Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions
|
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move 24 June 2025
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Page not moved. Clear consensus in opposition to the proposed move locations, with limited openness to other possible move targets. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Pbritti (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon → F-16 Fighting Falcon
- General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon operational history → F-16 Fighting Falcon operational history
- General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon operators → F-16 Fighting Falcon operators
- General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants → F-16 Fighting Falcon variants
– The F-16 is manufactured by Lockheed Martin and not General Dynamics (since 1993). In no current sources is it referred to as a General Dynamics plane. Pats322 (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose move - This article follows the manufacturer, designation, name convention per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), the proposed titles above have no manufacturer at all. General Dynamics is used as it is how the aircraft is commonly known per the Wikipedia guideline WP:COMMONNAME. There are many examples of types where the original design and manufacture company has been merged with another company but the name has not changed. The McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet was last manufactured by Boeing (and by Northrop before that) as an example. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Note - The aircraft project moved many hundreds of articles to the MDN format in mid-2010, the discussion/consensus for this is contained in an archive talk page, this article was moved to the current title in July 2010. The title of this article has been discussed three times in its own talk page, here, here and here. Archive search boxes are provided at the head of articles with archives and should be used before making talk page posts, the subject has very likely been discussed before as most of our aircraft articles are 20 years old and well established (stable). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose move - As mentioned, the articles follow a defined naming convention that includes the manufacturer name. --McSly (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Pats322 (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Manufacturer is Lockheed Martin though
- Support - The naming convention does not override COMMONNAME and CONCISION. WP:TITLECON says "Where multiple titles are available, and where titles are equally usable in terms of recognizability, naturalness, preciseness, and conciseness, then the title to be used should be consistent with titles used for similar or related topics in Wikipedia." That is not the case here, as the proposed title is more concise and natural and just as precise. I would also support F-16. --JFHutson (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose move per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) and WP:COMMONNAME -Fnlayson (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. While I agree the aircraft naming conventions should be reevaluated for military aircraft that have both names and designations, it would not make sense to go against the current conventions for just the F-16 for WP:CONSISTENT reasons. A discussion at WT:NCAIR makes more sense. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm not necessarily opposed to the move to the shorter titles in principle, but we need to be consistent with other military aircraft. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose move - As mentioned, the articles follow a defined naming convention that includes the manufacturer name. --McSly (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE both heavily favor this move. If the only thing stopping us is consistency with NCAIR, then this is a LOCALCON issue and NCAIR is wrong and needs fixing. Toadspike [Talk] 06:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well, who woulda thunk it. The top discussion on WT:NCAIR is about exactly this, from 13 years ago. Toadspike [Talk] 06:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- WP:CONSISTENT (with other articles like Northrop B-2 Spirit and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, not NCAIR) weighs against the move. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- You can't just pick one criterion, there are five WP:CRITERIA for article naming, and consistency is "to the extent it is practical." I doubt those two articles are well named either if WP:AT were applied correctly. --JFHutson (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- B-2 Spirit is currently made by Northrop and F-35 is currently made by Lockheed. That isn't the case with General Dynamics and the F-16. Pats322 (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Common sense would dictate that when General Dynamics built it for 19 years, but Lockheed/LM has built it for 30 years and counting, that the latter would make more sense as the manufacturer. Please don't reply to this "but the naming convention...". The naming convention is a blunt instrument that leads to some silly outcomes, as in this case. We should be more nuanced, i.e. correct! Mark83 (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- And all of you quoting WP:COMMONNAME - there are more arguments against General Dynamics being included based on that section of policy, i.e. Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision. The only argument for based on this is Consistency, and I've made my views clear on that above. Mark83 (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose removing the manufacturer's name. However I'm fine with renaming it to Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon. RPC7778 (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm unconvinced that "F-16 Fighting Falcon" without any manufacturer is the WP:COMMONNAME of the type. Sure, some news publications omit the manufacturer when discussing the aircraft's role in various conflicts, but most other sources I've seen do refer to the aircraft with the manufacturer's name. Unless this is shown to be one of the exceptional cases like Concorde, in which most sources do omit the manufacturer when referring to the aircraft, I see no reason to remove it entirely. As for which manufacturer is included in the title, I have seen General Dynamics far more often than Lockheed or Lockheed Martin, which makes sense since the former was the designer of the type even though they built it for only 19 years. "General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon" is also more WP:CONSISTENT with a semi-recent trend of US military aircraft articles being moved to reflect their original manufacturers (i.e. Northrop B-2 Spirit, Grumman E-2 Hawkeye). That said, I admittedly was not entirely on board with that trend, so I don't really care so long as one manufacturer can be demonstrated to be more commonly used than another. - ZLEA T\C 08:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - WP:NCAIR exists for a reason, and that was that before there was a disgusting mis-match of "manufacturer+designation" and "designation+name" page titles. In common useage, "manufacturer+designation (when applicable)+name (when applicable) is by far the most commonly used format for when a type is first mentioned, which is exactly what the page title is. There might be a debate whether the title should start with "General Dynamics" (designer and original manufacturer) or "Lockheed Martin" (current manufacturer), but that's a different discussion than the one being made here. I also find it interesting that the proposer here is a very new editor, and while that's fine, the only support is from an editor who has edited no other aviation-related articles, which raises my eyebrow. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Wouldn't be just called "Lockheed Martin F-16 "Fighting Falcon"? Random tank edits (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose move - As mentioned, the articles follow a defined naming convention that includes the manufacturer name.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- User:Random tank edits It is only possible if a new article is created for the latest F-16 block 70/72 (F-16 V) version, similar to the Boeing F-15EX Eagle II.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Payload capacity not indicated
In the specifications section, max payload weight is not explicitly mentioned. 2405:201:6024:7010:1124:4CCC:BBB3:2462 (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- While not explicitly said, an approximate max payload weight can be determined by looking at the empty/gross weights and the maximum takeoff weight. Since configurations and the particulars of a individual airframes play such a substantial role in payload capacity, I think it's best we don't try assigning a hard number on this point unless there are many reliable sources that do so. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
The statement is under review
Detailed Explanation of Taiwan's Involvement in the F-16V Program on a Timeline, Particularly Reviewing the Claim of "Initial Investment in R&D." The development timeline of the F-16V clearly shows the maturity of its core technologies occurring before Taiwan's significant financial investment. This strongly demonstrates that Taiwan's role has been as the "largest customer" and "industrial partner," rather than as the "initial R&D investor of core technologies."
Below are the timeline details of the F-16V project development and Taiwan's participation: Comparison of F-16V Project Development Timeline and Taiwan's Participation
Extended content |
|---|
|
Timeframe: Around 2010-2012: Lockheed Martin conducted internal R&D on the F-16V concept. The U.S. Air Force (USAF) began investing over $1.5 billion in RDT&E (Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation) funding for core technologies (such as the AN/APG-83 AESA radar). Taiwan did not make direct investments in the initial R&D of the F-16V's core technologies, which were primarily funded by the U.S. Core technology RDT&E was mainly sponsored by the USAF. February 2012: The F-16V "Viper" technical standard was officially announced at the Singapore Airshow. Taiwan had no direct involvement. The F-16V technical standard was established. July 2012: Taiwan's AIDC signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Lockheed Martin. This MOU mainly focused on future industrial cooperation, such as technology transfer and local production of parts. This was a preliminary agreement on industrial cooperation, not a direct R&D investment agreement, emphasizing industrial cooperation and subsequent execution. October 2015: The first upgraded V-model successfully made its maiden flight, proving that the F-16V as a technical standard had matured. Taiwan had no direct involvement. The F-16V core technology was mature and in flight. Around 2016 and beyond: With the technical standards established and mature, Taiwan began significant financial investment in fleet upgrades, specifically the "Peace Phoenix Rising" program, upgrading 139 existing F-16A/Bs to V-model standards. This project is estimated to cost about $5.3 billion. Major financial investment began after technological maturity. 