Jump to content

Talk:HAL Tejas/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

"Tejas" pronunciation

For those of you who are native to India, how is "Tejas" properly pronounced? Is it "thay' jus" (as I've seen it in Jane's and every other publication I've come across to date)? Is it "tey' jus" (which would have a long 'e' sound like "tee jus" — which I doubt is what Rgz500 meant to convey)? Is it "tay' jus" (which would have a long 'a' sound, which is what I believe Rgz500 was trying to convey)? Or are there regional variations in India where some substitute 't' for 'th'? Askari Mark | Talk 17:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Mr. Mark, the pronounciation closest is "Thay jus" itself, as you had written originally. The "ay" is pronounced as in "say", and "jus" is pronounced as in "just". But the problem is in the "Te" part. You can imagine pronouncing "Three" without the "h". That sound is for the "T" in Tejas. Of course we don't actually write it as Thayjus just as we don't write Nine as Naa-een or Look as Luk. Thank you. IAF
Thank you, IAF. I'll revert Rgz500's change, then. Askari Mark | Talk 22:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It will be nice if someone can record and put up the pronunciation of Tejas (like is done with the names of quite a few people). My mike ain't working, so i'm not able to record it. The moment its fixed, i'll record it. If anyone can do it by then, it would be nice. Thanks Sniperz11 22:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added the sanskrit script for the Tejas. P.S.: Now, also added the pronounciation ogg file and removed the Thay Jus line. cheers. Sniperz11 18:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am native to India. I think it's pronounced teh-jaas. The T is pronounced like the 'th' in width. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Preferably someone who speaks Sanskrit (I can't!). Regards to all.

--Hornet94 (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Theres a pronunciation file on the article... That should be able to answer your question. Anyway, the name is The-jas- th (widTH) a (thEY) Jus (as in JUSt). Hope that answered your qn. If not, theres always the pronunciation file. Sniperz11talk|edits 17:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Induction vs. IOC

As a point of clarification for editors who are not aware of it, induction and initial operational capability (IOC) are not the same thing — although frequently confused as such in the West and in the press. "Induction" is official "acceptance"; IOC occurs later when the first squadron becomes "mission-ready" with operational aircraft. Askari Mark (Talk) 14:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Information available on certification procedure of aircraft is quite obscure, especially wrt requirements for IOC and FOC. it would be nice if we could add a section on this (a new article on aircraft certification would also help).
Another doubt that i have (and might be shared by other people as well) is the project time line. For eg, how does the LCA compare to other aircraft projects. For eg, the project was mooted in '83, ASR was finalised only in'85, PD phase ended in '88 and FSED phase only began full-scale in '93. So, when projects 'begin', is it the FSED phase, initial prototype testing or the project definition phase that is considered? This would help compare the LCA wrt other development programs like the J-10, F-16, Gripen and others. Cheers, Sniperz11 14:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
There is some information "out there" specifically comparing the LCA to other programs, but I don't have the time to run it down right now. Such an article would be a good idea, but keep in mind that, in general, the later the "generation", the longer the gestation. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

HAL TEJAS VS JF-17 VS F-16

I really don't know, how do we compare Tejas(white elephant)which after eating 5500 crore rupees of Indian Tax payees ,still under evaluation/trial. According to "The Hindu" news paper of India,"In 2007, it was reported that empirical data indicating that indigenous Light Combat Aircraft Tejas, in its present form, will not be able to meet the Air Staff Requirements (ASRs), the Indian Air Force (IAF) has raised serious questions over the future of the aircraft’s long term induction into the squadron service."

The IAF has communicated that the Tejas’ performance, both in terms of thrust and its airframe qualities, was still a long way from what was desirable. The Tejas, as per the IAF drawn up ASR, had to be "much, much better" than the MiG-21s. Though the fly-by-wire Tejas has its plus points, data, including from the aircraft’s recent low altitude tests at INS Rajali in Arakonam, showed that this might not be possible with the present configuration.

An Air Force officer said: We have been given a mandate by the government and with this in mind drawn up an ASR. It has to be met. There is no point in the ADA pressuring us to accept a lower ASR at this stage. For years, at every meeting, the ADA has been saying that the Tejas will comply with the ASR.

It is recently came to knowledge that IAF was not willing to acquire a single LCA jet into IAF fleet,DRDO/HAl representative speaks; "DRDO and HAL representative Shri Antony said in a press conference that; major breakthroughs in the project have been achieved in recent times and he is confident that; it will be in the sky within a few years.Indian Air Force, which was not willing to accept even one of this aircraft earlier, has now decided to receive two squadrons.

Now I'm asking,whats the reason? why they have decided to add two squadrons? while they had planned to induct 200 aircrafts,later on they even refused to take a single aircraft why? its very much logical that DRDO/HAL, whom are jointly working on development of HAL-Tejas. After taking more than 25 years and 5500 crore rupees, it has not produced satisfactory results,according to ASR standard,so due to scary of Indian people anger and disgrace globally, IAF came forward to save DRDO/HAL high profiles.This is further strengthen by the news that IAF decided to counter JF-17 with 126 MRCA, for sake of argument if, we accept it that Tejas is comparable to Jf-17, then question rises again for what reason IAF aquiring 126 MRCA.?It doesn't make sense.

I think it is very unfair that,we are comparing LCA-Tejas (which seems has no future)with "JF-17,so it should be removed on following above mentioned basis,and I also request you that only official accepted aircrafts should be included in comparable list not an evaluated aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 06:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See WT:AIR for further discussion on this issue. - BillCJ (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Unit costs

Sniperz11 recently noted that the costs listed for several aircraft at the end of the 'Unit costs' section are conservative. This is, to a degree, correct; however, it's very extremely hard to find open-source comparisons of any kind, and to date the Times of India estimates provided is the only set of comparative values I have found that include the LCA. Do please keep "eyes open" for any others, especially more recent ones.

On the other hand, there is also a degree of "incorrectness" to his observation. Most non-experts in the field — and "experts" include few journalists — are unaware that there are a multitude of types of "costs" measured in the aerospace field, particularly for military aircraft. Traditionally "fly-away costs" (FAC) have been the norm, but there are two different kinds of FACs ("basic" and "total") and lately, thanks to the JSF program, marketeers have begun employing a third, partial cost known as "unit recurring FAC" (URF), which is only part (albeit the major part) of the basic FAC. For further insight, you may wish to peruse "Understanding aircraft unit costs", an essay I wrote to aid WP:AIRCRAFT editors in understanding the issue. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Very enlightening essay, Mr. Askari Mark. Thank you for correcting the inaccuracies in my editing. I'd like to know your opinion of this piece i found on Defence-aerospace.com on estimating aircraft costs. Is it good enough to be used as a source? Cheers. Sniperz11 04:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of that analysis — and that it has some serious methodological problems which lead to a few mistaken conclusions as well as cost estimates for some aircraft that are significantly underestimated. (I can – and have – dissected it for business purposes.) That said, it is one of the few useful analyses in the public media. Since Wikipedia is less about capturing the "real truth" (which would require original research in many cases) about a topic than it is about capturing what has been publicly written about that topic, it is indeed "good enough" to use as a source for Wikipedia. The key is to cite it appropriately. However, it doesn't particularly help us with this article because it doesn't include the Tejas and the methodology is not the same used by the currently quoted source. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

LCA HMDS & Navigation System

Somebody confirm that HMDS is Dash because in harrys article its given that HMDS will be new one incorporating features from Dash and JHMCS.

