Talk:HAL Tejas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Provide source

" China's FC-1 has substantial design consultancy from Mikoyan of Russia." What source was this derived from? If no source can be provided then this is concocted and will be removed. Azurelove 19:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No concoction. It's old news and widely known. I have added one of many possible links on the topic for you. --Askari Mark | Talk 16:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Mark. Even sinodefence.com says the same. The article on FC-1 in wikipedia has removed all reference to Mikoyan, when the fact is that Mikoyan did play an important role. The entire project was completed from concept to flying prototype, in a world-record time of just 4 years. It proves that FC-1 is based on an existing design and is not an inhouse design. However, that cant be said about its avionics, weapons and EW though. IAF

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/fc1.asp - There's nothing there that says that it was based on a project rejected by Soviet, which is claimed on FAS. We know that it uses Russian engine, but what other evidence is there besides a FAS claim? Azurelove 17:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are coming from with this. FAS says, "China is developing the FC-1 (Fighter China 1) lightweight multipurpose fighter based on the design for the MiG-33, which was rejected by the Soviet Air Force." According to Jane's All the World's Aircraft (besides the engine), "Some design assistance from MiG OKB, possibly based on (then-designated MiG-33) mid-1980s project for single-engined variant of the MiG-29. (Sources at MiG experimental bureau quoted as saying that FC-1 was designed there to a military specification as Izd (Izdeliye: article) 33 and later offered for Chinese production following cancellation of Russian requirement.)" The Wiki article says only that "China's FC-1 has substantial design consultancy from Mikoyan of Russia." This is hardly a calumny against the FC-1, and is widely known; what's not perfectly clear is the exact degree of influence the Izd 33 specs had on the FC-1. If you have a source that provides more detailed insight into the role and influence which Mikoyan had on the eventual CAC design, please provide it (and perhaps add the info to the "FC-1" article on Wiki). --Askari Mark | Talk 17:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if I'm not mistaken, the original contention raised by Azurelove was whether Mikoyan had any contribs in FC-1 or not, and sinodefence says that it does. I quote from sinodefence, "Chengdu was chosen to be the primary contractor, with Russian Mikoyan Aero-Science Production Group (MASPG) providing assistance in some design work", end quote.

FAS.org and even globalsecurity also say the same thing. They extend it further by saying which particular design Mikoyan actually gave to China (that was the Project 33). As rightly mentioned by Mr. Askari Mark nobody knows the extent of influence that Mikoyan's project had on FC-1, but that Mikoyan DID have a contribution to FC-1 is an undisputed fact.IAF.

FAS website was created and updated by the same person who started Globalsecurity. These two sources cannot be used to verify each other. Sinodefence is a nice site, but not without fault. Beware of sources copying each other. --Ch2000.

[edit] Article Clean-up

This comment section was a bit hard to read, so I've tried to make it clearer without deleting anything. As far as I can see there are only three editors - Mark, IAF and myself. Marks comments are now in italics, IAFs are normal, and mine are indented. If anyone else adding stuff here indents and signs their additions, hopefully we can keep it straight. --88.96.3.206 17:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw the request to help clean up this article and thought I would help. It seems to me to have way too much detail for a general encyclopedia article and much of it seems to have been c&p'd from a website which I'm not sure is "open source."

I just took a pass at the Introduction to focus it just on basic information. I plan to continue through the article (as I have time) and build an appropriate References section as I go.

I'm new to Wikipedia and slowly learning my way with the editing tools, so please check to see that I'm doing okay. Thanks! Askari Mark | Talk 03:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The detail is infact lesser than the detail given for aircraft like F-16, F-15, MiG-29 etc. Actually the biggest misconception about the LCA is that its a multi-role fighter. It is not. It is an air-superiority fighter with secondary ground-attack role (like MiG-29). Of course it can be configured accordingly as the mission demands, but a true multi-role aircraft (like F-16) is one which has 11 hardpoints under the fuselage for A2G and 3-4 under each wing for A2A/A2G. LCA has just 1 hardpoint under the fuselage and 3 under each wing. It is clearly meant for air-interception and then drop a bomb or two if time/fuel permit.

Also, I want to add that in 1983 the LCA was not conceived to replace the MiG-21, however that has become a major criterion today. In 1983 the MiG-21 was IAF's most advanced aircraft, acquired just 15 years ago. So the question of replacement of MiG-21 in 83 did not arise. IAF

Thank you for your quick response, IAF. It sounds like those other articles need to be pared some as well if they are to be general encyclopedia entries rather than for specialized encyclopedias like Jane’s All The World’s Aircraft. Sometimes folks just get carried away. I used the term “multirole” because that is what most sources call it. However, it is not the number of hardpoints that makes a fighter “multirole” – or the A-10, with its 11 hardpoints, would be multirole as well. IMHO a modern multirole fighter is one designed with the sophisticated fire-control systems software necessary to integrate, on the one hand, the multimode radars and other sensors needed for aerial combat other fighters with air-to-air missiles as well as, on the other hand the sensor systems needed to deliver precision-guided air-to-surface weapons (not just bombs). Inasmuch as the LCA is advertised as being able to deliver guided ASMs and anti-ship missiles, that would seem to me to fit the description.

