Talk:HAL Tejas

comparison with other 4th gen fighters

could we create a section comparing Tejas to other 4th generation fighter jets? in terms of avionics and aerodynamics? --Honorprevails123 (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I've been told the list was removed from this article due to heavy vandalism (or something along those lines). I'm not against adding one again, but there might be some friction when deciding which aircraft belong on the list. -Nem1yan (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

well since Tejas is a 4th gen fighter it should compare well with other 4th gen fighters in terms of avionics and aerodynamics i'm guessing any other 4th gen fighter jet can compare with it e.g F-16, Mirage 2000, MiG-29 etc --Honorprevails123 (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Comparison sections tend to be discoraged as they tend to be WP:OR magnets - and in this case it will just attract POV edit warring - its best left out.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I support comparison section. If aircrafts, like Gripen, F-16, F-CK-1, Tigershark already feature Tejas as 'comparable aircraft' so what exactly is the problem if it too mention those as 'Comparable aircraft'? I suggest we put fighters that are really comparable i.e. not just in same gen but also same wight class (like Gripen) in 'Comparable' tab and those who cause controversy (like F/A-18) in 'See Also' tab. Swift&silent (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The comparable aircraft list in the See also section is not a comparison section. This list was removed here due to edit warring over it. This has been done with a couple other articles for the same reason. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The similar aircraft list was removed as it caused edit wars and was really all opinion based. So we dont need the list or any comparison, the readers can use the specification section and related text and do comparisons themselves. MilborneOne (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

@Fnlayson Thanks for clearing things out. I got confused as MilborneOne reverted this edit [[1]] in which I added 'Comparable Aircraft' section. This section was added simply because Gripen has same section linking to this aircraft and thus it seemed logical to add this section. MilborneOne stated that "article consensus was not to include comparable aircraft". So, I got confused. Whats your take on adding Gripen in 'Comparable aircraft' section. If you think it will cause disruption then I too will agree on removal of that section. Swift&silent (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My latest ref added to this article says that even the IAF doesn't think it is a 4th gen fighter. Also, why are our prices in dollars? Hcobb (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

So no RS showing that this is the one and only 4th gen fighter with a simple delta wing? Hcobb (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Some updated info for future reference

HAL pegs price of Tejas fighter at Rs 162 crore Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

please add Tejas official website to infobox. I.I tried it but I am not getting that

|website = tejas.gov.in

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

As stated in the edit summaries in the history for the main page, the Infobox does not have that template field. So that will not show up. That link already appears in the External links section later in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tejas/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hal-tejas/

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I have removed some blatant WP:COPYPASTE copyright violations from this article. I haven't quick-failed the GA nomination (for now), because the editor in question is not responsible for most of the article content, so I don't know if there are more similar problems in the current version of the article or not.

However, any GA reviewer will need to pay particularly careful attention to such possible additional problems, and also the removed section will need re-writing without copyright violations. See also WP:PARAPHRASE. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Demiurge1000: I just failed the article on that basis (See here). TBPH it's a huge problem with the whole article and I don't know how to immediately address or fix it. I know I can't just stub the article down, but that's really the only thing I can imagine if there isn't someone who is heavily interested in the topic willing to do a top to bottom re-write. Protonk (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"pure delta" - change to "pure double delta"

"Tejas has a pure delta wing configuration" - Looks like double delta to me, with less ° swept at rroots (normal couble delta are reverse). - sources http://de.scribd.com/doc/78345390/Approach-to-High-Angle-of-Attack-Testing-of-Light-Combat-Aircraft-LCA-Tejas http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1138201&pagina_chiamante=index.php

Lastdingo (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Plan to stub/shorten to resolve plagiarism issues

Since I haven't gotten much response from the aircraft and milhist wikiprojects and I haven't had a response from the GA nominator, I'm planning to stub down this article in an attempt to resolve plagiarism issues I discovered during the GA review.

@Askari Mark, Fnlayson, Nuclearram, and BilCat: Letting you folks know based on the edit history of the article (hard to tell who is heavily involved as the article is a wider collaboration than most GA noms).

