USAF Declassifies Elite Aggressor Program

Interesting stuff. What history do the Red Eagles have with the MiG-25?

In case anyone is interested, the DET 3, 53 TEG web site has this to say:

"The mission of Det 3, 53d Test and Evaluation Group (Det 3, 53 TEG) is the representative for Air Combat Command (ACC) interest in USAF Foreign Materiel Exploitation (FME) and training opportunities with Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC). The Detachment's primary mission is to ensure USAF combat aircrew is prepared to fight with the latest knowledge available through FME. Detachment 3 will maintain an active involvement with AFMC and other services ensuring all testing is planned, executed, and reported with combat aircrew in mind. In addition, Detachment 3 will act as liaison for all training opportunities conducted on the Nellis Range Complex providing procedures and acting as subject matter experts on key systems."

Constant Peg images here:

www.constantpeg.com

Cheers

Steve



--
Steve Davies
Freelance aviation journalist & photographer

“Red Eagles: The top secret acquisition and testing of Soviet combat aircraft in the Cold War by the USAF“ ISBN 9780 760 327 098
“Eagle Engaged: F-15, The World’s Most Successful Jet Fighter” ISBN
"F-16 Viper Units in OIF" ISBN 1841 769 940
"F-15E Units in Combat 1991-2005" ISBN 1841 769 096
"F-15C Units in Combat" ISBN 1841 767 301
"F-15C/E Units in OIF" ISBN 1841 768 022
"F-15E Strike Eagle: All Weather Attack Aircraft" ISBN 1840 373 784
"F-15 Eagle & Strike Eagle. Combat Legends" ISBN 1840 373 776

[edit on 28-8-2007 by Ewanwhosearmy]

How did you go about posting your source like that Mr.ajsr?

I was watching a show a while back on the TLC channel, it was a documentary about groom lake I believe, it had to do with two guys base camping on a hill that overlooks area 51. Anyways, they recorded a MiG-29 that was flying at groom lake. Which if anything proves that groom lake does exist, and that it is used to test aircraft of all sorts. This is a good find to the OP, however, not surprising.

You can bet Russia has done the same with Iranian F-14 and F-5 years ago.

Russia never did anying even remotely close to Constant Peg. Ever.

Certainly, they flight tested the F-5, but they never had a squadron of them, and they never flew them as adversary tactics trainters.

As for the F-14, there is no evidence to support your claim that they ever even flew it. Not a single (real) photograph has come to light to date showing the Russians flying the Tomcat. That doesn't mean it did not happen, but it does mean that there is currently no clear proof that they did.

reply to post by West Coast

---

The end of the slide show contains a link to presentationpro.com. I am guessing that's how he did it.

So what is the following then? Are you saying its a PS'd image or a USN aircraft made to look like a Soviet test and evaluation type.
[img]http://s156.photobucket.com...[/img]

LEE.

reply to post by thebozeian

---

Hey Boz hows it going?
at first glance that pic is very much one I would question. As someone who makes his living through photoshop that photo almost looks like it has had a filter that comes preloaded in photoshop placed over it. Now some photos that look like photoshop or have had it done where still originally a actual photo that could have the red star on it. My next step is looking for photo's at a similar angle of the iranian F-14 and its colour scheme.


Wow so honestly took me a total of 5 seconds this time to debunk it.
www.iiaf.net...

A IIAF has the photo on its website


I'll see if I can find a bigger image.

Another guys that posted this image on his site and his stating it was a fake under the photo as well.
capturedplanes.tripod.com...

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

reply to post by thebozeian

---

Lee

As Canada has demonstrated, that photograph is a fake.

reply to post by fulcrumflyer

---

Fulcrumflyer you have to tell us your personal view of the Mig29 and various other Soviet aircraft vs. the US Airforce airframes you have piloted. I bet you have more knowledge on this than anyone I have seen come across this board. Everyone has their personal preferences about what aircraft is the better design. I would love to hear some of your comparisons.

I haven't seen fulcrumflyer on the boards for a while, so not sure if he is still checking this site. There is another thread from a few years back where he describes his time flying 29s, and gives some good insights into the airframe and weapon systems. Try a search, and I'll have a look to see if I can find it too.

I'm still here. What do you want to know?

