Jump to content

Talk:AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleAIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 27, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 23, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

FLIGHT CONTROL COMPUTER

[edit]

On November, 2006, BAE Systems' new 32-bit digital flight control computer completed its first flight aboard the Taiwanese Air Force Indigenous Defense Fighter (IDF) C/D version, also known as the Shiang-Seng Fighter.

The new flight control computer represents a substantial advance in processing power and control capability over the obsolete 16-bit computer it replaces. "This design provides important performance improvements over its predecessor that will result in a safer, higher-performing aircraft," said Butch Hsu, senior vice president of Taiwan's Aerospace Industrial Development Corp. (AIDC).

BAE Systems has worked closely with AIDC, builder of the all-weather, multi-role IDF, since the program's inception in1985. The flight control system has been improved in several phases, with the latest development contract awarded in 2002.

"With this system, BAE Systems brings the state-of-the art 32-bit PowerPC-based processor to the flight control marketplace," said Albert Lin, program manager for IDF flight control systems for BAE Systems in Los Angeles. "In addition to faster processing and computing capability and higher reliability, the new computer also integrates easily with the aircraft's air data, avionics, and head-up display systems."

Taiwan's Air Force plans to use the new computer to upgrade to existing IDF fleets and on new-build aircraft. The upgraded flight control is part of an overall aircraft system performance upgrade that includes increased range and enhanced radar target acquisition, firepower, and flight control performance.

Source: BAE Systems PR:

http://baesystems.com/newsroom/2006/Nov/061106news2.htm

Royzee 08:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback?

[edit]

To maintain the meanings from the translation and original quote, some paragraphs aren't as smooth as I hoped. I will do some revisions later. Other than that, I have some concerns:

1. Length of the article. It starts to get very long, should it be more concise? Any suggestion on size?

2. Design features. I believe that is the most useful and important information. Wiki focus on knowledge that are commonly accepted, and should not include original research as a rule. However, unlike other famous fighters such as F-16, F-CK-1 isn’t as well documented. Therefore I have been avoiding discussion about design features so far. I would like to hear more suggestions, and request help from those who has more documents in Chinese.

3. It seems like there are no single convention on aircraft articles, particularly on sections and structures. Any comments on the current structure? -- Ch2000 Nov 6th 2006

Length here does not appear to be a problem. Other fighter articles are much longer, such as the Hal Tejas, which s extremely long, and it is not yet in production.
As far as design features, it is best to have good sources. But, as you noted, there aren't that many on this type of aircraft. That said, you have over 20 sources so far, while the JF-17 Thunder has none. You seem to have done well with what you have.
Your over all structure is good, although the Introduction is a bit long. The norm it to try to keep it to just a few sentences, and no more than one longer or 2 shorter paragraphs. When I see long intros like this, I usually put the second part under an "Overview" heading. I didn't do it here because it would somewhat overlap with the "History and Background" section.
Overall, it looks good at first glance. I'll try to read through it more this week, if I get a chance. I'm just an aviation enthusiast, so I'm not able to give you a real critical review. However, I have been putting togethr some aircarft articles on Wiki, along with a fair amount of editing and reorganizing of articles, especially updating them to WP:AIR standards. This article needs no major reworking at all, in my opinion. But, that's worht what you paid for it :).

- BillCJ 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that definitely stands out is the length of the title: "AIDC F-CK Indigenous Defence Fighter". Imagine the F-35 Lightning II as the "Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter". Shorter titles definitely work best, espcially when they do have an assigned name, which isn't in the title here. - BillCJ 00:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I was a little worried about overall length because more famous aircrafts should have longer length. But then, I guess it depends on how you look at it. Some people might say that it's more difficult to find information about less famous aircrafts, therefore these deserve in-depth discussion if possible.
Ha, I'm actually a bit surprised that the JF-17 articles didn't list sources. JF-17 a lot more transparent than the J-10 project, and big names like Jane's or Airforce Monthly all reported on it. Anyway, I think several wiki articles (like F-16) have more on specific design features or comparisons. But I'm still not sure how to write similar things for IDF without sounding too much like speculation.
I didn't change the introduction much so far. But you are right, it should be a short summary. I'll think about how to change so that the information could be incorporated into the main body.
I also agree with the shorter title suggestion, it always looked weird to me. However I'm pretty new to wiki, I'm not sure how title change or redirection work.
-- Ch2000 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ch2000 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
(deep dramatic voice) "It is done." (/deep dramatic voice) ...the move, that is. ;-) The page is now "AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo". - Aerobird 14:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have information about the G-limite of this warplane? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that...

[edit]

Sorry about all the mucking about (see the edit history page); and in the end I couldn't get it to work the way I wanted anyway... :-( - Aerobird 14:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article nomination: On Hold

[edit]

This is a very good article, but it was apparantly translated into English and the phrasing needs some smoothing (many missing "a"s and "the"s) before becoming a true GA. Aerobird 03:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the requested changes to the phrasing (16 in all). Itsfullofstars 00:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a GA to me. Pass. :-) - Aerobird 14:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that the article has passed GA, anyone has suggestions to improve it further? Obviously we could aim for completeness, but we have to draw the line somewhat. A few potential topics come to mind: 1. Operational history - since it was never in combat, it only needs a brief description of squardon establishment and reorganization. 2. Export attempts - this obviously failed, but would require documented sources as explainations (which could be hard). 3. Accidents and bad reputations - A discussion of prototype accident would be good. Discussion of related controversy would be relevant too (but again require documented sources, which may take a little time to find...) 4. Comparison and roles - Perhaps talk about IDF's role within the ROCAF? 5. Expansion of C/D section? - User:Ch2000 Jan 1st 2007

