Till 1973 the 773. IAP at Damgarten did operate MiG-21SM with R-3R and did convert to MiG-23M with R-60 from 1974.
The MiG-21bis was accepted into VVS fighter air regiments in February 1972.
.

False infos, I red same “data” in English(German) publications many times.

My data came from pilots and from techs, who served in Damgarten in that period, and from others who were there on live-firing exercises many times in the early-mid 70s.
I have many photos from these people, 4 such pics will publish in my coming book(good shots – flight-line, taxiing, armed-planes with specific objects in the backgroud, not only doubtful landing shots).

Few words from a pilot who served in Damgarten in MiG-21bis era:

” В 1973 в Дамгартене все бисы были серебристыми, в 75 г. получили из Горького 14 МиГ-21 бис последней серии (с РСБН и ракетами Р-13 и Р-60), которые были окрашены в серый матовый цвет(см. фото) В 76 г. два раза перегонял новые бисы из Горького для немцев в Пенемюнде, они были без окраски и опозвнавательных знаков (серебристые). На заводе в Горьком стояло десяток самолетов в серой матовой окраске. Вполне очевидно, что перекраска в камуфляж в основном выполнялась на местах, ведь сама кампания по перекраске интенсивно началась после преоразования ВА в ВВС округов. “

” В 1977 из Германии (773 иап, Дамгартен) я поступил в ВВА им. Ю.А.Гагарина , когда все самолеты были еще без камуфляжа, в 79 и 80 г. на стажировке в 145 иап в Ивано-Франковске самолеты были уже все перекрашенными. После окончания ВВА в 1981 в 927 иап в Березе самолеты тоже уже были “испачканными”, правда, когда это было сделано я не знаю, но еще в 1976 они были светлыми. Кстати, в Березе тоже была прежде матово-серая эскадрилья с РСБН. “

Few of these guys are on the Russian Net…..

When I can meet more than 2 guy who served at a Soviet AF unit in the same time, they tell same stories and show me photos of same planes…..I do not have more doubts.;)

Again some data from Russian Net:
(check authors background)
http://airforce.ru/history/modern/35iap/index.htm

” Самолеты МиГ-23М в середине 1974-75 гг. почти одновременно поступили на вооружение трех истребительных авиационных дивизий 16-й воздушной армии в четыре полка: 31-й гв.иап (Фалькенберг), 35-й иап (Цербст), 85-й гв.иап (Мерзебург) и 787-й иап (Финов-Эберсвальде). На тот период это была самая современная и сложная в эксплуатации авиатехника Группы советских войск в Германии. Первыми в 1974 году МиГ-23М получили в Мерзебурге и Фалькенберге полки 6-й гв.иад. Поступившие год спустя в Цербст машины уже отличались от них усовершенствованным двухступенчатым механизмом разворота колеса МРК-30 (летчики говорили: «Чтобы по лесу рулить было удобно»). “

” В марте 1977 года полк участвовал в проверке ГИ МО. В программе было два ключевых момента: перелёт в Мары одной эскадрильей и полковой проход. По воспоминаниям участников, вылетели при погоде ниже минимума: вошли в облака еще в процессе уборки шасси, и шли в них парами над всей Польшей. У ведущего не убралась правая стойка, т.к. он рано поставил кран нейтрально. Самое интересное, что по уровню подготовки летчики не имели права лететь парами в облаках, да и в тот период это упражнение было исключено из курса подготовки из соображений безопасности. А погода была такая, какая есть, и лететь надо. Так и летали в облаках и парами и звеньями без всяких допусков. Если что случится, всегда можно обвинить лётчика, а не того кто разрешил такой полет. Особенность проверки с перелетом в Мары заключалась в том, что летело четыре группы из ГСВГ: Цербст и Финов на МиГ-23, Альтес (833-й иап) и Дамгартен (773-й иап) на МиГ-21. Первоначально хотели на перегонке поменять: экипажи из Цербста и Альтеса летят туда, а из Финова и Дамгартена – обратно на этих же самолётах. В итоге финовские и дамгартенские летчики слетали туда и обратно на Ил-18, а цербстские и альтес-лагерские на боевых прошли маршрут целиком. Все четыре группы пуски произвели довольно успешно, только Альтес упустил мишень на малой высоте.”

If you can find anybody who served in Damgarten in very late 70s, he can tell a funny story with bort-24:
(phots from my archive – 1977 freshly camouflaged plane from Damgarten)

p.s.: 927.iap. Bereza – an interesting unit too, they did the special(Nuke)-training for -21drivers in the 70s, many WP pilots were “guests” there…:)

It was a metallurgical study, and the report you are reading is the second of two *interim* versions.

The exact designation of the motor, which was no doubt properly identified later, is not important for the purposes of educating scientists and engineers (the principle audience for this data).

Again, you are judging something without even considering the context in which it was written, and nor are you recognising that it is just a part of a series of documents written along a continuum that started in April 1974.

I understand now. I agree.

This is a valid question.

All what I wrote previously – relatively easy to check for you on the other side…..

In summary, you are making a very significant statement about the intelligence capabilities of an entire nation without fully recognising – or at least, acknowledging – that the report cannot and should not be taken in isolation.

Absolutely Not !
It is very hard and slow business for me, because my language barrier.

