Arthur

Not sure if you were being sarcastic, but…

I think that there are several factors at play here, but the main one is the cost of maintaining a MiG-23. The 4477th TES operated the type for 8 years and found it to be hugely intensive on MX. There were a number of continuous problems, not least of all cracks with the wing-through box (which also served as a fuel tank) and engine problems. Newer model MiG-23s might not be so problematic, but I am sure that they have their own idiosyncrasies.

Another major consideration is probably performance. The Flogger was much faster in a drag race than even a TF30-PW-100 equipped F-111F, but in almost every other respect it was a pig to fly and quite a handful. The L-29 and L-39 are by comparison much more timid, and frankly a lot more fun. If I was a real estate tycoon or big wig lawyer, I know which one I’d opt for!

Incidentally, I understand that there is one MiG-23 being flown privately in the US, but I cannot remember the website.

[/QUOTE]

sorry,but does this mean that all 21+possible other Fulcrums in the USAF were spotted, photographed and identified? Do you have seen the photographic evidence?

Ehm, by mentioning these two examples which found accidentally their way to Brussel`s museum, do not you think it is a bit blindfolded to doubt scrapping when they`ve claimed tenths operational migs during 70,80ies?? Where is the rest?

There was no accident to them going to the museum. The USAF was fully aware of what it was doing.

If you want to know where the rest are, why don’t you start looking for them? I have found around 6 of the Indonesian Fishbeds, and three of the Floggers.

At its peak, the 4477th TES had as many as 24 flyable MiGs, but since the majority were sourced through very sensitive channels, I fully expect that most were destroyed in the early 1990s.

Ugh

It’s interesting that so many people doubt that the US DoD would either have the inclination to exploit the MiG-29 and Su-27, or the technical wherewithal to make them flyable and keep them that way. Those individuals who argue this point clearly have no understanding of the foreign military exploitation process, or the scale of America’s ongoing FME activities.

1) I have no doubt that the USAF is operating a small number of Su-27s and MiG-29s at Groom Lake. I have interviewed one of the pilots who has flown them, and I am aware of the names of two other pilots who have flown them during very recent tours with various units at Nellis

2) Technical FME is an ongoing process that takes a great deal of time, and requires a flying programme (vice just a static programme) to be truly useful. Although the US has borrowed Flankers and Fulcrums for brief exploitation at various points over the years, and has visited foreign users of these aircraft, there is no substitute for owning examples and exploiting them over a period of a number years. It is a fact that the USAF conducted a technical exploitation programme of the MiG-21 that ran almost continuously for more than 20 years. Why some people think that there would be any less effort put into exploiting the Flanker and Fulcrum is beyond me

3) Asides from the technical exploitation of these aircraft, there is also a pressing need for tactical exploitations. Again, this is an ongoing programme which, if history is anything to go by, involves exposing the Flankers and Fulcrums to Aggressor, FWIC and OT&E aircrews. It seems very likely that a small handful of IPs in these units also actually fly the assets. The importance of this kind of exposure cannot be over rated. Like the technical exploitation programme, tactical exploitations take a long time (the MiG-23 tactical exploitation took America almost 10 years, and it took took at least two years to be able to filter the results of the first exploitations down to the frontline fighter squadrons) and are extremely valuable. With many USAF fighter squadrons today using the Su-27 with AA-10Cs as its baseline Red Air simulator, the desire to have the best information on the Flanker is stronger than ever

4) FME is a cyclical process and one that requires long term commitment, without which it can be impossible to validate your findings. If you take America’s exploitation of the MiG-23 as an example, it took them a while to code the EID library that would allow an F-15 to differentiate between the Flogger’s motor and that of a DC-10. Once the coding was complete, they then flew test sorties in the Flogger against 422 TES F-15s to validate that the new library worked. This was only possible because the USAF owned the Floggers and had taken the time to make them flyable. There are many, many other examples like this, but the point is that ownership and complete control of the process made this kind of long term development possible

5) America has both the engineering and manufacturing prowess, as well as the financial gravitas, to operate almost any type of military fighter for exploitation that you can think of. I find it incredible that anyone would compare America’s ability to pay for, reverse engineer, re engineer and operate a foreign aircraft type with that of Russia

6) That a particular airframe may have been unfit for flight when they purchased it is absolutely not a hinderence (by way of example, some of the MiG-21s used in CONSTANT PEG had been recovered from water-filled ditches, where they had sat semi submerged for more than 2 years. It took the US 18 months to get these aircraft flyable, but they did so without once doubting that it could be done)

7) The notion that America destroyed the Maldovan Fulcrums is laughable. Why? Because as late as December last year, the majority were still in storage and very much not buried in the desert. The only reason I have ever heard of for destroying FME assets was to protect the originating source. Since that’s not an issue here, I cannot think of any good reason why you would destroy them, when there are so many other good uses to put them to

Oh, and nice evidence you got there, TEEJ. I wonder if 1MAN will come back and say it’s a fake?!

Fascinating stuff!- i suppose an alternative title could be RED stars and stripes?- perhaps not!

Sadly, the sales and marketing people get to choose what the book is called, otherwise it would have been named something much cooler ;).

Steve have you heard of a Unit in the USAF called the “GREY BEARS ” ??

I have read posts here and elsewhere about this, but I have found nothing to corroborate or support it.

I think that it is exceedingly unlikely that the Air Force is operating a large number of MiG-29s in secret, not least of all because two successive Air Force Chief of Staffs (John Jumper and now Buzz Mosley) have openly suggested that were such a squadron to exist, it would be a ‘white’ world programme that would allow en masse exposures for frontline fighter aircrew – the catch-22 with with the 4477th TEF/TES was that until quite late on in the programme, the level of secrecy involved meant that (when expressed as a percentage) very few pilots and WSOs from the tactical air forces actually got exposed to CONSTANT PEG. As for today, it is more likely in my view that the AFMC is operating a small number of Su-27 and MiG-29 aircraft which are used primarily for technical exploitation.

It is well known, however, that the ‘Red Eagles’ continues on to this day in the form of Det 3 of the 53rd Wing at Nellis. Det 3 is involved specifically with the ongoing foreign military exploitation taking place at Groom, and is responsible for tactical exploitation. My guess is that ACC’s Det 3 gets only limited playtime with AFMC’s assets at Groom Lake, which is a world away from the concept of CONSTANT PEG and more akin to HAVE IDEA of the early- to mid-1970s.

What about 12 East German MiG-23MLs? Are still being flown? Also, I believe more MiG-23s were acquired from Poland and Czech Republic. With Syria and North Korea still operating MiG-23 it would seem logical to keep few Floggers in flyable condition. Thanks in advance for any additional information.

I have talked with the USAF Officer who sourced the East German MiG-23MLs for Air Combat Command. He states categorically that they were sourced for static exploitation. One is in the Threat Training Facility at Nellis, but I do not know the whereabouts of the others.

It is possible one or more was siphoned off by Air Force Materiel Command and flown, but I cannot confirm that.