After much debate we have decided to go with the original equipment manufacturer for all aircraft types from now on and the first one to get standardized was the General Dynamics F-16. All Fokker and SABCA F-16s are now under the General Dynamics heading and GD will be used for all the A-D types. The E and F models will go under Lockheed Martin. I think this will be the most consistent format to follow for all aircraft produced under license by another manufacturer. The same goes for Mitsubishi F-15s and other aircraft which we will get to shortly. For now all the F-15s and F-16s have been standardized to the original manufacturer name. For ex., look at the photo below, it sure doesn't say Fokker on the tail. :wink

Good Decision Ray

It was quite puzzling for me when uploading. Thanks for putting this straight !

Frank

Oh, as for the "names", I think Lockheed Martin used "Night Falcon" to market the F-16CG but don't think the USAF ever used it as an official name. Viper is just a nickname.

I have recently seen the F-16E/F called the "Desert Falcon" but don't know if that's official.

0 results for 'Viper' and 'Night Falcon' on Lockheed Martin's website.

'Desert Falcon' gets 8 results.

'F-16CJ' gets results, but 'F-16CG' gets nothing.

In my opinion, if the J or G suffix is just to denote that the aircraft is wired to carry a removable external pod then it should not be included as a separate aircraft type.

It would be worse than including F-14A TARPS and F-14B UPGRADE as separate designations. I say worse because at least those designations could (albeit with difficulty) be seen applied to the actual aircraft. Maybe F-16CJ/G are stencilled somewhere? If the aircraft has had the appropriate pod removed does it revert to being a vanilla F-16C?

Hi,

I must admit this seems to have caused a lot of confusion at the other photo databases when CG and CJ started to appear in the titles. What may have been straight forward to start with has ended up in quite a mess and I think the opinion here is certainly the best, and is also, I believe the most accurate. A 'C model is a C, regardless of block. I suppose to start with, when the 'CG' denoted a target pod capable block 40/42 and the 'CJ' was a HARM capable block 50/52 it seemed a reasonable conclusion to draw but nowadays this has long ceased to be a accurate measurement. Earlier ANG block 30's have appeared with Litening targetting pods mounted where the LANTIRN can be carried by the 40's. Even HARM shooting block 50's have also been seen (Spangdahlem's jets come to mind) without the HTS and with targetting pods instead. Going back to the broad offical designations seems the best way to catalogue the images and avoiding the frustrating changes that are made to F-16 pics that are uploaded elsewhere. Like the idea of keeping the original manufacturer for each mark as well, unlike some Turkish '16s elsewhere!

Gary

Hi Ray,

I think so. It's the most straightforward method of subdividing the various models without things becoming to complex and difficult to police. As Robin says above, the CG/CJ designations were never actually adopted as official marks despite common usage. The various variants are covered by block numbers which I don't think are normally recorded in picture submissions anywhere so it's a banana skin that can be avoided.

You'd also have to be very careful when submitting and screening pics to retain whatever pattern you adopt. Would a ANG block 30 C model with a Litening pod count as a CG alongside a active duty block 40 also carrying a pod? Add into that mix a block 50 that could be catalogued as a CJ HARM shooter, but with a targetting pod instead - is that not a CG in that configuration? That's one can of worms that could be opened!

Although strengthing of the airframe on the block 40 was undertaken to carry the Lantirn system, the main feature of what is classified as a CG is a external targetting pod on the intake. Given the various permutations that will appear on pics - espically recent USAF shots - I could see maintaining consistency if the sub-models were used to be quite difficult.

Hope that's some help - it gives me a headache just thinking about it!

Gary

Thanks for all the input and suggestions Gary. I will have a discussion with the rest of the team soon and let you know how it goes.