Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:HAL Tejas: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Merger proposal: Replying to Aman.kumar.goel (using reply-link)
m ce
Line 292: Line 292:
:::::You need to familiarize yourself with the [[WP:N|notability guideline]]. Mentions of a topic in unreliable sources don't matter. Subjective arguments about how an aircraft is different from the other doesn't matter, especially when the claims of the aircraft being "in another class" are made by the developers of the aircraft.
:::::You need to familiarize yourself with the [[WP:N|notability guideline]]. Mentions of a topic in unreliable sources don't matter. Subjective arguments about how an aircraft is different from the other doesn't matter, especially when the claims of the aircraft being "in another class" are made by the developers of the aircraft.
:::::
:::::
:::::[[WP:PAGEDECIDE|What matters is]], can you write an independent article on Tejas Mk 2 without significantly duplicating content from this article to provide necessary context to the reader? Would a reader be able to understand the new article on its own, if you were to only use sources that mention Tejas Mk 2? The answer to both questions is an emphatic no. The aerodynamic changes don't make any sense without understanding the aerodynamic configuration of Tejas Mk 1/1A. The requirements and design of Tejas Mk 2 don't make any sense without the development history of Mk 1. Providing the necessary context would not only require duplication of content from this article, that content would dominate the other article due to the dearth of reliable sources that are specific to Tejas Mk 2. —[[User:Gazoth|Gazoth]] ([[User talk:Gazoth|talk]]) 03:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::[[WP:PAGEDECIDE|What matters is]], can you write an independent article on Tejas Mk 2 without significantly duplicating content from this article to provide necessary context to the reader? Would a reader be able to understand the new article on its own, if you were to only use sources that mention Tejas Mk 2? The answer to both questions is an emphatic no. The aerodynamic changes don't make any sense without understanding the aerodynamic configuration of Tejas Mk 1/1A. The requirements and design of Tejas Mk 2 don't make any sense without the development history of Mk 1. Providing the necessary context would not only require duplication of content from this article, the duplicated content would dominate the other article due to the dearth of reliable sources that are specific to Tejas Mk 2. —[[User:Gazoth|Gazoth]] ([[User talk:Gazoth|talk]]) 03:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


== Delhi Defence Review article ==
== Delhi Defence Review article ==

Revision as of 03:54, 10 October 2019

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 00:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@Kshithijsharma and Gazoth: Let's dissect the sources we have and what we can use.
(1) Aermech source provided ([1]) 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([2]) which states ferry range over 1700km and combat radius as 500km, DRDO([3]) which states the same numbers as PIB, Business standard([4]) which states that it flew 1800km but does not make mention of it as the range, Flight Global ([5]) 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshithijsharma (talk • contribs)

Kshithijsharma Flightglobal is a WP:RS and that won't change just because you seem to not think so. If you haves issues with it, I would recommend to take to WP:RSN. I believe that we are trying our best to present the facts as neutrally as possible with the least amount of ambiguity. It seems to me that you have an agenda to fulfill. Please evaluate the facts objectively without a per-conceived notion. Adamgerber80 (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamgerber80 Neutrality is when you balance the evidence and state the most conservative one, not just force out whatever you wish. Lack of sufficient information doesn't give you the right to be a prophet who comes with revelations. Be conservative when you have no concrete evidence. You are the one with an agenda to take advantage of the lack of information to tell whatever you want. May be you should try writing your own Bible/Quran and found another cult like the Mormons, not write in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshithijsharma (talk • contribs)

Ahunt I think I have given an article to show how the FG is not really reliable as you want to make it. When there are reports clashing, the most conservative one is always chosen. If you have any reason to reject PIB to select FG, please state so. Also, I want to understand how is it reasonable to write anything you want just because you like it? Being polite has a limit. I have been explaining my stance and there is no proper reason being given and being accused of having an agenda. I don't have infinite time to waste. I need an answer as to why PIB is rejected over FG. If you can't give reasonable answer, it will become by default the most conservative one.

The official source of DRDO is more reliable than FG always. We have seen how biased media can be. It is always better to stick with official sources when there is one instead of going by media story. So, here goes out the reliability rhetoric too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshithijsharma (talk • contribs)

That is not how we use reliable refs on Wikipedia. In general if reliable sources disagree then we indicate that in the article. In the case of aircraft data, though, all the data comes from the manufacturer's test flying results, so if the manufacturer has published results then we generally use those. The media sources don't usually do their own flight testing and quote the manufacturer's data (When I was doing flight testing for aviation media reviews I did my own flights and recorded my own data, but most don't, especially for fighters and such). If the RS media reports disagree then usually it is due to quoting different parts of the manufacturer's data or because the data was later refined, unless the manufacturer has published figures, we use the latest RS-quoted data. - Ahunt (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