I can live with describing the LCA as “an air-superiority fighter with secondary ground-attack role” since it was originally intended in 1983 to be just that (like the contemporary MiG-21 models); please correct me if I mis-remember, but I seem to recall that the requirement for the LCA to be able to deliver PGMs and anti-shipping missiles was added around the mid-to-late 1990s. However, I remember being told at the time that the LCA was indeed intended to replace the MiG-21s – as well as to take a significant step forward in advancing India’s indigenous aerospace industry. The IAF inducted the MiG-21FL in 1965 as I recall, so by 1983 the earliest aircraft were approaching 20 years of service life (at a time when the USAF’s average fighter fleet age was much less than that). They were due to be replaced beginning in 1995, which was an important factor in setting the original IOC goal for that year. Given an (ambitious) design and development allowance of 12 years, 1983 was very much indeed a prudent time to begin pursuit of a MiG-21 replacement. Cheers! Askari Mark | Talk 02:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Askari Mark. Some of the external references like "Radiance of Tejas" and "High AoA testing" are for technical people and aeronautic engineers . They are quite detailed. I agree that the level of detail of this article on Lca is also of a higher level. I dont intend to add anything further (except when LCA becomes operational), but I agree it should be brought to a lesser technical level. If you want to clean-up this article definitely do so (I'm not like a censor or something like that of this page). I would suggest you also compare with other articles like Sr-71, F-16, F-15 etc.

If I'm not wrong, A-10 was a bomber aircraft only. Multirole is a comparative term. The official website of LCA says : "A choice of three hard points below each wing, and one under the fuselage gives considerable flexibility to carry a variety of missiles, bombs and rockets, as per mission requirements : air-to-air, air-to-ground or air-to-sea." So Lca has to be configured as the mission demands, whereas F-16 can carry one LCA's A2G load as well as another Lca's A2A load at the same time (as it has twice the weapons load capacity and hard points).

So one F-16 can do the mission of 2 specially configured LCAs. I guess thats what makes it multi-role. An Lca can only be for air-sup or only A2G at a time. Its more of an air-sup fighter because its hardpoints and avionics are configured more towards aerial-combat.

FAS.org describes a MiG-29 as : " The MiG-29 Fulcrum was designed and built to be a ... air superiority fighter .....The primary role of the MiG-29 is to destroy air targets at distances from 60 to 200 kilometers (30 to 110 NM) at all altitudes, on all profiles, in any weather, and under all ECM conditions. In addition, the basic MiG-29 is capable of limited air-to-ground operations and in advanced versions, has been optimized to attack both stationary and moving targets with precision guided munitions."

MiG-29 has a payload of 4500 kg compared to LCA's 4000 kg and F-16's 8000 kg. So I think MiG-29's description suits LCA also, which is air-superiority with limited A2G operations. That's FAS.org's definition not my own.

India is not as financially strong as USAF where they change aircraft fleets very often. In IAF, 20 year aircraft are not de-commissioned so quickly and those 40 year-old MiG-21s are still upgraded to make them as modern as possible even today. In 1983, the MiG-21 was still in mass production in IAF and was its most advanced plane until Mirage-2000 and Mig-29 were inducted. So in 1983, LCA was not intended to replace MiG-21, but now after so many accidents and pilot deaths, it has assumed the tag of Mig-21 replacement.

PS - LCA's official website says that it is a multi-role air-superiority fighter. Actually there are also some grammatical mistakes on it, and I think this was written by an over-enthusiastic employee. IAF

No, I didn’t think you were trying to play the censor, only a friendly debate over a vague and often-misused term. As I agreed, the LCA was originally designed to be a single-role, if “multi-mission,” air superiority fighter with a secondary (“dumb bomb”) air-to-ground capability. As an aircraft design engineer, I am well aware of how an aircraft’s intended roles and missions affect even the preliminary design. One need only look at the extensive redesign work required (some 70 per cent) to turn the F-15A/C air superiority fighter into the F-15E multirole version. My point was rather that it is not the number of hardpoints (which are dependent on factors such as structural strength, wingspan, weapons separation requirements, etc.) or even the weight of ordnance carryable that make an aircraft “multirole.” The A-10 attack fighter (not ‘bomber’) has the same number of hardpoints as the F-16, but the A-10 is not also “multirole.”

BTW, most people are not aware that the original concept for the F-16 was that of a single-role air superiority fighter; as noted in the F-16 article, the “Fighter Mafia” felt air superiority fighters should be small and nimble while multirole or attack fighters should be larger to carry a greater range of stores. Instead, the F-16 was developed to be multirole so it wouldn’t threaten the F-15 program, which is what the USAF really wanted. It is a matter of U.S. politics that our air superiority fighters are now huge and the multirole/attack aircraft are small. Ain’t bureaucracy grand?

