Talk:HAL Tejas/Archive 4

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

Ferry Range

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/dpi/press_release/LCA_Final_Press_Release.pdf

DRDO/Govt's official press release mentions Tejas's Ferry Range to be over 1700 kms, without the mention of any drop tanks. I believe its a more reliable source than Flightglobal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.33.24.215 (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A lack of mention of drop tanks does not mean that the range is achieved on internal fuel. Considering that the source is PIB, a Government source, it stands to reason that the best possible range numbers would be published. The best possible range numbers would be achieved only with drop tanks. Also since PIB is a primary source and WP:PRIMARY states that Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation, you need to provide a reliable secondary source to backup the claim that 1700 km range is achieved on internal fuel. FlightGlobal is a reliable and independent secondary source, a type of source that is usually preferred in Wikipedia. Gazoth (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

http://smartinvestor.business-standard.com/pf/Primers-368005-Primersdet-Air_force_DRDO_pleased_with_Tejas_performance_at_Bahrain.htm#.WlsV0q6WbIU

The Tejas already covered 1800 kms during its first leg of flight to Bahrain between Bangalore and Jamnagar, carrying 2 drop tanks. So 1700 kms is definitely not the "the best possible range numbers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.44.39 (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Jane's All the World's Aircraft 2016-17 puts Tejas's combat range on internal fuel at 300 km and ferry range on internal fuel at 850 km. So, the range numbers provided by PIB and FlightGlobal are definitely using drop tanks. As to the exact value of the range on drop tanks, since the FlightGlobal source is not clear on the number of drop tanks carried to achieve the 1750 km range, a higher range could be possible if all three drop tanks are carried. Additionally, Jane's All the World's Aircraft 2016-17 says that mid-board stations are also 'wet', enabling carriage of three 1,200 litre or five 800 litre drop tanks which could further increase the range. However, a reliable source is needed to verify any claim of a higher range.
Regarding the 1,800 km distance number provided by Business Standard, it is a bit suspect since the distance between HAL Airport, Bangalore and Jamnagar Airport can be measured as 1330 km in Google Maps. The other two measurements between Jamnagar to Muscat and Muscat to Bahrain provided by Business Standard matches with distance measured in Google Maps. If you strongly feel that the Business Standard numbers should override the ones from FlightGlobal, feel free to change the numbers after obtaining talk page consensus on it. Gazoth (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you know what is Gripen C's range with internal fuel? It is 1700km and 3000km with fuel tank. Gripen c has same fuel amount as Tejas, is delta wing (with canards), uses similar engine and is of similar weight. Isn't it common sense that Tejas should also be of similar range? I have been giving source from pib and aermech too and you have been insisting on your own hallucinated numbers. How can you even think that similar planes can differ in range by half? You can compare f16 or Mirage 2000 for the fuel to empty weight ratio and get an approximate number. here are links: http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mirage/ https://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f16.htm