Please read the GA review to get a sense of the scale and scope of the problem. I won't edit war over stubbing the page but I may revert isolated attempts to restore content as I can't tell what is plagiarized and what isn't. I would much prefer that the article be comprehensively re-written rather than stubbed down, so I'll wait a few days to see if anyone responds before doing this. Protonk (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Specs

These are the correct specs as given in the MoD press release LCA Tejas is capable of flying non- stop to destinations over 1700 km away (Ferry Range). It's Radius of Action is upto 500 km depending upon the nature and duration of actual combat. I'm editing the article 2620:117:C080:520:1A03:73FF:FE0A:7671 (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be a primary source, but neutral 3rd party sources (such as Jane's Information Group/IHS Jane's) are preferred on Wikipedia. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the ADA, HAL, IAF and Government of India are the ones that are involved in the project, not Janes.VandeMataram (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary refs, like the manufacturer and the air force have reasons to exaggerate the capabilities of the aircraft for marketing and nationalistic reasons, which is why third party refs are preferred. - Ahunt (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

What guarantee is that the Janes will not exaggerate the capability of aircraft of western nations and understate the capability of Tejas? Rrotegero (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

While no organization or its people perfect, Jane's is a reputable and well-respected publisher, and they meet WP's qualifications for a third-party reliable source. If you have any concrete evidence that they slant their information in favor of Western aircraft, feel free to cite reliable sources that prove it. - BilCat (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Today Janes is irrelevant in Indian defense reporting area. They must have been relavant 15 years before when India only had DD. With the proliferation of news channels and newspapers Janes or any western agency is getting information or news from other Indian news paper/Government press report and copy paste the same in their articles. Read their latest news and you'll come to know that it's exact copy of what's published by others. Better is to use the Indian newspaper/Government press report as the source rather than give credit to Janes for their copy paste work. Rrotegero (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd hate to ruin a good argument, but the 500 km combat radius and 1700 km ferry range are already quoted in the specs, and has been for several months, cited to the 2013 press release. Note that the specs also quote a range of 3000 km, cited to airforce-technology herewhich doesn't seem be be consistent with the Indian Govenment cite, but does seem to be dated later.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Tejas Mk3

I trimmed the mention of the powerplant of the mk3 as the quoted source only says that the Kaveri might be used if the engine gets back on track. (Incidentally, the cited source appears to be a scan of an unknown magazine article hosted on Sribd. How can we be sure that it is a reliable source without more details of the original source of the article, and how can we be sure that we are bit linking to copyvio.)

While there is a source cited in the Kaveri article [2] that suggests that DRDO wants to abandon the engine, it states that the decision has yet to be confirmed by the Indian government.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I cant find much evidence that the Mark III actually exists, the Kaveri was originally to power all the Tejas variants but was not ready so the "prototypes" used the GE404. When it wasnt ready for the production aircraft (Mark II) they went with the GE414. MilborneOne (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Blog tagged as vs

This site has been tagged with as it is a blog. However, it is published by CNN-IBN, a reputable news source, and appears to be written by a reputable journalist and so meets WP:NEWSBLOG.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I spent most of my time and effort rewriting the text. I only saw blog in the link and was not sure about ibnlive.in.com. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Bangalore/Bengaluru

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The discussion about Bangalore/Bengaluru naming is out of place here and should be discussed at Talk:Bangalore instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Bangalore has recently been renamed Bengaluru, see for example The Times of India. At present Bengaluru redirects to Bangalore, but I expect that will change at some point. Which name should we use here and now? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as the article is at Bangalore, per WP:COMMONNAME, that's what should be used, which is why I reverted the change. I've no problem including Bengaluru in parentheses at it's first mention, if others feel it's necessary. - BilCat (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The current common name is Bengaluru. Lot of bias from editors from western editors like Bilcat do exist here.Rrotegero (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Bias exists everywhere, as comments like "Removing all nonsense about unroyal Birtish crooks" show. As to Bangalore, it's currently accepted as the common name on English WP, so that's what we use. Why is discussed on that article's talk page, and changing it should be discussed there, not here. - BilCat (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The common name is Bangalore, so is the name of the article Bangalore. (P.S. Bangalore was and will not be moved to Bengaluru as a result of the move discussion here). Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

That's what. When the cities name is Bengaluru , the whites want to keep it as Bangalore so that you can call it easily by it's Anglized name. That's called bias. And there is a lot of bias that do exists in threads related to Indian articles and administered by white man. Then you blame others for your bias.Rrotegero (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You need to cut out the racist commentary Rrotegero, if you dont like the article name then comment on the related talk page and make a case, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Rrotegero: you really need to drop the racism here. The name of the city is determined by WP:COMMONNAME in the language of the encyclopedia. If you think it should be changed then take it up on Talk:Bangalore, not here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Look at that page itself. When the support to change its name came, one native English speaker NeilN has to come up with some Vague reason to prevent the change. If this is not racism, then what is? The truth is you guys dont have any shame. Rrotegero (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

By trying to revert my edit, have you not tried to keep the view sticking there that the Tejas is flawed? Why is this bias? Even though the NDTV title do say so, the content has a different take. If you go through it, you find that its the MK1 which has flaws and MK1A which is going to be provided to the Air Force comes with the improvements. So why are you reverting back to showacase flaws which did not exist? If it's grammer, why can't you improve on it rather than completely remove the content? Is this not bias?Rrotegero (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed your poor grammar and language additions. Please stop accusing people of racism who simply disagree with your positions. You are the only person here making racist remarks and it is offensive. - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2015 (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.

