Talk:Dassault Mirage 5/Archive 1

Requested merger
IAI Nesher → Dassault Mirage 5

Survey

 * ''Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.

Survey - Support votes
*Support - But with reservations. (see Discussion below.) - BillCJ 15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

 * Strongly Oppose - Nesher has his own history. [User:Jor70|Jor70]] 14:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC) (Moved from Talk:IAI Nesher by BillCJ 15:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just the article s name is enough to merit a split: Dassault <-> IAI . I also intend to add more data  about the Finger conversion in the future from this book  --Jor70 17:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Changed to Oppose - Upon further research, I see no evidence that it is an established, accepted fact. The only source availble online at www.ACIG.org cits no sources for its information. Unless Israel and/or IAI have expressly admitted to assembling Neshers from French-supplied kits, I think the issue is still a matter of debate, not accepted fact. - BillCJ 18:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose Whether or not either one of the stories is true (see Nesher talk page), both are fascinating and more then warrant a seperate article to cover it. Either way, they are certainly not your standard Mirage 5 and need to be recognised as such.  Furthermore, the general conception is that the Nesher is a seperate aircraft entirely and most visitors would expect to see it that way.SAWGunner89 01:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose – Either is fine to me since there was very little difference, but considering all the disputed material that has to be addressed with respect to the origins of the Nesher, it would come to dominate the whole article for which it is only a subtopic. My recommendation would be to address the Nesher separately in its own article, and include a subsection here with a note to see the fuller discussion in its own article. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Though the Nesher article lists references, it currently does not cite its sources. It makes claims that Dassault built the Neshers, and IAI assembled them, which is contrary to IAI claims that it built the Neshers from blueprints. While the articles claim is credilbe, it should state exactly which sources this is based on with cites. Except for the mention of the Nesher issue, the Mirage 5 article is also uncited. These need to be taken care of whether the articles are merged or not. - BillCJ 15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I am once more having computer difficulties at home, I cannot significantly add to this article at this time other than to say I believe you are all on the right track as the article now stands. What follows is a quick-and-dirty overview of what I know or believe about the Nesher program. (I'll have to leave it to y'all to chase the sources for the time being.)


 * My understanding of the more-or-less "official" story is this: Although the Israelis liked the aerodynamic performance of the Mirage III, they weren't so pleased with its engine or avionics. They worked with France to develop a configuration they felt would provide them with more suitable capabilities. This was the Mirage 5. However, Franco-Israeli relations were souring and eventually France decided to embargo the 50 aircraft Israel had ordered (which were diverted to the FAF instead as the Mirage 5F). Neither whole airplanes nor kits were supposedly ever supplied to Israel. In response, Israeli spies managed to steal the blueprints (possibly with the collusion of Dassault — it remains debated). IAI was tasked to build their own copies under a program dubbed "Nesher" (hence the name) and eventually built 51 Nesher A and 10 Nesher B, which were delivered 1971-74. Some of the avionics and systems used were non-French and the Israelis also certified it for some of their own weapons, like the Shafrir IR AAM; they also equipped it with Atar 9 engines taken from stocks they already had in-country. Greg Goebel, who has a good reputation as an aerospace history writer, outlines this version at Air-to-Air Combat . (More can be found at his Vectors site .)


 * Personally and professionally, though, I consider the "semi-official" story to be pretty much hogwash (aside from the delivery history). When you consider that the French embargo was laid down following the Dec. 1968 Israeli commando raid against Palestinian terrorists at the Beirut IAP and that the prototype first flight was in Sep. 1969, there would have been only about six months to acquire the specs, assemble the scarce people with appropriate skills, reproduce the jigs, acquire or build the various systems and subsystems, and test it all. That would have been a challenge even during WWII with only much simpler non-jet aircraft. What was much more likely was that France — which had certain secret "accommodations" with Palestinian terrorist groups that were intended to keep them from acting against French property and people — secretly supplied knocked-down Mirages to Israel, probably delivered via the US, along the lines suggested by ACIG . In fact, it seems most likely to me that what was supplied were mostly Mirage IIIs along with Mirage 5 forward fuselages and wings built over time on Dassault's production line amidst orders for other countries and "spares" ostensibly built for the FAF's Mirage 5F fleet.