How can you say that the range is so low? Don't you have common sense that you have to compare similar planes and then arrive at an approximate number? Jane or FlightGlobal are not the ones who define range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshithijsharma (talk • contribs) 14:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kshithijsharma: Please read Wikipedia's core policies, which are verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. As per WP:NOR, no original research is allowed on Wikipedia. This means that you cannot make unsubstantiated inferences like Tejas's range being similar to Gripen C's unless you have a reliable source claiming that both aircraft have a similar range. As per WP:V, any material added to Wikipedia articles should be verifiable from a reliable source. Jane's and FlightGlobal are reliable sources as per WP:RS, while aermech.in is not. Aermech.in has also been known to source their information from Wikipedia, creating a circular reference which is something to be avoided here. Gazoth (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Kshithijsharma and Gazoth: Let's dissect the sources we have and what we can use.
(1) Aermech source provided ([1]) seems very much like a WP:SPS and in my opinion is not acceptable.
(2) Comparison of Tejas with Gripen/F-16 or any other plane and their internal fuel capacity and range is pure WP:OR and cannot be included. We also cannot deduce the range using some sort of interpolation from these numbers because there are multiple factors which are playing a role including the aerodynamics/weight/payload.
(3) Gazoth I think the range on Google maps is WP:OR on your part. At times plane might take a circuitous route to fly to a destination for unknown reasons. It is not on us to decide if these numbers are correct or not but to use them to add information.
(4) This leaves us with 5 sources. PIB([2]) which states ferry range over 1700km and combat radius as 500km, DRDO([3]) which states the same numbers as PIB, Business standard([4]) which states that it flew 1800km but does not make mention of it as the range, Flight Global ([5]) which states 1750km with drop tanks and combat radius of 500km, Janes which states ferry range at 850km and combat range at 300km on internal fuel.
This leads me to this conclusion. We know that the range for the plane is somewhere from 1700-1800km per WP:RS and this based on external fuel tanks. Even though the government sources do not make any mention of the fuel tanks (but does not deny it either) we have a Secondary source (Flight global) and a related source (Janes) which confirms that this range is based on fuel tanks but does not mention how many.
My proposal is to add the ferry range as 1700-1800km with fuel drop tanks but don't mention how many since we don't know this number. Thoughts? Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The DRDO and PIB source are one and the same, with the PIB press release re-published on DRDO's site. I don't see any problem in mentioning the ferry range as 1700-1800 km with cites from PIB, Business Standard and FlightGlobal. Gazoth (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I want to know how this Janes which says 850km and FlightGlobal which says 1750km but seem to convinc you. How are these sources which contradict each other even come close to be genuine source?

Now, the comparison with similar planes may be original research, but I am not using it as source. I am just using it as a confirmation for the existing source of PIB. Gripen has 3050 litre (Tejas also has 3000litres of fuel @ density of 0.80-0.81 kg per litre and hence 2450kg) of fuel, similar in design and weight as Tejas and shares with Tejas the same engine of F404. t is perfectly reasonable to use this as a way to confirm which of the existing source is correct - PIB, FG or Janes. PIB numbers are supported by some logic while others are like arbitrary revelation of prophets. So, amongst the given limited sources, PIB is the one that has more basis than other ones

Solution: Don't mention drop tanks - either presence or absence. Simply mention 1700km and finish it. Let the presence or absence of drop tanks be a suspense Kshithijsharma (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)kshithijsharma

Kshithijsharma Janes is a very reliable source when it comes to military equipment and is considered one of the most authoritative sources for defense given many countries tend to release sparse or no details and have a tendency to artificially inflate some parameters. Both PIB and DRDO mention 1700km but it is ambiguous since they make no mention of drop tanks. But we do have a Secondary source in FlightGlobal which backs up the numbers of 1700km and clears the ambiguity by clearly mentioning the user of drop tanks. Now FlightGlobal is considered a WP:RS on Wikipedia and is thus acceptable. I don't think any of these sources contradict each other. Lastly, that comparison you did is pure WP:OR and not acceptable on Wikipedia. I don't see a reason to not mention the external fuel tanks when we have a WP:RS which mentions them and what do you mean keep it a suspense? This is not a thriller novel. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 PIB is as reliable as Janes or FlightGlobal. - FG says range as 1750km with drop tanks, but doesn't mention the number of drop tanks. Since 3 drop tanks can be used, it rises serious questions and is definitely not meaningful to say 1750km with drop tanks without mentioning how many drop tanks. This is also a suspense and not anymore valid than saying 1700km without mentioning drop tanks at all

- PIB says that range is 1700+km without even mentioining drop tanks and hence is also ambiguous.

- Original research says the range is 1700km which is same as Gripen C range

- Since the only way to choose either FG or PIB is by logical deduction, original research comes here not as a source which "you have been repeatedly telling despite my denial" but as merely a way for choosing between the two sources.

