Talk:IAI Kfir/Archive 1

Archive 1

Another theory

There is also another theory of how the Israelis got the plans of the French Dassault Mirage III fighter from which they built the Kfir:

The Mirage was built by the Swiss company Sulzer for the Swiss Air Force. An employee of Sulzer, a Mr. Frauenknecht, was approached by the end of the sixties by the Mossad and agreed to give the the blueprints of the Mirage. In order to do this he used a ruse: He told his bosses that the blueprints took up too much space and that they should be put onto microfilms to save room. He would oversee the destroyal of the original (paper) blueprints. Instead, he copied the top and bottom pages of the blueprint-bundle to be burned, put old newspapers between the original top and bottom pages and had this bundle burned. The original blueprints with the copied top and bottom pages were brought over the nearby Swiss-German border to Germany and given to the Mossad agents there.

Unfortunately, Frauenknecht was caught on what would have anyway been his last trip over the border with the last bundle of blueprints.

He was trialed (for Switzerland unusual) behind closed doors to several years in prison. After his release he started constructing refridgerators (Sulzer ist most known for making refridgerating devices. Now the company is known als Axima.)

[section unsigned, from c. 2008]

Trivia Section

Surely the many air-to-air shoot downs by the British of Argentinian aircraft during the Falklands War count as shootdowns inSouth American skies.

Yes. Actually, it's a reference to planes being brought down over the continental landmass, as all kills during the Falklands War occurred over the South Atlantic. Perhaps it should be explicitly stated so. Thanks for the comment. Andres C. 18:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Kfir in Mexico

In 2001 I read on a Mexican Magazine about the airforce and other airforces that Mexico had bought 24 Kfir C-7s and that the government had bought the license to build them in Mexico as well as built three building plants here, nontheless I haven't seen any other source supporting this. Do someone else know about this? --201.129.240.39 02:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma

Yeah I know this I know the Mexican Air Force uses Kfirs but I thought they use 25. Oh well one way or another I know Mexico uses Kfirs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.150.67 (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I found an article dated 1981 from the NY Times[1] about Mexico looking to purchase Kfirs. I found some information on Key Publishing's forums indicating that the sale was blocked by the U.S. and Mexico had to purchase F-5Es from the U.S. instead. [2] Though it does seem possible and is likely true (that the sale was blocked), I can't use that as a source since it's a forum post. I checked SIPRI for all aircraft imports by Mexico from the U.S., the U.K., France, Turkey, Israel and "Unknown Country" just in case the sale was done through a third party, but I found no Kfirs received from 1970 to 2007. Burden of proof is now on the editor. If no reliable source is provided for Kfirs being in operation with the Mexican Air Force by next Sunday (2008-05-11), I'll remove Mexico from the list of operators. Feel free to check if the Mexican Navy has made any such purchases as well. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Mexico has no Kfir or any supersonic aircraft other thasn its ten F5 bought in the early 1980s.BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, was just trying to give the editor the benefit of the doubt. :) --Edward Sandstig (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mexico has never operated Kfirs – which is probably why the original 2006 comment was ignored. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Kfirs in the United States

Don't know if it should be added or not, but Airborne Tactical Advantage Company (www.atacusa.com) currently operates a small fleet (I believe six) of Kfir-C2's with civilian registration. They are used on various military contracts. Freightdog208 05:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be added. I saw 2 Kfirs landing at Newport News/Williamsburg Airport, Virginia in November, 2006 and could not find any information as to their origin in the Kfir article. I guess these must be the ones I saw. tabriz42 23:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

On March 6, 2012 Kfir F-21 N404AX, operated by ATAC, crashed at NAS Fallon Nevada after a flight supporting the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center. The pilot was fatally injured.

The pilot was Carrol LeFon, Captain USN (retired). Captain Lefon was a long time blogger and had been writing a series of articles about the challenges of flying the Kfir.

Jim (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Added to the article. Poliocretes (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

References

NPOV dispute: LTTE terrorist targets

first of all, Lahiru k should change in LTTE article that they are terrorists. & these kfirs bombed chencholai. is that a terrorist target? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.124.183.187 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Lahiru k just removes {{POV}} witout giving any reasons. is this how wikipedia functions?