And also read about indigenous development Navigation System, what is the status right now? --219.91.198.10 12:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but are you possibly talking about the IRNSS? --EfferAKS 21:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Hi. With Regards to the timeline discussion above. I've created a demo project timeline table for the LCA project at User:Sniperz11/Sandbox 1. I'm adding it below. Cheer. Sniperz11 12:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Light Combat Aircraft Timeline
Year Date Event Remarks
year date event remarks
1969 Aeronautics Committee suggests
a Fighter Aircraft Program		 Program under
HAL
1975 Design studies completed,
project shelved		 Due to lack of
proven engine
1982 date event remarks
1983 GoI sanctions LCA project
through DRDO		 Planned:
 - 1st flight: 1990
 - Production: 1994
 - Induction: 1995
1984 ADA set up
1985 Oct IAF ASR finalised ASR Delayed
1987 Dassault chosen for Project
Definition (PD) Phase
1987 Oct PD commences
1988 Sep PD completed
1989 May Review committee formed
1990 LCA Design Finalised
1990 FSED Phase I commences
1991 Work on TD Aircraft begins.
Fund Crunch slows work
1992 CLAW Team set up
1993 April Full Funding Authorised
1993 June Full scale work begins
1993 BAe & Lockheed-Martin brought
in to advise FCS development
1995 Nov 17 TD-1 rolled out Aircraft Grounded
1996 July FCS tested on F-16 VISTA in USA
1998 May 11 Pokhran-II Nuclear test
  - US announces Sanctions
  - CLAW work in US ends,
  - Material impounded
2001 Jan 4 TD-1 First Flight
2003 May 4 PM Vajpayee names LCA 'Tejas' [1] [2]
2003 Aug 1 TD-1 breaks Mach-1 speed
2004 Mar 31 TD phase ends.
(FSED Phase II)? begins
2005 Dec 1 PV-2 1st Flight
2006 Dec 1 PV-3 1st Flight
2007 Apr 25 1st Production Tejas, LSP-1 flies Reaches Mach 1.1

Do you think it would be OK to add into the page? If so, are any changes needed?

I'm working on that now, although most of the stuff is compiled from the wiki page itself. Sniperz11 11:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
A good bit of work! My only concern is that it is a long list for an already long article. Before adding it, it should probably be discussed at WikiProject Aircraft. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I was afraid of that, which is why i posted it here first... Do you think we can shorten it? I'll post it at the talk page as well. Sniperz11 18:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Paris air show

[1] This link of list of aircrafts being displayed at Paris air show does not have Tejas as either static or flying display, so I am removing the section from status page. Kaushal mehta 10:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it. The previous version of the official excel sheet of aircrafts participating (from the paris air show site) showed the LCA as both static & flying display, which is why I added it. The latest version does not have it. In addn, the airshows.be site shows the LCa as cancelled. Sniperz11 11:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[2]This gives the reason why it missed the air show. Well after a flurry of updates the ada website is again silent. Kaushal mehta 12:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sea level trials

The trails are heating up, or atleast they seem to be for the time being, heads up and faster status update, keep up the good work guys. Kaushal mehta 06:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

why writing two times about Engine, Radar & FBW

we can merge the sections of Kaveri/Engine, Radar/MMR, and FBW FCS. Since there is already an article for Kaveri, Giving such detailed description is that necessary? ofcourse we can do it only if we think article is too big.

Sniperz11 instead of timelines we write about reasons for delays. In many news article they write that tejas program is began in 1983, we should about the reasons for delays & Challenges Indian defence industry faced. And we can also add importance of tejas to Indian Aviation Industry.

The reason for the timeline was not to talk about the delays, but instead, to give thre reader a concise overview of the project history. Right now, the relevant section is full of technical details interspersed with the history, which makes the section long and hard to read... a timeline solves some of those problems. Reasons for the delays is important, but not enough to warrant a table, since delays are not the defining factor of the LCA project. Sniperz11 16:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Weaponisation

Weaponisation started?

Report Dated 29/1/2007 [3] Meanwhile, the weaponisation of LCA PV3 is on at the production hangar. Armed with R-73 missiles, PV3 is expected to incorporate drop tanks in later phases, Mohan said.

The weaponisation will be completed in 18 months.

Report Dated 05/2/2007 [4] India's indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas is poised for weaponisation in April, said Dr. PS Subramanyam, Director of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and Programme Director for LCA.

"The weaponisation of LCA is a milestone in proving the world Indian capabilities of building a fighter aircraft. This would also take Indian into a league of select nations," Dr. Subramanyam told ANI in an exclusive interview.

And now we have PV3 flying in Arakkonam. Is it for weapon test?

As per latest reports, weaponisation is in progress. It started in 2005 itself, with basic integration of the weapons. Right now, what the article is talking about is the flight trials of these weapons. The latest Arakkonam trials were for sea level tests, to see the LCA performance in hot and humid conditions, under heavy stress of frequent flying. In addition, navigation capabilities over sea were also tested. Sniperz11 03:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Major Cleanup needed

The page needs a concerted cleanup operation to improve its readability. As I see it, there is a basic structure to the page, but there is a huge amount of information thats just piled up, put there by different sources, without worrying about what would happen to the whole page or the section. As a result, its hard to get past a few paragraphs of this page.

I think its necessary that a lot of extraneous info be removed, and a lot of information be put in the right place, not to forget about updating the language in many places. That would improve the readability of the page, and give a clear chance to get the page to atleast a GA-status, which it deserves. The only way to do this is for a large number of editors to work together to format the page properly. Hoping for all your support. Thanks and Cheers. Sniperz11talk|edits 16:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk Archives

Hi. As the Talk page was getting far too long and unwieldy, I have created Archive pages for the old talk. Due to the size of the page, I had to create two talk archives- the first has old posts from mid-2006 to end-06. The second archive has edits from end-2006 to mid-2007. I have kept some old posts on this page because of the information that has been presented, which will aid any new editors.

If you feel that something is missing, or didn't deserve to be in an archive, feel free to move it back to this page. Also, since Archive 2 is not too long at the moment, I suggest that any closed or old debates can be moved there first.

Thanks. Cheers. Sniperz11talk|edits 18:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have also created a to do list. I feel this will help editors prioritize and collaborate better in improving the page, as well as in guiding any new editors in making improvements to the page. Sniperz11talk|edits 18:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tejas Litening.jpg

Image:Tejas Litening.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

F-16VISTA is not f-16

The article describes the FBW control is tested on a F-16 VISTA, which is to a degree correct, but more accurately its called F-16XL/XLE in Lockheed's own naming schema. Also it links to "ordinary" F-16 FF page.

for starters F-16XLE is a Deltawing craft, and presently operated by NASA for advanced flight control tests.

If possible , kindly change it to reflect it and link it.

