G | RDAF |
01 | F-16B | 6J | Belgian Air Component |
01 | F-16B | 6L | RNoAF |
05 | F-16A | 61 | USAF |
05 | F-16A | 6D | RNLAF |
05 | F-16A | 6F | RDAF |
05 | F-16A | 6H | Belgian Air Component |
05 | F-16A | 6K | RNoAF |
05 | F-16A | 6V | IAF (originally intended for Iran) |
05 | F-16B | 62 | USAF |
05 | F-16B | 6E | RNLAF |
05 | F-16B | 6G | RDAF |
05 | F-16B | 6J | Belgian Air Component |
05 | F-16B | 6L | RNoAF |
05 | F-16B | 6W | IAF (originally intended for Iran) |
05 | F-16B | 62 citation needed | Aeronautica Militare |
10 | F-16A | 61 | USAF |
10 | F-16A | 6D | RNLAF |
10 | F-16A | 6F | RDAF |
10 | F-16A | 6H | Belgian Air Component |
10 | F-16A | 6K | RNoAF |
10 | F-16A | 6V | IAF (originally intended for Iran) |
10 | F-16A | 61 citation needed | Aeronautica Militare |
10 | F-16B | 62 | USAF |
10 | F-16B | 6E | RNLAF |
10 | F-16B | 6G | RDAF |
10 | F-16B | 6J | Belgian Air Component |
10 | F-16B | 6L | RNoAF |
10 | F-16B | 6W | IAF (originally intended for Iran) |
10 | F-16B | 62 citation needed | Aeronautica Militare |
15 | F-16A | 1A | Indonesian Air Force |
15 | F-16A | 27 | RSAF |
15 | F-16A | 2J | RTAF |
15 | F-16A | 5G | PAF |
15 | F-16A | 61 | USAF |
15 | F-16A | 6D | RNLAF |
15 | F-16A | 6F | RDAF |
15 | F-16A | 6H | Belgian Air Component |
15 | F-16A | 6K | RNoAF |
15 | F-16A | 6V | IAF (originally intended for Iran) |
15 | F-16A | 9E | EAF |
15 | F-16A | 9P | FAV |
15 | F-16A | AA | PoAF |
15 | F-16A | DG | PAF(embargoed) |
15 | F-16A | HN | RTAF |
15 | F-16A | 61 citation needed | Aeronautica Militare |
15 | F-16A | 6H citation needed | RJAF |
15 | F-16B | 1B | Indonesian Air Force |
15 | F-16B | 28 | RSAF |
15 | F-16B | 2K | RTAF |
15 | F-16B | 5H | PAF |
15 | F-16B | 62 | USAF |
15 | F-16B | 6E | RNLAF |
15 | F-16B | 6G | RDAF |
15 | F-16B | 6J | Belgian Air Component |
15 | F-16B | 6L | RNoAF |
15 | F-16B | 6W | IAF (originally intended for Iran) |
15 | F-16B | 9F | EAF |
15 | F-16B | 9Q | FAV |
15 | F-16B | AB | PoAF |
15 | F-16B | DH | PAF(embargoed) |
15 | F-16B | HP | RTAF |
15 | F-16B | 62 citation needed | Aeronautica Militare |
15 | F-16B | 6J citation needed | RJAF |
20 | F-16A | TA | ROCAF |
20 | F-16B | TB | ROCAF |
25 | F-16C | 5C | USAF |
25 | F-16D | 5D | USAF |
30 | F-16C | 1V | NASA citation needed |
30 | F-16C | 2Y | HAF |
30 | F-16C | 4J | IAF |
30 | F-16C | 4R | TuAF |
30 | F-16C | 5C | USAF |
30 | F-16D | 2Z | HAF |
30 | F-16D | 4K | IAF |
30 | F-16D | 4S | TuAF |
30 | F-16D | 5D | USAF |
30 | F-16N citation needed | 3M | USN |
30 | TF-16N citation needed | 3N | USN |
32 | F-16C | 4G | EAF |
32 | F-16C | 5A | ROKAF |
32 | F-16C | 5C | USAF |
32 | F-16D | 4H | EAF |
32 | F-16D | 5B | ROKAF |
32 | F-16D | 5D | USAF |
40 | F-16C | 1C | USAF |
40 | F-16C | 4R | TuAF |
40 | F-16C | AC | RBAF |
40 | F-16C | BC | EAF |
40 | F-16C | CJ | IAF |
40 | F-16D | 1D | USAF |
40 | F-16D | 4S | TuAF |
40 | F-16D | AD | RBAF |
40 | F-16D | BD | EAF |
40 | F-16D | CK | IAF |
42 | F-16C | 1C | USAF |
42 | F-16D | 1D | USAF |
50 | F-16C | CC | USAF |
50 | F-16C | HC | TuAF |
50 | F-16C | TC | HAF |
50 | F-16C | Unknown | RAFO |
50 | F-16C | VL citation needed | FACH |
50 | F-16D | CD | USAF |
50 | F-16D | HD | TuAF |
50 | F-16D | TD | HAF |
50 | F-16D | Unknown | RAFO |
50 | F-16D | VM citation needed | FACH |
52 | F-16C | CC | USAF |
52 | F-16C | DA | RSAF |
52 | F-16C | KC | ROKAF |
52 | F-16C | JC | Polish Air Force |
52 | F-16D | CD | USAF |
52 | F-16D | DB | RSAF |
52 | F-16D | KD | ROKAF |
52 | F-16D | JD | Polish Air Force |
52+ | F-16C | XK | HAF |
52+ | F-16D | RD | RSAF |
52+ | F-16D | XM | HAF |
52+ | F-16D | YD | IAF |
60 | F-16E | RE | UAEAF |
60 | F-16F | RF | UAEAF |
Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | RMAF |
The image File:F-16 VISTA.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 12:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is about variants, so IMO, the upgrade programs are of secondary importance to the actual configurations. I've done what I can to move the configurations listed under programs to the major upgrades section. I hope an expert can pick this up where I left off.