It would be best to leave all political disputes out of the article. This page is about an aircraft, let's try to keep it that way. The controversies should b e discussed on the LTTE and other Sri Lankan pages, not here. I will attempt to make the text as neutral as possible; please try to leave it that way. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you BillCJ. The change you made seems ok.

there is no need to cateforise LTTE as terrorist group in this article. //This page is about an aircraft, let's try to keep it that way. The controversies should b e discussed on the LTTE and other Sri Lankan pages, not here.// —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.43.220.45 (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

i have removed the label terorrist for LTTE and the NPOV template. it is needless to categorise LTTE in a distantly related article. all such discussions can be made in the LTTE page. i think it is not needed here. any label here would only give a partial view of the LTTE--Ravishankar 16:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

LTTE is a military organization which is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by 32 countries[3]. My idea is the word "terrorist" should be there because it might help to our readers to get a better understating with whom SLAF dealing with. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, discuss that in the LTTE article. It has no place here. "Terrorist" is considered a POV term on Wikipedia, and doesn't belong in this type of article. Please stop reverting, or you may be blocked for violating WP:3RR. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I know this is not the place to discuss that but you must see this Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism first. We came to that decision after discussing more than two months. Hope now everyone understand that so now I'll change the sentence according to WP:WTA, because I'm not in danger of violating WP:3RR. Let me know if I'm wrong. Thanks. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Then call them terrorists in the LTTE article. This is about a an aircraft, and there is no need to cause dissension by insisting on using the word here. It's not needed. According to WP:WTA, you have to state who calls them terrorists, and we can't deveote space in this article to that.

Personally, I agree that they are terrorists, but it's not necessary to this article to state that here. I'm not going to revert you this time, but I hope you'll do the right thing, and remove it yourself. An aircraft article is not the place to make political points. - BillCJ 17:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have used the wording as //The SLAF has extensively used their Kfirs to carry out attacks against what they claim as targets of the LTTE// Ya, what LTTE does are terrorist activities. But these kfirs always bomb civilian targets. Then the SL air force claim they are LTTE targets. And another point. SL air force couldn't hit any targets at all until they hired pakistani pilots. Kfirwatch 18:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill and Kfirwatch, context is important. If someone who has no idea about the conflict reads this article, they need to know why is the government carries out air strikes. That is why it is important to state that the LTTE is considered by every country it operates in as a terrorist organization.

And I'm sorry but this really isn't a place to post your personal thoughts Kfirwatc. May I suggest you start a personal blog? --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand the need for context, but that should be given on the pages discussing the conflict or the groups involved. The only reason the actions involving the Kfirs should be mentioned here is that this is when the aircraft have been used in combat. THat's all this article should mention. A link to a page discussing the details of the actions would be helpful, but aren't what an aircraft article should cover. - BillCJ 18:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to support what BillCJ states above, this article is about the aircraft it just need to mention that it has been used in action. It is not the place to discuss the merits or otherwise - that should be in an article about the subject military action.MilborneOne 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

LTTE is not banned in Sri Lanka :-) Kfirwatch 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Banned LTTE is a very vague word. To my understanding its not banned in srilanka and the government holds talk with it. we don't need any labels (both positive and otherwise) here for any organisation mentioned in an aircraft article.

//LTTE is considered by every country it operates in as a terrorist organization//

