Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

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)

• Right. It'll get more attention posting on the Aircraft project talk page. Try asking about this at WT:AIR. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:03, 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)

• Joe Six-Pack. :) I cut that back a good bit using books I have to source text. As far as splitting of content, the Design section would be the best choice now (F-16 design details or other). All other main section have some type of sub-article. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:36, 9 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)

Image copyright problem with File:Toronto downtown.png

The image File:Toronto downtown.png 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. --20:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Will remove from this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree not really relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 21:59, 18 February 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)

Curious Introduction

This article states early on: "Designed as a lightweight, daytime Visual Flight Rules (VFR) fighter, it evolved into a successful multirole aircraft." VFR is really an FAA sort of thing to distinguish between aircraft operations, typically by general aviation pilots in light aircraft, in clear weather conditions with those in poorer visibility requiring use of instruments, i.e., instrument flight rules (IFR). As an aside, I believe all commercial aircraft operations are routinely performed under IFR even in clear weather for safety reasons and suspect the military does so also (although don't quote me on this as I've only worked on the engineering side and have no real knowledge of such operational minutia). But, I don't think I've ever heard VFR in the context of distinguishing fighter aircraft capabilities, so this comes off sounding like some sort of enthusiast write-up where an uninformed writer wants to throw in some technical sounding jargon that doesn't really apply to spice up the text - something like you'd hear on the History Channel where wannabes are trying to impress wannabes. The correct terms for what I think the author is trying to get at are "day fighter" and "all-weather," which usually also implies night and beyond visual range (BVR) as well as just plain cloudy (all of which revolve around using RADAR to overcome the clouds, darkness, or distance issues). Basically, the original LWF concept was for a day fighter, whereas the F-16 has been developed into a all-weather multirole (the author did get this term right) aircraft. Jmdeur (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

2003 Incident

We have a picture at the bottom of a thunderbirds pilot ejecting, and ill assume that was due to an incident on the ground? Or is this some aerial trick? Anyway clarification wouldnt hurt?