- Can you provide me with your Jane's numbers to check how you concluded that Jane's and FG match each other?Kshithijsharma (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kshithijsharma: The 850 km number mentioned in Jane's is for range, which is the maximum distance an aircraft can fly on its own as opposed to ferry range which is the maximum distance an aircraft with max fuel load and drop tanks. The 1750 km number mentioned in FlightGlobal is for ferry range. There is no contradiction between the two sources. Gazoth (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Gazoth Where is the mention of number of drop tanks in either FG or Jane's? Without it what is the point of writing "drop tanks"? There are 3 options - 1 under fusealge tank, 2 under wing tank or 1 fuselage with 2 under wing tank. How many tanks are we speaking of here? Kshithijsharma (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kshithijsharma: All the sources we have taken for consideration do not contradict each other. On the contrary they complement each other nicely. PIB/DRDO mention a range with some ambiguity, and this ambiguity is cleared by FlightGlobal. Janes only adds to confirmation (Janes numbers are internal fuel only). Your WP:OR is not acceptable here and this is not because I say so bu because Wikipedia disallows it. Now you need to provide us a WP:RS which clearly mentions that the ferry range of Tejas is higher than than 1700-1800km (need a concrete number here) with more fuel tanks or that Tejas has a range of 1700-1800km with NO fuel tanks. In the absence of these any arguments you make are invalid. If you wish I can also involve more senior editors who watch over all aircraft pages or the Administrator who protected the page for a third opinion. I will also strongly recommend you to go ahead and read some of the Wikipedia guidelines we have linked in these discussions. It seems that you have yet to acquaint yourself with these guidelines which are essential to be a constructive contributor on Wikipedia.

Gazoth You are just insisting out of arrogance. You have no evidence to give out the number of drop tanks at all. Either mention the number of drop tanks or accept that you are wrong. Also, you never gave any source from Jane's to bring it to this debate. If you have a source from Jane's give it. Let me take a read.

@Kshithijsharma: The FlightGlobal article clearly mentions that the ferry range of 1,750 km is achieved with the use of drop tanks. The number of drop tanks is not a must-have statistic to mention that the 1750 km ferry range is achieved on drop tanks. You cannot issue meaningless ultimatums to hand over information that others don't have access to. The Jane's source is cited in the article. It is a book named IHS Jane's All the World's Aircraft: Development & Production 2016-2017 edition page 303. Gazoth (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: If number of drop tanks is not a must have statistics, even the mention of drop tanks is not a must have. Also, citing from sources which no one has access to is meaningless. You can't use that as a source here to fulfil your end goals. It is non transparent.

If you disagree, give me a reason to say why it is better to keep ambiguity in number of drop tanks while it is not better to keep ambiguity in the usage of drop tanks itself? For example, why is "1)Ferry range = 1700km" worse than "2)Ferry range 1750km with drop tanks"? How does the mentioning of drop tanks help when you are not being clear in the number of drop tanks? If you are giving more information then you have to be more specific.Kshithijsharma (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kshithijsharma: It seems that you are misunderstanding my statement. Paraphrasing myself, the number of drop tanks used to achieve 1,750 km range is not required to be known to mention that the range was achieved with the use of drop tanks. I did not state that we should keep the number of drop tanks ambiguous even if we are aware of them. As per WP:SOURCEACCESS, it is acceptable if some reliable sources are not easily accessible. I would have offered you a quote if the number was mentioned in text. However, it is mentioned in a specifications box and there is not much to add to a quote. Gazoth (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Kshithijsharma We have to add what we know. And we know for a fact that the range is around 1700km with drop tanks. Since we don't know the number of drop tanks we cannot leave out the entire information. We have to add as much information we can without being incorrect or ambiguous. This seems to me to be the least ambiguous. @Ahunt, BilCat, MilborneOne, and Fnlayson: Can you please provide your views? In my opinion, this discussion seems to be turning into a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 Gazoth Just check the headline of this article in FG: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-chaos-president-expected-to-boost-arms-sale-442599/ Do you consider such news site as reliable source? PIB on the other hand is more decent and mature in conduct. The moment opinions come in, the moment reason goes out. FG is known for giving too many opinions than bare news. That is also the reason why I am asking to choose the most conservative of the two sources - PIB, FG. It is always better to give accurate information than more information with less accuracy. Better to keep silent instead of speculating. So, the conservative path of not mentioning drop tanks at all is guaranteed to be true while the one thatmmentions drop tanks may not be true. Also, questions of "tank/tanks" come in. Why make things complicated and dwell on speculations instead of being concrete at the expense of slightly less information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshithijsharma (talk • contribs)

