Talk:HAL Tejas/Archive 2

Fantastic job
I have just come back to take another look at this article and I can't believe the improvements to it. Very impressed at the clean up job. --88.96.3.206 17:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'd wondered where you were off to. I'd like to find the missing citation and add pics of the cockpit, engine, and MMR. Then I'm going to ask for a peer review. I feel good that the article may get rated A-class. Askari Mark | Talk 17:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll add in a 3-view, which the article is seriously missing (almost every other Fighter/Bomber/Ground Attack warplane has one). Good job Askari Mark, very nice! --Henrickson 17:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, good ... so you are now a name and not a number! ;-) Askari Mark | Talk 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Mr. Askari Mark and 88.96..I added the image of the cockpit from the website of ADA. However, I removed the image of the 3-view schematic because it was very small to be comprehended in detail. I'll try to find a larger image of LCA's 3-view. Mr. Mark, about the missing citation we may change it to something like, "LCA has one of the highest percentages of CFC composites by weight(upto 45%) and surface area (upto 90%) in aircraft of its class" (reference : B Harry, 'Radiance of Tejas'). I checked official website of Eurofighter, and the corresponding figures were 40% and 70%. Gripen and Rafale dont mention much.

But at the same time I have yet to hear of an aircraft that has more than this percentage of composites, although I might be wrong and you shall know better. Kindly let me know about your opinion on the same. Thanks. IAF


 * I've found an excellent 3-view of the Tejas here. I've written to them for permission to use it in this page. Lets hope they aquiest. Cheers. Sniperz11 16:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * → That's the one I want to trace!! It is currently not suitable for general use because it has a Drop Shadow under the views, which all 3-views on that site have (and no other site does). Also, in case you don't have permission to use it, a traced version would be more convenient (free). --Henrickson 18:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've considered rewriting it, but if it's got the highest percentage, then the LCA should get credit for it. Someone wrote it, so I presume they had a source ... if only we can find it. Still, the Harry article is the best reference we have now, so let's go with it unless and until someone can find better. Thanks, Askari Mark | Talk 22:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad news about the B. Harry link: When I click on it, I get an error message that "This file has been deleted. Reason: No download for a longer period. Inactivity-timeout exceeded." Apparently, free uplinks are deleted after 30 days of no downloads. I've substituted an alternative site, but it would be nice to find something more usable and durable. Askari Mark | Talk

added a picture of HS AVRO-748
i have added a picture of HS AVRO-748 which was used as a test bed for lca-tejas MMR radar ,you should check out this website for more pictures www.lca-tejas.uni.cc

Thanks Ajay! We have seen that site, but we don't know who the ultimate copyright holder is -- or whether they're public domain. Wikipedia is rather picky about free licensing and fair use. Most of them seem to belong to the IDRW, although it's unclear whether they are the copyright holder. Do you have any further insight into this issue? Askari Mark | Talk 19:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

the site has mentioned that all the images are taken from hal,ada and drdo,so IDRW does not have any such copy right over the images ,i donot think idrw will have any problems ,unless hal ,ada or drdo have some problem which is highly unlikelly

Do you have web link addresses for these images that go to their original source organizations rather than the IDRW? That would be much preferable for Wikipedia's purposes (and the quality of the images would probably be better too). Best, Askari Mark | Talk

i had emailed the webmaster of the site ,he told me that most of the pictures are from ada.gov.in website and picture quality is the same i can say rather poor ,he told me to take any pictures i wanted for the wiki he does seems to have problem ,you can mention ada has the copy right holder or lca-tejas.uni.cc ,and one more think please avoid pictures of pv-2 has it has copyright by br and even the pictures of new camo of lca has been copyrighted by br ,any thing else ?

The challenge is that Wikipedia is very sensitive about identifying the copyright-holder and in limiting images to "public domain" or "fair use" of copyrighted material. It's not like most other websites - see Image use policy. I don't know who holds the copyrights on LCA material in general: ADA? DRDO? MoD? Sometimes you can tell from the properties, but often you can't. I doubt that lca-tejas.uni.cc holds any original material. The link names indicate most of his come from the IDRW, but I don't think they hold many - if any - copyrights either. I don't believe any of the images we are currently using are a problem since they come from promotional material. There are others that would be nice to use that I haven't been able to track down to their source; with the source, we might be able to find better versions than the ones currently available to us. (With each copy they lose quality and sometimes they are altered - cropped, rebalanced, etc.) Askari Mark | Talk 17:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

http://persmin.nic.in/RTI/WelcomeRTI.htm IAF
 * Ajay, you can copy-paste images from ADA, HAL and DRDO as they are in public domain. The RTI Act guarantees that all their images and publications are in Public domain. You can refer this URL for details :

