Talk:HAL TEDBF

Please add Development
Please add development, I have all information and citations ready Josh097 (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ BilCat (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I had to undo it as the text all added was copied from https://euro-sd.com/2020/06/news/17468/indian-government-approval-for-tedbf/ User has been warned. - Ahunt (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Developed from Tejas?
Isn't it incorrect to state that TEDBF is developed from Tejas, as the former share no similarities with Tejas or N-LCA, and as per the latest information it's a new naval fighter programme based on the Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighters requirement of the Indian Navy? E1Char (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it has been developed from LCA Tejas because of the reasons that as Naval Tejas was a failure but experience will be use in TEDBF program and also all the sensors and equipment will tested on NP-5 of Tejas and also its some of the design will be base on Tejas. So you can called it a natural successor rather than a dase on similarity. Tejas MK2 is its original successor whereas HAL Tejas MK1A/MK2 and TEDBF will form the Tejas family of aircraft. I ame Shears (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like F-35 is developed from F-16 or F-15 or F-18 or A-10, according to this theory. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like a pretty good argument that it is not a development of the Tejas, but a successor design. - Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hai Can you please elaborate (in simple English) what you meant by this edit summary making simple wording and same coding at one place for this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HAL_TEDBF&diff=1036860491&oldid=1036758368?) Also can you please explain why did you remove that second sentence which is cited? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC) can you please explain why did you remove that second sentence which was cited? - N Jeevan (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Firstly I will say that I DON'T Want To Engage with both of you. You asked me to elaborate, so there is difference between HAL has been selected as primary manufactureing and testing partner and will manufacture by HAL. HAL can test the aircraft whether the aircraft is according to the project or not whereas testing agency is to test that whether aircraft is on the requirements or not.The testing by HAL will known as internal testing whereas testing by testing agency will known as operational testing and at last  HAL is manufactureing DPSU. It is not incharged to test its aircraft and give the clearance for production for the service. So I have removed it. About the second sentence that was cited, it was so because it was making a great mix up and also it was not in the sequence and sequence is important in writing anything. If you can put it in the sequence than it will more effective in reading and also like by the reader.

Also,when the article was created that line was after the table but after the editing war it is now on the top.

Please ask your question about my editing on my talk page not on the article page. This thread should be on my talk page not this page. Please be careful. Don't go for editing war. I ame Shears (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

We both of us have not engaged in an edit war here. Firstly do you know what is the meaning of edit war? You don't provide a proper reason in your edit summary and now you tell that we have engaged in an edit war. The reason that you gave in your edit summary is completely different of what you are telling now here. We didn't understand the reason you gave so we asked to elaborate that in the Article's talk page. If you have provided these reasons before itself we would have not asked about it. You first be careful and provide proper reasons while doing such edits, thank you — N Jeevan (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

, I've no problem with first sentence although HAL is a contractor, the contractor may change in future as aerospace industry is expanding, new players like Reliance aerospace, TATA aerospace etc are already established. So in future some of the projects would be undertaken by these, HAL's monopoly is coming to an end. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC) But TBH I don't understand the explanation for the removal of second sentence let me make it clear, please don't remove cited content with lame excuse! We need you here. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * it was making a great mix up - Great mix up? What you meant by that?
 * it was not in the sequence - TBH I don't get it! What sequence are you talking about? Can you arrange it in the so called sequence?

Orca is not under Development
@ Ahunt. ORCA is not under development. The article is contra factual and the wiki statement is not in consonance with the source

The edit to fix this was reverted as the reason for edit was incomplete (mobile ate the rest) Adding this piece here for explanation and to avoid edit war

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/if-developed-this-futuristic-variant-of-tejas-could-match-iafs-rafale-jets-2159016

"which would eventually build the fighters if their development is funded by the government." [of the TEDBF and also of its ORCA variant]

Barath s (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Wording has now been adjusted. - Ahunt (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Old Specifications.
The specifications of TEDBF (Specially dimensions) changed, the change was displayed during Aero India 2023. Here are some References - 1.https://indiandefenseanalysis.com/2023/02/18/major-design-changes-in-tedbf/#:~:text=TEDBF%20Design%20Changes%20observed,folded%20wingspan%20of%208.3m.

2.https://www.ssbcrack.com/2021/06/what-is-twin-engine-deck-based-fighter-tedbf.html Dl ff (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)