Swraj (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparable Aircraft

This problem has been raised in WT:AIR and after discussion on this topic, it has been decided that only those aircrafts should be included in the list which were produced in the same Era.According to (Rlandmann)"comparable" simply means similar in general class, role, and era. It doesn't talk about capability,performance etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 05:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

All Tejas pictures about to be deleted

Team

All the pictures on this topic are set for deletion in the wikimedia commons due to license issues. Does anyone have any replacement pictures they can upload to Wikipedia?

Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Kaahi licence issues naahi aahet. Sagadle open source aahet, because they have been retraced from ADA, which is directly under the Defence ministry, Union of India. Images delete karu nakaa. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thrust to Weight Ratio?

Beijing called and wants to know why the thrust to weight ratio is listed as 1.4 something. It keeps on doing the calculations over and over again, yet it can't end up with 1.4. With just a combination of Kaveri and loaded weight, the thrust to weight ratio comes out to an embarrassing 0.67. Something is wrong here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.48.91.181 (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ningbo Hotel is going to unilaterally change the thrust-to-weight ratio to .69 as per Kaveri output divided by 9.8 m/s divided by listed loaded weight. It requests that if anyone wants to change the information, please bother to correct the loaded weight along with the thrust-to-weight ratio. 60.55.35.141 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tejas – 4th Gen or 4.5

The United States government defines AESA as the first and foremost important requirement for 4.5th gen fighters. http://opencrs.com/document/RL33543/ Tejas does not have AESA, even its p-doppler development is delayed. Moreover, there has been no progress on the Israeli side for AESA upgrades and assistance. American turbofans, israeli radar sensors and laser pods... Engine, radar and avionics are the three most critical components of a plane... Nearly ever country, including China can make low-grade carbon composites and program FCS. Of course, I mean no offence to neither China nor India.Ao333 (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Recently, there have been editors (mostly IPs) changing the “fighter generation” for the Tejas from 4th to 4.5 in various articles where it is mentioned. However, whether one likes it or not, the Tejas has long been – and still is – described as “fourth-generation”. If the edit-warring continues, we may wish to add sources for 4.0 from reliable aerospace-specialist sources, several examples of which follow (emphasis added):

The Indian air force has approached the Bangalore-based Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which designed and developed India's fourth-generation Tejas light combat aircraft, to prepare a detailed project report on the development of 20t medium combat aircraft (MCA) with stealth features.
Dr Subramanyam is also hopeful of joint efforts by private companies across the globe to market this fourth generation fighter aircraft.
In a major breakthrough for the Indian aeronautical sector, the first aircraft in the Limited Series Production (LSP) of India’s home grown, multi role, fourth generation Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas, has cleared the decks for the state owned aerospace major Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to take up the production of eight Tejas aircraft as part of LSP.

Before anyone who does not know me decides to falsely accuse me of ill-will (or, worse, racism), please let me point out that this is not a denigration of the Tejas. Advancing India’s aerospace capabilities from 2nd to 4th generation in one jump has been no small feat – and 4th-generation fighters will remain the major part of most air forces for the next 20 years (and being the latest 4th-gen design, it’s skipped at least one major upgradation compared to its predecessors). As Vijander Thakur points out, “Even if the Tejas is not inducted into the IAF it will be an achievement that the nation could be proud of. Pure technology development fighter aircraft are not uncommon. The Russian Berkut Su-37 and MiG 35 are examples. India needs to fund defense research and development so that we are not dependent on other nations for our security.” Askari Mark (Talk) 20:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, one way to avoid the problem would be to remove reference to Generations from the lead paragraphs - they don't really add much and just seem to attract trouble.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It is going to be 4.5 gen when it is finalized. Will provide credible source on next reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AkshayGenius (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Assuming it ever is finalized, which is not a given at this point. Nevertheless, any such claims should have proper reliable sources when added. In addition, image captions are not the place for adding commentary such as "India enetered a prestigious legaue after HAL Tejas's success, becoming only the 6th country to produce a 4.5 Generation fighter jet indeginously", even if it is totally accurate, which it is not (and I don't mean the spelling errors). Besides the non-indigenous nature of the current and future engines, one could now argue that 5th Generation fighters are prestigious, and 4.5th not so much anymore. Anyway, this is not really suitable wording for an encyclopedia, especially one striving for neutrality. - BillCJ (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks like it WILL be finalized, with the Def. Minister stating that FOC will be achieved by 2011. However, to call the Tejas simply a 4th gen fighter is problematic, especially considering that it is right now comparable to the Gripen and J-10, which are classified as 4.5 Gen. The 4th gen was the classification in the early days. With the delays, the scientists decided to upgrade, so that when it did enter service in 2012, it will be contemporary (4.5 Gen).
Looking at the 4th gen characteristics from the page:
  • Advanced digital avionics - Tejas has - Quadruplex Advanced Digital FBW FCS, with RSS (unstable)
  • Aerospace materials - Composites - 40%, 95% by area
  • Signature reduction (primarily RF "stealth") - has RAM coating, extremely small RCS
  • Highly integrated systems and weapons. - Has datalink & NCW capability
  • Operate in "network-centric" battlefield - High level of sensor fusion.
Weapons:
  • BVRAAMs - Has.
  • GPS guided weapons - has
  • Solid-state phased-array radars - has - AESA is also being developed
  • Helmet-mounted sights - Has
  • Secure, jamming-resistant datalinks. - Has
All of these, the LCA has. As the 4.5 also pointed out, upgrades of older 4th gen fighters also can be a 4.5 gen. In that sense, the Tejas is certainly a 4.5 gen fighter. I don't see how it compares with early model F-16s and Mirage-2000s, which are the examples of 4th gen fighters, given that it is ahead of them technology-wise.
The reason this is problematic because of the different classifications - if we went by the classifications the country's govt gave, we'd have to put the Su-30 under 5th gen and the J-10 as a 6th Gen. Hence, it is also important that we look at the capabilities and not just what the govt calls the craft. Sniperz11@CS 11:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
All good info, but you really need reliable (preferably from reputable aviation) sources that call it a 4.5 gen fighter, otherwise this is all original research and synthesis. I know you understand that, but I'm just stating it for the rest. If I had my preference, I wouldn't use the generation classifications anyway, since they do tend to be highly subjective. Howerver, Askari Mark, a US aviation industry insider, does support them, and he has the background to understand it all in spite of the hype, whereas I don't. But I think Mark is not available that much right now, so we may not see an immediate response form him.
As to the Tejas design being "finalized", I mispoke. I should have said that I doubt it will ever enter full production. That's purely personal opinion on my part. But as Mark has said, the whole project has given India much-needed experiance with high technology aircraft, and that can probably be put to good use on the MCA project. The Gripen and the Tejas are very similar in size and overall capability, and if the Gripen NG is selected, it may make having the Tejas redundant. On the other hand, the Gripen will use the F414G, which has been suggested as a possile replacement for the Kaveri. That would mean they'd share engine production and maintenace costs, and and thus lowere the overall costs of both fighters. But that's my Western "straight-line thinking". India usually follows it's own path, which is it's right. Heck, even the US doesn't listen to me, or we'd have a president named Jindal! - BillCJ (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
ROFL Bill!!! Bobby for Prez!!!! Anyway, if you are looking for the info, I think some of the links on the Tejas page itself are good - I think ADA site itself has info corroborating the specs I pointed to... IIRC, there was some quote from either Kalam or Kota Harinarayana, where they described the Tejas as 4.5 Gen when it enters service. I'll try and dig it up. However, I don't really have too much concern if the Tejas IS classified on wikipedia as 4th Gen - like in US elections, wikipedia doesn't matter in a war, so I doubt the guys over at ADA will be getting sleepless nights over the extra 0.5. However, given the known specifications, and comparing to the Gripen, I do think the 4.5 Gen is valid.
Ur point about finalized vs large numbers-wise, I'll not go too much into it coz it'd be off topic, but I do hope that IAF gives many more than the 40 confirmed orders till now - which does seem highly likely given the recent IAF Chief's comments, and the State Defence Ministers comments about at least 150 Tejas' being produced - but it all depends on how soon they can get a powerful enough engine. Hopefully, with SNECMA coming in, it will be soon. Either way, I don't think Gripen will be chosen. Sniperz11@CS 05:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Generation and similar aircraft

