Talk:HAL Tejas/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Number of Tejas manufactured

Off lately I have been seeing a lot of uncalled for updates on the page citing news source especially on numbers of a/c built. First, people who are not sympatico with the project please refrain for editing the page, not every source of news (for any a/c) will cite the total number of a.c manufactured.

People seems to be a bit confused with the term manufactured. Some mods have edited the number to 16 some to 10 and now 20 in active service. Manufactured means manufactured and not only in active service. All the planes that were manufactured and had their first flight should be included not only those which are in active service. All the planes whther with IAF or with ADA/HAL are in active usage.

The number of planes manufactured are - 2 TD (Technical Demonstrator), 5 PV (Prototype Vehicle - PV1,2,3,5,6), LSP (Limited Series Production 1-8), NP (Naval Prototype 1,2. Aside from that SQ45 has 16 planes and SQ18 has 1 planes with the second planes being ready at the induction. Tejas website hasn't been update for quite sometime hence the issue. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

So in total - 2 TD + 5PV + 8 LSP + 2 NP + 16 IOC + 1 FOC (1 slated for FF) = 34 (35 incl. second Tejas FOC SP22)

It is a humble request to please stop editing the page anymore and make a mockery of number count.

Regards

Shashpant (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

CC:@AshLin:, @Fnlayson:, @Ahunt:

Fair enough, freeze editting & propose your edit here & we'll discuss for consensus. Then we'll make the consensus edit. Please provide refs for the PVs & LSPs, etc, as I had for the FOC & IOC. AshLin (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. The article just needs reliable sources supporting those numbers in the article for others to be able to verify per WP:VERIFY. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The aircraft infobox states for parameter "number built" :

Number of flight capable aircraft completed, for aircraft under development or still in production only those aircraft that have flown should be included. Do not include ground test airframes in this infobox although if notable can be included in the article text.

This clearly implies that the prototypes, etc. all are eligible to be counted. However, the breakdown of the total could be given in a note, rather than clutter the infobox. The references too can come in the note. AshLin (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Normal practice is put the totals built in the variant section. MilborneOne (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I would consider a prototype not as a variant but part of the mainline development. A trainer, or an airaft with modifications, could be considered as variants. My recommendation is to stick to the written instructions of the template as this is a matter that has been under much dissension. AshLin (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to note although the section is called variants it is normal practice to list all the different manifestations of the design including prototypes and "mainline development". MilborneOne (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a problem with your total @Shashpant::

"So in total - 2 TD + 5PV + 8 LSP + 2 NP + 16 IOC + 1 FOC (1 slated for FF) = 34 (35 incl. second Tejas FOC SP22)"

The LSPs are only seven as LSP 6 was never built. See the article. So its only 33. And will become 34 once we have a reliable reference for the second FOC Tejas being delivered. Any comments on this before I reduce the figure in the infobox? AshLin (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct! @AshLin: The correct number is 33 and not 34. There is no LSP6, my bad. − Shashpant (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You still need a reliable source in the article to support the number in the infobox, the recently added ref makes no mention of the total built and flown. MilborneOne (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Action underway. Will tackle that shortly once I assemble my sources & wikitext. AshLin (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Action complete. Please review the edit & related footnote. AshLin (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

2PD+2NP+7LSP+5PD+8LSP+16IOC total 40 Tejas manufactured. Reference are provided.
I ame Shears (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Defective referencing

Many references are defective, for variety of reasons such as verifiablity, not RS, etc as well as poor citation technique. This is due to the patchwork of years, and this article needs "annealing". I would be doing this gradually. Help is welcome. Aim is to make it ready for WP:GAN. Thanks in advance, AshLin (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• LCA (N) MK1 undertaking maiden Take-Off from INS Vikramaditya (2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• LCA Tejas hot refueling.jpg (discussion)
• MWF line-drawing & payload.jpg (discussion)
• Tejas Mark1A weaponary.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Tejas Mk1a pricing

There is an issue with user @A.j.roberts: where he continues to edit the pricing based on falsified information provided initially by Ajai Shukla. [6]. This article assumes that price of the Tejas is north of $75million, the article was disputed and was retracted by the same author with new article [7] which better reflects the pricing and reality associated with such a big ticket project. The new price based on revised estimates came to be $43million.

I had initially provided a twitter reference of a reputed WP:RS news site. The link had a video interview of the MD of HAL which states clearly that the price of Tejas is ₹309 crore (equivalent to ₹347 crore or US$43 million in 2023) and not ₹550 crore (equivalent to ₹617 crore or US$77 million in 2023) as was based on fallacy provided by the initial article of Ajai Shukla (famous for making false claims).

The edit was reverted with some dated articles based on the same false information of article #1. I reverted the edit again and this time I added Ajai Shukla's new article which provided for revised pricing. But the user Roberts without going through the links and article keeps on editing and reverting genuine edits, I don't know why. Either he has a malafide intention to project false project pricing or he himself doesn't understand the concept of FLYAWAY cost.

There has been multiple reverts based on hyperbole and no real understanding of the project or the page. Now since I have added mutilple WP:RS ref he is positing nonsense in my profile about wiki rules. I urge people not to be edit page just because you read something. I had been editing the page from a long time and I had elucidated my response with the edit itself. If you don't have basic understanding of reality wrt this project please stay away from this page. You can't give a Janes article (based on false info from article #1) more value over HAL CMD statement. cc: @Ahunt: @Vaibhavafro:@Aman.kumar.goel: ——Shashpant (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

With regard the above post post, and your edit comments on this article, and per the entry left earlier on your talk page (talk), please read the WP:Civil, WP:NPA, and WP:RS policies A.j.roberts (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A.j.Roberts There has been no personal attack so far I can see. You can't just label your criticism as a violation of WP:CIVIL and get away with your problematic editing. To defend your case, you have to explain why your version is better. As far as I can see, if primary source here differs with that of Ajay Shukla, it lies more reliable here for attributes just like any other primary source unless you can produce a number of recently published reliable sources disputing the cost. Till they emerge, most recent sources or primary sources will serve. PS, I'm not responding to tag. The page is on my watchlist and I have been spectating it. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel - Have you read the edit comments, e.g.

