Talk:Mitsubishi F-2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mitsubishi F-2 is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Japan To-do:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:Aviation
 Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(comments)

Contents

[edit] Comments

Wasn't the project terminated a few months ago?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eagleamn (talk • contribs) 23:48, 11 November 2004.


Eeewww. The paragraph on cost is mangled badly. What exactly is it meant to say?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.43.236.26 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 18 September 2005.

[edit] FSX ?

If you go to the disambiguation page FSX it says FSX stands for Mítsubishi F-2. Yet I can't see any mention of FSX on this article. So is it true or not? ---Majestic- 16:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F-15J's instead of F-2's?

The F-2's maiden flight was on October 7, 1995. Later that year, the Japanese government approved an order for 130, to enter service by 1999; structural problems resulted in service entry being delayed until 2000. The overall result of the program was essentially an aircraft with nearly the F-15 Eagle's size and weight on only one, albeit newer, engine. On the other hand, it as at least as expensive as one anyway, and in retrospect it would be simpler to spend the money on more F-15J (already Japan's primary air superiority fighter).

---

I think not, yet again useless and uninformed oppinion post by the author with no knowledge about the aircrafts or their purpose. And these articles are supposed to be informative and subjective and neutral.

But put it shortly, F-15J are infact "Air Supperiority" or interceptor aircraft in Japanese use, like C/D for USAF and not strike fighters like F-15E/I/S so on. The F-2 on the other hand is purpose build naval strike fighter (or maritime co-opertation strike fighter) with advanced systems for just this job with secondary "fighter" capability but are in no way comparable with inteceptor aircraft like F-15 and nor can they swap roles.


I nuked the unsourced comment about the F-16C being "more than a match" for Su-27 / MiG-29. I seriously doubt any Viper pilot would make such a claim. Published performance information and comparisons suggest the F-16C Block 50+ might hold its own against early model MiG-29s BVR, but Su-27 and later Mig-29s are purpose built air superiority aircraft - faster, quicker, better armed. The F-16's only clear advantages are small size, transitional roll rate, and instantaneous turn rate above 300 KIAS at lower altitudes.RandallC 13:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Designation sequence

Thanks for the link in the Designation sequence section, however I didn't intend for a link to be placed in the related contents section; here would be sufficient. I cannot find any info relevant to the discussion on the links provided.

The US uses several designation sequences, yet we do not include all types in those roles under the lists. For example, on the Hughes H-6, we only go up to "H-6", even though the current helicopter sequence goes up to H-72. Similarly, we do not mix the two "F" or "C" sequences. The sequence the "F-2" is in begins with "F-1"; if the JASDF develops another indiginous fighter, it will be "F-3". This is simple, as I believe the sequence list here was intended to be. Anything else is unnecessarily convuluted. Also, we are listing type numbers, not roles; that can be covered in the text if necessary. - BillCJ 23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of that is correct, but it is still part of their overall system. To remove the others is to be splitting hairs to the point of misleading the reader about nature of their overall system. A75 23:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I should add FWIW, there is no actual H-6 they all use modified mission prefixes. Also, the next number used in the series was the 'H-13', then H-19, then H-21 IIRC. (if one was going to add the usual three designations). In the army sequence it does end at 6, but its HO-6 not H-6 in that system. A75
The F-1, F-2 may be using its own numbers in a sub-series but the F-x designation sequence is shared by the foreign aircraft. I agree it is right to differentiate between the two, but it is also wrong not show the continuation of the F- designated aircraft because they are using the same designation number sequence unlike the T- and C- designations. A75 00:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

On, the H-6, I was refering the US system, which under the Tris-service system goes from H-1 to H-6. On the F-1/F-2, I have yet to be able to find the site detailing the system as you describe it. The JASDF may well includ all the types together, but the purpose of the list, as I understand it, is to show the sequnces of the numbers in which the aircraft belongs. Adding in everything else ever used in that role is needlessly complicating things, unless -1 really does come after -104 in Japanese :)

It is apparent that we are not going to agree on this, though I will refrain from further edits at this time. However, I will be bringing up the subject on WP:AIR's Page content talk page for further discussion; feel free to contribute. - BillCJ 00:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I will agree we should not "add everying in that role", but six entries in the footer that use the F-x series is normal. The Japanese choice of how to assign numbers within the F-x series does not constitue a new F- series- the JASDF website does not differentate and neither should this article.
If the JASDF website seperated the F-x, there would more of case for excluding certain F-x numbers, but that is not case (such as here [1]).
As for the H-6, only the old Army stops at 6, the Tri service system just skips numbers (eventually ending at H-72, with H-73 open). A75 01:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The last link is to a picture gallery; that's hardly authoritative.

As the the H-6, the current sequence actually began in WW2 as trhe R-1, and was continued by the USAF as the H-series. In 1962, most helicopters were redesignated in that series. However, several were not: the UH-1 (HU-1), the SH-2 (HS2K), H-3 (HSS-2), H-4 (HO-4), H-5 (HO5), and H-6 (HO-6). So actually, this is the new sequence, while the H-72 is in the old one. - BillCJ 01:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The official JASDF website, is to me authoritative- the official JASDF page on the F-2 is the same. [2].
I did not comment about the R- series or how the USAF H- series started (FWIW the UH-1 was the XH-40 under the USAF system) and the ones you mention were indeed redesignated. What you mean is that they did not get new numbers which is something quite different. A75 01:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I don't read Japanese, all I can comment on are the lists to the left, which is all htey are - lists. Oh, and since the SH-3 was origina;;y the HSS-2, in did in fact receive a new number, which is why I consider it a new series. - BillCJ 02:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Japanese include aircraft F-# series on the same list, just like it should be here. The Japanese Air Force officially lists the F-# together, because they are both part of the F-# grouping. Different number series and letter series can be unrelated, or related, but its not the determining factor if they are part of the same designation system. A75 02:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

They may be part of the same system, but they aren't part of the same series, which is what the sequence is suppossed to list. I'm not going to comment anymore on this until I hear from the rest of the project. If they believe I'm wrong, I'll accept that. - BillCJ 02:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/t/Talk%7EMitsubishi_F-2_f461.html"