As the generation of the aircraft is really not that important and subject to daily change I have removed it from the lead. Also removed is similar aircraft again editors change this daily so without a clear consensus the list has been removed. Please do not add either the generation or similar aircraft without further discussion. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the name of HAL HF-24 Marut from see also list. Marut was a second generation aircraft and never comparable to Tejas. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the Marut, as the "See also" field is not for comparable aircraft, but related topics. Both the Tejas and the Marut were indigenous Indian combat aircraft, which is why the Marut was listed there, and not at Related either, since they aren't related. Also, I've been removing the generations from the Lead almost daily for the past 2 weeks, but I'm not an admin, as is Milb1. Hopefully this will make a difference now. - BillCJ (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, no problem. Thanks for the explanation. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)]
A 4.5 generation fighter can't be compared to a 4th generation fighter and we have to compare the specifications, avionics, weapons of the particular aircraft with another aircraft of the same generation to see if they are comparable. I personally feel that Tejas is comparable to Chengdu J-10, Saab Gripen in avionics, radar and weapon systems. So I recommend that these aircraft be placed as comparable after analysis by somebody else with required knowledge!! johnxxx9 (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Source

Some of the sections are completely unreferenced - Development history, Propulsion and Mission Simulator. I am adding an unreferenced tag in the Development history section which I believe should be sourced properly if the users involved in this page want to make it a good article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that big sections could be removed or simplified as it contains a lot of sales woffle and as you say unreferenced text. The engine section could be trimmed as most of the information should be in the Kaveri article and the Mission Simulator is not really notable to the aircraft. Some of the information is what if this or that could be fitted but really should summarise the options available and document what the aircraft actually has. Because of all the extra text it is not clear what makes the Tejas unique or different. MilborneOne (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Some of ur points are very valid, and I'll try to work on the referencing and sourcing aspect of it. However, coming to parts like the Simulator, etc, I think we need to recognize that this page is as much about the LCA project as it is about the aircraft itself. Also, given that the mission simulator is Tejas specific, I think we should keep it. Will try to move some of the Kaveri info to the related page. Another point to note is that the Tejas page has emerged as the single point source for all information about the aircraft for netizens (being on a cupla forums, including BR, etc, which is precisely because of the amount of information available. Hence, I think we need to keep this information on the page, while making it more readable to laymen at the same time. Cheers. Sniperz11@CS 07:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the mission simulator is Tejas specific is not really notable for the aircraft page, a lot of modern fighters have similar dome-based mission simulators nothing in the Tejas variant is particularly advanced or notable for the breed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Need a major cleanup

I think we have to clean up and shorten the whole article. We should have a more optimized article. According to me there is no necessity of such a large 'Development' section. Why are there seperate sections on Engine and Propulsion ? Do we require sections on landing gear and ejection seats ?? Isn't a mention enough ?? Why are are two sections on fly-by-wire controls ?? We could just shorten the firs one and combine both. Is there a requirement of a seperate section explaining all prototypes ?? There is a section at the end which mentions all prototypes. Isn't it enough ?? I would appreciate views on a major clean-up to increase the standards of this article. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree a lot of the article is not really relevant and woffle, I would suggest you have a go at one section at a time and you fellow editors will soon tell you if you are going wrong. Most of it also needs to be clarified in that it appears a big production batch of aircraft is now unlikely in the short term. Engine may be a good starting point most could be in the engine article all it needs is to be clear what engine the aircraft actually has (which is not clear from the words). MilborneOne (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree, esp about the engine part.... the language needs to be touched up so that it becomes more readable, rather than facts only. However, the problem with this that I see is that the amount of info on the Tejas page is second to none anywhere else on the net, and collates all the specs together. Thus, we need to make sure that this info and descriptions remain. How that is to be done needs to be decided, which is that issue that I see right now. Any ideas?? Sniperz11@CS 06:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the comments but the fact that this page is second to none is not an excuse for removing and clarifing information remember this is an encyclopedia not a Tejas fanboy site. MilborneOne (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Engine - most of this text could be deleted/moved to the engine article as it appears the engine has not actually been used on the Tejas only planned and we dont know what the Mark 2 will have. The propulsion section repeats some of the same information. Really just need an overview about engine choice and why it now has a F404. Thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely right Milbourne... that wasn't my point... what I was talking about was that we need to find a way to keep the information placed here without compromising on the readability.. How we do that needs to be decided. Sniperz11@CS 10:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Lets shorten the whole 'Development' section. We are specifically talking about Tejas so there is no requirement for development of Kaveri GTX, and the MMR can be placed under RADAR. Again there is no need to have 2 sections. According to me, the Development section is way to big. And there is no requirement of having a whole section dedicated to prototypes. The section at the end is more than enough. I would recommend complete deletion of the 'Prototypes' section in 'Development'. 'Escape Systems', 'Landing Gear', 'Flight Simulator' all do not need separate sections. Johnxxx9 (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, if somebody has a go we can all keep an eye on it and help. MilborneOne (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Tejas mark-2 and naval LCA in a single section--Nuclearram (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tejas pics from Ajai Shukla's blog

Oh, btw, I have got permission from Ajai Shukla to use the images of Tejas being airframe tested (http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/03/hal-bangalore-main-airframe-static-test.html). Let me know which one would be good to upload on wikipedia. I can also get permission for more pics from the treasure trove of pics on his website (ajaishukla.blogspot.com). Let me know which ones are wanted. However, do note that he may not be able to respond very quickly, given his current location. Cheers. Sniperz11@CS 10:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to note you need to make sure he is the copyright holder of the images (blogs dont have a good record on using copyrighted images) and you need to get them to put a declaration email into the WP:OTRS system refer Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. It will avoid problems later. MilborneOne (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
He is the copyright holder, having taken the pics during his visits to HAl and ADA. Just FYI, Ajai Shukla is a journalist for NDTV and is their defence editor. He is a retired Colonel of the Indian Army Armored Corps. He is currently writing a book on the India-China border issue. Anyway, I have already put up many of his pictures on commons, after getting the OTRS clearance, obviously. Let me know which pics are good to go. Sniperz11@CS 09:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Tejas is 4.5 generation - Confirmation from ADA and DRDO