Kshithijsharma Flightglobal is a WP:RS and that won't change just because you seem to not think so. If you haves issues with it, I would recommend to take to WP:RSN. I believe that we are trying our best to present the facts as neutrally as possible with the least amount of ambiguity. It seems to me that you have an agenda to fulfill. Please evaluate the facts objectively without a per-conceived notion. Adamgerber80 (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 Neutrality is when you balance the evidence and state the most conservative one, not just force out whatever you wish. Lack of sufficient information doesn't give you the right to be a prophet who comes with revelations. Be conservative when you have no concrete evidence. You are the one with an agenda to take advantage of the lack of information to tell whatever you want. May be you should try writing your own Bible/Quran and found another cult like the Mormons, not write in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshithijsharma (talk • contribs)

  • Please stick the data and sources; just keep this neutral. No reason to get into other matters here imo. -Finlayson (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Ahunt I think I have given an article to show how the FG is not really reliable as you want to make it. When there are reports clashing, the most conservative one is always chosen. If you have any reason to reject PIB to select FG, please state so. Also, I want to understand how is it reasonable to write anything you want just because you like it? Being polite has a limit. I have been explaining my stance and there is no proper reason being given and being accused of having an agenda. I don't have infinite time to waste. I need an answer as to why PIB is rejected over FG. If you can't give reasonable answer, it will become by default the most conservative one.

The official source of DRDO is more reliable than FG always. We have seen how biased media can be. It is always better to stick with official sources when there is one instead of going by media story. So, here goes out the reliability rhetoric too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshithijsharma (talk • contribs)

That is not how we use reliable refs on Wikipedia. In general if reliable sources disagree then we indicate that in the article. In the case of aircraft data, though, all the data comes from the manufacturer's test flying results, so if the manufacturer has published results then we generally use those. The media sources don't usually do their own flight testing and quote the manufacturer's data (When I was doing flight testing for aviation media reviews I did my own flights and recorded my own data, but most don't, especially for fighters and such). If the RS media reports disagree then usually it is due to quoting different parts of the manufacturer's data or because the data was later refined, unless the manufacturer has published figures, we use the latest RS-quoted data. - Ahunt (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Airframe materials image

The image which claims to show the airframe materials is unlikely to be correct. It shows the majority of the fuselage and wing to be made from carbon-fibre composites, but the image of the Tejas under construction clearly shows that the forward fuselage is aluminium. There isn't any source information for the image so I can't check if it is correct or not in a referenceable way. 136.163.203.5 (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The image only addresses the materials used in the surface, not internals. The fuselage skin is mostly made out of composites and I have rewritten the "Airframe" section with better references to back it up. I feel that the issue is now adequately addressed and I'm going to reinstate the image removed by ScrapIronIV. In the future, please disclose your potential conflicts of interest as you seem to be employed by a competitor, Saab AB. —Gazoth (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Consistent designation style for all the Mark variants