The above is an invalid statememt. First of all no one knows where all LTTE operates :) second, its not banned in all countries of the world.--Ravishankar 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree "banned" is, at best, non-specific, and at worst, non-neutral. Be aware that the "protected version" does not represent the preferred version, only the version that was there at the time of protection. We need to work an a version here that will be acceptable to all, then we can request the page be unprotected. - BillCJ 23:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not the one who added that statement. It was there since 09:19, September 4, 2006.[4] Where were you all at that time? As a Sri Lankan editor who is always being involved with articles related to Sri Lankan Civil War we always mention the term Rebel or Terrorist just after the LTTE. It will give a better understanding to our readers than simply showing the acronym. Please be kind enough to mind this too, LTTE is a terrorist organisation and there is not much difference between them and the Al-Qaeda who attacked American citizens and who always wants to have the poor general public as their prey. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter how long a term has been in place if it violates NPOV. "Rebel" would seem an acceptable alternative to "terrorist" to me, as they are rebelling against the established goverment. But, an aircraft article is no place for it. I've seen other editors take the label "terrorist" off of Al-Qaeda in other aircraft atricles, so this is not unreasonable. - BillCJ 05:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Then change as this. The SLAF has extensively used their Kfirs to carry out attacks against targets of the LTTE rebels during the current conflict in Sri Lanka. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 05:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer no labels before or after LTTE, but would agree to LTTE being called rebels in order to bring a concensus and open the page for editing. The word bannned need to be removed. it is very vague, not nutral, not-specific and needless here--Ravishankar 11:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this article is about the Kfir and not about the civil war in Sri Lanka, I would say that the wording suggested above by Lahiru_k is an excellent and NPOV formula. Certainly the LTTE can fairly and objectively be called "rebels" or "guerrillas". Askari Mark (Talk) 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Since even I have right to use the word Terrorist on a certain pattern by WP:WTA I gave up that by respecting the majority, especially BillCJ. I don't agree with anything beyond that. Thanks. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 03:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting "I think they are ". Most Tamils believe that Sri lanka is a oppressive state and they commit State Terrorism, and most of the tamils also think that the LTTE are FREEDOM FIGHTERS. You want proof ? well the LTTE has asked for a open voting from the tamil people to see if they are actually accepted. Furthermore, The LTTE backed TNA won allmost all of the votes from the tamil people. Its not what america believes that is proposed to someone's believe! Are we going to get into that argunment too ? Bill please do not try to say what you belive here because you know nothing that is happening in Sri lanka. If we are going to get into the argunment of who the real terrorist of sri lanka then this is not the place for it. And Lahiru you do not need to run around everywhere saying that LTTE are terrorists because I can also follow everywhere and say what the sri lanka government has also done. For exampel killing civilians with the kfir and sayint that they are terrorists. So we should all refrain from bringing the nonesence here. For you information I have the right to use the State terrorism in srilanka too by WP:WTA so we should not run around wikipedia trying to call each other names.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.112.88 (talk • contribs)

By "terrorists", I was not "name calling". I meant the standard definition of the word coeringing groups who do not fight as an army (however well organized or not), who do not wear uniforms, and who target civilians directly while using civilians as cover. If this describes the LTTE, then I apologize. The Sri Lankan government may "terrorizes" its opponents, but it has a uniformed armed forces that I assume do most of the fighting. I assume tHe Kfirs wear national markings also. As such, they are not "terrorists", but that does not mean the government is not oppressive (for the sake of argument here, I'm not accusing either way). Words mean specific things. People can change how they use words, but that does not change the original meaning; it's still valid, and that is how I meant it. I'm sorry if I offended you. - BillCJ 07:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

New text

The SLAF has extensively used their Kfirs to carry out attacks against targets of the LTTE rebels during the current conflict in Sri Lanka.

Is this text acceptable to everyone? "Rebel" means they are acting against the government in power, but does not say whether that is a bad or good thing. It just is. Will this work? if so, we can try to get the page unprotected. I had the exact same text without "rebel", but this seemed unacceptable to some. - BillCJ 07:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree: --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks given to User:Chrislk02 the admin for speedy unprotection! - BillCJ 21:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

References

Have the Kfirs retired?

I'm not too sure if the Kfirs have retired from active duty in the Israeli Air Force. It is the mainstay of the Israeli Air Force next to F-15s and F-16s.

Does anybody have more information on the retirement from Israeli Air Force?

--Sherry 01:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

They were retired from IAF service about a decade ago. I don't have a source handy for the date. They are still operational in several other countries' air forces, though. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked: they were withdrawn in 1995. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Awesome Kfir pictures

Hey thanx for that information... Its an awesome jet though...wonder how many would have really found it difficult to see it go...!!!

I saw the jet for the first time in the movie Iron Eagle and loved the very shape of it.

Enjoy these latest Kfir pictures I found at airliners.net

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1181339&size=L&width=1200&height=812&sok=JURER%20%20%28nvepensg%20%3D%20%27Vfenry%20VNV%20Xsve%20P2%27%29%20%20BEQRE%20OL%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=2

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0592121&WxsIERv=Vfenry%20VNV%20Xsve%20P2&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=NGNP&QtODMg=Unzcgba%20-%20Ynatyrl%20%28YSV%20%2F%20XYSV%29&ERDLTkt=HFN%20-%20Ivetvavn&ktODMp=Znl%2021%2C%202004&BP=1&WNEb25u=QW&xsIERvdWdsY=A820XS&MgTUQtODMgKE=&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=3363&NEb25uZWxs=2004-06-02%2000%3A00%3A00&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=&static=yes&width=1024&height=812&sok=JURER%20%20%28nvepensg%20%3D%20%27Vfenry%20VNV%20Xsve%20P2%27%29%20%20beqre%20ol%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=18&prev_id=0640659&next_id=0581110&size=L

Thanks for the nice pics, Sherry! Too bad we can't use them. :( Askari Mark (Talk) 21:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual property issue

Did the french got any compensation after Kfirs sold on the international market? Their design was used without permission and this hurt them because could not sell their own genuine Mirage III/V planes to the same customers. it is quite rude USA leased counterfeit F-21 planes instead of buying from France, a NATO ally. Nothing about this is in the article. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Swiss cuckoo?