Sorry for the belated response, great work you guys have done here expanding the article. Regarding the stuff on squardron establishment and history, perhaps that stuff would be better suited for some order of battle article on the ROCAF as a whole, e.g. List of Wings of the United States Air Force. -Loren 18:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been quite busy as well. You are right, info related to OrBat probably should not be included. I need to think about what to include exactly. I might work on other topics first if I have time (Some interesting ones like J-10, AT-3, F-2 etc all need revision) -Ch2000 02/17/2007

Naming

[edit]

As I understand it, the F-CK-1C/D have a different name (can't remember it offhand but it's not "Ching-kuo"). Given that should the article be renamed simply [[AIDC F-CK-1]]? - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 15:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think C/D has an official name yet. Informally people are using the project name "Hsiang Sheng" as the name for the aircraft, but unlike JSF, "Hsiang Sheng" isn't that meaningful. Sheng means "upgrade", so the project name basically means upgrade of an-hsiang. However, since the "CK" in "F-CK-1" means Ching-Kuo, "F-CK-1 Ching-Kuo" sounds much more redundant than "IDF Ching-Kuo". It's a question of convention. If we are only aiming for "official" names, then the simpler the better. "AIDC F-CK-1" would work. But IDF and Ching-Kuo are more widely used than the official designation. If fact you will almost never see "F-CK-1" in the media... In short there is no real "right" answer here. -Ch2000 02/17/2007
Well, C/D now has an official name: Hsiung Ying - which means strong hawk/eagle. Ch2000 01:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

  • Although I have slight concerns about the prose, the big problem here is the paucity of sources in the design section. I have left [citation needed] tags that have to be addressed as a bare minimum before this article can continue to be a GA. Once these are dealt with, this article will pass.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no work or improvement. This article is delisted.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top speed

[edit]

This article lists the top speed as being Mach 1.8. John Smith's (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifications

[edit]

Currently the specifications section is sourced to Globalsecurity ("Ching-kuo (Hsiung Ying) Indigenous Defense Fighter". GlobalSecurity.org. 2005-04-27. Retrieved 2006-05-14.), Milavia (Hillebrand, Niels (2005-09-06). "AIDC Ching-Kuo F-CK-1 (IDF)". Milavia. Retrieved 2006-05-14.) and TaiwanAirPower.org (Wei-Bin Chang (2006-05-27). "AIDC F-CK-1A/B Ching Kuo Indigenous Defense Fighter". TaiwanAirPower.org. Retrieved 2006-06-18.). Of these, only Milavia actually has any specifications, and not at the link given (actually at [1]). Given that none of these three sources probably pass muster as a WP:Rs, shouldn't the article be using something better, particularly with all the recent edit-warring on the page?Nigel Ish (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. I have Frawley, Gerard (2002). The International Directory of Military Aircraft, 2002–2003. Fyshwick, ACT, Australia: Aerospace Publications Pty Ltd. ISBN 1-875671-55-2., which has spec fo rhte F-CK-1. I'll try to add it as a source, and make any necessary chnages, later today. Thanks for your other work on sourcing/correcting the article! - BilCat (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not 4.5 generation

[edit]

Who put it in to the introduction of the article that the C/D version of this plane is 4.5 generation? This plane dispite the improvements being made on it, still has underpowered engines and radar and is more than likely less capable than the earlier versions of the F-16. This plane does not have TVC control, supercruise, AESA radar or any RCS reducing features that defines a 4.5 generation jetfighter.

The aircraft is commonly referred as underpowered, however it is not. The f-ck-1 is designed as a light weight defense/multirole fighter, not air seprority. The engine is therefore enough to fill the capability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.128.2 (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hsiung Feng II anti-ship missile and other armaments

[edit]

I think that the article should mention the Hsiung Feng II anti-ship missile, its compatibility with this aircraft is also mentioned by Global Security.
The Chinese version of this article mentions that Sidewinder and Maverick missiles are compatible as well, but I can't find sources to confirm it, so these missiles maybe could be omitted (unless someone could understand if there's any source to confirm it in the Chinese wikipedia, I can't read Chinese).
Hyper Shinchan (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IDF doing cobra ?

[edit]

Watch this video the IDF does a manoeuvre here that look likes a cobra.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZ0EalNigo&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.171.242 (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

(removed)

Last edited at 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Northrop F-20 be listed as a Comparable Aircraft?

[edit]

Taiwan was in-line to buy the Northrop F-20 as that airplane developed. Two things stopped the sale, First: The USAF selected the F-16 instead (and the world followed), and Second: Nixon went to China and brakes were placed upon Taiwan purchases (as noted here).

The point I am making is that the radar, many of the advances in avionics, as well as the overall power increase in a small airframe all came from the F-20.

However, the AIDC had to use two smaller engines and a redesigned air frame to reach the same performance as the F-20 promised with one larger engine.

I suggest that under the Heading See Also that we put the sub-category: Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era, and in that sub-heading put the: Northrop F-20.

In support I would say that: 1) The Northrop F-20 Tigershark lists the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo in that 'See also' sub-category (along with several other aircraft (which may apply here too)??). 2) The AIDC F-CK-1 took many of the parts developed for the F-20. 3) The AIDC F-CK-1 is definitely of the same size, speed, ROLE and ERA, even if not the same CONFIGURATION.

James 202.44.215.43 (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. We don't list comparable or similar aircraft in this article by consensus, as it's too contentious. Making an exception for the F-20 would only serve to prompt other types to be added. This isn't the only fighter article we do that for. Sorry. BilCat (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AIDC_F-CK-1_Ching-kuo&oldid=1222852017"