Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants

Type Versions?

It would be nice to see some discussion of the relationship between the variants and the type version identifiers, as given here:

info

I know *I* get confused... 70.250.176.223 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've reworked the information I have somewhat to produce the table below. 70.251.33.92 (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Have included additional information from this page

Would probably be best to merge this info with List of F-16 Fighting Falcon operators. 70.251.150.167 (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Block(s)	MDS Designation	Type/Version	Customer(s)
01	YF-16 (Prototype)	60	USAF
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	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	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	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	Aeronautica Militare
15	F-16A	6H	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	Aeronautica Militare
15	F-16B	6J	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
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	3M	USN
30	TF-16N	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	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	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

Image copyright problem with File:F-16 VISTA.jpg

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

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

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)

Major variants and upgrade programs

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)

Special production variants

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)

Looks like miscellaneous variants to me. Changing it to something like "Other variants" would work. Or "Other production variants". Anybody got other ideas? -Fnlayson (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. The KF-16 listing isn't clear why it is considered a variant, however. I feel we need at least a demonstrated configuration difference to have a listing. Probably just needs supporting wording. 70.250.189.85 (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Basic information summary

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:

• Designation(s)
  • The official one, if such a thing exists
  • Unofficial ones, such as "Desert Falcon" or "F-16XL"
    • Unoffical names should indicate who uses that terminology (manufacturer, customer, etc.)
• Role
• Model (F-16A, F-16B, etc.)
• Manufacturer's Type/Version (Construction Number) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.170.9 (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Customer(s)
• Main differences from an already described variant
  • In particular, engines and avionics
  • Any new technology, if it is a demonstrator
  • For consistency, suggest that the baseline be the "standard" block configuration, whatever "standard" means
  • Production quantity
    • Was the design ever produced?
    • Was this a single special-purpose aircraft or a class of aircraft?
• Proposal Year
• First Flight Date

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)

GF-16

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)

CK-1

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)

Specs table

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)

OK, like the one at Harrier Jump Jet#Specifications ? -Fnlayson (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! I had forgotten about that one! Thanks for remembering. - BillCJ (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple as opposed to detailed? My expectation is that this article would have more detailed specs than anywhere else. Isn't this the ideal article for details? Where is the main specs template you mention, anyway?

I still don't understand why the table is set up in an apples-to-oranges fashion. Why are we comparing YF-16, F-16A, F-16C Block 30, F-16E Block 60, and not YF-16, F-16A, F-16C, and F-16E, irrespective of the Block numbers? This is confusing to an outsider, especially since the article doesn't attempt to clarify. 70.251.1.149 (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving Variant info from the Main f-16 page

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)

Blocks table

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)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ching/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f2/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/t-50/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If 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 ^Notify_Online 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 ^Notify_Online 21:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080820155730/http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/news/62.html to http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/news/62.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081216120036/http://www.boston.com:80/news/local/connecticut/articles/2008/04/07/vermont_air_guard_proud_of_nations_longest_flying_f_16/ to http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2008/04/07/vermont_air_guard_proud_of_nations_longest_flying_f_16/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060720174609/http://www.haaretz.com:80/hasen/spages/740395.html to http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/740395.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080617183614/http://defence-data.com:80/paris2001/pagepa1084.htm to http://defence-data.com/paris2001/pagepa1084.htm

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants

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":

• From Gulf War: Bourque P.455
• From Israeli Air Force: Israel Shows Electronic Prowess Nov 26, 2007, David A. Fulghum and Robert Wall, Aviation Week & Space Technology
• From Northrop F-5: Peck, Michael (2017-05-21). "Is Vietnam Really Planning on Bringing Back 50-Year-Old American Fighter Planes?". The National Interest.
• From Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen: Borger, Julian (5 June 2015). "Saudi-led naval blockade leaves 20 m Yemenis facing humanitarian disaster". The Guardian. Retrieved 31 October 2015.
• From Indian Air Force: Malyasov, Dylan (19 October 2015). "India Will Buy 194 Virus SW 80/10 Microlight Aircraft from Slovenia". defence-blog.com. Archived from the original on 14 September 2016. Retrieved 7 August 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Indian MRCA competition: Irish, John; Pineau, Elizabeth (10 April 2015). "India orders 36 French-made Rafale fighter jets - PM Modi". Reuters. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
• From Minigun: Jarvis, John Paul. "Brought to You By GE: The M134 Minigun".
• From List of Pakistan Air Force squadrons: "Final Salute to F-6". Archived from the original on 2008-03-26. Retrieved 2008-02-08. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Republic of China Air Force: "F-16V Radar Integration Clears Way For Taiwan Upgrade". IHS Jane's Defence. Retrieved 2014-12-15.
• From DARPA: Warwick, Graham (May 22, 2009). "Darpa Plans Triple-Target Missile Demo". Aviation Week. Archived from the original on November 28, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Slovak Air Force: (www.aglo.sk), AGLO solutions. "Druhy techniky". www.plrb.mil.sk.
• From Indian rupee: "FXHistory: historical currency exchange rates". OANDA Corporation. Archived from the original (database) on 4 April 2006. Retrieved 1 September 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II: "Cold Stops".
• From Fighter aircraft: "Can U.S. air-to-air missiles hit their targets through today's enemy electronic warfare?", Military and Aerospace Electronics, April 12, 2016, http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2016/04/ew-missiles-challenge.html
• From South Korea: Korean Social Sciences Journal, 24 (1997). Korean Social Science Research Council. pp. 33–53
• From STS-107: KSC, Lynda Warnock. "NASA - STS-107". www.nasa.gov. Archived from the original on 10 May 2016. Retrieved 9 May 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Popeye (missile): Mizokami, Kyle (6 December 2017). "Israel Has a Submarine That Could Destroy Entire Nations (Armed with Nuclear Weapons)".
• From Speech recognition: Beigi, Homayoon (2011). Fundamentals of Speaker Recognition. New York: Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-77591-3. Archived from the original on 31 January 2018. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Tiger: Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, edited by C.T. Onions, entry panther
• From United States Air Force: "The Gates Case" (PDF). No. July 2008. Air Force Magazine. Air Force Magazine. July 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 November 2016. Retrieved 22 November 2016. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Dassault Rafale: "Egypt receives third batch of Rafale fighter jets from France". ahram.org.eg. 5 April 2017.
• From Israel Defense Forces: "Israel largest defence supplier to India: report". The Hindu. 16 February 2009. Retrieved 1 June 2010.
• From AIM-120 AMRAAM: "US coalition downs first Syria government jet." Retrieved 19 June 2017.

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)

New Page for F-21?

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)

Far too early for that. It it wins the competition, then it will be warranted, as with the Mitsubishi F-2. Please note that in India, winning the competition doesn't guarantee further production, as with the Rafale, but there will be enough controversy related to such a win that a separate article will be needed to cover it all at that time. - BilCat (talk)

Upgrade programs (Turkey)

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)

Which section does South Korean KF-16U goes to?

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)

Block 20 was the official designation for new production, not MLU

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)

I would also like to add that DSCA also refers to the MLU as F-16 Block 15 MLU. Examples here, here and here. Alin2808 (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those! I've added them as references along with the others. TROPtastic (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Alin2808 (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

MLU with tape M6.5 and M7.2 supports more weapons

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)