I've seen a TV movie involving Israeli "theft" of the plans for a Mirage, IIRC, through a Swiss incinerator. Was it Kfir? Anybody know the name of the film? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe it was allegedly the mirage 5 plans. However Israeli technicians and pilots had been working with Dassault for years by then. The 5 was actually mostly Israeli-inspired. They requested that uneeded avionics space and weight (unecessary in the clear skies of the ME) instead be transferred to extra weapons and fuel carriage. There was not much that Israel didnt know about Mirage by 1967. They had bought 50 Mirage 5 but De Gaulle embargoed them in June 67. However there is evidence that the FAF and Dassault got the crated planes to Israel. Israel decided to mass produce the mirage 5 as Nesher (Dagger) using the Atar engine. Kfir was a later radical redesign, using canards, and effectively redesigning the rear of the aircraft by fitting the GE J79 engine. Fitting a completely different engine is a tough engineering task. I think the Fraunknecht affair was an Israeli and elements of the French and Swiss military and industrialist disinformation operation to cover French involvement in getting the embargoed planes to Israel. His trial was in camera and he appears to have recieved a relatively light sentence. And it did not affect his later business career, quite the reverse it seems. Israeli industry was quite capable of building mach 2 jets by the late 60s incorporating indiginious engeering talent. Irondome (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding recent edit conflicts

In regards to [edit]: User:Irondome seems blissfully unaware that that hotlinking of the publisher's name to the relevant Wikipedia article is an entirely separate state of affairs to the actual link for the source article, as none is present nor is necessarily required. Instead of taking two minutes to consider the situation, he has taken to instantly reverting me - insisting that the cite must be wrong as "it's linking to Wikipedia". Exactly why he believes a hotlinking of the publisher to the relevant article, which is standard practice of publisher names in citations, is wrong, is unexplained - he seems to think that is the source article for that cite, which is a most abnormal extrapolation. Furthermore, he is insisting on the replacement of cited information with what appears to amount to uncited personal opinion; if it is not opinion, please present a source for your alternative narritive. Kyteto (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have difficulty grasping this concept. The original citation was JUST a link to the LA time WP article. That was it. If you could please provide the source link here which actually a/ reproduces the article and b/ is actually relevant to the material it purports to support, the I would quite happily stand corrected. I have never seen a link of such dubious quality on WP. I would expect at least a direct link to the LA times website. Irondome (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The link is here - Fraunecht appears to have stolen plans for the Mirage's Atar engine, which may have been relevant to the Nesher but not directly to the KIfir. The citation would still be appropriate if an online link was not available however, as sources do not need to be online to be usable.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That is really appreciated. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, let's establish the basics firstly. One, linking of the publisher name is NOT the link to the citation. Take a look at cite number 7 of the Handley Page Victor article; note how the article title is linked to the article source, and the publisher name is linked to the Wikipedia article on the publisher. Let's take a different article, British Aerospace Harrier II, once again looking at cite number 7 of this article; note how the article title is linked to the article source, and the publisher name is linked to the Wikipedia article on the publisher - exactly the same as the last one. This is a common style in use in Wikipedia; the linking of the publisher name is NOT the link to the article. Is this message getting through? Do you agree that the link on the publisher name is not meant to be the citation link at all now, or not? It is not intended to be an external link, it was never intended to be an external link, the publisher name is not normally linked up to the external site but the internal Wikipedia one for reference. Kyteto (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Point two, WP:CITE clearly states that citations to books, newspapers, and printed media may, but do not have to, have a link given. The information can be already found again using the article name, publisher name, and date by archive work in the real world. This is once again normal convention, not all links need to be web linked as some material is simply not available online. Kyteto (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

