Forum: Air Power

I'll cut to the chase.

Were there any front line Russian fighters over Georgia? Ie, MiG-29s, Su-30s etc. I didn't see any reports that list down that they were involved in that conflict. Lots of cold war relics like the Tu-22s and Su-25s, but no frontline stuff or 'A'-teams.

Was hoping someone would have some insight on this.

F-16.net Sponsor

I wouldn't consider the Grach(SU-25) a Cold War relic. It is a viable air to ground platform that can take a decent pounding and still get you home. However, there were SU-24 Fencers and SU-27 Flankers that took part in the conflict as well. How many is uncertain, but 2 Fencers were shot down. As to the Flankers and a lack of MiG-29s, they weren't really needed it seems. Why? The whole thing was predominately a ground war that needed some close air support. Georgia doesn't even have any regular fighter aircraft, just their SU-25s and some L-29/39 Albatros aircraft. However, they did have a good amount of antiaircraft equipment. That being said, better to stick with ground pounder aircraft than to put fighters at risk. Lots of tanks were used by both sides, but most of Georgia's losses in that department were close to 4 dozen captured in operational condition.

I'm no analyst of course, but that is my take on the subject. Wink

one georgian UAV(israeli made Hermes)was shot down by a russian Mig-29,couple of months prior to this war
I´ve seen a video of the live fire on youtube,taken from the UAV Twisted Evil

yakuza wrote:

one georgian UAV(israeli made Hermes)was shot down by a russian Mig-29,couple of months prior to this war
I´ve seen a video of the live fire on youtube,taken from the UAV Twisted Evil

That is true indeed- I believe there is a thread about that in this section of subject categories as well.

I don't know but that war gave me such great confidence that besides questionable ICBM/SLBMs Russia is the biggest paper tiger around.

Disagree on this one.. It was arguably a highly impressive and unexpectedly swift execution of superior tactics and application of force employing relatively limited resources, neutralizing Georgian C&C/force structure in about 72 hrs - basically ensuring the desired and calculated S. Ossetian Independence. Georgia was lucky to get away with what it had left in terms of governance and sovereignty, due to fast reacting EU and France specifically.

US/NATO/EU will have to increasingly recognize and deal with Kremlin's new hawkish policies, creep-militarization and unfortunately growing 'counter-US/counter-NATO' strategic agenda (the more overt aspects currently under a slight pause due to financial crisis). So the current/mid-term Kremlin/leadership (perhaps namely nationalist, secular communist) abilities - one could say a new old guard - are hardly paper and deserve full respect and attention going forward (in a not so progressive, positive manner), sad to say. Hope this view is wrong.

geogen wrote:

Disagree on this one.. It was arguably a highly impressive and unexpectedly swift execution of superior tactics and application of force employing relatively limited resources, neutralizing Georgian C&C/force structure in about 72 hrs - basically ensuring the desired and calculated S. Ossetian Independence. Georgia was lucky to get away with what it had left in terms of governance and sovereignty, due to fast reacting EU and France specifically.

US/NATO/EU will have to increasingly recognize and deal with Kremlin's new hawkish policies, creep-militarization and unfortunately growing 'counter-US/counter-NATO' strategic agenda (the more overt aspects currently under a slight pause due to financial crisis). So the current/mid-term Kremlin/leadership (perhaps namely nationalist, secular communist) abilities - one could say a new old guard - are hardly paper and deserve full respect and attention going forward (in a not so progressive, positive manner), sad to say. Hope this view is wrong.

No offense geogen, but you must be drinking the Russian state media Kool Aid...

First off, IMHO the "superior tactics" were more due to- the trap Russia set (they get a point for superior strategy here,) and their propaganda campaign that duped our gullible western media. I think that after carefully reading most independent news analysis it was apparent that Russia was a bit over prepared for this operation, with quite a bit of firepower amassed in obvious anticipation of the conflict.

Also, they quite effectively hid the fact that they caused massive damage to South Ossetia and even were able to blame imost of it squarely on the Georgians. It was appaling to see the lack of objective media involved in the debacle. Only later did we start seeing reports of the very real possiblity that Russian troops went on a near rampage, blowing up everything in there path...which seems to fit the mold of Russian/Soviet military operations. So only after the conflict shifted to back-page news did we see that the Russians were responsible for causing much of the damage to South Ossetia.

Most of the analysis I have read came to the conclusion that Georgia was overwhelmed and outgunned to the point that it was inevitable that they would capitulate. The superior firepower, and perhaps more importantly, the superior airpower that Russia brought to the fight was what won them the battle, not superior tactics. The Georgians basically had no chance against their more powerful neighbor. If anyone had limited resources, it was the Georgians, not the Russians.

To summarize- I guess where we disagree is that I see this as more an example of effective propaganda, as opposed to superior tactics or military effectiveness.

My 2 yen.

Thanks for reply.

