Migs in the USA - Look inside USAF Red Eagles

[Randy Haskin]

That's correct...the picture is buried in my files but Im sure I have it some where. It was a red pentagon with several swoopy lines running to the center of the pentagon.

If memory serves me correctly that's the factory emblem of the Mig Design team...they were vigourosly trying to scrape that emblem off during my visit...

I talked with the author of the Red Eagles book, Steve Davies, on the phone tonight.

He said that the insignia is applied to individual aircraft that have noteworthy maintenance records -- it is not a unit or organizational badge.

The MiG insignia is different, but somewhat similar -- it is a stylized wing in a circle:



If you uncover those photos, Mr Davies would be very interested in seeing them. Send me a PM if you wish to share them.

[Rauhbatz]

My family is in the midst of a move at the moment so everything aviation-wise except the flight bag is boxed up over at a storage area near our house. Im pretty sure I know where the photo album is that has those pics from NASM...

I'l put a reminder in the Blackberry to look for these on my next trip over there this weekend....

I do recollect the overall finish was a lighter style camo color with that pentagon with three lines figure on the left nose. As it turns out, I remember looking at this picture in an album before I packed it away!

Will check back....

[aseanaero]

It seems the Red Eagle Program was trying to emulate North Korea's ultra secret 'Military First' program

More details here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nKuoNhihh4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HByXYxYN7H4&feature=related

The 2nd link has a very cool sound track , highlights include a high speed flyby of 3 Antonov 2s in formation

[k5083]

The thing that surprises me about the Pentagon's MiG program is that anyone is surprised by it, or thought it worth keeping secret. MiGs were known to be available on the open market, often from countries that we weren't very unfriendly with. The research and training advantages are obvious. Wouldn't it be surprising if the Pentagon didn't do this? The cloak and dagger stuff with the museum donations just seems silly.

They probably already have the latest Soviet fighters on those bases now

There's still a Soviet Union? Okay, now that is newsworthy.

August

[aseanaero]

Agree, I was always puzzled why the US military was using F-5s and A-4s and simuated migs when there were already some in the country, I thought it may have been one of those logistic issues or some other red tape that prevented it

Soviet ... you got me on that one , I get confused between Russia , Ukraine , Georgia etc PC thing so Soviet keeps it simple

[Randy Haskin]

The thing that surprises me about the Pentagon's MiG program is that anyone is surprised by it, or thought it worth keeping secret. MiGs were known to be available on the open market, often from countries that we weren't very unfriendly with. The research and training advantages are obvious. Wouldn't it be surprising if the Pentagon didn't do this? The cloak and dagger stuff with the museum donations just seems silly.

Very simple answer: knowledge is power. This is exactly why we have classified programs to begin with.

If the bad guys don't know what we know about their systems, it keeps them from upgrading to new stuff.

If they know that we "know their secrets", then they come up with new ones we don't know about.

Where exactly WERE there "MiGs on the open market" in 1975?

[k5083]

Really Randy? And do we good guys do the same? Do we think, "Heck, we've only sold that hardware to 40 countries, I'm sure the bad guys haven't managed to acquire any. Let's not bother to develop the next generation yet." Or is it only bad guys who are so complacent?

August

[Randy Haskin]

Really Randy? And do we good guys do the same? Do we think, "Heck, we've only sold that hardware to 40 countries, I'm sure the bad guys haven't managed to acquire any. Let's not bother to develop the next generation yet." Or is it only bad guys who are so complacent?

August

It's all about specific capabilities. If the US acquires a non-export variant of a particular aircraft, it will have different capabilities than an export variant.

So, while a particular adversary may know that US forces have exploited the MiG-23, they may not know we have exploited a "FLOGGER-F" or one with a particular kind of avionics or weapons. That makes an enormous difference on modern fighters. The airframes aren't nearly as important as the avionics or the integration of those avionics.

Again, knowledge is power.

Plus, we -- the US -- have to protect our sources. If we "rat out" 3rd party nations that give us access to foreign technology, they won't have access to that technology much firther, will they. I'd wager that most of the agreements that result in foreign materiel exploitation have stipulations that closely protect source nations.

By the way, in reference to your statement above...YES. Isn't that the argument that we in the US hear from people railing against the F-22 and F-35?? That we should just buy more F-15s and F-16s and call it good?

[flyingheritage]

Here dem Migs at Pima...

http://www.warbirdz.net/forum/showthrea ... 13#post113

Looks possibly like a Mig 17 Fresco Have xxxx and a ex indoesnian Mig-21PF maybe HAVE PAD???

[flyingheritage]

http://roadrunnersinternationale.com/im ... m1960s.jpg

Here we go.. a amazing 1960s photo of Groom lake UP VERY close..

Sure shows alot of equipment in situ for a hidden base eh eh....

[Rauhbatz]

From my post several months back I finally found that pic of the Mig just after it had arrived and the staff was shooing us away as they cleaned it up...this was taken in the same old hangar as the where the HE-162 was located.

Im going to try and attach the pic in a subsequent post. If anyone is interested in an email copy pls drop a message my way...