But this was not. It was a poorly presented cite. The original link that Nig provided was not there. I was thanking user Nigel Ish for providing the material link, which was not used as the original cite as far as I can see, but have had several edit conflicts. This lack prompted my original edit. I think you are defending a poor example here. The actual detail of the citation does not support the impression given in main article space that the entire aircrafts plans were obtained. That is another criticism. That it was the Atar engine makes much more sense in the context of Israeli industrial expertise at the time. Chill out BTW. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I tend to be more chilled out when I'm not being instantly reverted, not when presented with the following line - "You appear to have difficulty grasping this concept" - that coming from an editor who kept mixing up the difference between a hotlinked publisher name and a (non-present) article url; it was fairly exasperating to say the least. It was not a "poorly presented cite", it was in accordance with common convention and WP:CITE, as explained, citations do not necessarily have to include a url to the source, that is an exact paraphrasing of the wording of WP:CITE - you may think the lack of a url is damning but the policy says otherwise and that it is not mandatory. The original citation never was "JUST a link to the LA time WP article", that was your own mistaken misidentification of the publisher name's hotlinking as a source url. Kyteto (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I just thought it was taking the piss, basically. Which it was. If another editor was able to quickly provide a link, then the original editor was being sloppy. It is a discourtesy to our vast number of casual viewers, who should be given the maximum info possible. I know WP policy in this respect and I disagree. I started a conversation about this on the old and frequently revisited policy chestnuts board. I will try and dig it out. It was fun. I would like to see a strong WP encouragement in providing real-time verifiable refs on line. I am sure this policy laxity is causing some considerable inncccuracy in a range of WP articles. The cite above was materially ill-used for instance. It made no mention of the engine concentration of interest in mainspace. I just think that there is a lot of refs currently being used on WP which if actually viewed, would be untenable in the context in which they were deployed. Cheers Irondome (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No hard feelings BTW. You are a bloody good ed who has contributed loads to our shared love of big or small cool flying things. I know my stuff too, to an extent. I apologise for my inappropriate wording. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

2020 06 19 - New contribution of information on part Background of the article "IAI Kfir" about the spy case at the base of the realization of this plane

Hello,

this day, I wrote a paragraph of fifteen lines to detail the springs of the spy affair which allowed the Israeli aviation to make a considerable leap in research and development about this plane .

I have provided enough references for any reader to learn more about this aspect.

I have taken care to remain perfectly neutral in the information provided, and I believe that these more detailed elements deserve to be brought to the attention of a wider audience who may be interested in the history of the design of this particular aircraft.

I consider that military aviation is not only to be approached through purely technical elements, but that this is an important element in international relations, which enriches the understanding of this particular environment.

I ask that the community can give its opinion on my contribution for today (04:09, 19 June 2020) which was deleted by BilCat only three minutes after my contribution to the original text.

BilCat contributor does not want to hear my argument which is to say that my contribution is important for a more precise understanding of the origins of the realization of this aircraft.

I specify that I consider that the information given before in this article, and concerning this precise aspect (spy case) contained only few references and details on the subject, which I thus supplemented.

Finally, I also specify that I am a French Wikipedia contributor, and that I made the same contribution on the equivalent French-language article without anyone finding anything to add or remove from it.

I therefore see myself surprised to see my contribution so quickly swept in this way by the intervention of BilCat.

Kind regards,

Ulysse de Saint-Sauveur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulysse de Saint-Sauveur (talk • contribs) 05:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

My main objection is that it is too detailed, and needs to be further condensed. It also needs a lot clean-up to the English grammar and wording, which is too confusing to remain in the article as written. (I assume the grammar in the French Wikipedia version is correct, but since I don't read French, I can't comment on that.) For me to clean this up as written would mean consulting the English sources myself, and I don't have the time right now to do that sort of legwork. Hopefully someone else can. - BilCat (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Fnlayson and Marc Lacoste: These editors may be able to help. Marc is French, and Fnlayson is good at summarization. - BilCat (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll pass, I stick to civil aviation. @Ulysse de Saint-Sauveur:/Olivier: Stay concise, stick to facts and avoid personal interpretation. The scrutiny is higher here than in the french wikipedia. Avoid french refs if an english ref is available, and quote the relevant passage in your refs. Please avoid video refs, difficult to WP:verify. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The case in question isn't that relevant to the Kfir anyway, as it covered the ATAR engine, which had been replaced by the J79 for the Kfir. It may be more relevant to the IAI Nesher which was powered by the ATAR.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)