Issues and weakness in tejas compared to other similar aircraft

Hi guys, i am Yashash Dave, new to Wikipedia internal stuff. For very long iv wanted to have a clear view on what type of "Issues and Weaknesses" does our beloved "specially challenged gifted child" tejas posses and what would be needed to overcome those challenges. Hence i have decided to put all these down on tejas's wikipedia page as "Issues, Weaknesses, Solutions". Now i need help of all the friends around here to help me achieve it by adding to the list.

Please do comeback with your suggestions on it.

Yashash dave (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

We dont normally discuss issues and weakness unless it has been covered in a reliable source and we need to take into account being neutral and undue weight, making a list yourself may not be encyclopedic and we dont normally discuss solutions that have not been discussed in sources and are relevant to the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Yashash, every aircraft have some weakness, even f22 have some major Issues and Weaknesses and some are notable while others are not. Just like Milborneone said we cannot add content just based on our own research, we need reliable reference to back every claim we make and also other Wikipedia pages of other similar 4th gen aircrafts don't have "Issues, Weaknesses, Solutions" or anything related to that as far i know so adding one to tejas might not be a fair or neutral.

Indian media talks alot about tejas and they always talk about engine needing more thrust, weight issue, delay, etc but tejas is still under development and there are mk1 improved version , mk2 and mk3 under development so we cannot just make comments about a aircraft which is still under development.Nicky mathew (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Other than to say it's been under development for a very very very long time! Might well be a world record. For comparison, the F-22, which itself had a notoriously long gestation period, started development at about the same time (early 1980s), and might very well be retired before the Tejas ever enters service in number. :) - BilCat (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

From your opinion, clearly shows the kind of bias that goes into Wikipedia. Your ignorance and jokes are no more welcome and is never heard by the modern world. People just realize how hollow you people are and how shameless and arrogant you people are. Today no one bothers about such foolish fellows.VandeMataram (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on HAL Tejas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140513021101/http://ibnlive.in.com/news/india-test-flies-naval-variant-of-lca/252790-3.html to http://ibnlive.in.com/news/india-test-flies-naval-variant-of-lca/252790-3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

something here is very wrong about range...

Range: 3,000 km[168] (1,620 nmi, 1,864 mi) Combat radius: 500 km[171] (270 nmi, 311 mi) Ferry range: 1,700 km[171] (1,056 mi)

Ferry = maximum, empty weight as far as possible, maximum fuel, external fuel drop-tanks if possible...

Combat radius would be something around 50 per cent of the range...

Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Brahmos NG

I did add sourced content of Brahmos-NG capable of being fired from Tejas. Ahunt has removed it stating "MAY" Who is he to judge? Goes against Wiki rules. He better start removing content about western weapons specified in the F-35 page, which will never see service.VandeMataram (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

An in-service fighter cannot be armed with a weapon that is still on the drawing board. If and when the weapon is built, tested, purchased and deployed then it can be listed under "armament". In the meantime, as I indicated in my edit summary, this can be described in the article text as "proposed", if you would like to add it there. - Ahunt (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't we use a '(Future)' tag beside BrahMos-NG without removing it Because hope BrahMos-NG will in service within 2020. So, after that it can be integrate as in 2020 Tejas will not be retired & IAF/HAL plan to integrate BrahMos-NG in Tejas.-Spartacus! (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

As I noted it would be more appropriate to describe it in the article text as "proposed" and "under development" than list it in the specs as "armament". It's not armament at this point in time. - Ahunt (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

A sentence about the Brahmos NG being developed for Tejas has been restored in the Design section. This does not belong the Specs until is cleared for use on the aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