As for the LCA being a replacement for the MiG-21, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I simply remember what I was told around 20 years ago by three visiting Indian officials (one from HAL, one from DRDO, and the other – if I remember correctly after all these years – from the Air Staff); unfortunately, I no longer remember their names. They told me the early day-fighter MiG-21s would be replaced by the LCA. A key element they were keen to master with the LCA program was fly-by-wire technology, which was then a state-of-the-art development. Furthermore, they told me that they were planning to build upon their success with the LCA by following it with a larger, more multirole aircraft (which came to be designated ‘MCA’) which would replace the MiG-23/27 and Jaguar – which were all then very recent additions to the IAF. Since the LCA has not become available on time, most of the early MiG-21’s and recently the MiG-23’s have been withdrawn since 2000. The forced withdrawal without replacement – along with the heavy attrition during the 1990s – are the reason the IAF is so under-strength in terms of fighter wings.

Ah, the 1980s were a dynamic and exciting time in aerospace, full of rich experiences. I wish it were still half so today. Askari Mark | Talk 00:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If the HAL official website defines this plane as a multirole fighter so should we, unless there are (reputable and quoted) sources that say otherwise. No original research allowed :) --88.96.3.206 15:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct about original research. However, "multirole" is what it is and not what "marketeers" claim it to be! ;-) Askari Mark | Talk 21:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the compromise is to say something like "the HAL Tejas, described by the company as a multirole fighter" to make it clear that the company thinks it is, but it doesn't really meet the definition. --88.96.3.206 17:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Askari Mark. I did not realize that you are so senior in this field (and also to me). I first thought that you were Indian. Then I realized that you were from a western nation and then finally as mentioned by you lastly. I was also amazed to know that Indian officials met you 20 years ago. They must have come for consultancy on the problem-definition of the LCA. As mentioned by you, it is indeed true that the successor to the LCA is supposed to be the MCA, but I thought that this was a recent proposal. I never imagined that this had been envisaged 20 years ago, even when the LCA was still on the drawing-board !!

I fully agree now that the LCA was meant as a replacement for the MiG-21 since 1983 itself. Actually my argument was based on the fact that in recent years, there have been numerous MiG-21 crashes (probably one of the highest attrition rates in the world). It has been labelled as the "Flying Coffin". Thus the media continues asking about the progress of the LCA so that it can replace the MiG-21. Even the Chiefs of Air-Staff of the IAF have made repeated statements that the LCA shall be a replacement for the IAF.

My argument about the role of the LCA was based on the definition of the MiG-29. I agree that the number of hardpoints or weapons load is not an indicator of the role of an aircraft. If a comabt jet has a total of 4 hardpoints i.e. 2 for A2A missiles and 2 for A2G missiles, then too it qualifies as a multi-role aircraft. I did compare the hardpoints and weight of F-16 and LCA, but under the fuselage (for bombs) to present my point. Usually, on the wings, a majority of A2A missiles are present. So that leaves the fuselage for bombs. Now the LCA/MiG-29 have 1 and 2 hardpoints compared to F-16. This coupled with the fact that F-16 has double the load capacity than both. Wing capacity is almost similar. SO fuselage capacity of the F-16 is more. Thus, along with the definition given by FAS.org, I came to the conclusion that the LCA is a air-superiority jet with secondary ground role.

Though I wanted to be an aeronautics engineer, but market dynamics made me get a computer science background. I have interest in aviation, and since I too have done some programming work, I am aware that one may need to go back to the design stage if a specification or requirement is changed mid-way. I have also heard that F-16 was constructed to be a medium-range lighter fighter than F-15 (so that it is cost-effective).

It is indeed appreciable that the Fly-by-wire technology was sought for the LCA very early on. Even the Sino-Pakistani FC-1 has FBW only in the yaw-axis even though the project began as late as 1989/1990. USA did help in the FBW simulation of the LCA's control Laws. The LCA was ready by 1995, but it was grounded because of the non-development of FBW technology on it. It is indeed gratifying to see interest from you in the humble LCA, which is probably the most criticized jet of all time. Thank you. IAF

Have you not seen the press coverage about Nimrod MRA4 then? ;) --88.96.3.206 17:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, IAF, I'm an old gray-hair. :) It does indeed take a long time to design modern jet combat aircraft, and each "generation" takes even longer. The now-venerable F-4 Phantom II was in production when the F-16 designs were being first worked on. Preliminary design concepts for what eventually became the F-22 began in the late 1970s - and it entered service only last year. (BTW, most weapons are carried on wing hardpoints these days, while fuselage hardpoints are more often used for fuel tanks or pods.)

