Talk:Mitsubishi F-2/Archive 1

Archive 1

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.

There needs to be a proper source verifying that the programme has ended. The current source linking to the last line about it is not mentioning anything about a cancellation, only a rumoured decrease in orders. --70.164.126.62 (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

X of FSX means kind of "neXt generation", which is used not only for fighter airplanes among Japanese. You can find Mitsubishi F-1 as well as F-2 in ja:支援戦闘機 article. However, JASDF later integrates "superiority fighter" and "Fighter Supporter". So I can not show you "FSX" article itself even in Japanese article; exists only as subsection of F-1 and F-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.39.190.151 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

F-15Js instead of F-2s?

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)

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)

CLEANUP REQUIRED

I read this article on 1 March, 2009. The article was very poorly written, with many sentence fragments, changes of voice, and obvious editorial interjections. I suggest that somebody who speaks English well edit this thing. 81.102.130.86 (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a typical wiki article - also very odd that no mention is made in the intro that this a/c is based on the F-16 (sort of like ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.17 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

First active phased array radar to enter service in the world.

• I read an article [3] making the claim that the F-2 was featured the first AESA radar to enter service in the world. Can this be verified? I think this would be an interesting piece of information to add in this article. I will, if no one objects. Vicarious Tendril (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• according to the Japanese Wikipedia the F-2 was indeed the first fighter aircraft with AESA but I can not find any more reliable sources on the matter. --86.159.211.76 (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Peter Baptist

I checked with relevant publications by Jane’s, but found nothing. I did find one article that says was the first operational AESA radar: Fighters face the Aesa revolution. This 2007 article (originally published by Armada) states "since 2000, a small number of fighter aircraft have been flying with Active Electronically Scanned Array (Aesa) radars. To date, these have all been American, but design teams around the world are working to develop their own Aesa fighter radars." It goes on to note that "The first Aesa radar to enter service was the Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems (SAS) AN/APG-63 (V)2. Selected to be retrofitted to 18 US Air Force F-15C Eagle interceptors based at Elmendorf Air Base, Alaska, it was fielded in 2000." I don't know that this is authoritative (since it's inaccurate with regard to the "all have been American" claim), but if the F-2 was the first, you'd think Mitsubishi would be advertising it all over (despite the J/APG-1 radar's performance proving quite disappointing). Askari Mark (Talk) 22:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The quoted 2007 article is simply wrong. The F-2 was flying long before that time and serial production started in 1999. So its arguably the first AESA in operational use. The first retrofitted F-15Cs became operational at the end of 2000, so there you go. Mitsubishi does not advertise anything, because neither the radar nor the aircraft is being marketed for export. In fact little to none Japanese arms manufacturing is cleared for sales elsewhere. Only recently some regulations were slightly changed in that regard. Para-OZ (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

F-16 variant?

This seems like a grey area to me, but what exactly does it mean when we say the F-2 is "based on" the F-16? The F-16 page lists the F-2 as a variant, but I'm not sure if this is accurate. I would have posted this question on the F-16 page, but I assume this one is frequented by more people who know more about the f-2. Vicarious Tendril (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The F-2 started out as a modified F-16, but over the course of development the modifications were significant, mostly concerning changes in fuselage and wing-design. In fact the wing is completely new (and produced some serious problems). So saying, its a variant might be a bit of an understatement. The term "based on" is certainly more accurate. Para-OZ (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

production

How many A and B were produced ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.222.43 (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Unit costs

The F-2 program was controversial, because the unit cost, which includes development costs, is roughly four times that of a Block 50/52 F-16, which does not include development costs. Inclusion of development costs distorts the incremental unit cost

This makes approximately no sense. The Japanese would not have been obligated to pay the development costs if they had bought F-16s, so the unit cost is an apples-to-apples comparison. Perhaps the additional costs could be justified by reference to spinoffs, building the capacity of Japan's domestic aircraft industry, or something -- but they are real costs, and cannot be explained away as "distortions," even if some combination of nationalism, industrial policy, and/or quasi-corrupt special-interest politics led Japan's leaders to conclude they were worth paying. 70.26.112.231 (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2013 (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/f2/

  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 13:33, 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 19:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

What does this mean?

 "Lockheed Martin would manufacture all the aft fuselages and wing leading-edge flaps and eight of the ten left-hand wingboxes"

Is this supposed to mean "eight out of ten left-hand wingboxes"? Because they made a lot more than ten wingboxes, they made 160+ of them. Which "ten" are we talking about here? I thought maybe someone was thinking wing jigs or something, but it seems pretty clear. All I can assume is that they were trying to say "8 out of 10", or "80%" of the total. If they do actually mean just the first ten wingboxes built, the pre-production units, then this is pretty much irrelevant and useless info without further context and info: who made the other 150 wingboxes? And my favorite question, why is it worth having TWO companies tool up and build jigs and tools and train workers just so one company ccan build two whole wingboxes? It's like building a few cars from scratch rather than buying them from the factory. Why not just have one factory focus on the wingboxes, while the other one builds something else, to avoid redundancy? Or one can build the left, and the other the right, wingboxes. Again, avoids two different places building the same exact component, which seems to defy the principle of specialization. AnnaGoFast (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Ferry Range?

Why does this article not contain information on the Mitsubishi F-2's ferry range? Most articles give out this range in the specifications of fighter aircraft, yet this one only shows combat range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.161.147 (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent speed / mach number

I've seen this in some other articles too:

max speed kmh=2124 max speed mach=1.7 at high altitude, Mach 1.1 at low altitude

Mach 1.7 at high altitude is 1805 kmh, while 1.1 at low is 1347 kmh. The 1.7 match value was calculated using the low altitude speed of sound (1225 kmh), instead of high altitude one (1062 kmh).

Correct mach number at high altitude should be 2124/1062=2, instead of 2124/1225=1.73. Unless there is any objection, I'll correct the mach number value in a few weeks.--Diego bf109 (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

References