Talk:HAL Tejas/Archive 1

message: I somehow doubt that the J-7 is comparable to the LCA considering the more advanced avionics, airframe, weapons systems and technology used in the construction of the LCA.
* I agree. We should hash out some specs as to what makes one aircraft comparable to to another in terms of mission it was designed to carry out, weapons it is can deliver, weight class etc.etc. L1CENSET0K1LL 22:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison to J-7

message: I am from India though not impressed with teja, Still i respect it because of effort made by ADA.
i think we should be honest and include about delays.
we shouldn't be like our enemies who just exaggerate.
* I dont think you really appreciate the LCA. If only delays of Kaveri are your criterion, then they are mentioned in the article. The LCA is 3 years behind schedule because of US sanctions in 1998, and a year of delay from 1995 to 96 due to India's lack of expertise in FBW technology.
Latest reports say that its on schedule. Even the President said in his speech (after flying the Su-30) that the LSP production has started.
*President said many things, but all did not happened so fast.
They will even say that LCA will be inducted this evening.
Santions were imposed in may 1999 and removed early 2001.
The whole first sqn of LCA may be powered by the US engine.
Was it that necessary to Make every part indegenious, at the cost Indian Military. Now IAF urgently requires a fighter to replace Mig-21.If IAF buys 200 instead of 125 aircraft, they may not need LCA at all.
we should have taken foreign assistance in the early stages just like with Brahmos Missile.Now they realized after kaveri failed the tests.
*You are forgetting that due to this kind of indigenous development various developments have happened, like avionics for Su-30MKI. And by the way the website of ADA http://www.ada.gov.in/others/MoreCurrentNews/morecurrentnews.html gives all the day by day details of development. i think this kind of transperancy has not been seen in any other aircraft development. The problems with democracies are the transperancy factor and the media babble that goes on while the developers have to keep quiet due to TOP SECRET reasons.Kaushal mehta 08:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ) great! very motivating, so what if he flunked the biggest paper, he passed the smaller subjects! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.227.207.194 (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why don't include about criticism 

message: I had a quick go at rewriting some parts of this article to improve the grammar and redability. (Mostly just the introduction really.)
I'd suggest that this article needs reorganising. There is too much in the introduction. 2-3 paragraphs, the rest should be moved to the body.
This bit could also do with some changes in order to make it sound less insecre and defensive.
In contrast, Japan's Mitsubishi F-2 is an enhanced F-16, Taiwan's Ching-Kuo IDF (Indigenous Defense Fighter) has been developed by a combination of indigeneous Taiwanese aerospace research and also major consulting by US firms like Lockheed Martin, and China's J-10 is based on designs from Israel's cancelled Lavi fighter. Even China's FC-1 has substantial design consultancy from Mikoyan of Russia.
--88.96.3.206 21:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar and so on and so forth 

message: this is a error in the article ,pv-3 never had any test flight yet ,it is gonna have this year ,please correct the article
Thanks for the correction - it appears my source was wrong. Askari Mark | Talk 17:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PV-3 made its first flight in February 2006