Talk:Mitsubishi H-60/Archives/2024/January

Images

There are 9 Public domain images of SH-60Js at this search on defenseimagery.mil. A few would make good additions to the page, and the rest would fill out the SH-60J section on Commons. I need to go to sleep, so I can't upload them to Commons now. I'll try tomorrow if someone hasn't beat me to it. ;) - BillCJ (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's one: SH-60J from JS Haruna landing on USS Russell. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That looked like the best one to me. Anybody want one of the others from the Defenseimagery page as well? -Fnlayson (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Naming

I think that the name of the article has better Mitsubishi SH-60 if written about SH-60K.--Sabulyn (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Mitsubishi SH-60, since J and K ae used by other other H-60 variants. - BillCJ (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary as SH-60J is more well known. If it is renamed, "Mitsubishi SH-60" is preferable to "Mitsubishi SH-60J/K". -Fnlayson (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not good to continue SH-60J. When there were not objection and suggestion, I change a name into Mitsubishi SH-60J/K. --Sabulyn (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it to Mitsubishi SH-60, as articles titles with a slash, like Mitsubishi SH-60J/K, are not recommended per WP:AIR naming conventions. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

About contents

According to the Japanese source, it's written that the change of equipment can be completed in about 30 minutes.[1] UH-60J has the source which made UH-60A Black Hawk (Not Seahawk) a model.[2]

I want to look for these source written in English.--Sabulyn (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this sentence: "UH-60J has the source which made UH-60A Black Hawk (Not Seahawk) a model." Do you mean to say that the UH-60J is based on the UH-60A Black Hawk, not on the Seahawk? That should be true, and easily sourceable. "J" is used for "Japanese", but it's not an official US DOD designation, as there is the HH-60J Jayhawk, used by the USCG. At this point, I don't imagine that the UH-60J are different enough from the other army Black Hawks to warrant a separate article. - BillCJ (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the UH-60J entry in the variants section because it is made by Mitsubishi like the SH-60J and K variants. It is not a Seahawk. The UH-60J is based on the UH-60L with Japanese electronics and some different equipment. Minor changes overall. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Jeff, I understand now. WHat you added is good. - BillCJ (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Comments and questions are good. They can indicate what is missing or vague. I added the 'based on UH-60L' part to the variant entry to be clearer. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Rename/expand or new article?

With the info on the UH-60J/JA increasing, should we rename this article to Mitsubishi H-60, and expand/retool it ot cover those models, or should we create a Mitsubishi UH-60 article? We have enough pics of the UH-60J to fill out a small article. If we can find some specs for that model, it should be a good start. - BilCat (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I prefer "Mitsubishi H-60". I'm not sure how much else can be added on the UH-60J and JA. Maybe a section of similar length as the SH-60J and SH-60K sections. That'd be a way to start and see if enough info can be gathered.. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought too - expand now, split later if necessary. - BilCat (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, good. I have a little more I can add from the Leoni book. It has only 3-4 pages on the Japanese variants. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought that an article of Mitsubishi SH-60 and Mitsubishi UH-60 was possible in the future, and I made SH-60 and UH-60 in Commons. It too early...--Sabuell (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that divide(split?) because it enough texts. How?--Sabuell (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, we get a consensus (agreement) to split. After that, it is fairly easy: Since the article was originally at Mitsubishi SH-60, it would be best to move this one back to that title, and create Mitsubishi UH-60 as the new article. Jeff or I can easily do this once it's agreed to do so. However, I think we can wait awhile longer before splitting, but I'm OK with it either way. - BilCat (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this article is long enough now to need content split off. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, i understood it. I not found reference book of SH-60J/K, wait leisurely.--Sabuell (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC), edit 17:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A model of the development

The UH-60J was developed from the UH-60L? According to the UH-60J | Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., it is written as U.S Army UH-60A, and UH-60JA based on the U.S. Army UH-60L. In JAWP, the JASDF UH-60J based on U.S. Air Force HH-60A.--Sabuell (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Leoni book says Japan selected the UH-60L as the basis for the UJ-60J in the later 1980s. But most everything else seems to say UH-60A. Finding out which engine version is used would probably settle it. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)