45 Squadron location

The entry for 45 Squadron says they operate the Tejas from "Bengalore" which is a bit vague the 45 sqn article says they are based at Yelahanka Air Force Station but other sources seem to indicate they are actually at the HAL Airport next to the factory. Anybody have a reliable source as to were they actually are, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne: According to this report published in NDTV, they are based at HAL airport. Quoting the relevant paragraph, The Squadron, which will be stationed at Sulur near Coimbatore in neighbouring Tamil Nadu after getting the FOC next year, is currently training air and ground crew from its initial operational base at the HAL airport in the city. The news report is originally from IANS, a wire news service. It is also published in Business Standard. Gazoth (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent designation style for all the Mark variants

The article currently uses six designation styles for the Mark variants — MK1 (lede), Mark I (infobox), Mk.1 (specifications heading), Mk1 (under "Prototypes and testing"), Mk IA (Roman numeral, last line of "Operational clearance") and finally Mk 1A (my personal addition to this mess at "Operators"). There is an obvious need for a uniform designation style. The problem is that there is no uniformity in the official sources too. ADA's offical brochure for Tejas uses Mk1 style, HAL uses Mk.1 style as seen in this press release while PIB has used Mk 1, Mk1, Mk-1, Mk-I and even MK 1-A. Newspapers and other sources are also similarly split. I see only four viable candidates: Mark 1, Mk 1, Mk. 1 or Mk-1. Removal of spacing between letters and number looks off and Roman numerals will be confusing as Mk IA could be read as Mark eye-A. Which style do you prefer? —Gazoth (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spell out Mark on the first mention; thereafter use abbreviated form, such as Mk 1. What you're doing seems fine to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Fnlayson on this. Per British military aircraft designation systems, "Mk 1" is the current British style when a mark is used. It probably makes sense for us to follow that style here in the absence of an official Indian style, to avoid confusion, and for consistency with other articles. - BilCat (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airframe materials image

The image which claims to show the airframe materials is unlikely to be correct. It shows the majority of the fuselage and wing to be made from carbon-fibre composites, but the image of the Tejas under construction clearly shows that the forward fuselage is aluminium. There isn't any source information for the image so I can't check if it is correct or not in a referenceable way. 136.163.203.5 (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image only addresses the materials used in the surface, not internals. The fuselage skin is mostly made out of composites and I have rewritten the "Airframe" section with better references to back it up. I feel that the issue is now adequately addressed and I'm going to reinstate the image removed by ScrapIronIV. In the future, please disclose your potential conflicts of interest as you seem to be employed by a competitor, Saab AB. —Gazoth (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Where do I find in the article a fuller description, eg book title, of some of the references such as: Frawley 2002, p. 114. Hoh and Mitchell 1983, pp. 11ff. Aronstein and Piccirillo 1996, p. 21 ?

Thanks.Pieter1963 (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are supposed to be listed in the Bibliography/Sources section for the book or artcle's full citation. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess somebody copied the material from another article but did not copy the full reference too. I'll try to find and add the full references. —Gazoth (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added and linked with shortened footnotes. —Gazoth (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flat-rated engine

Ref my deletion of the term in the article, I have found an explanation for it in GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri. However I haven't put it back because it is not worthy of note as being a technology. Also, according to the engine article, the flat-rating idea didn't give enough thrust, presumably one of the reasons the engine was replaced by the F404. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter1963 (talk • contribs)