> "... 08:56, 24 January 2021‎ Shashpant talk contribs‎ 166,557 bytes +6‎ Undid revision 1002404826 by A.j.roberts (talk) Brain dead editor I had added a WP:RS reference read before editing."

> "10:32, 23 January 2021‎ Shashpant talk contribs‎ 166,244 bytes −54‎ →‎Flyaway cost: Please do not edit the cost based on your prejudice, this ref is straight from HAL CMD and is a video proof don't bring your judgment based on a fallacy ..."

Or the post above

> "...(famous for making false claims)" ?

Clearley violating both WP:Civil and WP:NPA !

As to justification, I added the section, and the original figures were those published in India Today, Janes, Aviation Weekly, Live Mint, and even by the melligned Ajai Shukla, to name but a few, with the respective articles cited. Before being replaced by unspecific figures from a tweet.

The original citied figures, for the January 2021 order of 73 MK1A single seat, and 10 traines, are are quoted in numeroues WP:RS, e.g.

> "... The Indian government’s Press Information Bureau (PIB) announced that same day that the CCS, which is headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, cleared the acquisition of the aircraft for INR456.96 billion (USD6.24 billion) along with work on the design and construction of related infrastructure for INR12 billion (USD164.3 million)." Janes: 13 JANUARY 2021 - Indian Cabinet approves procurement of 83 Tejas LCA aircraft - by Gabriel Dominguez & Rahul Bedi." (article Cited in a previous revision).

Clearley differentiating the aircraft purchase value, from the supporting infrastructure, and R&D. With identical figures published by Flight Global, the other typicall go to WP:RS for aviation news. Though in the is case the figures backed by articles in: India Today, Hindustan Times, Deccan Chronile, BuisnessToday.in, The Hindu, ...

Then add the replacement figures are from a tweet, that does not explicitly state what the alternate "average costs" offered, is for, let alone is the Flyaway cost (marginal unit cost - to the Customer), for the January 2021 MK1A order, for 83 aircraft.

The figures from the tweet, therefore fail both the specitivity, and a WP:RS test, while the edit comments, failure to mention the other souces originally cited, along with the abuse thrown at Ajai Shukla, are obviously not the kind of behaviour one expects of a Wikipedia editor.

A.j.roberts (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I would propose removing all the prices from the article, as per our Wikipedia policy WP:NOTSALES, which says An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Obviously the different sources quoted are indicating prices including spares, training or other items, or not, and are from different time periods. Keeping these prices just adds to reader confusion. As the policy notes, to even include prices the sources must discuss them in depth, not just a passing mention that the aircraft costs X and, mostly importantly that there needs to be "a justified reason for the mention". In other words we only include prices when it is controversial, contentious or notable and has been discussed in detail in third party sources and not just merely mentioned. So far I have not seen any indication in the refs that justifies including any pricing for the Tejas in this article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahunt - this ia really a question for the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft project, as a general rule, and not arbitary call made.

A.j.roberts (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we recently had a discussion about this and have a consensus there regarding removing costs in infoboxes and articles, based on the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTSALES, which I quoted above. I was trying to be polite in bringing this up here, before I delete all mentions of costs from the article, to comply with consensus and policy, as it will render this discussion moot. - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Please read the following statement sourced from this reliable news report:

“Some are calculating the price of the Tejas MK1 A based on the Rs 48,000 (crore) bill. This is wrong. If one takes out the taxes and duty, besides foreign exchange increase, the cost of the contract comes down to about Rs 36,000 core. Actually, the total order cost for the 83 LCA is about Rs 25,150 crore...Cost per aircraft is Rs 309 crore. The trainer will cost Rs 280 crore.”- R. Madhavan, HAL chairman

This should be enough for clarification.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• LCA Tejas aerial refuse from IAF Il-78 tanker.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

HAL TEDBF in Infobox

MBlaze Lightning for this edit. AFAIK TEDBF is based upon Tejas confirmed by reliable sources [8] and can bring as many as you want. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Potential operator

BilCat STOP this bias! There are plenty of wikipedia articles are out there which have potential operator section; so what makes to think that it's here only and what prompted you to delete It??! I've revereted your change--E1Char (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Follow standard aircraft article layout, per WP:Aircontent instead of making up something. Potential/possible operators do not belong in a separate main section or under Operators. These can be covered in Operational history though. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The information (if it belongs at all - these are several year old reports where it isn't clear whether the interest is still live or how serious it was, and articles on modern military aircraft on Wikipedia are already far too full of news items and rumours) belongs better in the Operational history section as prose (rather than bullet points. The Malaysian interest is already mentioned there.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I moved it there earlier to follow guidelines in the WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS section. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Fnlayson and Nigel, for getting this straightened out. @E1Char:, please be careful about bandying about terms like "bias", which aren't conducive to good collaboration. I realize you're fairly new here, so you'll get some leeway, but please be more careful in the future. Thanks for letting me know about the JF-17 not following this guideline, and I've now corrected it. I watch-list that article, but I missed the change there somehow. It happens, but it certainly wasn't bias on my part! Feel free to let me know about anymore aircraft articles that don't follow the guidelines. BilCat (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably also worth making mention of WP:CRYSTAL as the policy that applies to this area. - Ahunt (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

BilCat (talk) I'm new here it was my outburst of emotion seeing rules (which I was unaware of before)enforced only on me I'm extremely sorry for my words; I promise I'll a be responsible contributor Also I thought it was okay to include Potential operator under operator seeing so in others articles thanks for correcting me. It will be a great help if you (or anyone here) can provide me link to such rules/guidelines. Thank you--E1Char (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Please refer Wikipedia:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS for current consensus. You have to remember that all aircraft are marketed and promoted to many countries on the chance of a sale, part of normal business but unless they get an order it is rarely of note. MilborneOne (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) --E1Char (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Tail number