If there are Wiki rules it need to be across articles. When you have F-35 page mentioning Spear 3 and JAGM missiles which are in planning. So why are there two rules? One for the Tejas not to mention the future weapons on its weapon listings while the the same future weapons are prominently shown in the F-35 page?VandeMataram (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the talk page for the Tejas, if you have problems with other articles then please take that up on their talk pages, not here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That's running away after vandalizing the Tejas page. I suggest you better learn Wiki rules and ahere with that. If there is content that's possible in other pages then the same rule applies to Tejas page as well. Stop Vandalizing pages and dont put your personal opinion here. Wikipedia is not a forum and your personal opinons and bias be taken somewhere else.VandeMataram (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Review what is actually considered vandalism on Wikipedia before such accusations of vandalism. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• So are you saying that the F-35 page is not the standard? Or telling me that there are two ways rules are interpreted? One for F-35 and one for the Indian Tejas?VandeMataram (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
• This exposes you people. A cabal managing Wikipedia pages. Preventing any positive edits and pushing your own POV. Positive views of the west and negative views about the rest. If this is not bias then what is? In simple Wikipedia is very biased.VandeMataram (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• No one said the rules are different. The point is this talk page is for discussing things related to the Tejas article, not other articles, per WP:TPG. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User:VandeMataram: I realize that you are really new here, so you need to read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL before wading in here accusing people of all kinds of things. This article has a long history of pro-Indian nationalists trying to make this aircraft look better than it is and so most editors are careful to make sure that wild claims about the aircraft being able to carry non-existent weapons are carefully sourced and that the weapons actually exist before they are listed as "armament". - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Tejas FOC will come through by the end of 2016 or early 2017 at the very latest and since been extended to the end of 2017.

Delay after delay. FOC has failed repeatedly since 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanflycanu (talk • contribs) 10:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no reference which suggest end of 2017, all references posted there talk about end of 2016. The latest reference which I have posted mentions June 2017. Please provide a reliable reference which mentions end of 2017 published in 2017. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

ADA annual report - reliable source?

Hi, I have added few edits based on ADA annual report which were reverted stating unreliable source. So I want to discuss if the annual report is considered reliable with other contributors. Refer - http://164.100.47.191/paperlaidfiles/DEFENCE/ADA-30th%20AR_Eng.pdf http://164.100.47.191/paperlaidfiles/DEFENCE/ADA-29th%20AR_Eng.pdf Prudhviy2 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Prudhviy2 I have replied to your query on my talk page. Here is a copy. Is this hosted on the ADA website? It seems from the URL that is hosted on a random server. The issue is that the report is authentic but should be linked/hosted off the correct website. If this is the case, then please let me know and I will revert my undo. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Adamgerber80 https://www.ada.gov.in/images/Annual%20Report%202015-16.pdf I found a authentic report hosted on ADA website. I think we can use this as reliable source.Prudhviy2 (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Prudhviy2 This is great.I did find the TACAN reference. Can you please indicate on which page is this "Typical operational readiness point scramble of less than 4 minutes" located. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 Unfortunately that was from previous year report which is not hosted on ADA website.

Prudhviy2 Okay. Then we can only include the information sourced in this reference. Feel free to re-add the TACAN details again. Thanks for the reference. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Have you more sources about that?, thanks.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Armament

We seem to have a long list of weapons in the Armament section, anybody have a reliable source of what the Tejas can actually carry rather than what looks like a wish list? MilborneOne (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on HAL Tejas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defencejournal.com/jun99/lca.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defencejournal.com/jun99/lca.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.employmentnews.gov.in/India-light-combat-aircraft.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tejas.gov.in/history/genesis.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nal.res.in/pages/ipjun12.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/lca.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_533.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-karnataka/iaf-team-to-oversee-lca-induction-and-operation/article3028492.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-18/news/45338459_1_air-chief-nak-browne-tejas-lca-air-base
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Advanced-Weapon-Trials-of-Tejas-Fighter-Completed/2014/05/29/article2250943.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.me.iitb.ac.in/~fmfp/FMFP%20PROC/fp_05.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://aviationonline.info/aircraft-digital-flight-control-airplane-cockpit/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indiatimes.com/boyz-toyz/ships-and-planes/tejas-indias-light-combat-aircraft-91129-9.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geaviation.com/press/military/military_20070207.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/iaf-to-induct-six-squadrons-of-tejas-says-antony/1/332119
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613081832/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-5/sainis.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-5/sainis.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

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 ([3]) 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([4]) which states ferry range over 1700km and combat radius as 500km, DRDO([5]) which states the same numbers as PIB, Business standard([6]) which states that it flew 1800km but does not make mention of it as the range, Flight Global ([7]) 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?