The makers of Tejas, ADA has confirmed that Tejas is not a 4th generation fighter and is a 4+ (4.5) generation fighter aircraft. Here is the reference : [5]

I have removed it again - as already stated it is not that important and is meaningless to nearly all readers. Each side can find a different source for any generation. Perhaps users could concentrate efforts on improving the article instead. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The source actually states that ADA has successfully developed "4+ generation of technologies"; Dr Kalam at no time says the Tejas is a 4.5 generation aircraft — nor even a "4+" generation aircraft. It is unclear what exactly "4+ generation" means other than that it is not quite "4.5" (or he would have said so), but that it is better than the 1970s-1980s standard of "4.0". In any case, simply installing "Gen 4.5" technologies on an aircraft does not make it a 4.5-generation aircraft design. The design generation of an aircraft is set very early in its development and for the Tejas this was set down according to a "4th-generation" design philosophy. It would not be possible to change the Tejas to a 4.5-generation aircraft without extensively redesigning it. (An example is the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which is extremely different from the earlier F/A-18 Hornet in most ways other than general exterior appearance.) In any case, there are any number of quotes published by ADA that describe the Tejas — correctly — as a 4th-generation aircraft. There is nothing "bad" about this. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added in the status section that the defence ministry is floating a new tender for engines

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=daadd3e5-489f-4403-b7bb-95411457188f —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuclearram (talk • contribs) 20:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to put the reference in the article otherwise it will be removed as unreferenced. It also is danger of being removed as it is already covered in HAL_Tejas#New_engine_evaluations. MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
"New engine evaluations" covers info from Spet 08, so the new info needs to be moved there, after being rewritten! It is currrently word-for-word from the HT article, which is a copyvio, so I've removed it for the time being. Also, Rs. crore figures need to be translated to standard English short form numbers, either in Rs. or dollars, as in most occurances in the article. Most international readers aren't familiar with Indian numbering conventions, so these need to be translated as a courtesy (it may be in the MOS too, but I don't know). - BillCJ (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

i've rewriten it and converted the crore figure to dollars and moved it to the new engine evaluations section.I've also added the reference which i think is allright.so i hope it's okay.-Nuclearram (talk —Preceding undated comment added 08:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

Rendered pics

should rendered pics be used in the introduction column ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnxxx9 (talk • contribs)

It certainly should not be in the Lead. I'm not sure it sohould be in the aritcle either, as it shows nothing that many of the real images do not already show. Worse, the image appears to be copyrighted, and there is no proof that the image's rights have been released. As such, I've nominated it for deletion on Commons. Thanks for bringing this up. - BillCJ (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The paragraphs added on July 2 by Cowboy forth right are ver batim from the Tejas website. This violates copyright law, WP:Copyright. I have removed the paragraphs. JoyStickTiger (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if something wrong was done, but point you have made does not seem to be the case, material was not taken from website mentioned in your post, but was taken from global security website, [6]. Can we place the content back? it really helped explain the flight control in a much better way. --Cowboy forth worth (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The evidence suggests otherwise. Here is what you pasted into the HAL Tejas website:
The glass cockpit and hands on throttle and stick (HOTAS) controls reduce pilot workload. Accurate navigation and weapon aiming information on the head up display helps the pilot achieve his mission effectively. The multi-function displays provide information on engine, hydraulics, electrical, flight control and environmental control system on a need-to-know basis along with basic flight and tactical information.
Dual redundant display processors (DP) generate computer-generated imagery on these displays. The pilot interacts with the complex avionics systems through a simple multifunction keyboard, and function and sensor selection panels.
Here is the text from the Tejas website, starting the second line in:
The glass cockpit and hands on throttle and stick (HOTAS) controls reduce pilot workload. Accurate navigation and weapon aiming information on the head up display helps the pilot achieve his mission effectively. The multi-function displays provide information on engine, hydraulics, electrical, flight control and environmental control system on a need-to-know basis along with basic flight and tactical information.
Dual redundant display processors (DP) generate computer-generated imagery on these displays. The pilot interacts with the complex avionics systems through a simple multifunction keyboard, and function and sensor selection panels.
The text is identical and hence violates copyright law. Please review WP:Copyright violations. (I have posted this on your talk page as well given your dual responses.) JoyStickTiger (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
And here the text from global security website [7]

The avionics system enhances the role of Light Combat Aircraft as an effective weapon platform. The glass cockpit and hands on throttle and stick (HOTAS) controls reduce pilot workload. Accurate navigation and weapon aiming information on the head up display helps the pilot achieve his mission effectively. The multifunction displays provide information on engine, hydraulics, electrical, flight control and environmental control system on a need-to-know basis along with basic flight and tactical information. Dual redundant display processors (DP) generate computer-generated imagery on these displays. The pilot interacts with the complex avionics systems through a simple multifunction keyboard, and function and sensor selection panels. A state-of-the-art multi-mode radar (MMR), laser designator pod (LDP), forward looking infra-red (FLIR) and other opto-electronic sensors provide accurate target information to enhance kill probabilities. A ring laser gyro (RLG)-based inertial navigation system (INS), provides accurate navigation guidance to the pilot. An advanced electronic warfare (EW) suite enhances the aircraft survivability during deep penetration and combat. Secure and jam-resistant communication systems, such as IFF, VHF/UHF and air-to-air/air-to-ground data link are provided as a part of the avionics suite. All these systems are integrated on three 1553B buses by a centralised 32-bit mission computer (MC) with high throughput which performs weapon computations and flight management, and reconfiguration/redundancy management. Reversionary mission functions are provided by a control and coding unit (CCU). Most of these subsystems have been developed indigenously.

Sixth paragraph from top. Global security website content can be reproduced by linking to the source, therefore i am not sure if there is a violation. --Cowboy forth worth (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Either way the text is copied directly from a website, and the direct copying is a copyright violation. The way around this is to rewrite it in your own words and cite a secondary source like a scholarly article or a newspaper or trade publication (that has been reviewed by a board) that says the same thing. Can you find a newspaper or trade magazine that describes the avionics system? Then, you can rewrite the section in your own words. Please review these Wikipedia policies as they are also relevant here.[8][9] If you locate a scholarly or trade publication on the system I could help you write the section. JoyStickTiger (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What a LONG article...