Is it okay to edit out unnecessary details such as tail number from technology demonstrators to limited series production aircrafts under section Variants - subsection Prototypes?--E1Char (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

We actually have project standards for when registration or serial numbers should and should not be used! Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations - Ahunt (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Ahunt (talk) Thanks!--E1Char (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

origin of name

No mention of this. Tejas is Sanskrit for the fire element. Spicemix (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

We can add that if you have a reference for it, see WP:PROVEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Words can have various meanings and shades of meanings. Often, we end up with competing translations when users try to add what they think the correct designation is, and this causes problems. Even in English, we can get names that have different meanings, and sometimes it's unclear which is meant. For example, is an aircraft named "Kite" named after the bird or the simple flying device? To make it worse, the Saab 35 Draken is usually translated "dragon" in English, but some Swedish users have asserted it means "kite", without knowing or clarifying which English "kite" is meant! What is really needed is a reliable source, preferably one quoting the manufacturer or operator on which meaning is meant. BilCat (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

CATS Mothership Aircraft.

In Air India 2021,HAL mock up with the scale model of CATS family in which Tejas mk1/A has been shown acting as mothership of the ALFA-S drone. It has informed is that IAF Jaguar DARIN III will also upgraded to Jaguar Max to operate CATS system. A wikipedia page relating to CATS Drone has also shown this information. (I ame shears (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC))

What about the AESA Radar ???

After placing the order of 83 tejas mk 1A, government also the acquisition of Uttam AESA Radar for tejas fleet and also announced that it will equipped from 21st Tejas MK1A. After the announcement Tejas has shown this information and I had also edited with reference but now it is removed. Please clear this confusion about the radar. I am just providing the link 1(https://eurasiantimes.com/india-to-equip-its-tejas-mk-1a-fighter-jets-with-homegrown-uttam-radars-reports/) 2(https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-51-percent-of-new-tejas-fighter-jets-to-have-indigenous-uttam-radars-says-drdo-chairman-2876866) 3(https://zeenews.india.com/hindi/science/uttam-aesa-radar-tejas-fighter-jet-to-increase-firepower-uttam-radar-100-targets-at-once-know-all-about-it/854086) I ame shears (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Comparable Fighter Jet???

There are many wikipedia article,such as AMCA jet of India, TAI TF-X of Turkey and many are with the comparable list of aircraft , so why not this article. There are few aircraft which belong to same era , configuration or role such KAI T-50 jet have the same configuration,General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon have the same role and CAC/PAC JF-17 it belongs to same era(some what 1989),same role (multirole),and same configuration (same max weight and empty weight) I ame Shears (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It was removed because of continuous infighting between users of various nationalities who felt that "their" nation's aircraft was or was not comparable to some other nation's aircraft, and kept adding or removing those aircraft incessantly. The same behavior has occurred on some of those other aircraft articles too, especially the JF-17 Thunder page. Unfortunately, this has proven to be the only long-term solution that somewhat keeps the peace. BilCat (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HAL Tejas/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 10:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hello E1Char, I'll be taking up the review for this nomination and present it shortly. I hope you will find my feedback to be helpful. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you —Echo1Charlie (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie, I've completed the review and I'll have to fail this nomination. It is very well structured and certainly has the foundation to become a good article at one point but its not there yet, and needs quite a bit of work. I would recommend sorting them out before re-nominating again.

More than anything, it needs a major sourcing overhaul, I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of inaccuracies simply because of the sources being used. For instance, there are a a lot of blog quality enthusiast sites. I've listed out the more problematic sources in the comments below, but do note that many of the news sites which I haven't mentioned are also borderline unreliable (e.g; TOI, DNA, etc) and are likely to be not preferred for this kind of topic area. This topic has considerable coverage in academic sources, please consider using them. There are also significant copyright issues in the article among others. For details see the comments and assessment table below. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Ref 7 is a website called "indiainfo.com". It appears questionable, I would recommend removing it or replacing it with a better source.
• Ref 11 is a Wordpress hosted website called "defencejournal.com". This is again a questionable source.
• Ref 20 is an article of the International Business Times (RSP entry) for which there is consensus that it is a generally unreliable.
• Ref 21 is the website "bharat-rakshak.com" which is an user generated site.
• Ref 24 is an obscure think tank called Global Security. There should be much better sources for history.
• Ref 36 is a website called "fighter-planes.com' which appears to be a similar self published questionable source.
• Ref 38 is again a Global Security citation.
• Ref 43 is a website called "acig.org" which again appears to be a self published source.
• Ref 44 is an article in Vijay Times, which is most likely going to be considered unreliable. Its a small English newspaper in north western Karnataka which mostly engages in sensationalism and probably has misinformation in it. There shouldn't be a lack of mainstream newspapers or even scholarly sources covering this topic.
• Ref 45 is a website called "indian-military.org", which appears to be a self published source as well.
• Ref 49 is a website called "indiandefence.in" which is a questionable source as well.
• Ref 50 is a website called "domain-b.com". This may be passable but still it is too borderline.
• Ref 60 is a website called "frontierindia.net" which s a questionable source as well.
• Ref 71 is a website called "defencenews.in" which is visibly a blog and hence a questionable source.
• Ref 76 is a website called "defencetalk.com" which appears to be reliant on submissions making it an user generated site.
• Ref 88 is an article in OneIndia which is content farm and not a reliable source.
• Ref 89 is a website called "airforce-technology.com" which appears to be questionable as well.
• Ref 105 is again a "airforce-technology.com" citation.
• Ref 113 is an article of the EurAsian Times which appears to be a questionable source.
• Ref 150 is a website called "facenfacts.com" which appears to be a questionable source as well.
• Ref 162 is again a "acig.org" citation.
• Ref 166 is a website called "stratmag.com" which is a questionable source.
• Ref 169 is a website called "defenseindustrydaily.com" which is a self published source.
• Ref 170 is again a "bharat-rakshak.com" citation.
• Ref 171 is again a "bharat-rakshak.com" citation.
• Ref 172 is again a "frontierindia.net" citation.
• Ref 173 is again a "domain-b.com" citation.
• Ref 181 is an article in New Delhi Times, this is a Srivastava Group publication which has gathered a reputation for misinformation.
• Ref 183 is a website called "defenseupdate.in", which is a self published source.
• Ref 184 is a website called "defenceworld.net", which is again a self published source.
• Ref 189 is a website called "aviationonline.info", which is again a self published source.
• Ref 192 is a website called "mangalaguru.com", which is a questionable source.
• Ref 199 is a website called "bharatshakti.in", which appears to be a questionable source as well.
• Ref 204 is a website called "defencestar.in", which is a questionable source.
• Ref 207 is the website "idrw.org", which is a self published source.
• Ref 219 is again an EurAsian Times citation.
• Ref 221 is again a "bharat-rakshak.com citation.
• Ref 225 is again an "idrw.org" citation.
• Ref 229 is an Youtube link to an unofficial channel.
• Ref 232 is an article from JagranJosh, which is considered to be generally unreliable.
• Ref 236 is a website called "infotonline.com" which is a questionable source.
• Besides the references mentioned above, there is in general a substantial over-reliance on non-independent primary sources and press releases, from my very rough estimation they are cited for almost half of the article. While, such sources may be usable for specifications and models of the aircraft, they should not be relied upon for much of the rest when there is significant coverage of the topic in secondary sources including academic ones, the latter of which have barely been used in the article.
• There is also occasional synthesis although this does not appear to be very widespread, the article needs a sourcing overhaul anyways.
• There is plagiarism in the article and as a result copyright violations. Please refer to Earwig's copyvio detector which will help locate where the issues exist, and try to ensure that the likelihood of violation is pushed down to below 20% for any specific source.
• The references are too poorly formatted, there are duplicate citations, dead links are marked as live and vice versa, many of the citations are unclear about their source, many others have misattributed fields, some of the citations appear to be auto-generated and there is inconsistence in citation style.

