Read the next line of that article, and then the interview with the BP exec stating that they are not aware of any bombing in the area. That line also says 51 missile strikes. That suggests either an SS-21 or MLRS attack. That is not a bombing raid by an aircraft, is it? Ergo, based on the actual evidence at hand and not the asinine reporting, there were NO bombing raids on the pipeline.

Note that I never said that the pipeline wasn’t attacked at all.

You appear to be trying to make a distinction without a difference, it doesn’t really matter which particular system they use to do the job. In effect, whether they use an MLRS system or a Su-24, aiming to hit something with a large explosive is still effectively ‘bombing’. Frankly, I don’t know whether there was a bombing or not, I wasn’t there, but I would say that there has been targetting of non-offensive targets for certain. Ironically, the end result of shooting up all the old ex-Soviet/Warsaw Pact kit may be the replacement of it with modern kit! As on the ‘new fighter for Georgia’ thread, I do not advocate Georgia trying to keep the two provinces, I think they’re far more hassle than they’re worth! A bloody big border wall, preferably as solid as possible, would be a worthwhile investment; it would at least make cross-border operations more difficult. Good fences make good neighbours, and hopefully can prevent a re-run of recent events.

Back on topic, well, sort of… It might be an idea to at least get some nominal fighter capability – very nominal, even just a few upgraded old Mig-21s would do. This is on the basis that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are likely to be given even more military gear by the Russians, e.g. Su-25s, Mig-29s (possibly) and certainly Mi-24s. As such, having the ability to deal with them would be a good idea, and wouldn’t take much; the previously mooted Kfir C.10s would be plenty for that job. In effect, the Georgian Air Force effectively gets three main roles:

– Air Policing: Kfir C.10s, enough to do the basic job, no more, no less.
– Air Support: helicopter gunships probably, possibly PZL W-3s or just AH-6s.
– Air Defence: Surface to air missiles, anti-aircraft guns, and the radar net.

For the air policing role, you’d only need about twenty Kfirs, since all you’re aiming to do is stop routine harassing flights, not take on the Russians. One operating base, with some hardened shelters would be sufficient for this purpose. Something pretty much like the Austrian air force would be sufficient.

For air support, as many as possible – AH-6s (or similar) with Hellfire/Spike and rockets would be a viable option. These would have the advantage of being able to be hidden pretty easily, since they are so small, meaning you can operate well away from established airbases. In effect, you would aim to support them purely through FARPs, with everything to be mounted on a couple of normal trucks. The downside is that they lack any real armour, but since a traditional attack helicopter is going to cost a heck of a lot, it might be a worthwhile tradeoff. We can pretty much cross off most traditional attack helos anyway, either for being too expensive, or because they are simply not available. Another option might be the PZL W-3, or even an armed Blackhawk, like the proposed Battlehawk; these would be more capable than an MH-6, but also much larger, hence harder to conceal when on the ground.

For the air defence role, I think we’ve pretty much come to a consensus here that it needs to be non-traditional, adaptable and survivable. It needs to be built around lots of passive radar systems, IR-gear, and mobile integrated weapons systems. Build in lots of protective systems, with multispectral smoke systems, DIRCMs, and pretty much anything else that comes to mind. The actual mix of systems is less clear, but probably short-range Stinger-types, 35mm Skyguard, possibly the laser Skyshield system, and possibly something longer ranged, like SL-AMRAAM.

I read about a Su-25 factory in Georgia being bombed. Have the Georgians been able to produce entire Su-25s on their own without importing parts from Russia or have them just been able to maintain their own aircrafts and build spareparts?

Either case, the Su-25 seems like the logical choice, in combination with SAMs.

The Tbilisi plant had built Frogfeet (:diablo:), but this was quite a while back; I think they were mostly just doing rebuilds for upgrades and maintenance. I don’t know yet what the status of the factory is now – it might have been attacked yet not damaged (e.g. a miss, or just causing superficial damage, or it might be a smouldering pile of rubble. Anyway, though, I’m not as convinced about the Su-25’s long term viability. The nose doesn’t seem to be radar-friendly, so unless you develop a podded one, it’s going to be pretty much limited to A2G. On the other hand, it is pretty rugged, so that is a benefit.

Jonesy: while I agree with most of your point, I’m not sure the Harrier would be a viable option. Harriers are pretty maintenance intensive, and still need at least a modest runway to be of any real use. The RAF tried the small distributed unit way, and frankly, found it too much hassle (and bloody dangerous!), with too many accidents and problems. It might be a better bet to focus on rebuilding the roadways, possibly to include lots of nice straight parts, along the lines of the Swedish method. As long as they go for something like the Gripen or F-16, i.e. something with pretty good short field performance, then they should be okay. The other thing would be to build some straightforward hardened aircraft shelters – not the really fancy ones, just basic ‘cut and cover’ concrete ones. These are far from perfect, but they do mean that Russia would have to use a PGM to hit them, which is better than open field parking.

In effect, Georgia needs to build a suitably tiered system, with the proper range of air defences. The real problems, of course, are the finances and availability (and of course the mobilty/survivability) of the systems. If the US were happy to provide a whole batch of Patriot PAC-2 and PAC-3 batteries, then the problems would be reduces; but of course this is not very likely! It might be best for them to focus on the more achievable goals – highly mobile low to medium level systems.

The problem with that is that there is basically zero chance of Russia stopping selling to Iran and Syria. There is no real reason to appease Russia, especially since they don’t do anything that either the US or Israel would want anyway. Appeasing them would only reinforce the idea that they can do whatever they want. As such, Israel may as well sell whatever they can to Georgia; same with the US!