Similarities to Mirage
Are the similarities to the Mirage only superficial? Grant65 | Talk 12:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO, they are probably superficial, although there was probably some inspiration taken from the Mirage delta-wing series, as well as the MiG-21. I've seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. The design is driven to a major degree by the performance characteristics chosen to be emphasized. The more similar the missions and roles, the more the aircraft are likely to look similar — and the LCA was planned to take over from the MiG-21. A delta-wing configuration was selected very early on in the program. Nose shaping is strongly driven by the size of the radar antenna array, and I suspect that French technology has had an influence on the LCA's radar development, although there has been very little released on it. Askari Mark | Talk 01:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Similarity in design probably stems from similar design requirements in the same way that the Mig-29 looks similar to the F-18, or the development of modern aircraft like the Typhoon, Rafale, J-10 and the Gripen. In this case, both being Delta wings, the similarity appears to be more pronounced. There is a picture (either on ACIG or Bharat-Rakshak- cant remember which) showing early wind tunnel model of the LCA, which had canards. Dr. Kota Harinarayan also mentioned that they foud the canards to not have much of an improvement in performance over the present shape. Obviously, this means that They didn't aim to mimic the Mirage. If things were slightly different, the LCA might have ended up looking like the Rafale. Cheers Sniperz11 22:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well actually, Dassault aviation was a consultant in the problem-definiton phase when the LCA was not even on the drawing-board. So, the similarities to Mirage are there in that like the Mirage, the LCA is also a delta-winged fighter. But unlike the Mirage the LCA is a compound-delta and it has a cranked wing. That's where it differs. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

Tejas range
The range of Tejas was announced as being 2600 kms at the Aero-India 2007 show, that was held a few days back in Bangalore. Rest assured, they are accurate figures. Thanks. IAF


 * That works for me for now, though as soon as we have a released source, we ought to site it. - BillCJ 16:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

JF-17 vs. Tejas
Tejas is a true 4th generation aircraft with multi role capability.

a) LCA has 45% of composites by weight, more than 90% of surface area covered by composites. b) Quadraplex fly-by-wire with complete glass cockpit. c) Advanced electronic warfare (EW) system [MAYAVI] that will be used in 5th generation aircraft [Israeli F-35] (http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?D=2006-07-24&ID=160695&HC=3) d) 'Y' shaped air intake to hide engine compressor. e) Higher thrust to weight ratio.

Only thing FC-1 may be better at is range, apart from that Tejas out matches FC-1 in every category. Tejas is more comparable (identical) to Gipen in every category (going by the specs). I'm saying specs because Tejas is still not in service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satish25in (talk • contribs)


 * This is from the Talk:JF-17 Thunder page:
 * According to my research JF-17 Thunder is far too advance then the Indian built HAL Tejas, many sources confirm that HAL Tejas is not even 4th generation aircraft as mentioned by people on 4th generation jet fighter they consider the HAL Tejas project has been Cancelled/Aborted. As mentioned on HAL Tejas the range of the aircraft is far too less when compared with JF-17 Thunder (2000 kms (Tejas) vs 3000 kms (JF-17) respectively) and the difference in avionics and the cockpit is far too evident, JF-17 being 4.5th generation. —comment was added by Faraz ([[User talk:Faraz|talk] 


 * Please stop removing the JF-17 Thunder from the Comparable aircraft list. They are very comparable in one respect: they are both attempts at producing somewhat-indiginous high-tech combat aircraft. Whether one is superior to the other in actual combat is not currently known - and hopefully won't ever be. I am neither Indian or Pakistani, and I am endevoring to be as neutral as possible on this matter. I can find Pakistani sources which claim the JF-17 is better, and I can find Indian sources that claim the Tejas is better. Let's stop bickering over this minor issue, and get on with the business of improving the article. (I originally posted this on the JF-17 page. I was hoping I wouldn't have to post it here too, but alas, the rivalry does go both ways!)