Assessment

1. Comprehension:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is clear and concise.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	No manual of style issues were found.	Pass

2. Verifiability:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article has a list of references and inline citations for all its lines. The references need better formatting.	Neutral
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Major issues exist with respect to reliable sourcing and use of primary sources.	Fail
(c) (original research)	Instances of synthesis were found.	Fail
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Plagiarism and copyright violations were found	Fail

3. Comprehensiveness:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article has an adequately broad coverage of its major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article remains focused without unnecessary deviations.	Pass

4. Neutrality:

Notes	Result
No observable neutrality issues were found.	Neutral

5. Stability:

Notes	Result
No ongoing edit warring or content disputes found.	Pass

6. Illustration:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	There are copyright issues with some of the illustrative material.	Fail
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Captions are suitable.	Neutral

@Tayi Arajakate: It seems one hell of a work ahead but this detailed review will help me out. Thanks for taking time to review this. -Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW Thanks for mentioning that copyvio detection tool! -Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• HAL TejasMk1.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Armament section

I see a lot of unwanted obnoxious entries in the missiles section with lot of tentative missiles. Most of the missiles are not even developed or ever intended for integration. Will it be ok to have so many unwanted entries like Mk2/Mk3 variants of Astra and R27/77 etc?

I think the section needs a lot of cleanup. Shashpant (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree! Looks like marketing hype. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done, regarding R-77 this source (https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/iaf-to-get-made-in-india-jets-know-more-about-the-lca-tejas-mk1a/1902657/) says IAF want it integrated on Tejas. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HAL Tejas/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 09:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Quick fail based on the prose. The article prose needs a lot of work. Examples (from the first section alone):

• Lead - 3 variants mentioned are "Tejas Mark 1, Mark 1A and trainer variant. " but the next sentence mentions Mark 2 -- so 4 variants then?
• Lead - Line-replaceable unit - is that appropriately understandable?
• "The origin of LCA programme can be traced back to early 1980s." is entirely superfluous because the next sentence details the exact origin.
• ""initial goal" -- so what was the final/overall goal?
• MiG-21 not linked in the first paragraph, linked further below.
• IAF not spelled out in main body.
• For first instance of ADA and DRDO, surely it should be "the Aero.." and "the Defenc..."
• Multi-mode radar/MMR not consistent throughout. Spell out first instance then use abbreviation consistently.
• Same issue for fly-by-wire/FBW
• "The project definition phase was commenced in October 1986" > "The project definition phase commenced in October 1986"
  • Will readers know what a "project definition phase" is?
• The reference for this is not after punctutation.
• Dassault FBW system referred to in present tense, should be past tense surely since it wasn't used on the aircraft?
• Consistency of English variant? Finalised/utilized?
• MOS:WTW - "state of the art"
• ...withdrew its assistance In 1998 > ...withdrew its assistance in 1998
• What happened Dassault/why was LM brought in?
• "owing to" -- is there a better way to say this?
• "put to test" -- inexact
• "The quadruplex digital fly-by-wire flight control system, performing flawlessly for over 50 hours" - definitely needs a reference for such high praise.
• "Another critical technology needed for LCA was the multi-mode radar (MMR)." -- that point is made in first paragraph
• "Initially, the Ericsson/Ferranti PS-05/A I/J-band multi-function radar"
  • When is "initially"
  • The radar has an article, should be linked
  • Is this summary style? Feels far to technical. Could just be "Ericsson PS-05/A radar".
• The development of multi-mode was not smooth, as it suffered some setbacks - just waffle.
• "Using an "off-the-shelf" foreign radar as an interim option was considered." -- when? why was it not pursued? when was this decision taken?
• "ADA met with success in the development of two of the five key technologies identified at the beginning of the LCA programme." - the first paragraph highlights 3 key technologies. So I read this and think, is this 2 more? or 5 different ones from the 3 identified earlier? In summary needs tightened up.
• "The development of a multi-mode pulse-doppler radar, once delayed" is repetition
• "India's self-reliance goal oriented development for the LCA programme has considerably increased the indigenous components in Tejas and contributed to an aviation industry expansion in the country." is puffery. There is an accurate statement to be made here, but in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
• "On 20 December 2021, Ministry of Defence (MoD) in a written reply during winter session of Rajya Sabha clarified" - irrelevant to the point being made here. Summarise.
• "The performance of several other modes that had been tested were suboptimal.[25] The problem with the radar was mainly attributed to the lack of compatibility" -- could be said with less words.
• (control configured vehicle concept) -- Too much detail? Not linked to an article, but a subsection of an article. Neither the article or subsection contain the term so I think there is a risk of just leaving the reader confused.
• "Number built 40 as of 30 September 2021[4][failed verification]"