The article currently uses six designation styles for the Mark variants — MK1 (lede), Mark I (infobox), Mk.1 (specifications heading), Mk1 (under "Prototypes and testing"), Mk IA (Roman numeral, last line of "Operational clearance") and finally Mk 1A (my personal addition to this mess at "Operators"). There is an obvious need for a uniform designation style. The problem is that there is no uniformity in the official sources too. ADA's offical brochure for Tejas uses Mk1 style, HAL uses Mk.1 style as seen in this press release while PIB has used Mk 1, Mk1, Mk-1, Mk-I and even MK 1-A. Newspapers and other sources are also similarly split. I see only four viable candidates: Mark 1, Mk 1, Mk. 1 or Mk-1. Removal of spacing between letters and number looks off and Roman numerals will be confusing as Mk IA could be read as Mark eye-A. Which style do you prefer? —Gazoth (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Spell out Mark on the first mention; thereafter use abbreviated form, such as Mk 1. What you're doing seems fine to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Concur with Fnlayson on this. Per British military aircraft designation systems, "Mk 1" is the current British style when a mark is used. It probably makes sense for us to follow that style here in the absence of an official Indian style, to avoid confusion, and for consistency with other articles. - BilCat (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it correct to use "MK1" - both capital letters?E1Char (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Where do I find in the article a fuller description, eg book title, of some of the references such as: Frawley 2002, p. 114. Hoh and Mitchell 1983, pp. 11ff. Aronstein and Piccirillo 1996, p. 21 ?

Thanks.Pieter1963 (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

They are supposed to be listed in the Bibliography/Sources section for the book or artcle's full citation. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I guess somebody copied the material from another article but did not copy the full reference too. I'll try to find and add the full references. —Gazoth (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Added and linked with shortened footnotes. —Gazoth (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Flat-rated engine

Ref my deletion of the term in the article, I have found an explanation for it in GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri. However I haven't put it back because it is not worthy of note as being a technology. Also, according to the engine article, the flat-rating idea didn't give enough thrust, presumably one of the reasons the engine was replaced by the F404. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter1963 (talk • contribs)

