Talk:IAI Nesher/Archive 1

Archive 1

Follett novel

Does anyone have any information on the mysterious Mirage novel by Ken Follett? It seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth; I could find no reference on it, even on the official bibliography.

Thanks,

- Michel

Update: Probably out of print

Found a reference to it on this page. The author is James Follett, not Ken Follett! (Though the latter has written at least two novels involving Israel).

update 2 - a) I've this book (good read), not sure the extent of the fiction/truth with this murky story b) did the Russian's (not the Americans) liberate Auschwitz (which was on the eastern front) ???

merge proposal

Moved to Talk:Dassault Mirage 5, the primary page. - BillCJ 15:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Roll of Honor

I removed the list because individual losses are not really relevant to the aircraft itself, though there is nothing wrong with listing the total losses in a given war. Sorry, but it would be impossible to list all individial aircraft losses for every aircraft type on Wikipedia, some of which go into the hundreds. A better place for this list would be an article covering Argentinian participation in the Malvinas Conflict. Thanks. - BillCJ 20:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

IAI or Dassault

This is the very first time I have heard of this secret acquisition. It is almost directly from the pages of an espionage novel. Was the French government aware that they went to Israel in the end?

While I do not doubt that this is true (there is too much corroborating evidence), it means that many of the sources so trusted by the world are now false. Many of the military aircraft books that I possess are almost obdurate over the fact that they were a completly local project and even offer a story about how the plans for the Mirage 5 were obtained (they were supposedly stolen by Mossad agents, something which spy action fans must have loved). These books, however, are quite old and are obviously wrong. I guess the old saying is right, you do learn something new everyday.

P.S. This pages should not be moved to the Dassault Mirage 5 article. I think that the story behind it and the common belief that they were wholly indigenous should more then nominate it to stand alone as an article.

SAWGunner89 23:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The books I have state pretty much the same thing, as this was the accepted story for a long time. I origianlly was for the article being moved (voting is at Talk:Dassault Mirage 5), but after looking into the issue, I realized that there ought to be some more coverage of the issue, and the fact that it is uncertain what really happened. Such expanded coverage would give enough unique content to keep this article on its own. - BillCJ 23:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any significant evidence for that claim - could someone please direct me to it? I only see a reference to a "ACIG" website with no sources mentioned. The only line referencing this "fact" is "The IDF/AF purchased two models of the Mirage 5 – named Nesher in Israeli service – and supposedly “built” by IAI; in fact the aircraft were delivered in crates from France, and then put together by Israeli technicians under US supervision:". It cites no facts, sources, or anything to back up these claims. I will go ahead and remove that aspect from the article until further evidence is brought forward - the status quo is that Israel built them, and you (being those who believe otherwise) have the burden of proof. So far, you have not relieved yourselves from that burden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.36.80 (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

THose are some pretty arrogant statem,ents for an anon user to make, especially since neither myself or the other editor sated we accepted the claim. In fact, we both questioned it to a large degeree. I'd honestly suggest you take the time to read the comments made on talk pages more carefully before making such statements as "you have not relieved yourselves from that burden". I n fact, I was one of the first to question such stories, and to hold to the published reports that Israel built them. I've also discussed this in more detail on the Mirage 5 page, where I again questioned the dubious, single-source claim. So please be more careful in the future, and while you're at it, show some respect for the rest of us. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I was referencing the person who said "While I do not doubt that this is true (there is too much corroborating evidence), it means that many of the sources so trusted by the world are now false. Many of the military aircraft books that I possess are almost obdurate over the fact that they were a completly local project and even offer a story about how the plans for the Mirage 5 were obtained (they were supposedly stolen by Mossad agents, something which spy action fans must have loved). These books, however, are quite old and are obviously wrong. I guess the old saying is right, you do learn something new everyday. ". As I understand the person's statement (to tbe fair, they use many pronouns) they are essentially asserting that Israel did not build those aircraft. You say above that you originally supported merging the article with the Mirage 5, apparently agreeing that they are built by France, but claim that more investigation needs to be done. I agree, but until that time the article should reflect the mainstream interpretation.

As far as your bit about arrogance and being an anon user, I charge that you misconstrued what I said. I did not make any non-factual claims, nor did I insult anyone. If someone (perhaps you, perhaps not) wishes to say that Israel lied and did not build them, YOU sir must prove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.36.80 (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Truth is not the issue here, but verifiability. THere's nothing wrong with reporting that some sources don't believe Israel bouilt the Neshers from scratch, because that is what they report. It doesn't mean I believe one theory over another, and it fact it doesn't matter which one I do believe. However, the theory is out there, and if you are free to counter it with verifiable sources disproving the theory. That mainstream theory is still given as such, but there's nothing wrong with giving alternative theories, provided they have proper sources.