Quick fail because this is only one section, and at this point I am copyediting the article. The whole article needs a thorough review and tidyup. GA nominations aren't for articles that are such a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria.

Operates

Operater section is only for who is currently operating not for potential.This is the standard of the page. You can visit other pages also for more info. I ame Shears (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Protection

This page is under huge vandalism. I have to revert many edits in order to restore it(4 hour earlier at the time of editing). Its specifications section was vandalised. You can see the history.Please provide protection and add those things which were useful and it was accidentally reverted. Thank you. I ame Shears (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Planned specifications and integrations should not be written in Tejas MK1 specification section

In Tejas MK1 specification section, MK1A's planned integrations such as EL/M-2052 AESA radar and DARE Electronic Warfare Suit should not be written as these specifications are all about MK1 variant. Alizain6534 (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the specs should be about just one representative type and not convoluted with different types. - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Tejas failed to secure a deal with Malaysia

This Article claims that the Doth Korean KAI-50 won the deal and tejas was rejected. I'm not editing because it is fresh news. https://news.v.daum.net/v/20220513093610493?x_trkm=t Xtreme o7 (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. Seems some elements want to pass judgements even though the deals in their respective countries are neither concluded or awarded to anyone. Also notable is that those procurement plans in their respective countries that are either delayed or postponed due to their economic situation is passed on as failed bids by some elements. Mifiin (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tejas Mk-2 Model.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Bids dispute

The following discussion 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.

---

I've been watching a minor dispute between Mifiin and RXFire1 over naming the bids section "Failed bids" or "Bids and status". Before this blows up into an edit war, let's try to establish a consensus. I'll go ahead and state my opinion on the matter. As of now, the section appears to only cover bids to countries which ultimately chose not to procure the Tejas. Therefore, I believe the best option is to name the section "Failed bids". If there is a bid which has not yet been concluded, then a separate "Bids and status" section should be created to cover those. Anyone else have any thoughts? - ZLEA _T\^C 02:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Your statement "The section appears to only cover bids to countries which ultimately chose not to procure the Tejas" itself is biased. and goes against the Wiki policy of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball So please desist from predicting the future. Mifiin (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Mifiin Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. I did not see any countries in the section which were still considering the Tejas. If I am wrong, please state which country has not rejected the Tejas and we can move it to a separate section. RXFire1 has already provided sources to support that all of the listed countries have rejected the Tejas. If you have other sources which contradict those claims, please present them. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Once again you are running propaganda against Tejas without showing Good faith. From where you are getting this nonsense of countries rejecting the Tejas? Newspapers do hit jobs. There are even recent hit jobs by newspapers for and against F-18 vs Rafale deal or the Indian Navy. Until the Govt declares a winner, its not correct on your part or my part to do crystal ball gaze. Mifiin (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Propaganda? Really? I suggest that you read WP:CIVIL. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. You are pushing for Failed bid tags even though none of these bids are concluded. Propaganda or Ignorance based on reading hit job articles. Just as you are pushing for failed bids, I can push for Successful bids. I'm not doing that but asking for fairness and call it Bids and Status until the bids are over and winner declared by respective governments. Mifiin (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"Hit job" articles? Please enlighten me, I'm not familiar with that term. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If the U.S govt has not issued a statement nor expressed their opinion in any manner, then what is that article that calls Tejas not suitable called as? Hit job? Personal opinion pushed as U.S govt views? Malicious propaganda? Mifiin (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to make conspiracy theories about journalists, please take them to WP:RS/N. This talk page is not the place to do so. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Journalists? Media companies and their agents should be the term that's suitable for many in this field. Why did social media countering these so called established journalists every day for their lies and narratives? Debunking their lies and propaganda? Why did the U.S and western nations ban Russian channels if not for them spreading an alternate views counter to the western narrative? So stop trying to be so innocent not knowing whats happening with the so called media. Its propaganda space. Mifiin (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

In regards to failed bids -

Australia decided to upgrade it's Hawks -
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/31856-fact-check-are-seven-countries-interested-in-buying-tejas

Argentina decided to cancel it's procurement of Fighter Aircraft -
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/neither-jf-17-nor-tejas-argentina-stops-fighter-jet-tender
https://meta-defense.fr/en/2022/12/09/argentina-abandons-plans-to-acquire-new-fighter-jets/ "For many Argentine specialist commentators, the decision to acquire a batch of new fighters, the FC-1 and the F-16 being most often cited, had to be made quickly, especially since a specific credit line of 600 m $ had appeared in Argentine budget planning. Hopes were severely dashed on December 7 by a tweet published by Argentinian President Alberto Fernandez Prensa, and in a video interview given to the Financial Times. Indeed, for the Argentine head of state, " Argentina must devote its resources to more important things than the purchase of military aircraft today", and to add " We are on a very unequal continent, where there is no war", and to conclude " For us, there are other priorities than buying weapons“. In fact, the acquisition program for new fighter planes has been purely and simply cancelled, not even suspended, and it is likely that other programs for the acquisition or modernization of equipment for the Argentine armies will also be postponed or even cancelled."