I do not know whether the "humble LCA" is good, bad or indifferent as a fighter. It has yet to enter operational service, so only time will tell. I doubt, however, that it is so much the LCA airplane that is so deserving of criticism as the managerial bureaucracy that has so drawn out its development. Bureaucracies are at best "a necessary evil" and at worst "an evil necessity." :P

If you want to work in aerospace, it's quite easy to do so these days. I dare say the field employs more computer science majors than aerospace engineers these days, what with all the code that must be written. I understand the Indian government is wanting to involve more Indian commercial businesses in aerospace, so keep your eyes open for opportunities! Askari Mark | Talk 21:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Askari Mark. I definitely will keep my eyes and earss open for job openings in the aerospace sector. Aircraft indeed take long times to come from the drawing board to physical reality, just like operating systems of computers a la Windows Vista (thats already delayed by a year and a half). I agree that the high amount of criticisms of the LCA's development (especially by the media) must have been a check on the ADA (developing agency). It is indeed a neccessary evil, but if exceeded, it becomes only an evil because then it starts to become demoralizing.

USA is the reigning champion of aviation, whereas India is still a newcomer. What is the frontier of aviation here has been achieved in the US looong ago. Still, I must mention that the LCA has 2 small, but nevertheless pioneering developments : It is the first aircraft to have a single vertical fin that is blended with the fuselage. LCA's Naval variant will also be the first jet to have Leading Edge Vertical Extensions on its wing. If I'm not mistaken, LCA's 45% composite structure is probably matched or exceeded only by the F-22 and the F-35.

Please do keep your contributions coming. Thank you IAF

Hi 88.96.3.206. I suggest that you register and then make contributions, otherwise your IP address will continue to be displayed. That is unsafe for your PC. About the definition given on ADA's website, in my opinion, it is completely wrong. But I agree that we must not tamper with the definition given by the makers of the LCA themselves. So we could write thesame on the main page also. Thanks for also taking the trouble for making this page more readable.IAF

As I had agreed earlier that the article is on the higher technical side,but I cannot make it any less readable for the more lay-person either. Others have provided links to different terms in the article.

It is not that I want to pass on all the editing work to others and relax myself. It is just that I cannot pinpoint the level of technicality of the article to which it can be brought down to. IAF

[edit] Comparison to J-7

I somehow doubt that the J-7 is comparable to the LCA considering the more advanced avionics, airframe, weapons systems and technology used in the construction of the LCA.

I agree. We should hash out some specs as to what makes one aircraft comparable to to another in terms of mission it was designed to carry out, weapons it is can deliver, weight class etc.etc. L1CENSET0K1LL 22:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the HAL Marut was actually Asia's first domestic fighter aircraft, but I'm not sure. Can anybody corroborate that?

The HF-24 Marut was India's first combat aircraft, that was not purchased from abroad, although its main designer was a German named Kurt Tank. It cannot be Asia's first combat aircraft as Japan had produced numerous aircraft in WW2.

But it definitely was Asia's first post WW2 generation fighter. Chinese JH-7 was I think Asia's first 3rd generation fighter.

[edit] why don't include about criticism

I am from India though not impressed with teja, Still i respect it because of effort made by ADA. i think we should be honest and include about delays. we shouldn't be like our enemies who just exaggerate.

I dont think you really appreciate the LCA. If only delays of Kaveri are your criterion, then they are mentioned in the article. The LCA is 3 years behind schedule because of US sanctions in 1998, and a year of delay from 1995 to 96 due to India's lack of expertise in FBW technology.

Latest reports say that its on schedule. Even the President said in his speech (after flying the Su-30) that the LSP production has started.

President said many things, but all did not happened so fast.

They will even say that LCA will be inducted this evening. Santions were imposed in may 1999 and removed early 2001. The whole first sqn of LCA may be powered by the US engine. Was it that necessary to Make every part indegenious, at the cost Indian Military. Now IAF urgently requires a fighter to replace Mig-21.If IAF buys 200 instead of 125 aircraft, they may not need LCA at all. we should have taken foreign assistance in the early stages just like with Brahmos Missile.Now they realized after kaveri failed the tests.

You are forgetting that due to this kind of indigenous development various developments have happened, like avionics for Su-30MKI. And by the way the website of ADA http://www.ada.gov.in/others/MoreCurrentNews/morecurrentnews.html gives all the day by day details of development. i think this kind of transperancy has not been seen in any other aircraft development. The problems with democracies are the transperancy factor and the media babble that goes on while the developers have to keep quiet due to TOP SECRET reasons.Kaushal mehta 08:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Not just the President, but even Ashok Baweja (HAL Head) said that LSP production has started.

Even if LCA is powered by GE, there is no harm. Kavei's failure does not mean LCA's failure. Even China's FC-1 is powered by Russian engine as their local engine is still undergoing tunnel-tests. Same can be said about J-10 which has a Russian Al-31 engine as the local WS-10 is not ready.

