Talk:HAL Tejas/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  added a picture of HS AVRO-748 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Tejas range

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: JF-17 vs. Tejas

message: I believe that this page satisfies all the criteria that warrant a Good Article or even an A-class status. See Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Nominate for GA or A-class status

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Project Timeline

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