As a response to a U2U, I'll attempt to give my perspective of US vs Soviet fighters. I have flown against Soviet fighters while flying the F-15, F-16, F-5 and MiG-29 (of course, the MiG-29 really doesn't count since it's also a Soviet fighter; we just didn't have any dissimilar adversaries). While flying the US fighters, I have flown against the MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-29 and Su-27.
One should remember that Soviet fighters were designed and built using a different mindset with respect to tactical aviation. It's almost like comparing the playbook of the Dallas Cowboys with that of some profi-league football (soccer) team in Europe. The sport goes by the same name but it's just not the same (I must give credit to that analogy to a friend of mine who did a very comprhensive study of the MiG-29 in the mid-1990s - www.sci.fi...). The mindset of the Soviets was centralized control and centralized execution. That means the pilot and aircraft were an extension of the ground controller. The pilot was not provided with the tools nor the training to operate autonomously. If you cut off his communications link with his ground controller, the Soviet pilot was not equipped to operate on his own. US fighters are conceived around the concept of centralized control, decentralized execution. That means that US fighter has all the tools necessary for the pilot to operate and make autonomous decisions. The US pilot's aircraft sensors and displays are designed to provide him with the battle-space information required to make those decisions. AWACS and GCI are there to provide peices to the puzzle. They have no real 'control authority'. I've been known to tell AWACS to STFU and quit garbaging the radios.
Flying against the MiG-21 and MiG-23 with the F-15 was relatively easy. The Fishbed is difficult to see and you have to ask yourself if that speck on the canopy is a piece of fly do-do or a MiG-21? I also flew against those airplanes while flying the F-5. The MiG-23 was still a baby seal while the MiG-21 was much more evenly matched.
I have flown against the MiG-29 and Su-27 while flying the F-16 (Blocks 30, 40 and 50). Since I have 500 hours in the MiG-29, I'll talk a little more about it.
The Fulcrum is a very reliable airplane. It seldom breaks. The same can be said about the F-16. The F-16 absolutely owns the MiG-29 from beyond visual range (BVR). Initial contact ranges from both aircraft are similar although I'd give a slight edge to the F-16. The BVR AMRAAM against the AA-10A is a joke. By the time the Fulcrum pilot gets in range to shoot an AA-10, the AMRAAM has gone active and the F-16 pilot has turned around and is going away. If forced to merge, I'd still give the advantage to the F-16 pilot. His sensors will tell him exactly where multiple MiG-29s are. The Fulcrum pilot may have situational awareness (SA) on one F-16 and his displays won't point out exactly where his F-16 adversary is. If the MiG-29 pilot does have SA, then his helmet-mounted sight and AA-11 Archer make him a deadly adversary. If the F-16 pilot has the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System and AIM-9X, the advantage is still with the Viper pilot as the off-boresight capability of the AIM-9X is significantly higher than the AA-11. If it comes down to a gun fight, I still give the advantage to the F-16. The F-16 sustains a high-g turn better than the MiG-29, has better outside visibility, is more responsive and easier to fly, rolls significantly faster and will out accelerate the MiG-29 like the Fulcrum was glued to the floor (the Block 50 F-16 will out accelerate the Raptor below about 25,000 ft). The Fulcrum is a very sloppy-flying airplane. I'm not saying the Fulcrum is a push over; the Viper pilot needs to bring his A-game. The Fulcrum pilot better prosecute the merge pretty fast because he doesn't have the fuel to hang around very long.

[edit on 1-9-2007 by fulcrumflyer]

While flying the MiG-29, I have flown against the F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, Tornado F-3, and Mirage 2000. The 'deadliest' was the F-15C, the worst was the Mirage 2000. It was the only one I'd walk out the door knowing we were going to kick their a$$es.
While flying the F-16, I found the Su-27 to be a much more lethal BVR airplane with the exended-range AA-10C. The Flanker also has a very robust infrared search-and-track system that can also cause issues. You still have an advantage with the AMRAAM. You just have to be more cautious. In the visual fight, the Flanker is still impressive for an aircraft of its size. If the Su-27 is fairly heavyweight then it's a wallowing pig. If it has burned off some fuel, its nose-pointing ability a high angles of attack is impressive. So is its energy bleed off. If you can get him to give up some energy, I found it very beatable with the F-16. On the other hand, the Flanker is a lot like the F-15 - it's a maintenance nightmare.

Hey fulcrumflyer,

Any thoughts about Mig29 v F-14?

Thanks

Mig-29 vs F-14

I spent two weeks flying against F-14s with the big motors over the Mediterranean. We were both operating from a base on the island of Sardenia. The MiG-29 was outclassed in the BVR arena but we occasionally managed to get someone to the merge untargeted. In the visual fight, the tables reversed.

Ah, GCI, some of the finest comms jamming in the western world.

Just a question for a great post.



With that in mind, though, how do you think that the Block 50 F-16 (which I believe was the main comparison as it was the one mentioned) would fare against a more recent Fulcrum such as the MiG-35 (with more recent toys attached, of course)? What about the F-16's replacement, the F-35? Would it defeat the newer MiGs?