) great! very motivating, so what if he flunked the biggest paper, he passed the smaller subjects! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.227.207.194 (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

The tender is for 126 aircraft. The 200 figure was just a rumour. The 126 tender is not related to LCA. CCS has cleared the purchase of 20 LCA by IAF. The F/A-18, Eurofighter are not in the same class as LCA. LCA will be for defence but the 126 fighters will be for strike.

[edit] Grammar and so on and so forth

I had a quick go at rewriting some parts of this article to improve the grammar and redability. (Mostly just the introduction really.)

I'd suggest that this article needs reorganising. There is too much in the introduction. 2-3 paragraphs, the rest should be moved to the body.

This bit could also do with some changes in order to make it sound less insecre and defensive.

In contrast, Japan's Mitsubishi F-2 is an enhanced F-16, Taiwan's Ching-Kuo IDF (Indigenous Defense Fighter) has been developed by a combination of indigeneous Taiwanese aerospace research and also major consulting by US firms like Lockheed Martin, and China's J-10 is based on designs from Israel's cancelled Lavi fighter. Even China's FC-1 has substantial design consultancy from Mikoyan of Russia.

--88.96.3.206 21:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ground up?

The LCA is believed to be the first fourth generation fighter jet in Asia, which has been developed from what is termed as "ground-up" or "scratch".

I originally changed this line for two reasons:

Reason 1: It's bad English. Words that have to be put in quotes are not an exact enough description to be used in an encyclopedia. I'm going to edit it (with the current meaning) to something more precise.

Reason 2: It has no references to back it up. In particular the article states that HAL has had some assistance from BAE SYSTEMS.

[edit] Smallest?

The LCA is the smallest and lightest combat jet in the world.

Shouldn't that accolade go to the A-4 Skyhawk? Perhaps should be rephrased smallest and lightest aircraft built in the 21st century? AFAIK Brazil and Argentina are still operating Skyhawks, so we can't say that it is the smallest and lightest in operation. 83.67.100.39 21:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No. The LCA has lesser height and wingspan than A-4, but A-4 is shorter by 1 metre in length. A-4's wingspan is 8.38m vs 8.22 for LCA. A-4's height is 4.57m vs 4.4m for the LCA.

Please re-read the phrase carefully and then consider the following points :-

1) A-4 is no longer in service as a combat aircraft. It is only used as a trainer nowadays. Many modern trainers are smaller than LCA.

2) The statement does not say that "LCA is the world's smallest aircraft ever". It simply says that currently it is the world's smallest combat jet. Many early post-WW2 aircraft were smaller than the LCA, there is nothing in that. IAF

Actually, Point 1 is incorrect. Argentina still operates the A-4 in a combat role. Also Indonesia says it plans to restore theirs to flying status once they are permitted to obtain spare parts following lifting of the US embargo. On the other hand, one could also make the case that the LCA is not yet operational as a combat aircraft. If it comes to a "coin toss", the empty weight should probably be the deciding factor, but this is all nitpicking anyway. If it's important, it would perhaps be best to say that "The ADA and HAL claim ...". (It's on their websites.) --Askari Mark | Talk 17:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected thanks to Mr. Askari Mark. I have edited the phrase as "The LCA is the world's smallest 4th generation combat jet". I hope that, that should be accurate as the A-4 is a 5 decades old, and belongs to a different era. If there is discrepency please do edit the phrase in the article as required.

Anyway, here are 2 interesting sentences from the article on T-50 at globalsecurity.org :

1) With a robust prediction of international sales for Advanced Jet Trainer and Light Combat Aircraft, the T-50 is ready to service the needs of customers worldwide.

2) These same characteristics give it an excellent capability as a lead-in fighter trainer and potential light-combat aircraft in many air forces. :-)) IAF

IAF, all: Thanks for the edit, sorry for any unperceived personal attacks. Just felt that the original statement was slightly ambiguous, and one would naturally assume that indeed it was the smallest combat jet ever built.. 205.228.73.11 16:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This site as well as ADA literature and handouts describe the LCA as "The Light Combat Aircraft is world's smallest, lightweight supersonic fighter of its class.". I think this is a good description, since the A-4 skyhawk is a subsonic aircraft. If you find it acceptable perhaps it could be changed accordingly. The accompanying document of Mr. Kota Harinarayana's lecture at this conference is also very informative and is available here. I think some more information can be obtained from it. Cheers Sniperz11 21:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Outline Restructuring

Well, I’ve spent some time looking at a variety of other aircraft articles (as well as adding LCA redirects and a stub for the Kaveri), and the good news is that we should have no problem evolving this article into one of the “first-rank”. :-)

The F-16 and F-35 articles appear to be the better examples for inspiration. I’ve worked out a new organizational structure which I’ve outlined below. I’ve also included relevant summaries of the related development efforts for the MMR and Kaveri since these are critical functional elements, but further detail should be left for the separate articles on these items. You may feel that I’ve “overdone it” with the amount of information, but I purposely want to make Indian aviation history more interesting to readers who are overly prone to focus solely on US, European, and Russian aircraft. I’ve drafted a re-write down to the start of the “Design Features” section, which I’ll be posting later.