Philippines shortlisted the SAAB Grippen & F-16
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/31523-paf-drops-tejas-keeps-f-16-and-gripen-in-fighter-jet-tender

Sri Lanka decided to upgrade it's Kfirs -
http://www.ft.lk/news/Govt--green-lights---49-m-fighter-jet-overhaul-as-No--10-Squadron-turns-25/56-711240

In regards to the US Navy
https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2021/09/08/after-us-navy-lca-trainer-variant-offered-to-australia-hal.html
The Article states "The T-7A, T-50 and M-346 are all competing to replace the T-45 in the US Navy. US experts have said the LCA LIFT variant does not stand a realistic chance of winning the US Navy contract. This could be in part attributed to the fact that HAL lacks orders for the type. In comparison, both the M-346 and T-50 have won several export orders in the past decade. In addition, the LCA's delta-wing design makes it less suitable for low-speed landing characteristics that naval pilots need on aircraft carriers. Moreover, the lack of US companies as partners is also expected to complicate HAL's bid." RXFire1 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

None of the bids are concluded bids. There are no winners in those contest. So without winners how can there be failures? Also in bids like Philippines, the same newspapers latest report states that it's advantage Tejas after FA-50 being grounded. https://eurasiantimes.com/advantage-lca-tejas-philippines-grounds-korean-fa-50-fighters/ Similarly there are news of Argentina going to send their experts to evaluate Tejas shortly. So why this hurry to call Tejas bids as failed bids? Prudent is to call it Bids and status at this juncture and wait for the time when the deals are concluded and winners declared before making it Successful bids or failed bids. Mifiin (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

RXFire1 The source you provided for the US Navy bid does not state that the Tejas was officially rejected. Do you have another source which supports your claims? - ZLEA _T\^C 03:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The wordings of that article clearly gives away it as a opinion of the Journalist. Probably The Week should be debarred from Wikipedia for pushing personal opinions as facts. Now regarding facts, this deal is that of a U.S govt deal. When the U.S govt does anything they issue a statement, which are public in nature. Either posted in DOD website or respective procurement site. Do you have anything to showcase of Tejas being rejected from Department of Defense website? Mifiin (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have a concern about the reliability of a source, feel free to bring it up at WP:RS/N. The Week is not listed at WP:RSPSOURCES, so perhaps there should be a discussion on its reliability. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No the Philipines is not buying the F/A-50 it's already in service. The competition is between the Gripen and the F-16. https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/31523-paf-drops-tejas-keeps-f-16-and-gripen-in-fighter-jet-tender "“(The) two last contenders, (for the PAF MRF project are the) F-16V Block 50/52 Variant and the JAS-39 Gripen C/D+ Version,” PAF spokesperson, Col. Maynard Mariano, is quoted as saying by the Philippine News Agency in a press release published on July 6, 2022." US, Swedish planes top choices for multi-role fighter deal: Philippine News Agency PAF https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1178302 The Tejas is not under consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RXFire1 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The correct status of Philippines deal is this "For the MRF, the project is approved with the issued Acquisition Memorandum Decision, the government will still find a way to fund the said project," he added. Meaning the project is approved and funding not yet allowed. Now the statement from PAF spokesperson, Col. Maynard Mariano is known. But is it the final decision of the Government of Philippines or the Government is open to consider all the contenders? Also there is latest news report by Eurasia Times that suggest Advantage Tejas. https://eurasiantimes.com/advantage-lca-tejas-philippines-grounds-korean-fa-50-fighters/ So it's prudent to wait till a winner is declared by the Government of Philippines. Mifiin (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

With Argentina - https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/neither-jf-17-nor-tejas-argentina-stops-fighter-jet-tender
https://meta-defense.fr/en/2022/12/09/argentina-abandons-plans-to-acquire-new-fighter-jets/
"For many Argentine specialist commentators, the decision to acquire a batch of new fighters, the FC-1 and the F-16 being most often cited, had to be made quickly, especially since a specific credit line of 600 m $ had appeared in Argentine budget planning. Hopes were severely dashed on December 7 by a tweet published by Argentinian President Alberto Fernandez Prensa, and in a video interview given to the Financial Times. Indeed, for the Argentine head of state, " Argentina must devote its resources to more important things than the purchase of military aircraft today", and to add " We are on a very unequal continent, where there is no war", and to conclude " For us, there are other priorities than buying weapons“. In fact, the acquisition program for new fighter planes has been purely and simply cancelled, not even suspended, and it is likely that other programs for the acquisition or modernization of equipment for the Argentine armies will also be postponed or even cancelled."' Source states that it's been cancelled not suspended. RXFire1 (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no sources that the Tejas is out the the tender bids for the US Navy.
My personal opinion is that it is not likely to win for these precise reasons stated in this article - https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2021/09/08/after-us-navy-lca-trainer-variant-offered-to-australia-hal.html
"The T-7A, T-50 and M-346 are all competing to replace the T-45 in the US Navy. US experts have said the LCA LIFT variant does not stand a realistic chance of winning the US Navy contract. This could be in part attributed to the fact that HAL lacks orders for the type. In comparison, both the M-346 and T-50 have won several export orders in the past decade. In addition, the LCA's delta-wing design makes it less suitable for low-speed landing characteristics that naval pilots need on aircraft carriers. Moreover, the lack of US companies as partners is also expected to complicate HAL's bid."