Merger proposal

CLOSED AS NOT MERGED
Overwhelming support not to merge the article although a rename to Medium Weight Fighter was suggested MilborneOne (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I propose a merger of Tejas Mk2 as it is merely a variant and doesn't need a separate article.--Petebutt (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - that article is well sourced, meets WP:GNG and already far too long to merge into this one. - Ahunt (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: The Mark 2 is mainly just an engine upgrade. And splitting/creating a new article on it should have been discussed here before creating, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Tejas "Mk2" from its article appears to be more or less a new aircraft type, considerably larger, and with a different (Canard) layout - the continuation of the Tejas name appears to a political move to avoid having to get the programme approved again.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Tejas "Mk2" is a different aircraft, an upgraded Tejas but it is different class all together.Tejas was Light aircraft whereas Mk2 version is medium weight fighter. Government may eventually go for a different name altogether. Till then we can keep this as a separate article. Incase, govt decides to retain same name, then we can merge this article with Tejas User:Wasimabrar (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2019 (IST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasimabrar (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose : Mostly different. MK1 comes under LCA program but MK2 is under MWF program. Both will have different specifications and different uses. Updates on MK2 will be significantly different over Mk1. Brown Chocolate (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very different aircraft with varying capability. Morever, Mk2 brings in capability unheard of a/c of similar weight class or type. -Shashpant (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It would be easier to decide on article merger when we will get more information and official statements. For now we should wait and watch over the project. -InSameer (talk) 10:10, 01 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Tejas Mk 2 is to Tejas what Gripen E is to Gripen C/D. Yes, its a bit larger and has some aerodynamic changes but they have a large shared history. Additionally, most of the content from the other article is either unsourced or unreliably sourced. Once most of the unreliably sourced content is removed, there is very little in that article that is not already here. —Gazoth (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Tejas Mark II is a medium weight fighter with significant number of aerodynamic changes. The aircraft has canards and large variations in specifications from previous Tejas Mark1/1A. Indeed, it's still a variant. But a variant which has significant changes. Certain aircrafts have their variants with their own articles. For instance, see Sukhoi Su-27. Merging same with this same article will be cumbersome in long run as more details emerge and we'll have to quote both in 1. Even when the self published and unreliable sources have been removed by Gazoth, same or varying details will emerge with aircraft as the existence of this project is confirmed by WP:RS. Both variants are a class away from their planned roles, will we have to cover both varying specifications in already long HAL Tejas that will completely jumble the information up? Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    We don't create articles in anticipation that they may become notable on their own in the future. Most supporters of an independent article are talking about aerodynamic changes without explaining how that would merit a content fork. All of the aerodynamic changes that can be reliably sourced will fit into a single paragraph. There are not enough sources that are specific to Mk 2 to create an independent article. —Gazoth (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    AD HAL Tejas Mark II isn't an anticipation at all. It's a confirmed project with models already out there in exhibitions. Aerodynamic changes like addition of canards or change in dimensions. LCA & MWF fall on two distinct classes of fighters already. MWF is for facing out Dassault Mirage 2000 while LCA for phasing out aging MiG-21. The role is the reason why we are suggesting separate articles for the planes. Variants of Sukhoi Su-27 and their diversion from aerodynamic design of original plane (and hence, requirements and roles) is what I've been repeatedly citing as an example. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    As for size of article, most initial defence project articles are stubs. The engaged personnel only give indications in interview and engaged agencies don't make official announcements before completion (which includes trials). Mainstream media (where most WP:RS media sources fall), doesn't engage much with defense. Defense enthusiasts hold a certainly higher level of knowledge and keep themselves more updated. Dedicated defense websites far more accurate speculations than the usual ones. Data on specifications which is written is actually obtained from Aero India or DefExpo itself that has been rejected as WP:SPS or WP:OR for a while. Anyways on topic, administrators may feel free to wait specifications from ADA or DRDO themselves rather than information what is surfacing. But at least the confirmed part which is about class of fighters is sufficient to keep another article for another type of plane (developed on same platform) rather than jumbling up data in main article. Even orthographic projections Tejas Mark I and Mark II differ greatly. Keeping both on same article will not be possible itself. An article was supposed to emerge sooner or later. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    You should try to make a policy-based argument, not a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. Your perceptions of what should and should not be included is at odds with Wikipedia if you think that websites with "far more accurate speculations than the usual" deserves inclusion here. Tejas Mk 2 clearly does not meet WP:GNG on its own and most of its mentions in reliable sources are in the context of the original Tejas. The right approach is to add the Mk 2 content to this article and split it into a new article with summary-style writing once the Mk 2-specific content is a substantial part of this article. Of course, this is being done since the original Mk 2 was announced in the late 2000s, but the Mk 2 specific content is still not a major portion of this article. —Gazoth (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    My support for websites is only regarding details & specifications they provide. Citing them is not needed for supporting separate article for Tejas Mark II. The development of aircraft and it being an aircraft of other class is confirmed by WP:RS. As I told before regarding WP:GNG, I maintain that an underway new defense project's article happens to be a WP:STUB due to lack of WP:RS. I'm unable to find where having two different aircrafts (though made on same platform) can't have their own articles for more specific information & sectioning. I will not change my opinion unless there is an actual way displayed by supporters of merger of articles to amalgate the two aircrafts. I will put some external images of proposed aircraft on Mark II thread as well for comparison and letting others judge. I'm afraid that rushed merger of articles will lead to creation of two sub-sections in each section of main article of HAL Tejas eventually. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    You need to familiarize yourself with the notability guideline. Mentions of a topic in unreliable sources don't matter. Subjective arguments about how an aircraft is different from the other doesn't matter, especially when the claims of the aircraft being "in another class" are made by the developers of the aircraft.
    What matters is, can you write an independent article on Tejas Mk 2 without significantly duplicating content from this article to provide necessary context to the reader? Would a reader be able to understand the new article on its own, if you were to only use sources that mention Tejas Mk 2? The answer to both questions is an emphatic no. The aerodynamic changes don't make any sense without understanding the aerodynamic configuration of Tejas Mk 1/1A. The requirements and design of Tejas Mk 2 don't make any sense without the development history of Mk 1. Providing the necessary context would not only require duplication of content from this article, the duplicated content would dominate the other article due to the dearth of reliable sources that are specific to Tejas Mk 2. —Gazoth (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    Project MWF is confirmed from WP:RS. There is not even non-prominent military enthusiast source, leave alone an unreliable source in the article now. Kindly raise this issue in case of specifications and not aircraft itself.