The info in the existing “Design Goals” section will be integrated into the “Design Features”, excepting some of the “motherhood” elements. I’ve also expanded the “National Development” section to capture that very important parallel objective of which IAF so correctly reminds us, that the LCA program is not “merely” an aircraft development program. Accordingly, I’ve “reached back” further into history in the hope of this article becoming a draw for more people to learn about Indian aviation. “Status” has been moved to the end of “History”.

The current “Airframe”, “Avionics” and related sub-sections will become part of “Design Features”; however, some of the systems and sub-systems I plan to move to the separate article on the ADA, which is a better place to capture the various organizations and their accomplishments. --Askari Mark | Talk 20:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Revised Organization:

HAL Tejas

National Development

History

Programme Origins

Development History

Fly-by-Wire Control Laws

Prototypes

Multi-Mode Radar

Kaveri Engine

Development Costs

Status

Unit Costs

Operational History [to be added when this occurs]

Design Features

Airframe

Landing Gear

Flight Controls

Propulsion

Avionics

Radar

Self-Protection

Escape Systems

Versions

Prototypes

Production variants

Operators

Specifications (HAL Tejas)

General characteristics

Performance

Armament

Other equipment

Manufacturing responsibilities [to be added]

References

External links

[edit] Missing Link

The New India Press news link (http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IE120060514131438&Title=Bangalore&Topic=0) goes to an article that has been archived and requires registration to access. Does anybody know what the article was about? Perhaps we could find a mirrored copy or an alternative. Askari Mark | Talk 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I registered and found out the link. Its title is, "HAL to go into supersonic mode" (dated : May 15,2006). The same news report can be found on this url : http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:J_DJ5ay8a6IJ:www.icast.org.in/news/bulletin/bulletin2_20.pdf+HAL+to+go+into+supersonic+mode&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3

In this report, the CEO of HAL mentions that,I quote, "that the fifth prototype vehicle, trainer and the first of the eight Limited Series Production (LSP) will join the programme this year. These aircraft will help accelerate the initial operational clearance for the LCA.....HAL has now taken up the challenge to complete the eight LSPs and 20 more aircraft within three years." end quote. This URL has many news reports bundled together. This one is one of them. Thank you. IAF

Thanks for the link! That actually takes care of one of the two missing citations, so I've moved it from 'External Links' to 'References & Notes'. For some reason the link to the pdf file hangs up, but I often get that on Indian websites at this time of day, so I'll check it again tonight. Askari Mark | Talk

You are welcome Mr. Mark. I have added the reference to the Fly-by-wire citation. It is an interview of Mr. Shyam Shetty, head, National Control Law team of National Aeronautics Limited. They have developed the Flight control Laws of the LCA. He stated that one of the pilots found it easier to take-off than Mirage and that both the test-pilots have given it a level-1 (top) rating. Thanks.IAF

Thank you Mr. IAF! I thought that would be the hardest one to find. Askari Mark | Talk

[edit] Missing citations

Okay, I think I've done about all I can on this article except that I have marked four place where citations are needed. The three "new" ones are all in the airframe section and the last of these is one I simply have to re-locate. I'd like to add a few more "legal" pics, but that will be taking me into new territory, trying to sort out what's "fair use" or public domain. Does anyone have any other ideas on what needs to be done? Askari Mark | Talk 04:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Mark. You can leave the addition of images to me. I shall be adding more images later from ADA's website (it doesnt respond sometimes). According to the Right to Information Act of the Government of India, all images of the Government, its ministries and its agencies are in the public-domain, for educational, journalistic uses. ADA is under the ministry of defence, Gov. of India so its images can be freely copied by newspapers, or encyclopedias such as wikipedia. Thanks. IAF

I found the third missing citation in the Airframe section, so there's now two left. I'll keep looking. I'm also going to remove this article from the "Pages Needing Attention" listing.

I'm more than happy to leave the images to you. What I particularly had in mind were pics of a two-seat version, the Kaveri (which could also be used in that article), and the MMR. While researching I came across a publicity photo of a mockup of the MMR at a trade show, which I may try to run down. Askari Mark | Talk

Well, we're down to one missing citation now. The only references I could find were to one of the PV's having a higher composites percentage than its predecessors, not to contemporary aircraft. It makes me wonder if this isn't an editorial mistake, yet it seems very likely to be true. I found the MMR photo I was looking for, but it's copyrighted unfortunately. :( Askari Mark | Talk

[edit] PV-3 made its first flight in February 2006

this is a error in the article ,pv-3 never had any test flight yet ,it is gonna have this year ,please correct the article

Thanks for the correction - it appears my source was wrong. Askari Mark | Talk 17:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fantastic job

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] added a picture of HS AVRO-748

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://persmin.nic.in/RTI/WelcomeRTI.htm IAF

[edit] Length

I just began reading this article. The first thing apparent to me was its astounding length--it is 63KB long! By comparison, the F-16 Fighting Falcon article is only 36KB long; consider that the F-16 has been in service for over 30 years, with a fair number of air forces. Wikipedia:Article size has some guidelines and ideas for reducing article size. Thirty-two KB is the preferred limit stated in that project page, though this is not a hard-and-fast rule.