Also stated in the main article - unlike the other bids HAL hasn't partnered with an American based Company. RXFire1 (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That's why. Its not concluded. So keep it open. Mifiin (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

By that statement it's a cancelled bid rather than failed bid. If Argentina's economic situation don't support fighter acquisition as of today, you cannot add it to the list as failure on the part of fighters. You could call it Cancelled bid for all the participating aircraft's. There are reports of the evaluation process going on as part of Argentine team probably visiting India in Jan 2023 or Feb 2023. If you wish to create a new section called Cancelled bids and wish to move Tejas to it, that I will call as fair until we await further news of Argentine teams visiting India. At that times can be moved back to Bids and status. or just leave it at Bids and status and keep updating the status as and when we see progress of the bidding process until its concluded deal. Thank you. Mifiin (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The title "Failed bids" doesn't mean it was a "failure on the part of fighters". Furthermore, a canceled bid is still a failed bid as all contenders failed to receive a contract with the military. You claim that sources are "pushing personal opinions as facts", which is, in fact, your own personal opinion. Many editors would call your actions WP:CHERRYPICKING. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Again assumption that "doesn't mean it was a "failure on the part of fighters"." . It could be seen in that view as well. Who is stopping people from having their opinion? Mifiin (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that Tejas will win because it has demonstrated landing on aircraft carrier multiple times. Also GE engine, so U.S is comfortable there. Also the fairness in U.S is higher due to the U.S Navy will want the best for their pilots. My personal bets is on Tejas. But I will wait for the deal to conclude before updating Wikipedia page and not push against No Crystal ball policy. Mifiin (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You clearly are pushing your own personal opinion if you're throwing out any reliable sources which disagree with you. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I am countering you from pushing your agenda of failed bids and calling it Bids and Status instead of my opinion of Successful bids. Mifiin (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You think I'm pushing my POV, so you're pushing back with your POV? - ZLEA _T\^C 04:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Making sure that we dont violate Wikiepdia No Crystal ball policy. Lets leave the bids at that stage and wait for the outcome rather than pass judgement prematurely. If prediction is that matter, I can do better prediction stating that the cancelling of the bid in Argentine tender is making way for Tejas. How? Argentine experts will be given access to evaluate Tejas and Government of India wil offer long term loans for Argentina to purchase Tejas. Argentina gets Tejas fighters and protection without worrying about present economic situation and GoI gets to sell Tejas. Aint my Crystal gaze better than yours failed bid one? :) Mifiin (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm just saying what the reliable sources "written by hitmen" are saying. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Atleast you agree that they are hitmen right. Good we have progress. In the U.S defence procurement anything that has to come is public in nature or U.S being a democracy and things will be done in public with such statement if any. As long as none exists in publication from U.S DoD means Tejas is very much in contention, not withstanding personal opinion of some journalist. Mifiin (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That was a joke. If you truly believe that journalists are hitmen, then we may have a WP:COMPETENCE issue. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Tejas won't win these contracts

The Argentine president has come out and stated the the tender to acquire Fighter Aircraft is over. Argentina abandons plans to acquire new fighter jets "For many Argentine specialist commentators, the decision to acquire a batch of new fighters, the FC-1 and the F-16 being most often cited, had to be made quickly, especially since a specific credit line of 600 m $ had appeared in Argentine budget planning. Hopes were severely dashed on December 7 by a tweet published by Argentinian President Alberto Fernandez Prensa, and in a video interview given to the Financial Times. Indeed, for the Argentine head of state, " Argentina must devote its resources to more important things than the purchase of military aircraft today", and to add " We are on a very unequal continent, where there is no war", and to conclude " For us, there are other priorities than buying weapons“. In fact, the acquisition program for new fighter planes has been purely and simply cancelled, not even suspended, and it is likely that other programs for the acquisition or modernization of equipment for the Argentine armies will also be postponed or even cancelled." Source states that it's been cancelled not suspended.

"There are reports of the evaluation process going on as part of Argentine team probably visiting India in Jan 2023 or Feb 2023. If you wish to create a new section called Cancelled bids and wish to move Tejas to it, that I will call as fair until we await further news of Argentine teams visiting India. At that times can be moved back to Bids and status. or just leave it at Bids and status and keep updating the status as and when we see progress of the bidding process until its concluded deal." - Mifiin - Sourced needed. The JF-17 & F-16 were actually the top contenders, the Tejas has British components like the Martin Baker Ejection seats which the British wouldn't have granted a license to export, it would have taken time and money to manufacture the aircraft without British components.

The Philippines is not buying the F/A-50 BECAUSE it's already in Service with the PAF. Advantage LCA Tejas? Philippines Grounds Korean FA-50 Fighters; Both Jets Are Competing For Malaysian & Egyptian Contracts Article is talking about the impact of the F/A-50 on the Malaysian and Egyptian bids which are still on going.

The Philippines tender for Multi-Role Fighters is narrowed down to the Gripen & the F-16 Block 50/52.
India’s Tejas is out as PAF shortlists F-16 and Gripen in fighter jet tender
"The Philippine Air Force (PAF) has shortlisted the Lockheed Martin F-16 and the Saab JAS-39 Gripen in its multi-role fighter jet (MRF) tender.
"“(The) two last contenders, (for the PAF MRF project are the) F-16V Block 50/52 Variant and the JAS-39 Gripen C/D+ Version,” PAF spokesperson, Col. Maynard Mariano, is quoted as saying by the Philippine News Agency in a press release published on July 6, 2022. This means that other candidates, including India’s HAL Tejas, have now been excluded from the tender."

Confirmed by the Philippine News Agency - https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1178302.

The Philippine Air Force (PAF) on Tuesday said it is in the process of choosing between the latest model of the American-made Lockheed Martin F-16s and the Swedish-made Saab JAS-39 for its multi-role fighter (MRF) project. "(The) two last contenders, (for the PAF MRF project are the) F-16V Block 50/52 Variant and the JAS-39 Gripen C/D+ Version," PAF spokesperson, Col. Maynard Mariano, said.
These proposed MRFs are expected to augment the existing fleet of 12 South Korean-made Mach 1.5-capable FA-50PH jet aircraft acquired from 2015 to 2017 by the PAF as its first supersonic aircraft after the decommissioning of its Northrop F-5 "Tiger" jet fighters in 2005.