As to my reasons for merging the article, they have nothiong to do with the theory, but content of the article itself. THe key issue for me with similar and variant aircraft is whether or not an article would have sufficient content to stand alone. I had just split the Mirage III and 5 articles apart, and someone wanted to put the Nesher in with the 5 to make a better article. Even Israel claims they are Mirage 5s, and as such it's not unreasonable to want to cover them on the same page. However, given the controversy over the origins of the Nesher, I realized it was better to leave it on its own page. - BillCJ 22:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The referenced "Wings" article is not readily apparent on the ACIG website. Besides, the claim that the IAF received all 50 of the Mirage V aircraft (in crates) that were embargoed is seriously suspect. The commonly-stated number of two (2) Mirage V sent to the IAW in crates is plausible, but not 50. I recommend that the "50" statement be modified (to "2"), or deleted.

As an aside, the format on the ACIG site is practically unreadable, the articles could use some serious editing, and they don't use references. Using that website as a reference lacks credibility. Dukeford (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Dagger" variant no longer described in this article

Hi BillCJ, I've noticed that after your last major edition any reference in this article's text to the Dagger (other than in the "Variants" list) has been removed. As it was an "upgraded" version of the basic Nesher used only by the Argentine Air Force, it seems reasonable (IMHO) that it should have at least a brief Subsection dedicated to it (as is currently the case with the Finger). Please let me know the rationale you've followed to remove that specific info. Unless you disagree, will look in the publications I have on this variant and create this subsection (will leave a brief note in yout "Talk Page").
Thanks & Regards, DPdH (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am answering on the assumption that you are referring to this diff; if not, please be more specific. As far as I can tell, I removed no whole subsections at all, though I did remove an opening phrase in at least one case. I did do a lot of shuffling of the text, and from a quick check, all the paragraphs before my edit remain in the article. It is quite possible I cut a paragraph out, intending to paste it elsewhere, and simply forgot to re-add it. But since you weren't specific on which paragraphs, I can't say for certain.

The main text was a complete mess, and it still needs alot of work. I have not problem adding a subheading for the Dagger. The Finger section had been main-leve one, and occured after most of the other sections. Perhaps it would be better to simply remove the Finger section header instead of adding one on the Dagger, so as not to offend the Neshers. ;) Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast and accurate response. Your assumption is correct (I wasn't more specific as my "WP-editing" skills are not too advanced), I'm aware that no Dagger subsection did exist prior to that diff, and agree that the text was at least untidy. As you say, probably a paragraph was missed in the "cut/paste"; so I'll do my best to locate that info and place it in the proposed subsection. I believe that both the Dagger and Finger variants are worth an own subsection (rather than a "stubby article" on their own!), which can later be expanded as needed, as they've already been in service much longer then the original aicraft. ;) Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Hopefully I am headed to bed now! (Yes, I have a very bad WIkipedia addiction!) Is this one of the paragraph you think I lost? :

• As mentioned earlier, survivors of these aircraft were refurbished and exported to Argentina in 2 batches, 26 in 1978 and 13 in 1980, under the name "Dagger", comprising 35 "Dagger A" single-seat fighters and 4 "Dagger B" two-seat trainers.

I looked annd looked in the comparison secion on the diff, and that's the only one I could find that had details on teh Dagger. It is still there, but in a different location, but without As mentioned earlier. It is now the second paragraph under "Operational history". That may not be the best place for it, but it is written to flow with the with the Falklands War info. - BillCJ (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Brazilian and German Neshers?

I was unable to find evidence that neither Brazil (a Mirage III user) nor Germany (not a Mirage user AFAIK) ever had used the Nesher (or any derivative of it) in their armed forces. Hence I'll remove them from the users list. If anyone can provide verifiable evidence (and citations!) I'll be happy to put them back in the list.
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible inconsistency

From the first paragraphs of the article:

In January, 1969 the French government arms embargo on Israel (on the eve of the Six Day War and after the Israeli attack of the airport of Beirut, in 1969) prevented the first 30 Mirage 5 aircraft (which were already paid for by Israel) plus optional 20 from being delivered and cut off support for the existing Mirage IIICJ fleet.

This was bad news for the Israeli Air Force, who needed the new Mirage to compensate for the losses of the Six Day War and was still using the origin of this version derived from the Mirage III. Israel then decided to build this plane (Raam A and B project)[1] as it had the necessary plans, although Israel did not officially obtain a manufacturing license.

END QUOTATION

There cannot be an Embargo on Israel in the eve of (before) the six day war, because of the six day war itself. Either the embargo had to be after the six day war or the reason for the embargo different. IIRC, the embargo was put AFTER the war, leading to the espionage and development of the IAI Nesher. I don't remember the exact details. Could someone that does re edit this part?

200.123.107.182 (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)