It's interesting to note that for a yet-to-be-operational aircraft, this wikipedia article is already LONGER than the one for F-15 Eagle, which has been in service for more than 30 years. By78 (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the article attracts a lot of interest from those interested in the Tejas (both for and against) and over the years a lot of information has been added. It has been pruned for the more obvious unwanted text and large sections are not referenced so it does need more work. But as wikipedia is a work in progress you are welcome to suggest improvements and add referenced material, your are also welcome to tag any unsourced information that needs a reliable source. Remember when comparing it with the F-15 a lot of techniques/technology is new to the Indian aircraft industry so their development has been explained more. In the future some of this new technology (to India) stuff could probably be split into another article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Give the Indians a break. It's their first plane since British Raj, the supposed "symbol of independence." Though, I wonder how the plane would actually turn out. Even the Chinese have been making planes for 70 years. One thing I don't understand is how this plane is Indian. The turbofan and FCS are American; the avionics are Israeli; that leaves only the airframe and name made-in-India. Are you guys feeling proud writing about this plane.Ao333 (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Ao333, who has made the above comment, is a self proclaimed India hater. In his talk page, he proudly claims his love for some countries and hate for the others. Probably his above comments should be removed from the talk page. Shovon (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to shorten article

I have attempted to shorten the article by removing unnecessary sections and merging them with others.I have also attempted to remove unnecessary information and well as correct grammatical errors. If edits are not satisfactory then i will revert the changes--Nuclearram (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

IOC FOC?

so has the IOC for the LCA taken place??? or has the FOC taken place??? when will mass production start? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buklaodord (talk • contribs) 05:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

For a suitable yet respectful place for Dr. Kota Harinarayana

I wanted to give suitable yet respectful place to Dr. Kota Harinarayan in main page. So added few lines under "Father of LCA". Requesting people[s] taking of HAL Tejas to take necessary action. But at the same time requesting to not remove his name entirely.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4rahul (talk • contribs) 08:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Tactical conception

Why is India building a fighter that is clearly inferior to most late-model fourth and fifth generation fighters? The Tejas appears obsolescent before it is event fielded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.29.1 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry dont see a question or point related to the article's improvement, remember this is not a discussion forum. MilborneOne (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2928&Itemid=32 "It is part of the story of India's lamentable and expensive history of domestic defense procurement programs," said a London-based security analyst. The analyst also questioned the aircraft's role, asking: "What is a 'lightweight fighter' in the Indian strategic context given their large number of highly capable Russian long-range aircraft? Is it an advanced trainer or intended for use in low intensity operations, i.e. against internal insurgents?"

Role and ref, as requested. Hcobb (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Tejas-has-just-reached-semi-final-stage-Antony/articleshow/7257996.cms There has been discussion recently about the performance and production status of the aircraft. Taking the status of the MMRCA program into consideration we may have jumped the gun on this aircraft. -Nem1yan (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Why article is titled 'HAL LCA' when LCA is ADA's

I would like to raise my objection to the use of "HAL LCA" as title. As we know HAL is only just a partner in LCA program but do not have any say in design. The nodal authority for LCA's design and development is ADA, so it will be much better if we change the name of the article to ADA LCA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4rahul (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 January 2011

As far as I can see the article is titled HAL Tejas, it is about the aircraft built by HAL and name Tejas. MilborneOne (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the actual name of the aircraft is 'LCA Tejas' or something like that. I'll try and find the actual name. But in response to wiki4rahul, on Wikipedia, it doesn't matter who created the plane. Its the actual name, or the common name that matters. TheMike •Wassup doc? 16:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
LCA (Light Combat Aircraft) is the name for the program. This name was also associated with the aircraft, until it was named Tejas. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

General characteristics section and references

I was viewing the General Characteristics section of this article and as i looked to the references for that section all three of those references have different data for the LCA...... for example reference 76 says LCA has a G limit of +9/-3.5G's which is not even included in the section but it should be

Reference 77 has a dead page so i don't even know how someone could use that as a reference Onlyonfridays (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Will look into it. Yes Michael? •Talk 10:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Add a {{dead link}} tag and see WP:Link rot for how to handle it. Update: The links in references 76, 77 78 are all working for me now. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

they all work for me now as well but anyways in reference 77 it says LCA has thrust weight ratio of 1.07 and a service ceiling of 50,000 feet and a empty weight of 6,500kg but it doesn't show that for the general characteristics section it has something different written on there and just wondering can I add the Angle of attack and the G limits to the general characteristics section since ref 76 and 77 show data for both of them? Onlyonfridays (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

thrust weight ratio

on here it says the Tejas thrust weight ratio is 0.91 but in reference 76 it says its 1.07 i'll take the liberty of correcting it --Honorprevails123 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The source doesnt calculate the ratio in the same fashion as wikipedia aviation articles. Unless another thrust is presented with a lower weight or higher thrust the ratio cant be changed. -Nem1yan (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

understood. thanks for explaining --Honorprevails123 (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

permission to remove Python 5 from armaments section

there is no source that says the Israeli Python 5 missile is used on the LCA Tejas or will be used on the LCA Tejas the R-77, R-73, Astra, and Derby missiles have sources that indicate they will be used on the LCA Tejas but no source for the Python 5 --Honorprevails123 (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Source about Derby for LCA Tejas | link.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 15:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

comparison with other 4th gen fighters

could we create a section comparing Tejas to other 4th generation fighter jets? in terms of avionics and aerodynamics? --Honorprevails123 (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I've been told the list was removed from this article due to heavy vandalism (or something along those lines). I'm not against adding one again, but there might be some friction when deciding which aircraft belong on the list. -Nem1yan (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

well since Tejas is a 4th gen fighter it should compare well with other 4th gen fighters in terms of avionics and aerodynamics i'm guessing any other 4th gen fighter jet can compare with it e.g F-16, Mirage 2000, MiG-29 etc --Honorprevails123 (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Comparison sections tend to be discoraged as they tend to be WP:OR magnets - and in this case it will just attract POV edit warring - its best left out.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I support comparison section. If aircrafts, like Gripen, F-16, F-CK-1, Tigershark already feature Tejas as 'comparable aircraft' so what exactly is the problem if it too mention those as 'Comparable aircraft'? I suggest we put fighters that are really comparable i.e. not just in same gen but also same wight class (like Gripen) in 'Comparable' tab and those who cause controversy (like F/A-18) in 'See Also' tab. Swift&silent (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The comparable aircraft list in the See also section is not a comparison section. This list was removed here due to edit warring over it. This has been done with a couple other articles for the same reason. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
The similar aircraft list was removed as it caused edit wars and was really all opinion based. So we dont need the list or any comparison, the readers can use the specification section and related text and do comparisons themselves. MilborneOne (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
@Fnlayson Thanks for clearing things out. I got confused as MilborneOne reverted this edit [[10]] in which I added 'Comparable Aircraft' section. This section was added simply because Gripen has same section linking to this aircraft and thus it seemed logical to add this section. MilborneOne stated that "article consensus was not to include comparable aircraft". So, I got confused. Whats your take on adding Gripen in 'Comparable aircraft' section. If you think it will cause disruption then I too will agree on removal of that section. Swift&silent (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My latest ref added to this article says that even the IAF doesn't think it is a 4th gen fighter. Also, why are our prices in dollars? Hcobb (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

So no RS showing that this is the one and only 4th gen fighter with a simple delta wing? Hcobb (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Some updated info for future reference

HAL pegs price of Tejas fighter at Rs 162 crore Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

please add Tejas official website to infobox. I.I tried it but I am not getting that

|website = tejas.gov.in

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

As stated in the edit summaries in the history for the main page, the Infobox does not have that template field. So that will not show up. That link already appears in the External links section later in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2015 (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/tejas/
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hal-tejas/
    Triggered by \bnaval-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 NotifyOnline 13:15, 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 NotifyOnline 19:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed some blatant WP:COPYPASTE copyright violations from this article. I haven't quick-failed the GA nomination (for now), because the editor in question is not responsible for most of the article content, so I don't know if there are more similar problems in the current version of the article or not.