Have you ever “tested” your pilots with straight questions about this topic ?

Please try to check the knowledge of some USAFE guys from the 70s about WP, technical details of the MiG-21bis, Su-17. It will hard, because they have many infos from later years, but if you can find fair guys with fresh memories – better with exercise-books with dates at the infos;) -you can have some interesting discussions.

n.
The Su-17 from 1969 did differ from the Su-17M some years later, when the downgrade of the later was exported as Su-20 from 1973.
The engine, AL-21F was built in several lots and every modification did receive another suffix. Even here many poster do not care about the differences from every block built or capabilities at a given time scale, when not modified and upgraded later in service. Who does know, how many wing configurations were installed to the ‘Floggers’ and how that did change the flight behavior of that for example. When some internal flight enhancements could not be spotted. So the suffixes indicating that are very important, but when a journo is not aware about that, he will never ask the related question. The ones working with that do know it, that from month to month a fighter does change a little bit not in the books alone, when some new items were added or others replaced and that every unit does have problems to keep their limited inventory to the same technical level always. 😉

Just for sample again – the Polish Su-20 was underestimated in the NATO.
Do you have the date from these reports, when they realized its continous nuclear-task ?

My statements about (partly)uninformed officers – basically are based on storys from fighter-pilots(US, Brittish, German, Dutch, Belgian), who stationed in Western Europe in the 1972-88 period(and later met with WP pilots in the air on DACT or in the pub) and from NATO academys(some went through my own ears, some first-hand from WP pilots).
Something same, like the interviews from Steve Davies….if somebody has same contacts = easy to check.
These funny observer reports and briefings from metallurgists – just a gallon oil for my small campfire.:)

How important to identify(and to know exactly their characteristics) of a sub-type of the MiG-21 -23 or F-4 in air-combat…
Remember for the surprise of the Phantom pilot when he had a drag-race at the deck over Vietnam with a MiG-21MF…
My aditional info for this came from an USAFE F-4E driver – the first time, when he get the full details of the parameters that were correct for the -21bis(CSR, radar, acceleration etc.) was in 1981! Till than for him, it was all the same -21bis or -21MF…
Compare this is relatively easy to check – for example – what(and when) taught the Soviets about the slotted F-4E.
And there are a lot of same stories.
And there were a lot of small dark holes in the heads of the WP pilots too.

Once again:
It is not a fight “who was the better”.
Personally my vote on the NATO especially after the mid 80s.
And my respect for the NATOs intel-guys, they need much more “fantasy” to collect the necessary data than their red-colleagues.
But this is fact – there were much more small secrets behind the wall at East.
I do not think these could change anything in the whole balance, but I am sure there are a lot of (secret)studies on this…..

There is a difference between something known and something published. Even within an establishment not all were privi to have all data.

As always.
This is the reason, why I wrote earlier:
The most relevant were the knowledge of those pilots, who served in the first line at both sides of the “wall”. What they known about the others…

Flex

I honestly don’t know what the exact details of these trips were, but I do have declassified FME reports that show the US acquired crashed MiG components. I don’t think that it is unreasonable to think that they dispatched teams to help make this possible, and the impression I get is that these were sometimes covert in nature (i.e. Visas were not applied for).

I attach, by way of example, a scan of one page of the HAVE FOAM report. It discusses, in the first paragraph, that the project was concerned with the exploitation of material from “crashed Su-20 Fitter C”. Obviously, there are numerous ways they could have come by this material, but I am inclined to believe what I am being told, and don’t really subscribe to the idea of them adding a little enigma to their stories a la James Bond 🙂

Again – these reports are more interesting if we check the date: 1975 September

In the mid 70s the Sukhois Fitter-family was in the middle of the interest of the NATO, already were operational regiments in the VVS(Nuke-capable!), large scale rearming program for the fighter-bomber units, that were equipped with Su-7, MiG-17 -21.
This type was one of the major step forward in the VVS in those times – avionics, guided air to ground weapons etc….

1974 – Polish AF was operational with the Su-20(Nuke-carrier too !)
Egypt, Syria used the type in the 1973 war, Iraq had the Su-20 from 1973 also.
What does it mean ?
In September 1975 there were thousands of people(pilots, techs.) around the World – Soviet, WP, Mid-East..- who were trained for the Su-20.

And what we are reading in this report in September 1975 ?

” The engine obtained from the crash site had no identification markings and has been designated AL-XX “
It can be interesting to read their theories of the capabilities of an engine from the “XX-family” 😉
Obviously the US had no contact with any people on the other side who were in touch with the Su-20 in 1975 September.
And they did not seen any documents that related with the Fitter…
What a big secret an exact engine-type ???
” FITTER C modification began in 1964 and series production started in 1973 “
If these dates are accurate – Please read this report as the fruit of 11 years intel-work on the type…

” The FITTER C mission is not considered to require flight speeds in excess of Mach 2.4 “
…phhuuuuu…what a conclusion:)

Sorry Gents – for me it fits again very well in the picture of the limited intell-sources of the West.
It will very interesting for you to read same reports from Soviet sources from the same period.

Anyway, draw your own conclusion……

Steve,

This document is talking more colourful than anybody else – there were NO any such Fitter-related intell-tours (what the Constant Peg pilots described) pre-September 1975, or if were, those were absolutely fruitless !