    Subjective arguments about how an aircraft is different from the other doesn't matter, especially when the claims of the aircraft being "in another class" are made by the developers of the aircraft.

    Strongly disagreed. The developer is the ultimate WP:RS to confirm the existence of project. Here in case of Mk2, it's not just a proposal about a speculated aircrafts what may not go well with WP:GNG but significant details in public domain with design very near to be frozen. The objective arguments to suggest the AD to be of different class are higher thrust with new engine, dimensions varying with previous one significantly and its aim itself to replace to be obsolete fleet of strike fighters unlike previous one that was supposed to replace interceptors. If shared history mere is enough to merge the reference pages, the number of articles running on fighters would be half leading articles to be highly messed up in the end. Shared history doesn't let us put Su-30MKI, Su-35 and Su-30MKM in same article as that of Sukhoi Su-27. The articles that should have been merged otherwise, for example J-11 & Su-27 or J-15 and J-16 still exist independently. There are a number of aircrafts with independent WP:STUB articles where the same source has been utilized in various articles to cite same aviation system. MWF meanwhile has many system specific details.
    MWF is indeed a variant of LCA or a beefed up version of Tejas. So, it's development history doesn't make any sense without that of original plane. And just like any other variant with own article, Tejas Mk2 article is supposed to have a brief mention of Mk1 with references to it's main article and then can go better with details of this specific variant. For writing an independent article on MWF, yes I can. Without copying stuff from previous one? Not at all. Both were developed on same platform and Mark II is supposed to have some systems that were integrated with Mark I earlier. Many aircrafts which I mentioned above don't even have that much of difference. I hereby consider that just not having a aircraft specific source (which shouldn't mention anything else and finding such a source is nearly impossible in MSM while most of defense specific cites except think tanks like IHS Jane are WP:SPS, having yet significany variant specific details, will let me comply with WP:GNG. I will still try to find and put an MWF specific source DRDO itself. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    You are arguing against a straw man. I don't know what led you to think that I was arguing that the project doesn't exist. You keep making WP:OSE arguments without addressing any of my arguments. All the pages that you've linked are for aircraft variants that are already in service, while Tejas Mk 2 is on the drawing board, with very little details published in reliable sources. If you look at the sources used, most of them are specific to the variant, and yet there is enough material to write a decent-sized article. If you'd like a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument instead, look at Saab JAS 39 Gripen article. It has a prototype flying for over two years and yet the Gripen E specific material does not dominate the article nor is it large enough to be an independent article. Even going by projected timelines, it'll be 2024 before Tejas Mk 2 reaches a similar milestone. I'd rather merge the article than keep it for 5 years hoping that enough reliable sources turn up. —Gazoth (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    What the above user said is also logical. Until there are enough credible information and an offcial distinction made by the IAF, ADA/HAL development team and the government, it is okay to merge the article. When there are sufficient information in hand, users can create a separate article if necessary for Mark 2. Right now i see only confusion due to improper mainstream media coverage. Let us give some time so that more infomation become public. —InSameer (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we should wait for a few months more to see if it is just a variation of the Tejas, or a new airframe. For now, I'll say wait.Navinsingh133 (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Even Sukhoi 27,30 & 35 has separate pages (Also Mig series) .Then why should we keep all the aircrafts coming under Tejas series in one single page. Arun P Asokan (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose: By that logic, we should merge Su-35 with Su-27. Instead, the article should be renamed as “HAL Medium Weight Fighter”. Tejas MK-2 has now been transformed into a separate aircraft; it will get a new name when it flies a few years from now.— Vaibhavafro 💬 07:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    Enough sources exist to unambiguously demonstrate WP:GNG. For some users like Gazoth who as giving the example of Gripen, the Tejas MK2-LCA combo compares much more to Su35-Su27 combo than Gripen-E.— Vaibhavafro 💬 08:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:Both are different aircrafts with different class with similar names.MK2 deserve separate pages Arun P Asokan (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2019 (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.