2019: The U.S. DSCA approved the sale of 66 new F-16 Block 70 aircraft to Taiwan. Taiwan signed a contract for the procurement of new aircraft, estimated to cost about $8 billion. Taiwan's total financial investment (for upgrades and new purchases) through the FMS (Foreign Military Sales) mechanism exceeded $13 billion. FMS customers procure mature products and services. Later (such as contract revisions in 2021): System integration activities took place. Taiwan paid approximately $138 million in customized R&D fees to integrate specific systems (such as the Auto-GCAS anti-collision system and AGM-88 anti-radiation missiles) into its unique Block 20 fleet. This falls under implementation R&D, not initial design of core technologies. 2024: The upgrade program continues. Taiwan's Peace Phoenix Rising program (upgrading 139 aircraft) is completed or nearing completion. The AIDC MRO center, as an outcome of industrial cooperation, has enhanced local logistical autonomy. This is a strategic investment in maintenance capability, rather than R&D of the aircraft itself. Timeline Analysis and Conclusion This timeline reveals several key facts that refute the claim of "Taiwan's initial investment in F-16V R&D": Logical Contradiction in Timing: The F-16V as a technical standard (Viper) was announced by Lockheed Martin (2012) and the first prototype successfully flew (October 2015) before Taiwan began significant project funding (around 2016). This indicates that Taiwan's substantial expenditure was for the procurement and upgrade of an already existing and mature technical standard, rather than funding its invention from scratch. Source of Core R&D Funding: The fundamental R&D funding for the F-16V's core upgrade technologies, such as the AN/APG-83 AESA radar, primarily came from the USAF's RDT&E budget, totaling over $1.5 billion, as recorded in official defense budget documents. Nature of the Funding: The over $13 billion Taiwan invested was mainly through the FMS mechanism for purchasing new aircraft and upgrading old ones. FMS is fundamentally a government-to-government procurement transaction, making Taiwan a "customer," not a "co-developer" or "initial RDT&E investor." Distinction in Customized R&D: Although Taiwan did indeed spend approximately $138 million in FMS funding for R&D, this was for later-stage system integration and customization (Implementation R&D). This funding aimed to better integrate purchased systems (such as Auto-GCAS) into Taiwan's unique F-16A/B Block 20 fleet, differing in nature from the foundational R&D that created the F-16V standard. |
In Summary The timeline clearly establishes Taiwan as the world's largest and most important strategic customer of the F-16V program, not as the initial technical founding shareholder. Taiwan's significant financial investment has ensured the continuity of the F-16 production line and has secured local maintenance autonomy, which itself is a substantial strategic achievement.
Based on the above information, hope someone can provide a detailed assessment and clear explanation of the validity of the statement reported by Taiwanese media that both Taiwan and the U.S. initially invested in the development of the F-16V. ~2025-31798-90 (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Was this written by AI? - ZLEA TǀC 03:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- That's the result of machine translation from Chinese to English. I've seen similar materials elsewhere, but since I have too little information, I won't comment on the content. Without supporting materials, censorship is too troublesome. This video Chinese might be helpful to you. ThomasTYWan (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- I doubt it. I don't speak Chinese, and that video is from a channel that... shares a similar name to your newly-created account. Hold on, did you come here just to promote your YouTube channel? - ZLEA TǀC 06:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- I’d like to clarify the misunderstanding first: My YouTube channel is merely a convenient platform for archiving and sharing public information related to the topic, with no intention of promotion.
- I fully respect Wikipedia’s core principle of "verifiability" and understand your vigilance against promotional behavior.
- If you still have concerns about my intent, I’m open to following Wikipedia’s community guidelines for further communication. ThomasTYWan (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- That's fine, then. We do need reliable sources to verify all content on Wikipedia. Per WP:RSPYT, a vast majority of YouTube videos do not meet our standards for reliable sources, with a few exceptions such as videos from a news organization. - ZLEA TǀC 18:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- I should also point out a relative problem: the relevant guidelines do not provide a reasonable platform for handling external MP4 or M4A files. This is why I uploaded my YouTube channel; I apologize for any inconvenience caused. ThomasTYWan (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- The statement is misleading and largely inaccurate. While Taiwan is a significant customer and has invested heavily in the F-16V program, it was not an "initial investor in R&D," particularly concerning the core technologies.
