Care to explain how come the israeli nuclear weapons are not illegal . Last i heard they got them through a covert, clandestine programme. So when was the last time IAEA was permitted to inspect their nuclear programme?

I think the burden of explanation rests with you.

You can begin with providing factual evidence of Israeli nuclear weapons, while doing so, please provide factual evidence of this “covert, clandestine programme”.

Then you can explain what the basis is for calling “illegal” any weapons which may or may not exist.

Or you may simply say that this is just your opinion of how things should be.

The SU learned of that and introduced something similar.

From the info now provided in this thread, we see that the SU air force did indeed attempt to improve their air combat training in light of what the US was doing.

However, the info only shows that the improvement was to form training squadrons made up of Soviet aircraft…this corresponds to the US Aggressor squadrons that at the time were flying F-5Es. The Aggressor program was not classified and operated in the open. There were Aggressor squadrons based in England and the Philippines as well.

Unfortunately, the new info doesn’t say anything about a SU equivalent of the Red Eagles, where the unit would be flying US or western aircraft such as the F-4, F-14, or Mirage (for that time period).

http://www.airforce.ru/awm/agressor/index.htm

английский пожалуйста

you are misunderstanding, I had no objection on their response taken.

I’m not misunderstanding anything.

You described the book’s discussion of the MiG-23 fire warnings as “bs”…and then, in effect, asked what I thought about that.

I do not agree with your characterization of the book wording as “bs”. That’s what I think about that.

No, it links them together, read again…
because the R-29A ran extremely hot, the fleet was plagued by false alarms when the temperature sensors in the engine bay of the gangly jet reach a critical temperature , thus energizing fire warning lights in the cockpit, perhaps you have the second edition where author made some corrections.

No, I have the first edition.

You are making a mistake with how English is constructed. This wording says that false alarms were set off when the engine ran hot.

But you asked “What does the fire alarm system have to do with engine running hot…”, and the answer is nothing. That isn’t what the book wording is saying. In fact, the wording is saying just the opposite…the high temp caused the alarm, not vice versa.

Again you are misunderstanding, I was talking Mig-23 fleet only.

Your words were “the whole Mig fleet”. In this context, that means MiG-17, 21, and 23.

Was this my misunderstanding or your incorrect language?

Ted explained that quickly, whereas in the book was written the “whole fleet was plagued”. I wonder what would you say if I never posted link to Ted`s answers.

More problems with English. It was clear that the book was referring to the MiG-23s only.

I think the book RED EAGLES about evaluating soviet Migs in USA was predetermined in order to deal with both. It is sad, bcs maintainability and maintenance are of interest not only to the military tech stuff but also hundred of aviation enthusiast reading forums around the world.

“Predetermined”?

Yep…I definitely think there are some predetermined attitudes on display here.

dont you think that claiming such bs like “engine running extremely hot and reaching critical temperature in engine bay” in the first place was doubled with another one “thus energizing the fire alarm system and ? What does the fire alarm system have to do with engine running hot, when its principle of work is based on the detection of electric conductivity in the flame burning in the air of the engine bay?

That paragraph reads just fine to me. A false fire indication isn’t something unusual, and their response to such a warning is exactly correct.

That paragraph doesn’t try to link the fire warning to the high temp…it says just the opposite.

You said, “giving false alarms what plagued the whole Mig fleet”. The wording in my book is different. The “fleet” refers to MiG-23 since the engine in question is the R-29. You have misrepresented the author.

well, who to blame then? Hopefully I made that clear in my first reply. I do understand the book wasnt about tech stuff, but rather about colorful stories of US jocks flying soviet Migs, but with all respect after reading such arguments I was not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Blame? I don’t see what you are talking about.

As the quote in the book suggests, there is nothing unusual about “problem children”…we call them “hangar queens”.

This one jet seemed to have a problem. After several attempts to fix the original equipment, they replaced the system with a US system. US fire detect systems operate in a similar way. Once done, problem went away.

That happens with US aircraft as well.

I think you are seeing controversy where none exists.

…at the end you`ll agree that the book is full of nonreasonable stuff which needs further explanation what is polite atleast to say.

Nope. Don’t agree with that at all.

Maintenance issues was not the point of the book. You seem to understand that.

The book was written to cast light upon a program that had been shrouded in security to the point where even mentioning the subject might have drawn criticism. Even for those of us who were involved with the program, most details were deliberately left classified. It is an excellent book and covers many of the questions that we had often wondered about. Perhaps it was written too much for a pilot’s point of view.

It certainly wasn’t written for your point of view.

That book is in need of a chapter to show that or its findings are just a good read about the past and its findings which have become dated for the late 70s already. A further chapter is in need if the tested aircraft did fullfil the SU demands for their kind of warfare.

There is a new second edition of the book.

There was a plenty of discussion long time ago on this forum and I made my reasons clear to the author already, no need to rehash. The book is full of comical anecdotes from U.S. airmen trying to fly inside poor maintained Migs. The point here was that the comical way they were bitching about soviet hardware made me think they never knew the material part of the aircraft well, so they were trying and failing, again and again and manytimes end up making fools of them selfs. Nevertheless, in general I felt admiration for them having guts to fly those alien aircrafts, but being critical towards writter work leaving their claims unedited or cross-checked. You as a former military pilot should know what was meant to fly poor maintained aircraft, certainly I know that as a/c engineer very well.

OK…so you aren’t a pilot, you haven’t flown these aircraft, you don’t know the people who were in that program, and you haven’t any experience with that program.

But you do have some some unfounded and reckless criticisms of the program…based on who knows what.

The fact of the matter is that many folks from a number of military air forces are unanimous in their praise of that program.

You versus them. I vote for them.

As for my experiences with flying poorly maintained aircraft…never happened. I was in the USAF, not the Soviet air force. You, on the other hand…sounds like this may be an area that you are familiar with.

The book “Red Eagles:America’s secret MIGs” is quite a piece of junk, do not take it seriously.

What do you disagree with in the book?