Delhi Defence Review article

Some of the content in this article has been referenced from a series of articles ([6] and [7]) published in a website named Delhi Defence Review. It is a website started by Saurav Jha, who used to maintain a newsblog at CNN-IBN (now known as CNN-News18) and has been published elsewhere ([8], [9], [10]) too. Although a large portion of his writing has been opinion-style, he has been quoted by ABC News and the New York Times for his expertise in the areas of defence. So, despite Delhi Defence Review not meeting WP:NEWSORG, his writing over there could be picked up with caution under the exception listed at WP:SPS. However, this would not extend to everything published in Delhi Defence Review. The articles in question were written by amateurs, not journalists. While they have added sources for some of their writing, it is also replete with anecdotes such as The test pilots have stretched the prototypes even further, up to 8.5 Gs, and 26 degrees AoA. At the 2016 Bahrain Air Show, the Mk1 had even demonstrated a low speed pass at 110 knots. Even for the parts that have been cited, there is no guarantee that the authors have not derived their own conclusions from the sources. For citing an article like this, Delhi Defence Review should meet WP:RS by having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Since it does not, the material referenced from these two articles does not belong in Wikipedia. —Gazoth (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVpXdhVW7P4 Tejas video of the Bahrain Air Show in which the commentator could be heard saying 110knots slow speed pass. So its better you stop pushing your personal views against journalists whom you dont like. Mifiin (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Confusing phrasing

I had to reread the following phrase several times and I'm still not sure if it means what I think it means: The maximum payload capability of Tejas is 4,000 kg (8,818 lb). All weapons are carried on one or more of seven hardpoints with total capacity of greater than 4,000 kg. A clearer phrasing would be nice here. I would do it myself but I'm not sure if the original author meant to say that the hardpoints CAN carry more than 4,000 kg but the plane can't safely take off or if it's simply a mistake. Zeratul2k (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

LCA Tejas Navy (MK2) should stay here, not in HAL Tejas Mk2

This is with regards to this revert and this revert done by me of edits made by InSameer. Naval LCA Tejas MK2 is a “light combat aircraft” while the Airforce MK2 version is a “Medium Weight Fighter”. Moreover, the Naval Tejas MK2 has been cancelled in favour of TEDBF. For these reasons, it is better to let Naval Tejas MK2 stay here instead of shifting it to HAL Tejas Mk2. Regards,— Vaibhavafro 💬 05:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: See this revert too.— Vaibhavafro 💬 07:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. Please confirm if Tejas Mark 2 airforce variant should stay here. InSameer (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@InSameer: It should stay: The article MWF Tejas is dedicated for the Air Force version. But, including a paragraph about that here doesn't do any harm. Infact, the MWF Tejas is directly related to Tejas Mk1. However, Naval Tejas MK2 has been cancelled (in favour of TEDBF) and is indirectly related to MWF Tejas. Therefore, a paragraph should stay here. Thanks for understanding.— Vaibhavafro 💬 14:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Specifications section - being overwhelmed by Avionics

The Avionics section is a ridiculous, colossal list of every single electronic system ever used by any version ever of the aircraft, which overwhelms the specifications - I mean - does it really need to say that some systems use a 32-bit power PC. The avionics need to be trimmed right back or completely removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Concur. - BilCat (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and a lot of the info does not seem to be cited also. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
It really is into WP:TRIVIA, needs cutting. - Ahunt (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the avionics other than the primary radar although we appear to have two different radars one for each variant. Suggest as more usual the specs only show one varaint and differences are mentioned in the text. As the 1A is only a proposal at the moment it should be pruned down to just the Mk. 1. The sourcing for the specification is a bit of a mess it is difficult to work out the actualy sources, can we find a single source that provides most of the data. MilborneOne (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh and do we need to mention every bomb and missile that "could" be used do we have a reliable source on what can be fitted to the Mk 1 in normal service ? MilborneOne (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HAL_Tejas/Archive_4&oldid=1221339701"