I know that, and I did not say that there were deep Western Europe overflights. But there were surely such flights over West Europe as the flights over Israel.
There is no reason not to be so. But no one side will officialy confirm it, of course.

All right, but you are certainly aware the fact that the ground spies can not substitute the aerial photos of some military instalation.
Otherwise, the satelites would be unnecessary too.

But you are failing to understand the ramifications of such actions. Even before the advent of the recce MiG-25 in service it was realised by the UK/US that their deep overflights could be misinterpeted. Both sides realised that such a direct and provacative action would have consequences.

There was a whole world of difference in both sides running direct overflights of non-NATO countries ie Soviets over Israel and U.S. over North Korea etc. The Soviets running flights over NATO territory would have given the green light for the U.S. to recommence direct overflights of Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact. It would have had a tit-for-tat response and gone up the political ladder.

That is why periphery intelligence collection using slant sensors was employed by both sides. You are now saying that they didn’t go deep, so what was the need to even go into NATO territory? The flights then would be simply regarded then as minor border violations. Both sides have played games along the border ever since the division of Germany. The air defence border buffer zones were set up exactly for this purpose. Hardly the impunity that you are claiming earlier.

TJ

Just a guess. Could it be the Modified British System?

The following websites might be of assistance?

http://www.echodelta.net/mbs/eng-welcome.php

http://www.pillbox.org.uk/methodology/maps.asp

TJ

[QUOTE=firebar;1291199]

All right, but you have to agree that he had much more data about Mig-25 overflights than somebody which had no access to such sensitive data.

In its book he speaks about american weapons very affirmatively.

The Indian national newspaper say:
http://www.hindu.com/2006/04/07/stories/2006040704221500.htm

Also Indian Air Force Vice Marshal speaks about Mig-25 abilities to evade missiles:
http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/02/stories/2006050201992000.htm

Also, just think: Did Western Europeans have a better Air Defence system than Israelis?

See also this: (Sgarlato- Soviet air force):

It has nothing to do with who had a better air defence system. Go back and read my earlier post #57. It had to do with the fact that nobody in NATO or the Warsaw Pact wanted to make a misinterpretation or miscalculation. Both sides realised that by the 1960s overflights could be misinterpretated as an attack. The aircraft carrying the recce package might as well be carrying a munition. Think nuclear package? The Cold War could have run hot at anytime with such direct and deep overflights as you suggest was happening. Both sides recognised this and conducted periphery intelligence collection using slant sensors. There was absolutely no need for either side to fly deep and provocative recce missions into each others territory. The political and military repercussions were simply far too great.

Western Europe was like a playground to the Soviet and Warsaw Pact intelligence agencies. The free and open societies allowed their intelligence collection teams to freely move about and view military locations. The Soviets even had NATO riddled with spies, mainly West German civilians, passing on everything that landed on their desks. The Soviets even had spies within GCHQ such as Geoffrey Prime and the U.S. military such as John Walker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Prime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker

For every spy/traitor that got caught think about how many were not? The Soviets also had legal intelligence gathering teams in West Germany. Those teams could go out and legally monitor military exercises.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Liaison_Missions

The political ramifications of direct and deep overflights by either side would have had repercussions. It would have given the U.S. the right to reciprocate with direct overflights of its own. Even if the Soviets had been conducting deep overflights the leverage by the west would have been simple to stop it. The Soviets and Warsaw Pact relied heavily on their intel agents within embassies in the west. The leverage would simply be for each overflight then embassy ‘diplomats’ would simply be declared persona-non grata and sent home.

There was absolutely no need or requirement for recce MiG-25s to be flown directly and deeply over NATO territory. The political and military ramifications were simply far too great. Minor airspace violations on periphery intelligence collection missions are a different matter altogether.

TJ

I do not see, realy, how the statement of former inteligence officer, who certainly had access to inteligence data about overflights, can have anything to do with Reagan.
In its book he glorifies american weapons. Read the book.

What about Indian Air Force Vice Marshal ? He do not know what he is talking too?

http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/02/stories/2006050201992000.htm

Gervasi served in intelligence from 1964 to 1970. Just because he served in intelligence doesn’t give him automatic access to every part of the intelligence system. It doesn’t work like that. I can speak from personal experience as I served in intel for 22 years.

Gervasi was disgruntled by the system and he resigned in 1970. Read his later books as they too are filled with inaccuracies. He was out the loop when he wrote them and made easy money by spinning stories. Think about it? Here was a disgruntled ex-intel officer writing books that went against the grain. Books that contained everything from his theories on U.S. arms exports to his theories on KAL007. He was out the loop, but made easy money because he was riding on the back of his former mil intel career.

Firebar,
Where in that link does the Indian Air Force say anything about direct overflights of NATO territory with MiG-25s?

TJ

Keep dreaming HAHAHA!!!!!!!!

“Critics of the ABM treaty argue that the
treaty is no longer binding because the Soviet
Union no longer exists and because the
Soviets were, and the Russians continue to be,
in violation of the treaty. They contend that
the Russians have more than the one ABM
system permitted by the treaty.

Joseph Arminio, chairman of the National Coalition
for Defense, states:
Not only did the U.S.S.R., unlike the
U.S., deploy the one missile defense
permitted by the treaty, ringing
Moscow with the 100 interceptors
sanctioned by law. It also littered
about Soviet territory with another
10,000 to 12,000 interceptors, and 18
battle-management radars. Together
the Moscow defense and the vast
homeland defense formed an interlocking
system—nearly all of it illicit.10

The “10,000 to 12,000 interceptors” to which
Arminio refers are SA-5, SA-10, and SA-12
anti-aircraft missiles that some ABM treaty
opponents argue have an anti-ballistic missile
capability.1″
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa337.pdf

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_16_17/ai_74337128/pg_3

“Over the past decade, Russia has deployed thousands of S-300V and Antey-2500 missiles around its key military and industrial complexes. In addition, it has exported these systems throughout Asia, Europe, and the Middle East as a means of financing its ailing economy in the wake of the Soviet Union’s 1991 collapse. According to Aviation Week & Space Technology, “in the worldwide competition to sell ballistic missile defense systems, the Russian Antey Corp.’s S-300V is a main contender.”(8) The advantage for buyers of Russian surface-to-air missiles is that, unlike buying from the U.S., there are no political strings attached and, more often than not, the weapons are significantly cheaper than their U.S. counterparts.(9)”
http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.51/system_detail.asp

1Man,

If you believe that there is a complete ABM umbrella protecting Russia then I have a bridge to sell you! The Russian ABM system cannot defeat a U.S. nuclear deterrent. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

TJ

Not what the thousands od ABM missiles Russia has, keep dreaming.

1Man,
No nation, not even Russia, has an ABM shield capable of defeating a nuclear deterrent. You are living in a dream world if you believe your original statement.

TJ

Wiki has the answer. The nearest today would be the civilians who clean the officers living-in quarters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(army)

TJ