I know it was a bit off-topic, but I couldn't agree more with your 2 yen, as assessed. Well stated in my opinion. It's a complicated discussion and analysis to make on F-16.net let alone on a lengthy, appropriate forum's thread. As far as my defense and point-giving to any 'superior tactics comment' goes... arguably offsetting the need for substantial 'A-team' Mig and Su elements... it (my comment) was in part taking into account the well planned and strategic 'trap-laying, largely undetected troop mobilizing and superior, perception-engineering' you noted, which largely enabled the tactical plans to be successful. I could have elaborated more on the relationship between these indeed force-multiplying factors.

geogen wrote:

Thanks for reply.

I know it was a bit off-topic, but I couldn't agree more with your 2 yen, as assessed. Well stated in my opinion. It's a complicated discussion and analysis to make on F-16.net let alone on a lengthy, appropriate forum's thread. As far as my defense and point-giving to any 'superior tactics comment' goes... arguably offsetting the need for substantial 'A-team' Mig and Su elements... it (my comment) was in part taking into account the well planned and strategic 'trap-laying, largely undetected troop mobilizing and superior, perception-engineering' you noted, which largely enabled the tactical plans to be successful. I could have elaborated more on the relationship between these indeed force-multiplying factors.

Thanks for the response geogen.

We can agree then that Russia fought a much more effective war from a grand perspective if you consider the trap and the media manipulation. Hell, they had plenty of people in the states convinced that they were the "good guys." Scary. If anything Putin is very effective at leveraging what little power they still have- possibly way more effectively than us. Must be all that KGB DNA....

Putin is considered an excellant leader in Russia and still, even with Medvidiv in power he still holds political sway and is held in very high regard.This is going to be quite interesting as to there stance to be taken with Ukraine, a country who are quite intent on becoming a member of NATO and the EU to ward off any possible Russian aggression,just like how they had to have economic sanctions placed on them to give up the hundreds of ex-USSR tactical and standoff nuclear missiles they wanted to keep for the same reasons.
Guiness

Shotgun wrote:

Lots of cold war relics like the Tu-22s and Su-25s.

Given that southern Russian forces are historically equipped with older weapons (afghanistan, Checenya I and II) compared to European forces, I'd stop speaking about "Cold war", "Soviet Era"... RELICS.

By this definition quite anything that is on the battlefield today is a "cold war relic". An F-16 is nothing but a '70 cold war relic. A lot of the ones that are flying today were built in the '80s.
A part from the Stryker vehicle, the infantry suits and a considerable amount of logistical equipment quite every combat system is a "Soviet Era relic".

When are we going to speak about "War on terrorism era relics?"

marco9 wrote:

Shotgun wrote:

Lots of cold war relics like the Tu-22s and Su-25s.

Given that southern Russian forces are historically equipped with older weapons (afghanistan, Checenya I and II) compared to European forces, I'd stop speaking about "Cold war", "Soviet Era"... RELICS.

By this definition quite anything that is on the battlefield today is a "cold war relic". An F-16 is nothing but a '70 cold war relic. A lot of the ones that are flying today were built in the '80s.
A part from the Stryker vehicle, the infantry suits and a considerable amount of logistical equipment quite every combat system is a "Soviet Era relic".

When are we going to speak about "War on terrorism era relics?"

Age does not a Cold War relic make. Look at tactical role instead. The Tu-22M3's role places it fairly solidly in the realm of Cold War Relic. It's a supersonic nuclear-capable maritime strike bomber. Seeing as Russia doesn't seem especially concerned with our CVBGs anymore, I'd say it's a tactical relic. The ????, on the other hand, especially in its Su-25T/TM guise, is a HIGHLY capable strike/CAS aircraft. Somebody thought it would be cute to add R-77 capability, and it is arguably better-armed than the A-10. Not a relic. As for the F-16, it's more than proven its relevance to modern conflicts, ODS to OEF and OIF. Sniper XR is your friend.

marco9 wrote:

Shotgun wrote:

Lots of cold war relics like the Tu-22s and Su-25s.

Given that southern Russian forces are historically equipped with older weapons (afghanistan, Checenya I and II) compared to European forces, I'd stop speaking about "Cold war", "Soviet Era"... RELICS.

By this definition quite anything that is on the battlefield today is a "cold war relic". An F-16 is nothing but a '70 cold war relic. A lot of the ones that are flying today were built in the '80s.
A part from the Stryker vehicle, the infantry suits and a considerable amount of logistical equipment quite every combat system is a "Soviet Era relic".

When are we going to speak about "War on terrorism era relics?"

Age does not a Cold War relic make. Look at tactical role instead. The Tu-22M3's role places it fairly solidly in the realm of Cold War Relic. It's a supersonic nuclear-capable maritime strike bomber. Seeing as Russia doesn't seem especially concerned with our CVBGs anymore, I'd say it's a tactical relic. The Grach, on the other hand, especially in its Su-25T/TM guise, is a HIGHLY capable strike/CAS aircraft. Somebody thought it would be cute to add R-77 capability, and it is arguably better-armed than the A-10. Not a relic. As for the F-16, it's more than proven its relevance to modern conflicts, ODS to OEF and OIF. Sniper XR is your friend.

Forum: Air Power

A question over the Georgian Conflict in 2008