 * I'm ok with FC-1 being listed as comperable aircraft with LCA/Tejas as long as we do not talk about performance. - BillCJ 06:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand how FC-1 is comparable to LCA-Tejas. Can you guys please explain how both are comparable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrickson (talk • contribs)


 * Please post at the bottom of the topic, not the top. Thanks. While the FC-1 may be a little larger, have a more powerful engine, and a slight range advantage, they are otherwise very comparable in technology. As far as which is superior in combat, we won't know that untill the shooting starts, which it hopefully never will. It remains to be seen if the Kaveri engine will enter production. In the meantime, the GE F404 engine is one of the best in the world, and if the Kaveri is not used, there are more powerful version of the F404 available which would only increase the Tejas's performance. Indians claim the Tejas's avionics are superior to the JF-17, while Pakistanis claim the JF-17/FC-1's avionics are superior. The truth is that both are probably not up to Western or Russian standards, and that the differences between the two are marginable. I'm not sayinbg either is junk, and having locally-produced components is a great advantage. In combat, especially visual-range, differences in avionics don't make that much difference in air combat. In combat against Western or Russian fighters, the pilots will probably be more of the deciding factor, as experienced pilots know how to use there planes to the best advantage, in spite of any deficiencies those planes may have compared to their opponents. - BillCJ 19:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * agreeable on being comparable planes. Tejas's engine does hold an interest for me; chinese domestic engine development appears to be weaker, at least for what has being shown. however, with export interest on the J-10, how will it stand against Tejas? Akinkhoo 16:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominate for GA or A-class status
I believe that this page satisfies all the criteria that warrant a Good Article or even an A-class status. See What is a good article?.

I believe that its time that we nominate it for this status. It does not behoove the efforts of mr. Askari Mark, IAF and all other contributers that such a lot of their efforts is only rewarded with a B-class. Plus, the LCA article is quite popular, and judging from the references and links to this page on many forums and sites, as well as the unprecedented technical details that the page provides, makes it a gem.

The only obstacle IMO to this page becoming a FA level is the length and details, which end to put-off laymen. I think that we can split the article and put the technical details in their own pages, which would simplify matters and make the page more attractive. Plus, technical details can be made into bulleted format, instead of the present paragraph format, which would certainly improve readability and reduce the size of the page.

cheers Sniperz11 15:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the recommendation and complimentary words! I believe this article could easily make either grade and possibly FA as well. I was originally shooting for that. However, at the time I found that the "standards" for all three of these were in disarray and dispute. (There has been, for instance, serious discussion of eliminating one or the other of the GA or A-class standards.) I have planned for a while to make another serious go-through to "tighten up" the article, but to shoot straight for FA. Towards that end, I've been helping review and getting some other articles to FA status so that I would have better insights of my own. I think the standards have begun to stabilize recently, so the time may indeed be ripe for proceeding with getting this article its "place in the sun." I am not sure, however, about splitting up the article. I can see a good way to do that, but I don't think splitting the technical details out is the way to go. Nor am I (any longer) unduly concerned about length. Several of the FA articles I've seen lately have been as long (cf. Wesley Clark). One also needs to be careful with bulleted lists, as they quickly get singled out by reviewers "for expansion" or turned into text — unless they are clearly best off as a simple "laundry list". Anyhow, please continue to expand on your thoughts and I'll try to find time this weekend to go through the article "deeply" with a critical eye. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 17:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Project Timeline
I think it would be a good idea to add a project timeline section. This would improve readability and give an overhead view of the project history, thus rducing the need to fish through the sections for relevent information. I await your suggestions. Cheers. Sniperz11 15:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Would that be to just compare development times or to map the numerous changes of schedules for the LCA program? Askari Mark (Talk) 22:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we must focus more on the development times, although it would be great if we could create a three column table something like the one below or even better. I'm looking around for a table that would be a good indicator of how a timeline could be:

I liked this table on Gerald_Ford

A problem that i observe is that the program history and timeline is heavily mixed with technical details and explanation of various technologies. This makes it difficult to find the dates and events. I suggest that we separate the two so that the project history and details are together, like in other aircraft pages.

Cheers. Sniperz11 01:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think something like the programme milestones in Rafale would be better. I liked the format of Rafale article.Kaushal mehta 16:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Status section
IMO, the Status can be made into a separate section near the end of the article, after costs section as is common in many other articles, as it would not only be easily found, but makes for a more intuitive navigation. Plus, right now, it doesn't really look in place with the other sub-sections in the project history section.

Waiting for ur opinions. Cheers. Sniperz11 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I vote for the change. There is no mention of involvement of IAF in the project. this link says that IAF has stationed an induction team, thus started participation in the programme .Kaushal mehta 05:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks for that mate. I've added it in the status section. Cheers. Sniperz11 17:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)