Merger proposal

I propose a merger of Tejas Mk2 as it is merely a variant and doesn't need a separate article.--Petebutt (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Tejas "Mk2" from its article appears to be more or less a new aircraft type, considerably larger, and with a different (Canard) layout - the continuation of the Tejas name appears to a political move to avoid having to get the programme approved again.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Tejas "Mk2" is a different aircraft, an upgraded Tejas but it is different class all together.Tejas was Light aircraft whereas Mk2 version is medium weight fighter. Government may eventually go for a different name altogether. Till then we can keep this as a separate article. Incase, govt decides to retain same name, then we can merge this article with Tejas User:Wasimabrar (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2019 (IST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasimabrar (talk • contribs)
  • Support Tejas Mk 2 is to Tejas what Gripen E is to Gripen C/D. Yes, its a bit larger and has some aerodynamic changes but they have a large shared history. Additionally, most of the content from the other article is either unsourced or unreliably sourced. Once most of the unreliably sourced content is removed, there is very little in that article that is not already here. —Gazoth (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Tejas Mark II is a medium weight fighter with significant number of aerodynamic changes. The aircraft has canards and large variations in specifications from previous Tejas Mark1/1A. Indeed, it's still a variant. But a variant which has significant changes. Certain aircrafts have their variants with their own articles. For instance, see Sukhoi Su-27. Merging same with this same article will be cumbersome in long run as more details emerge and we'll have to quote both in 1. Even when the self published and unreliable sources have been removed by Gazoth, same or varying details will emerge with aircraft as the existence of this project is confirmed by WP:RS. Both variants are a class away from their planned roles, will we have to cover both varying specifications in already long HAL Tejas that will completely jumble the information up? Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't create articles in anticipation that they may become notable on their own in the future. Most supporters of an independent article are talking about aerodynamic changes without explaining how that would merit a content fork. All of the aerodynamic changes that can be reliably sourced will fit into a single paragraph. There are not enough sources that are specific to Mk 2 to create an independent article. —Gazoth (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AD HAL Tejas Mark II isn't an anticipation at all. It's a confirmed project with models already out there in exhibitions. Aerodynamic changes like addition of canards or change in dimensions. LCA & MWF fall on two distinct classes of fighters already. MWF is for facing out Dassault Mirage 2000 while LCA for phasing out aging MiG-21. The role is the reason why we are suggesting separate articles for the planes. Variants of Sukhoi Su-27 and their diversion from aerodynamic design of original plane (and hence, requirements and roles) is what I've been repeatedly citing as an example. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for size of article, most initial defence project articles are stubs. The engaged personnel only give indications in interview and engaged agencies don't make official announcements before completion (which includes trials). Mainstream media (where most WP:RS media sources fall), doesn't engage much with defense. Defense enthusiasts hold a certainly higher level of knowledge and keep themselves more updated. Dedicated defense websites far more accurate speculations than the usual ones. Data on specifications which is written is actually obtained from Aero India or DefExpo itself that has been rejected as WP:SPS or WP:OR for a while. Anyways on topic, administrators may feel free to wait specifications from ADA or DRDO themselves rather than information what is surfacing. But at least the confirmed part which is about class of fighters is sufficient to keep another article for another type of plane (developed on same platform) rather than jumbling up data in main article. Even orthographic projections Tejas Mark I and Mark II differ greatly. Keeping both on same article will not be possible itself. An article was supposed to emerge sooner or later. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should try to make a policy-based argument, not a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. Your perceptions of what should and should not be included is at odds with Wikipedia if you think that websites with "far more accurate speculations than the usual" deserves inclusion here. Tejas Mk 2 clearly does not meet WP:GNG on its own and most of its mentions in reliable sources are in the context of the original Tejas. The right approach is to add the Mk 2 content to this article and split it into a new article with summary-style writing once the Mk 2-specific content is a substantial part of this article. Of course, this is being done since the original Mk 2 was announced in the late 2000s, but the Mk 2 specific content is still not a major portion of this article. —Gazoth (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My support for websites is only regarding details & specifications they provide. Citing them is not needed for supporting separate article for Tejas Mark II. The development of aircraft and it being an aircraft of other class is confirmed by WP:RS. As I told before regarding WP:GNG, I maintain that an underway new defense project's article happens to be a WP:STUB due to lack of WP:RS. I'm unable to find where having two different aircrafts (though made on same platform) can't have their own articles for more specific information & sectioning. I will not change my opinion unless there is an actual way displayed by supporters of merger of articles to amalgate the two aircrafts. I will put some external images of proposed aircraft on Mark II thread as well for comparison and letting others judge. I'm afraid that rushed merger of articles will lead to creation of two sub-sections in each section of main article of HAL Tejas eventually. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You need to familiarize yourself with the notability guideline. Mentions of a topic in unreliable sources don't matter. Subjective arguments about how an aircraft is different from the other doesn't matter, especially when the claims of the aircraft being "in another class" are made by the developers of the aircraft.
What matters is, can you write an independent article on Tejas Mk 2 without significantly duplicating content from this article to provide necessary context to the reader? Would a reader be able to understand the new article on its own, if you were to only use sources that mention Tejas Mk 2? The answer to both questions is an emphatic no. The aerodynamic changes don't make any sense without understanding the aerodynamic configuration of Tejas Mk 1/1A. The requirements and design of Tejas Mk 2 don't make any sense without the development history of Mk 1. Providing the necessary context would not only require duplication of content from this article, the duplicated content would dominate the other article due to the dearth of reliable sources that are specific to Tejas Mk 2. —Gazoth (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Defence Review article

Some of the content in this article has been referenced from a series of articles ([6] and [7]) published in a website named Delhi Defence Review. It is a website started by Saurav Jha, who used to maintain a newsblog at CNN-IBN (now known as CNN-News18) and has been published elsewhere ([8], [9], [10]) too. Although a large portion of his writing has been opinion-style, he has been quoted by ABC News and the New York Times for his expertise in the areas of defence. So, despite Delhi Defence Review not meeting WP:NEWSORG, his writing over there could be picked up with caution under the exception listed at WP:SPS. However, this would not extend to everything published in Delhi Defence Review. The articles in question were written by amateurs, not journalists. While they have added sources for some of their writing, it is also replete with anecdotes such as The test pilots have stretched the prototypes even further, up to 8.5 Gs, and 26 degrees AoA. At the 2016 Bahrain Air Show, the Mk1 had even demonstrated a low speed pass at 110 knots. Even for the parts that have been cited, there is no guarantee that the authors have not derived their own conclusions from the sources. For citing an article like this, Delhi Defence Review should meet WP:RS by having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Since it does not, the material referenced from these two articles does not belong in Wikipedia. —Gazoth (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HAL_Tejas&oldid=920493206"