 * The main reason I doubt that entire Mirage 5 kits were supplied is because the whole Mirage 5 production effort would have been closely monitored by Arab and Palestinian intelligence, who would have been interested in confirming the production rate, quantity, and the number supplied to the FAF. Since the Mirage III and 5 differ more in terms of internal equipment than external configuration with the only noteworthy external differences being the forward fuselage and wings, it would have been easier to have obscured the production of these as spares and/or scrap. In fact, Aeroflight, a generally reliable source, states that the French supplied the wings and cockpit, while the Israelis produced the fuselage and fins — and that the two-seaters were actually conversions from Mirage IIIB.


 * The amount of time available between embargo and Nesher first flight would have been sufficient to test out the integration of the Shafrir as well as a new radio type known to have been introduced with it. Since the US was delivering large numbers of A-4s and F-4s to Israel during this timeframe, it would have been easy to have slipped in small numbers of Mirage III/5 at an average rate of effectively no more than one per month. The two-seaters may very well have been local conversions, as suggested by Aeroflight. It is even possible that the aircraft supplied were FAF Mirage IIIs replaced by the confiscated Mirage 5s — nothing much ever gets written about them. Another point of suspicion is the fact that the last were removed from frontline IDF service in 1979 and altogether by 1981 — which would have been quite unseemly after having purportedly spent so much money reverse-engineering and then building them. Indeed, one has to wonder whether the Nesher was as successful an aircraft as the Israelis have long held. A quarter of them (up to 16) were apparently lost to combat, accidents, and possible spares cannibalization, but those provided to Argentina as "Daggers" received an extensive avionics upgrade according to some sources.


 * The only confirmed espionage involved the Atar 9 engine, the plans for which were provided to the Israelis by a Swiss engineer. Some sources say the Nesher were equipped with the J79, but I think they're confusing this with the development of the Kfir. The Kfir had a more normal development time — for a modified variant development — considering the experience IAI accrued from the Nesher program, and there's little doubt Israel had decided by 1968 to go with the US as a more reliable supplier of combat aircraft. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mark, I can assure you that the Daggers have the Atar 9C-5 Jor70 23:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jor ... I was pretty sure, but didn't have time to check! Askari Mark (Talk)

Thanks, Mark. That pretty much meshes with what I have been able to find. I think we have enough sources to include both views in the article, but I don't believe either are verified enough for the article to state a preference for one view over the other. - BillCJ 21:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Decision
One week later, the survey is 4 against, one for (implied, as proposer of merge did not participate in survey). Will remove tags. - BillCJ 14:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Kfir is not a variant of Mirage 5
The development of Kfir based on Nesher, which is a variant of Mirage 5, but Kfir itself is not a variant of Mirage 5. Flayer (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically, the Nesher is a Mirage 5 built in Israel. However, I can see removing it from the Infobox list, but please leave it in the Related section at the bottom of the page. Btw, when someone asks for a discussion about something, it's poor form for you to just plop a reason down and then revert back, per WP:BRD. You've been on here long enough to know better than that. - BillCJ (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Usage of capitals for one reference near the end
A while back, I added a bibliographical reference from the magazine AIR International. As a rule, in self-referencing within its own texts, the magazine refers to itself with all-capital letters for the word "AIR" in its title, so I did the same in my reference. Someone changed it to Air International, with capitals only where they would usually be. If I did not specifically know the magazine, I would have made the same change myself, ascribing the original form to a mistake by the original editor; maybe to an unintentional usage of Caps Lock. The greater usage of capitals was, however, intentional. Would it be within or against WP's policy to change it back to all-capitals in "AIR"? Should I just do it? Comments are appreciated. SrAtoz (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It should probably stay as is. From MOSCAP - "For trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as adidas), follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules for proper names (in this case, Adidas). The mixed or non-capitalized formatting should be mentioned in the article lead, or illustrated with a graphical logo." - seems to be appropriate. Writing the title of Air International as AIR International as on the cover of the magazine seems unnecessary.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 12:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Egypt
Egypt to 2021 use the Mirage 5, source: World air forces 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.22.172.168 (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)