It is also highly unlikely that the US Navy will acquire the Tejas - HAL Tejas Fails To Impress US Navy; Washington Likely To Sideline Indian Jet For Boeing, Lockheed Trainer Aircraft

"However, Thomas Newdick, a defense writer with The War Zone, says the chances of success of the two-seat LCA Navy prototype “must be considered extremely slim”."

These Contenders Are Vying To Replace The Navy’s T-45 Goshawk With A New Jet Trainer

"Perhaps the most surprising apparent entrant in the UJTS competition is the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) Light Combat Aircraft, or LCA, which is operated by the Indian Air Force as the Tejas. While the Indian Navy has already rejected a navalized LCA as a potential carrier-based combat jet, HAL has flown a two-seat LCA Navy prototype and the aircraft seems to have been offered to the U.S. Navy as a trainer, although its chances of success must be considered extremely slim."'

"My personal opinion is that Tejas will win because it has demonstrated landing on aircraft carrier multiple times. Also GE engine, so U.S is comfortable there. Also the fairness in U.S is higher due to the U.S Navy will want the best for their pilots. My personal bets is on Tejas." - Seriously you're in Denial. The Tejas was ALSO rejected by the Indian Navy for being too heavy.

HAL Tejas Fails To Impress US Navy; Washington Likely To Sideline Indian Jet For Boeing, Lockheed Trainer Aircraft
"In January this year, the Indian Navy conducted carrier trials of the naval variant of the Tejas. The service, which had rejected the LCA in 2016 for being too heavy, has no plans to accept the fighter jet in its current form."...."Instead, the Navy could pick its Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighter (MRCBF) from one of the three contenders — Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, or the MiG-29K, reports suggest."

INDIAN NAVY TO PROCURE NEW FIGHTERS FROM ABROAD BECAUSE THE INDIGENOUS HAL TEJAS IS TOO HEAVY TO OPERATE FROM ITS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
"Chief of the Indian Navy, Adm. Sunil Lanba, has ruled out the deployment of the HAL Tejas, on his aircraft carriers. According to Lanba, since India’s indigenous fighter aircraft is too heavy, his service will be acquiring a carrier-borne fighter from abroad in five to six years time. Lanba explained to Hindustantimes.com that “As far as the carrier-based aircraft is concerned, we need it in a time line of the induction of the aircraft carrier. We have the MiG-29K, which operates from Vikramaditya and will operate from (indigenous aircraft carrier) IAC Vikrant. We were also hoping to operate the LCA (Light Combat Aircraft-Tejas) from these two aircraft carriers. Unfortunately, the LCA is not being able to meet the carrier’s required capability. That is why we need an alternative aircraft to operate from these two aircraft carriers.”

INDIAN NAVY REJECTS TEJAS
“The LCA Navy in its present form does not meet the naval qualitative requirements (QRs) to be a carrier-based aircraft. It is too heavy for the engine that it has got. It does not meet the weight and thrust ratio requirement to be able to take-off with full weapon load.” RXFire1 (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

[https://www.firstpost.com/world/aero-india-2023-egypt-argentina-to-buy-lca-tejas-from-india-12163302.html Aero India 2023: Egypt, Argentina to buy LCA Tejas from India]

Extended content

Speaking on the side lines of the ongoing Aero India 2023 in Bengaluru, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) chairman CB Ananthakrishnan said that India is in talks with both Argentina and Egypt for possible sale of the LCA Tejas which has been developed under the ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ initiative of the Indian government. The HAL chairman was quoted as saying by news agency PTI that Egypt has communicated to India that it needs 20 LCA Tejas aircraft while Argentina has a requirement for 15 of the indigenously developed fighter jets. The HAL chairman also informed that Egypt wants to have an MRO (Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul) facility with India regarding the LCA Tejas. India also wants to support Egypt in order to build the aerospace ecosystem. “Two teams from the Argentine Air Force have visited HAL and have flown the Tejas LCA,” he informed. The Egyptian delegation has reportedly conveyed an interest on acquiring Indian defence platforms during a dialogue between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi.

Told you, it's always wait or latest news on procurement and wait till winners are announced you run your anti-Tejas propoganda nonsense. Mifiin (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Several other nations have also shown interest in buying the LCA Tejas. These include the US, Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines.

Malaysia had initially shown interest in buying procuring at least 18 LCA Tejas fighter jets in order to replace its ageing fleet of Russian MiG-29 planes.

In this regard, HAL had responded to a Request For Proposal (RFP) issued by Malaysia in October 2021. However, Malaysia is alos in talks with South Korea for the FA-50 which reportedly has an edge to bag the contract.

So its Tejas for Argentina and Egypt. FA-50 has the edge in Malaysian contract. Still not concluded. Probably price negotiations going on. if Koreans ask for higher price its back to HAL. So wait until a winner in announced in any off these deals. And stop running propaganda against Tejas. Also Chinese FC-1 variants are not going to succeed. it's very outdated and linked to Chinese supplies and Russian engines. Pakistan is also in Bankruptcy with no option to assemble the Chinese FC-1 and rebrand it. Mifiin (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Newdicks personal opinion don't decide procurement process in U.S. Usually done by those are experienced ..... Such articles are devoid of any real news content and filled with his personal opinion. Adm Sunil Lanba is long retired. After that..Tejas is landing and taking off from Indian Navy aircraft carriers including the INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant. All the TEDBF technology is being tested from Naval Tejas. Also there is a good possibility that today's refined Naval Tejas that demonstrated landing and takeoff from both the aircraft carries will be inducted to train the fighter pilots. Also the technology that goes into TEDBF are being tested extensively on the Naval Tejas. Mifiin (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mark83: Can this section be hatted? The rants on Pakistan are certainly unnecessary, and there isn't anything actionable being presented here. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)