However, any GA reviewer will need to pay particularly careful attention to such possible additional problems, and also the removed section will need re-writing without copyright violations. See also WP:PARAPHRASE. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Demiurge1000: I just failed the article on that basis (See here). TBPH it's a huge problem with the whole article and I don't know how to immediately address or fix it. I know I can't just stub the article down, but that's really the only thing I can imagine if there isn't someone who is heavily interested in the topic willing to do a top to bottom re-write. Protonk (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"pure delta" - change to "pure double delta"

"Tejas has a pure delta wing configuration" - Looks like double delta to me, with less ° swept at rroots (normal couble delta are reverse). - sources http://de.scribd.com/doc/78345390/Approach-to-High-Angle-of-Attack-Testing-of-Light-Combat-Aircraft-LCA-Tejas http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1138201&pagina_chiamante=index.php 

Lastdingo (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Plan to stub/shorten to resolve plagiarism issues

Since I haven't gotten much response from the aircraft and milhist wikiprojects and I haven't had a response from the GA nominator, I'm planning to stub down this article in an attempt to resolve plagiarism issues I discovered during the GA review.

@Askari Mark, Fnlayson, Nuclearram, and BilCat: Letting you folks know based on the edit history of the article (hard to tell who is heavily involved as the article is a wider collaboration than most GA noms).

Please read the GA review to get a sense of the scale and scope of the problem. I won't edit war over stubbing the page but I may revert isolated attempts to restore content as I can't tell what is plagiarized and what isn't. I would much prefer that the article be comprehensively re-written rather than stubbed down, so I'll wait a few days to see if anyone responds before doing this. Protonk (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Specs

These are the correct specs as given in the MoD press release [3] LCA Tejas is capable of flying non- stop to destinations over 1700 km away (Ferry Range). It's Radius of Action is upto 500 km depending upon the nature and duration of actual combat. I'm editing the article 2620:117:C080:520:1A03:73FF:FE0A:7671 (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ link 1
  2. ^ link 2
  3. ^ http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=102056
That seems to be a primary source, but neutral 3rd party sources (such as Jane's Information Group/IHS Jane's) are preferred on Wikipedia. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
FYI, the ADA, HAL, IAF and Government of India are the ones that are involved in the project, not Janes.VandeMataram (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Primary refs, like the manufacturer and the air force have reasons to exaggerate the capabilities of the aircraft for marketing and nationalistic reasons, which is why third party refs are preferred. - Ahunt (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
What guarantee is that the Janes will not exaggerate the capability of aircraft of western nations and understate the capability of Tejas? Rrotegero (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
While no organization or its people perfect, Jane's is a reputable and well-respected publisher, and they meet WP's qualifications for a third-party reliable source. If you have any concrete evidence that they slant their information in favor of Western aircraft, feel free to cite reliable sources that prove it. - BilCat (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Today Janes is irrelevant in Indian defense reporting area. They must have been relavant 15 years before when India only had DD. With the proliferation of news channels and newspapers Janes or any western agency is getting information or news from other Indian news paper/Government press report and copy paste the same in their articles. Read their latest news and you'll come to know that it's exact copy of what's published by others. Better is to use the Indian newspaper/Government press report as the source rather than give credit to Janes for their copy paste work. Rrotegero (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd hate to ruin a good argument, but the 500 km combat radius and 1700 km ferry range are already quoted in the specs, and has been for several months, cited to the 2013 press release. Note that the specs also quote a range of 3000 km, cited to airforce-technology herewhich doesn't seem be be consistent with the Indian Govenment cite, but does seem to be dated later.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Tejas Mk3

I trimmed the mention of the powerplant of the mk3 as the quoted source only says that the Kaveri might be used if the engine gets back on track. (Incidentally, the cited source appears to be a scan of an unknown magazine article hosted on Sribd. How can we be sure that it is a reliable source without more details of the original source of the article, and how can we be sure that we are bit linking to copyvio.)

While there is a source cited in the Kaveri article [11] that suggests that DRDO wants to abandon the engine, it states that the decision has yet to be confirmed by the Indian government.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I cant find much evidence that the Mark III actually exists, the Kaveri was originally to power all the Tejas variants but was not ready so the "prototypes" used the GE404. When it wasnt ready for the production aircraft (Mark II) they went with the GE414. MilborneOne (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Blog tagged as vs

This site has been tagged with [verification needed] as it is a blog. However, it is published by CNN-IBN, a reputable news source, and appears to be written by a reputable journalist and so meets WP:NEWSBLOG.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I spent most of my time and effort rewriting the text. I only saw blog in the link and was not sure about ibnlive.in.com. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Bangalore/Bengaluru

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The discussion about Bangalore/Bengaluru naming is out of place here and should be discussed at Talk:Bangalore instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Bangalore has recently been renamed Bengaluru, see for example The Times of India. At present Bengaluru redirects to Bangalore, but I expect that will change at some point. Which name should we use here and now? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as the article is at Bangalore, per WP:COMMONNAME, that's what should be used, which is why I reverted the change. I've no problem including Bengaluru in parentheses at it's first mention, if others feel it's necessary. - BilCat (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The current common name is Bengaluru. Lot of bias from editors from western editors like Bilcat do exist here.Rrotegero (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Bias exists everywhere, as comments like "Removing all nonsense about unroyal Birtish crooks" show. As to Bangalore, it's currently accepted as the common name on English WP, so that's what we use. Why is discussed on that article's talk page, and changing it should be discussed there, not here. - BilCat (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The common name is Bangalore, so is the name of the article Bangalore. (P.S. Bangalore was and will not be moved to Bengaluru as a result of the move discussion here). Regards—☮JAaron95 Talk 08:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
That's what. When the cities name is Bengaluru , the whites want to keep it as Bangalore so that you can call it easily by it's Anglized name. That's called bias. And there is a lot of bias that do exists in threads related to Indian articles and administered by white man. Then you blame others for your bias.Rrotegero (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
You need to cut out the racist commentary Rrotegero, if you dont like the article name then comment on the related talk page and make a case, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Rrotegero: you really need to drop the racism here. The name of the city is determined by WP:COMMONNAME in the language of the encyclopedia. If you think it should be changed then take it up on Talk:Bangalore, not here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Look at that page itself. When the support to change its name came, one native English speaker NeilN has to come up with some Vague reason to prevent the change. If this is not racism, then what is? The truth is you guys dont have any shame. Rrotegero (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
By trying to revert my edit, have you not tried to keep the view sticking there that the Tejas is flawed? Why is this bias? Even though the NDTV title do say so, the content has a different take. If you go through it, you find that its the MK1 which has flaws and MK1A which is going to be provided to the Air Force comes with the improvements. So why are you reverting back to showacase flaws which did not exist? If it's grammer, why can't you improve on it rather than completely remove the content? Is this not bias?Rrotegero (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I have fixed your poor grammar and language additions. Please stop accusing people of racism who simply disagree with your positions. You are the only person here making racist remarks and it is offensive. - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issues and weakness in tejas compared to other similar aircraft

Hi guys, i am Yashash Dave, new to Wikipedia internal stuff. For very long iv wanted to have a clear view on what type of "Issues and Weaknesses" does our beloved "specially challenged gifted child" tejas posses and what would be needed to overcome those challenges. Hence i have decided to put all these down on tejas's wikipedia page as "Issues, Weaknesses, Solutions". Now i need help of all the friends around here to help me achieve it by adding to the list.