- Here's a breakdown of why:
- That's fine, then. We do need reliable sources to verify all content on Wikipedia. Per WP:RSPYT, a vast majority of YouTube videos do not meet our standards for reliable sources, with a few exceptions such as videos from a news organization. - ZLEA TǀC 18:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- I doubt it. I don't speak Chinese, and that video is from a channel that... shares a similar name to your newly-created account. Hold on, did you come here just to promote your YouTube channel? - ZLEA TǀC 06:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- That's the result of machine translation from Chinese to English. I've seen similar materials elsewhere, but since I have too little information, I won't comment on the content. Without supporting materials, censorship is too troublesome. This video Chinese might be helpful to you. ThomasTYWan (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Extended content |
|---|
|
- To ThomasTYWan: Thank you for providing the video link. While it might offer some insights, it's important to ensure the information aligns with established and verifiable sources to maintain the integrity of the information. I appreciate your willingness to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. ~2025-31981-66 (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
@ThomasTYWan and ~2025-31981-66: Signing out of your account to give the impression of additional people agreeing with you is against policy—see WP:LOUTSOCK. I am going to collapse your WP:WALLOFTEXT, as it is disruptive to any other editors who may wish to discuss this article. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
M61 ammo count
from what I've seen the ammo amount is only 500 not 511? As according to https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104505/f-16-fighting-falcon/
im not sure where 511 was from, a source for that number would be nice and if the number was wrong, a correction would be nice to sustain the accuracy of Wikipedia. ~2026-26251-3 (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- The figure was added way back in 2006 by an IP editor. They made similar changes to other M61-equipped types at the same time, possible vandalism and definitely unsourced. The cited USAF factsheet states 500 rounds. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Various inaccuracy about F16 block 50/52 specs
ferry range, height (in meters), empty weight, engine thrust and likely more I didn't spot are all uncited and according to source 75 or this (https://www.shaw.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/663884/f-16c-fighting-falcon/) is just wrong ~2026-26251-3 (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- By uncited I assume that you mean there is no citation number on each line? To avoid clutter and confusion aircraft specification sections should ideally use only one source with one citation for all parameters (this is is entered in the |ref= parameter of the coding). A good example would be Slingsby T67 Firefly#Specifications (T-3A), the reader assumes good faith and trusts that the values are true to the source and that the adding editor has made no mistakes. Values that are not in the single source cited would have a citation to the different source on its own line.
- The waters become muddied when enthusiasts add multiple sources with slightly conflicting information, the solution is to revert to using one good easily verifiable source, Janes publications are often used, flight manuals are not easily accessible and are too detailed (non-encyclopedic).
- Conversions - Template:Aircraft specs is designed to automatically convert units from one system to the other, the conversions can be overridden by manually entering the converted value, that has not been done here. Checking the dimension conversions I can see no errors other than millimeter precise values due to the default rounding. The template uses the Wiki-wide rounding convention to avoid false precision and a sea of unencyclopedic numbers (conversions to four decimal places etc). The rounding of a parameter can be modified to alter the number of significant figures, usually to reduce them. The template has a lingering fault of converting to too many significant figures, it usually happens when overly-precise feet, inches and fractions of inches have been entered (verbatim from the source), also not the case here. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- I understand that we try to keep to one source to avoid conflicting information but we already use that source above, that is source 75. the height was a little bit of a nitpick I understand that. the statement that they don't add sources on every line makes sense but we see this
- Ferry range: 2,277 nmi (2,620 mi, 4,217 km) with three drop tanks
- Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m) [75]
- the service ceiling used source 75 which is www.shaw.af... but just above it is ferry range which implied using source 75 to refer to for that information, yet despite (from what I inferred) using source 75, it doesn't line up with that same source. though this could be a case as you stated where the information isn't easily accessible if this were to be the case that's understandable. thanks for clearing things up and I will keep this information in mind for future reference ~2026-28418-9 (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- A citation on a line below a value does not infer that the value immediately above is from the same source. There were two extra '75' citations that were redundant, removed. Sometimes editors question where a value came from, not understanding the single source/citation convention which results in redundant citations being added. The questioning editors are effectively not assuming good faith and/or the question wasn't fully answered on the talk page. Ideally this section should be edited down to use one source, the USAF fact sheet is dated 2021 so relatively current but doesn't have enough information to complete the template parameters (which is not mandatory). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)