I’d thought the Marines were the only ones that got that version and they got rid of them quite a while ago. (MIM-23K & MIM-23J with AN/TPS-59(V)3 radar ) They’d have been a good choice though as they demonstrated shooting down SS-21-class missiles and they had good anti-aircraft performance too.

Both Turkey and Romania seem to use Hawk XXI, which I think is pretty much the I-Hawk. It uses the MPQ-64 Sentinel radar, instead of the separate radars of the old Hawk. It would probably be a pretty good option, though obviously there may be long term support issues if everyone else replaces theirs! Not sure about the capability of SLAMRAAM (or CLAWS or NASAMS or whatever it’s going by this week!) in terms of anti-ballistic missile duties. It might also be an idea to find a suitable vehicle mount – e.g. put the missiles on the back of a Stryker-type chassis. With a combined radar, e.g. the MPQ-64, it could be possible to combine longer range (I-Hawk), medium range (SL-Spyder) and short range (Stinger cueing and Skyshield’s 35mm guns) systems. This would be pretty attractive, especially if you can network everything together, so all the systems can share radar data, making it much harder to shut down the network (i.e. taking out one radar doesn’t shut down part of the IADS).

There are some pretty good ideas proposed so far. I certainly think the Kfir C.10 would be the best bet for a ‘new’ fighter, and I doubt logistics would be a major concern. Even a modest number would be a symbolic rebuilding of the Air Force – as for the suggestions of new Su-25s, I doubt this is possible, since the Russians are reported to have bombed the factory. For ground attack, armed helos are likely to be the best bet now.

To extend the topic, if I may (no point in having two very similar threads that are so closely related), what would be the best bet for air defences?

I would certainly propose, if the money were there:

Skyshield – the 35mm Oerlikon-based system, related to the Millenium gun naval mount. These can be mounted on a Piranha armoured personnel carrier, giving major benefits in terms of mobility. I’m not sure what the radar options are in terms of carriage on the Piranha, but it should certainly be possible to mount the Skyshield’s radar on one. Tie the radars into an IADS network, and that would also help – mobility is a great defence, but integrating the system is almost as important.

SPYDER – this can be fully mobile, based on normal trucks, and again should be capable of being tied into an integrated network. It should be sufficient for most air defence purposes.

I-Hawk? – it might be an option, and is still a pretty capable system; it also is supposed to have some ABM capability, which should be enough to deal with SS-21s or equivalent.

Stinger or similar – good high capability MANPADS is a pretty basic requirement, and could, for instance, be distributed to ground units all over. Possibly mounted on something like Avenger, or perhaps even tied into a more complex system, like the old proposed LAV-AD, which had a 25mm GAU-12 to accompany the Stingers. Another option might be to get some of the old US M163s, upgraded by Israel to Machbet form (basically a modernised M163 with a pod of Stinger missiles).

At the same time, it might be sensible to tie in a suitable MLRS system, possibly the Israeli LAR-160, which has guided rounds available to it. This would allow for very accurate counter-battery fire. It effectively does the same as GMLRS has done for the American MLRS, i.e. completely changes it from a grid-square weapon, into a highly precise system. This obviously isn’t air-defence related, but with some of the newer radars, counter battery and air defence roles can be performed by the same radar system.

As rightly said, the first step is to improve air defences, preferably with highly mobile, capable systems. This is for pretty obvious reasons, and good candidates could be the Israeli SPYDER (possible commonality with a new fighter as a side benefit), or SL-AMRAAM, or anything in that class. In terms of fighters, there are a few good options – either a good fighter, or a good mud-mover. This is working on the basis that you’re not going to easily outclass the Flankers Russia could put up anyway, so throwing money at a semi-futile goal is not wise.

The real question is which path the US takes. Does it help rebuild Georgia, to effectively show that the Russians have failed to destroy Georgia, and have in fact ended up with a stronger Georgia? This has a lot of advantages, notably by making sure that Russia doesn’t get to dictate who can and can’t join NATO etc… On the other hand, as seems more likely, the US might just step back, and provide some civil reconstruction, and back off supporting Georgia. This has risks, notably by validating the idea that Russia can effectively dictate to its neighbours, and worse, risks giving the impression that use of force is a valid method of controlling states. On the other hand, it does have the benefit of avoiding raising tensions (sort of, there will always be tensions, it will just be over something else…). The best path could be to fund the rebuilding, both for civil and military projects, but emphasising defensive measures. This could include air defenses, helos, protection (e.g. building air raid shelters, hardened shelters and revetments for aircraft etc…); but avoid giving them fighters.

For fighter types, the best bets, depending on budget might be:

(Low budget)

– F-5Es probably from Turkey or similar, upgraded to use Derby and Python
– L-159s, these wouldn’t really be fighters, but would be a reasonable replacement for their Su-25s (Frogfeet as somebody on the closed thread put it!). Not a bad option, and not too threatening.

(Higher budget)

– F-16s, either ex-USANG, or ex-Israeli
– JAS-39s, though budget would be an issue, and I’d not be sure about Sweden’s willingness to sell!

I would basically rule out anything Chinese – highly unlikely unless Sino-Russian friendship goes away rapidly, which is pretty unlikely. I would similarly rule out things like the S. Korean T/A-50, due to their ties with Russia – simply not worth upsetting Russia, to get an order for twenty aircraft! Unless something odd happens, French kit can probably be ruled out; again, not worth it for them.

Given recent statements, the best bet, subject to budget, may just be to buy L-159s and W-3 Sokols in the armed form, with Spike etc… This would allow a reasonably direct replacement of the Su-25s and Mi-24s, since it seems unlikely that Georgia will be able to get any new stuff from Russia!