Please do comeback with your suggestions on it. Yashash dave (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

We dont normally discuss issues and weakness unless it has been covered in a reliable source and we need to take into account being neutral and undue weight, making a list yourself may not be encyclopedic and we dont normally discuss solutions that have not been discussed in sources and are relevant to the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Yashash, every aircraft have some weakness, even f22 have some major Issues and Weaknesses and some are notable while others are not. Just like Milborneone said we cannot add content just based on our own research, we need reliable reference to back every claim we make and also other Wikipedia pages of other similar 4th gen aircrafts don't have "Issues, Weaknesses, Solutions" or anything related to that as far i know so adding one to tejas might not be a fair or neutral.
Indian media talks alot about tejas and they always talk about engine needing more thrust, weight issue, delay, etc but tejas is still under development and there are mk1 improved version , mk2 and mk3 under development so we cannot just make comments about a aircraft which is still under development.Nicky mathew (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Other than to say it's been under development for a very very very long time! Might well be a world record. For comparison, the F-22, which itself had a notoriously long gestation period, started development at about the same time (early 1980s), and might very well be retired before the Tejas ever enters service in number. :) - BilCat (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
From your opinion, clearly shows the kind of bias that goes into Wikipedia. Your ignorance and jokes are no more welcome and is never heard by the modern world. People just realize how hollow you people are and how shameless and arrogant you people are. Today no one bothers about such foolish fellows.VandeMataram (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on HAL Tejas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

something here is very wrong about range...

Range: 3,000 km[168] (1,620 nmi, 1,864 mi) Combat radius: 500 km[171] (270 nmi, 311 mi) Ferry range: 1,700 km[171] (1,056 mi)

Ferry = maximum, empty weight as far as possible, maximum fuel, external fuel drop-tanks if possible...

Combat radius would be something around 50 per cent of the range...

Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Brahmos NG

I did add sourced content of Brahmos-NG capable of being fired from Tejas. Ahunt has removed it stating "MAY" Who is he to judge? Goes against Wiki rules. He better start removing content about western weapons specified in the F-35 page, which will never see service.VandeMataram (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

An in-service fighter cannot be armed with a weapon that is still on the drawing board. If and when the weapon is built, tested, purchased and deployed then it can be listed under "armament". In the meantime, as I indicated in my edit summary, this can be described in the article text as "proposed", if you would like to add it there. - Ahunt (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Can't we use a '(Future)' tag beside BrahMos-NG without removing it Because hope BrahMos-NG will in service within 2020. So, after that it can be integrate as in 2020 Tejas will not be retired & IAF/HAL plan to integrate BrahMos-NG in Tejas.-Spartacus! (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
As I noted it would be more appropriate to describe it in the article text as "proposed" and "under development" than list it in the specs as "armament". It's not armament at this point in time. - Ahunt (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
A sentence about the Brahmos NG being developed for Tejas has been restored in the Design section. This does not belong the Specs until is cleared for use on the aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
If there are Wiki rules it need to be across articles. When you have F-35 page mentioning Spear 3 and JAGM missiles which are in planning. So why are there two rules? One for the Tejas not to mention the future weapons on its weapon listings while the the same future weapons are prominently shown in the F-35 page?VandeMataram (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
This is the talk page for the Tejas, if you have problems with other articles then please take that up on their talk pages, not here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
That's running away after vandalizing the Tejas page. I suggest you better learn Wiki rules and ahere with that. If there is content that's possible in other pages then the same rule applies to Tejas page as well. Stop Vandalizing pages and dont put your personal opinion here. Wikipedia is not a forum and your personal opinons and bias be taken somewhere else.VandeMataram (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • So are you saying that the F-35 page is not the standard? Or telling me that there are two ways rules are interpreted? One for F-35 and one for the Indian Tejas?VandeMataram (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This exposes you people. A cabal managing Wikipedia pages. Preventing any positive edits and pushing your own POV. Positive views of the west and negative views about the rest. If this is not bias then what is? In simple Wikipedia is very biased.VandeMataram (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User:VandeMataram: I realize that you are really new here, so you need to read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL before wading in here accusing people of all kinds of things. This article has a long history of pro-Indian nationalists trying to make this aircraft look better than it is and so most editors are careful to make sure that wild claims about the aircraft being able to carry non-existent weapons are carefully sourced and that the weapons actually exist before they are listed as "armament". - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Tejas FOC will come through by the end of 2016 or early 2017 at the very latest and since been extended to the end of 2017.

Delay after delay. FOC has failed repeatedly since 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanflycanu (talk • contribs) 10:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no reference which suggest end of 2017, all references posted there talk about end of 2016. The latest reference which I have posted mentions June 2017. Please provide a reliable reference which mentions end of 2017 published in 2017. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

ADA annual report - reliable source?

Hi, I have added few edits based on ADA annual report which were reverted stating unreliable source. So I want to discuss if the annual report is considered reliable with other contributors. Refer - http://164.100.47.191/paperlaidfiles/DEFENCE/ADA-30th%20AR_Eng.pdf http://164.100.47.191/paperlaidfiles/DEFENCE/ADA-29th%20AR_Eng.pdf Prudhviy2 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Prudhviy2 I have replied to your query on my talk page. Here is a copy. Is this hosted on the ADA website? It seems from the URL that is hosted on a random server. The issue is that the report is authentic but should be linked/hosted off the correct website. If this is the case, then please let me know and I will revert my undo. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Adamgerber80 https://www.ada.gov.in/images/Annual%20Report%202015-16.pdf I found a authentic report hosted on ADA website. I think we can use this as reliable source.Prudhviy2 (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Prudhviy2 This is great.I did find the TACAN reference. Can you please indicate on which page is this "Typical operational readiness point scramble of less than 4 minutes" located. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Adamgerber80 Unfortunately that was from previous year report which is not hosted on ADA website.
Prudhviy2 Okay. Then we can only include the information sourced in this reference. Feel free to re-add the TACAN details again. Thanks for the reference. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Have you more sources about that?, thanks.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Armament

We seem to have a long list of weapons in the Armament section, anybody have a reliable source of what the Tejas can actually carry rather than what looks like a wish list? MilborneOne (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on HAL Tejas. 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) 16:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

45 Squadron location

The entry for 45 Squadron says they operate the Tejas from "Bengalore" which is a bit vague the 45 sqn article says they are based at Yelahanka Air Force Station but other sources seem to indicate they are actually at the HAL Airport next to the factory. Anybody have a reliable source as to were they actually are, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: According to this report published in NDTV, they are based at HAL airport. Quoting the relevant paragraph, The Squadron, which will be stationed at Sulur near Coimbatore in neighbouring Tamil Nadu after getting the FOC next year, is currently training air and ground crew from its initial operational base at the HAL airport in the city. The news report is originally from IANS, a wire news service. It is also published in Business Standard. Gazoth (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HAL_Tejas/Archive_3&oldid=1257945613"