It is certainly worth noting if the configuration was the result of an upgrade program, however. If anyone deems it worth the effort, it seems like there is enough information here to begin separate articles for the actual upgrade programs. 70.250.189.85 ( talk) 23:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It isn't clear what the organizing principle behind the "special production variants" is. What is "special production"? I'm assuming that this essentially means "licensed production" by non-US manufacturers, or partial licensed production, but it isn't stated. This section could probably use an introductory paragraph explaining this, or otherwise clarifying what is special about the production. 70.250.189.85 ( talk) 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It is hard to glean the key essentials of the variations from this article, without reading it in detail. I would like to create quick summaries of the key points for each variant in a small infobox or table, or something similar.
Haven't really settled on what is essential yet, but am currently thinking of including:
Most of this information is available in the article, but it is very frustrating to get at this information, since it is organized in an ad hoc way. I'm having a hard time assessing how comprehensive various facets of the article are because of this. 70.250.189.85 ( talk) 02:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the GF-16 for real? I've heard of maintenance trainers, which this seems to be, but I've never heard of any kind of designation for these F-16s, and it wouldn't seem to indicate particular "configuration" variant, AFAIK. If this is real, can we get some more details about the actual configuration of these aircraft? Are they in any way different from the others of the same model? 70.247.170.9 ( talk) 21:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not certain, but my educated guess is that the CK-1 aircraft (belonging to Israel) mentioned in the article refers to the aircraft construction number CK-1, since CK seems to be a type version associated with Israel. For example, here, CK-7 seems to be an Israeli bird. Could an expert please verify and source this?
This seems an important clarification to make, seeing as how the AIDC F-CK-1A/B Ching Kuo Indigenous Defense Fighter (IDF) is also mentioned in the article, with the common 'CK-1' substring. 70.247.170.9 ( talk) 21:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
While specs tables aren't generally used in combat aircraft articles (usually just airliners), it might be a good idea here. Just something fairly simple, as we don't have to list as many parameters as in the main specs template. - BillCJ ( talk) 00:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, exactly! I had forgotten about that one! Thanks for remembering. - BillCJ ( talk) 01:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I brought over the block and engine summary table from the f-16 page. I also shortened it to make it a little more compact and readable. While this information is included in the text, It is a very informative and clear little chart. It is such a obvious move (to me) I just did it rather than get a consensus.
If this works for most people, how about we strike the chart from the F-16 page. It really should not be there. Buck Claborn ( talk) 17:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Time ago I remember seen a table with block/quantity built or so, can't find it anymore, any help please ? Also can someone tell when USAF received its last new aircraft from factory ? not upgrades, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.158.19 ( talk) 22:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bairforce-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\bairforce-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\bairforce-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—
cyberbot II
NotifyOnline
21:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "auto":
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The F-21 has been jointly developed by LM and Tata. Considering the 'Make in India' plan, the Joint Venture with Tata, compatibility with Russian missiles, special custom for IAF,
I think the F-21 needs a dedicated page.
DoomDriven ( talk) 22:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The given text seems contradictory: "Turkey holds the option to upgrade the remainder of its 100 Block 40s, which could extend the program.[69][72] As of 2019, all F-16s in TAF's inventory are upgraded to Block 50/52+ and being fitted with indigenous ASEA radars.[73]"
If there is remainder of Block 40s, then I don't see how all F-16s in TAF inventory can be upgraded to Block 50/52. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:110E:8523:B8C9:205E:D093:D2B8 ( talk) 00:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
KF-16U is a South Korean upgrade of KF-16C/D B-52 to F-16V standard with few changes compared to V variant. It does not have CFT and HMD (therefore, AIM-9x-2 also excluded). HMD feature will be upgraded later. Also F-16C/D B-32 (F-16PB, Peace Bridge) were upgraded to F-16PBU. Kadrun ( talk) 19:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
There's a bunch of terminology going around on whether the Mid-Life Upgrade (MLU) program jets are referred to as "Block 15 MLU" or "Block 20 MLU". On the side of the latter, there are websites like F-16.net and Aircraft Recognition Guide that use the "Block 20 MLU" terminology. On the side of the former, the archived Lockheed Martin magazine and the intelligence company Janes say that Block 20 was the designation only for new build aircraft (like those that went to the Republic of China / Taiwan), while MLU aircraft are separate and are referred to as "Block 15 MLU" (since that was their production Block before upgrading). The website Air Vectors suggests that the Block 20 designation was applied informally, which would explain the overlap with the Taiwanese Block 20 aircraft. Military-Today.com is another website that points out that the Block 20 designation is for new-build aircraft, with capabilities similar to that of the MLU.
Since a primary source (Lockheed Martin) and a respected defense source (Janes) both describe the MLU jets as Block 15, I propose moving the content of the current Block 20 MLU section to the F-16AM/BM Block 15 MLU section, and adding a note to the end that Block 20 was officially only used for new-production jets but that informal use may describe the MLU. I will carry out this change if there aren't any comments in a week. TROPtastic ( talk) 01:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
According to https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article2.html, starting with tape M6.5 and M7.2 supports also the AGM-158_JASSM and some more. I am not really an expert, so I did not do any improvements myself. Torsten Knodt ( talk) 10:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)