I understand and appreciate that a lot of hard work and research went into producing this article. That is one reason I am hesitant to start changing it on my own. In addition, this sort of heavy editing is not my strong-suit, but I will try to assist in any way I can.

One idea would be to spin-off an article dealing with the history behind the need for the LCA, and let the Tejas article focus more on the aircarft itself. There could be other ways of doing it too.

--BillCJ 20:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that most of the size of the LCA Tejas article is because of numerous large photos of Tejas. In my opinion the F-16 article must be increased in length (not because you compared it with this article but I have genuinely felt so). It foccusses too much detail on various F-16 versions, whereas the various pioneering technologies and their histories of F-16 such as Fly-by-wire, computer systems etc. are unjustifiably ignored. The "Design Characteristic" section is very very short. A whole 20kb article can be written on F-16's design and its history. The F-16 article appears like a large brochure instead of an article. Unlike Brittanica Encyclopedia, wikipedia is not THAT constrained in length. The length constraint is given to help users download articles fast. Once downloaded, they can choose how much to read. IAF

I agree that the F-16 article nees to be expanded. However, there is a lot of info on the Tejas. I sited the KB because I do not know how to do a word count. I noticed the lenght while trying to read the article, not from the KB total. --BillCJ 03:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bill and welcome! The article size is no longer the constraining factor it used to be; moreover, the stylistic considerations mention that "only the main body of prose (excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted toward an article's total size". (It would be nice, though, to have a wikitool to calculate word count and/or the main text kB size.) You might be surprised at the number of Featured Articles and A-class articles that are this size or larger. To some extent, the length of this article is intentional as we hope that it will serve to stimulate greater interest in Indian aerospace, clarify the key industrial development role the program plays for India, and provide a more balanced and neutral treatment of the strengths and weaknesses of the LCA.

As I've read peer, Good Article, and FA reviews over the last few months, one of the key criteria most mentioned as a deficiency is the robustness of (relevant) topical coverage. As IAF observed, the F-16 article is mostly lists with minimal information on the development history and design characteristics; that's probably why it's only a B-class article. Even the F-35 article's FA rating has come into dispute. It suffers from the largest section being an inherently POV and controversial Analysis section and weak organization.

Having spent so much time on this article recently, I've been taking a breather so I can come back to it with "fresh eyes." I think at present we have sufficiently robust coverage on this aircraft. There are several specific things I perceive need to be done to "tighten it up" more:

The writing needs to be made more concise (which does not necessarily mean shorter in all cases, but principally clearer); some ideas can be found at Wikipedia:Words to avoid and related help pages.
The "National development" and "History" sections need some further footnoting; I have a lot of the material for this, but just need to find the time to match up the specific sources again.
Specific items could be identified for the "Other equipment" subsection.

I'm sure there are more I will identify when I become "re-engaged." --Askari Mark | Talk 03:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the issues you mentioned would go a long way toward addressing my concerns. I understand the desire to highlight the Tejas as an achievemnent of the expanding India aviation industry. What I have read of the article seems to be very NPOV, which is sometimes a problem in an article on a significant national aircraft (such as the CF-105 Arrow, as reading its talk page will show).

As far as article length is concerned, I understand that there is no hard-and-fast rule on it; they are only intende3d as guideline. My only intent in bringing up the issue of length is that you all need to be aware that a longer article may discourage paople from reading through it in the first place. Fixing the issues you mentioned will certanly help address readability. It might be worth splitting off some sections in the future to address certain items or factors in detail.

Anyway, I feel I have said enough on this issue. I will try to contribute to the article in any way I can, as I can. --BillCJ 23:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to seeing your contributions! BTW, aside from noticing that it was longer than most articles, I'm interested in your initial impressions. Was the length off-putting or was the article sufficiently interesting to keep you reading to the end without "reader's fatigue"? How did the article "flow"? Were there areas that were difficult to follow or understand? Askari Mark | Talk 01:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Tejas" pronunciation

For those of you who are native to India, how is "Tejas" properly pronounced? Is it "thay' jus" (as I've seen it in Jane's and every other publication I've come across to date)? Is it "tey' jus" (which would have a long 'e' sound like "tee jus" — which I doubt is what Rgz500 meant to convey)? Is it "tay' jus" (which would have a long 'a' sound, which is what I believe Rgz500 was trying to convey)? Or are there regional variations in India where some substitute 't' for 'th'? Askari Mark | Talk 17:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Mark, the pronounciation closest is "Thay jus" itself, as you had written originally. The "ay" is pronounced as in "say", and "jus" is pronounced as in "just". But the problem is in the "Te" part. You can imagine pronouncing "Three" without the "h". That sound is for the "T" in Tejas. Of course we don't actually write it as Thayjus just as we don't write Nine as Naa-een or Look as Luk. Thank you. IAF

