It’s not an official name. “Viper Zero”, “Heisei Zero” and “Supersonic Zero” are just nicknames enthusiasts came up with to reference the Mitsubishi A6M.
The A6M was called “Zero” because the Imperial Japanese aircraft naming system reached Type 99 ( 九九式) with the Aichi D3A, and rather than try an incorporate Type 100 series names*, they reset back to Type 0 (零式) for their new naval fighter.
So in that sense, the Zero represented a new start for Japanese domestic combat aircraft and proved to be a somewhat revolutionary design for their industry that incorporated the latest manufacturing and aerodynamic concepts, as well as being a formidable combatant for its time. So naturally, some people felt the F-2A represented a similar spirit in terms of Japan developing an advanced domestic combat aircraft that was somewhat revolutionary for its time, and aesthetically pleasing like the original Zero.
*Type 99 reads as Type nine-nine (九九式) rather than Type ninety-nine (九十九式), so the decision on proceeding past “Type 99” as Type one-hundred (百式), Type one-zero-zero (一〇〇式), Type ten-zero (十〇式), Type ten-one (十一式 - can read the same as Type 11), or even Type nine-ten (九十式 - can read the same as Type 90) creates some complications in how it’s written and read in Japanese numerals.
There is a huge gap between animals / felines and predators dominating their specific environment.
The adding of the well-known nicknames to German tanks (above Pz III/IV) was actually a quite effective propaganda tool. Following these traditions after WW 2 is logical too - they are very powerful names and using them as additional marketing tools is logical.
If you compare this with naming of tanks after more or less famous generals or Roman references you might get the point.
This sounds like you have no idea how military procurement and subsequent adding of (legacy) names works and you try to use basic marketing knowledge suited to be useful opening a restaurant without actually replying to the OP.
None of your points is relevant for the question addressed in the OP - and none of them is even remotely related to military procurement processes.