Thank you, IAF. I'll revert Rgz500's change, then. Askari Mark | Talk 22:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It will be nice if someone can record and put up the pronunciation of Tejas (like is done with the names of quite a few people). My mike ain't working, so i'm not able to record it. The moment its fixed, i'll record it. If anyone can do it by then, it would be nice. Thanks Sniperz11 22:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added the sanskrit script for the Tejas. P.S.: Now, also added the pronounciation ogg file and removed the Thay Jus line. cheers. Sniperz11 18:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similarities to Mirage

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

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

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

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

[edit] Tejas range

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

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

[edit] JF-17 vs. Tejas

Tejas is a true 4th generation aircraft with multi role capability.

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

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

This is from the Talk:JF-17 Thunder page:

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Nominate for GA or A-class status

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Induction vs. IOC

As a point of clarification for editors who are not aware of it, induction and initial operational capability (IOC) are not the same thing — although frequently confused as such in the West and in the press. "Induction" is official "acceptance"; IOC occurs later when the first squadron becomes "mission-ready" with operational aircraft. Askari Mark (Talk) 14:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Information available on certification procedure of aircraft is quite obscure, especially wrt requirements for IOC and FOC. it would be nice if we could add a section on this (a new article on aircraft certification would also help).

Another doubt that i have (and might be shared by other people as well) is the project time line. For eg, how does the LCA compare to other aircraft projects. For eg, the project was mooted in '83, ASR was finalised only in'85, PD phase ended in '88 and FSED phase only began full-scale in '93. So, when projects 'begin', is it the FSED phase, initial prototype testing or the project definition phase that is considered? This would help compare the LCA wrt other development programs like the J-10, F-16, Gripen and others. Cheers, Sniperz11 14:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is some information "out there" specifically comparing the LCA to other programs, but I don't have the time to run it down right now. Such an article would be a good idea, but keep in mind that, in general, the later the "generation", the longer the gestation. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Timeline

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

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

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

**LCA Project Timeline**
Year	Planned	Event
1984		ADA Established
October 1985		IAF Air Staff Requirement for LCA finalised
1995	Planned Service entry	TD-1 rolled out
4 Jan 2001		TD-1 Maiden Flight.

I liked this table on Gerald_Ford#Administration_and_Cabinet

The Ford Cabinet
OFFICE	NAME	TERM

President	Gerald Ford	1974–1977
Vice President	Nelson Rockefeller	1974–1977

	Carla Anderson Hills	1975–1977
Transportation	Claude Brinegar	1974–1975
	William Thaddeus Coleman, Jr.	1975–1977

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

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

[edit] Unit costs

Sniperz11 recently noted that the costs listed for several aircraft at the end of the 'Unit costs' section are conservative. This is, to a degree, correct; however, it's ~~very~~ extremely hard to find open-source comparisons of any kind, and to date the Times of India estimates provided is the only set of comparative values I have found that include the LCA. Do please keep "eyes open" for any others, especially more recent ones.

On the other hand, there is also a degree of "incorrectness" to his observation. Most non-experts in the field — and "experts" include few journalists — are unaware that there are a multitude of types of "costs" measured in the aerospace field, particularly for military aircraft. Traditionally "fly-away costs" (FAC) have been the norm, but there are two different kinds of FACs ("basic" and "total") and lately, thanks to the JSF program, marketeers have begun employing a third, partial cost known as "unit recurring FAC" (URF), which is only part (albeit the major part) of the basic FAC. For further insight, you may wish to peruse "Understanding aircraft unit costs", an essay I wrote to aid WP:AIRCRAFT editors in understanding the issue. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Very enlightening essay, Mr. Askari Mark. Thank you for correcting the inaccuracies in my editing. I'd like to know your opinion of this piece i found on Defence-aerospace.com on estimating aircraft costs. Is it good enough to be used as a source? Cheers. Sniperz11 04:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that analysis — and that it has some serious methodological problems which lead to a few mistaken conclusions as well as cost estimates for some aircraft that are significantly underestimated. (I can – and have – dissected it for business purposes.) That said, it is one of the few useful analyses in the public media. Since Wikipedia is less about capturing the "real truth" (which would require original research in many cases) about a topic than it is about capturing what has been publicly written about that topic, it is indeed "good enough" to use as a source for Wikipedia. The key is to cite it appropriately. However, it doesn't particularly help us with this article because it doesn't include the Tejas and the methodology is not the same used by the currently quoted source. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/l/Talk%7EHAL_Tejas_b41b.html"