A Russian general stated that,they have not used any new weapons, is that true?

Gen. Nogovitsin was asked by a blonde whether they used Iskander missiles, T-90 tanks and so on. He duly answered that “we are not testing any new weapon over there”. The Iskander claim was later repeated by Saakashvili live on CNN (he told the Iskander was a “weapon of mass destruction” that “struck a hospital” :D).

http://www.janes.com/extract/jmr2004/jmr01140.html

Georgia is known to have operated the system. So its feasible, Ukraine aside, or not.

Ok everyone, let’s stop bickering about this bl** S-200. As I said before, this is rubbish.
The “distorted phone line” story runs like that:
1. The Russian Deputy Chief of Staff, Nogovitsin, notorious for a wonderful inability to speak in public and formulate a sentence that is longer than 5 words correctly, declares in the official Russian MoD conference that Ukraine has supplied Georgia with SAM systems “of the TOR family”. His diction matching his rhetoric, present Russian journalists don’t get it and start researching (i.e. inventing) on their own.
2. Later, the Russian MoD spokesman corrects his superior’s mumblings and correctly informs the press that Ukraine has delivered BUK systems to Georgia (pictures are widely available even on the net). But it’s too late.
3. Russian online newsline journalists (RBC if I remember well), who don’t know anything about anything military, remember while searching in the arcane circumvolutions of their brilliant brain that “yes, didn’t Ukraine down a passenger jet once? What was it called again? Yeah, the SAM? Oh, alright, S-200 you say. Ok, pass on”.
So are legends born.

If I remember correctly, Russia claimed Turkey provided ASELSAN-made Skywatcher Air Defence Network System to Georgia. If true, this may be one of the reasons for the relative success of Georgian air defense.

In any case, it is more than interesting that Russia did / could not achieve full air superiority against Georgia. Air-land coordination and use of PGM + night attack capabilities also seemed highly poor.

Skywatcher certainly provided an additional capability, especially when combined with the most effective combat tactic a BUK can use (pop-up threat, rapid multiple fire). But the Buk always was a very capable system, so no surprise here. If the Ukrainians-Israeli package offered to Georgia was similar to the M1-2 standarts, the kill of the Tu-22MR is no surprise, given the capacity of the missile and the targeting systems used by the BUK.

As for the “strange” incapacity to effectively jam/render inoperable late Soviet-era SAM systems by Russian forces, it is not strange at all: Ukraine has all the kit and info needed to effectively remove the FF-interdiction packages on the SAM systems it operates, courtesy of the good old Soviet tradition of “decentralised industrialization”. BUK SPM’s and 9S18M1 freq can be modified/adapted easily. And obviously, Ukraine doesn’t operate any kind of “doctored” version of the BUK (like Finland), but the real late Soviet operational stuff that was never supposed to be used to shoot down its own planes and can operate at maximum capacity. I don’t doubt any second that a modern and “full-grade” BUK can effectively defeat the ECM of an 22MR, be it only because it was designed to achieve optimum killing ratios against exactly such potent ECM and EW capable targets. They prepared for a war with NATO, remember?
BTW that’s probably why they used an Tu-22MR in the first place, the suite of the Su-24MR being much less potent. And the BUK still managed to down it. Some reports inside the RuAF indicated that a couple of other 22MR escaped but was to some extent damaged by incomings.

Air superiority: I wouldn’t be as categorical as you are here, orko. The Russian ground forces had to react very very fast from day one, because it was not some remote theatre of operations and Russian soldiers/citizens were being MLRSsed. So they did not have the option of slowly and calmly mount a SEAD operation and move troops in after its conclusion. They had to enter South Ossetia without SEAD prep.
Because of that, priority 1 was declared as the “liberation” of Tsinkhvali, priority 2 being pushing out/suppressing Georgian forces that could mount an attack on South Ossetia (meaning anything that can fire at a certain range – DANAs, howitzers, Grad, Lynx, you name it). AD was considered secundary as the Georgian AF is/was not a massive one. I’ve seen images of 58th army mech units being escorted by Tunguskas, though. A Russian BUK has apparently also been deployed, but not from day 1. On the other hand, the relatively strong Georgian AD posed a threat to any fighter aircraft that would patrol over South Ossetia / Georgia for any time.
And there is no suprise there anyway: the Serbian AF continued its operations till the last day of the NATO offensive, and managed even to preserve most of its aircraft. That doesn’t seem the case in Georgia now: apparently its last two surviving helos (a Mi-24 and a Mi-8) were destroyed on the ground by Russian paratroopers in Senaki and Georgia has thus also lost its last operating AF base. Of course, Georgia AF could still operate from Tbilisi international airport, that was not bombed for obvious reasons and despite several georgian claims that it was so.

PGM / night attack capabilities were used since phase 1, matter is a standart Frogfoot is no better firing PGMs than firing unguided rockets. Its only targeting device is the pilot’s eye combined with the simpliest of HUDs with a moving crosshair on it. Anyone who played LockOn knows how difficult it is to get a target lock with a laser-guided AGM when flying the Su-25, for example.

Peace enforcement or peacekeeping?

The peacekeeping mission in South Ossetia aside, have the Russians designated their offensive operations as peace enforcement?

In Russian gov.’s words, while the core of the Russian military presence in South Ossetia and Abkhazia are peacekeepers acting under a CIS mandate brokered by the OSCE and UN, the current operation is “peace enforcement” (in Medvedev’s, Putin’s and Dept. C.of Staff’s). AFAIK it’s the first time Russian officials used this term (i.e. its direct translation in Russian).

Latest dev.: Russian MoD denies it has the intent to attack or capture Tbilisi. “We never have had, or have, a plan to invade Tbilisi”, a MoD spokesman was quoted as saying. Russian MoD also disputes the allegation that Russian forces have captured Gori or have the intent to do so.
PS: Gori literally “sits” on the Baku-Poti/Ceyhan pipeline. Watch the oil prices evolution in the coming days depending the sitreps.

Latest dev.:

– Russian AF aknowledged the loss of two Frogfoots today, pilots apparently safe. Loss due to MANPAD fire. RuAF also claims having shot down a Georgian Su-25 (probably the last one, as…:
– Russian AF Cmdr. claims that Russia is know “fully in control of Georgian airspace” and gained “full air superiority”. “We are conducting full-scale tactic and CAS operations in and out of South Ossetia, targeting military mobile and support targets”, he was quoted as saying.
– Russian airborne and armoured units are entering Senaki, “in order to prevent Georgian forces to impede on the Russian peace enforcement mission” as the Cmdr of the Russian forces in Abkhazia (see below) was quoted as saying. Russian ground units are advancing along the Georgian coastline “without meeting any serious opposition”. If true, that would mean big trouble for Georgia and a serious dev. in this conflict. (source: Russian MOD and RBC newsline).
– Apparently, the (in)famous (but quite capable) Gen. Shamanov has been appointed as the cmdr of the Russian airborne-mech contingent sent to Abkhazia. That’s bad news for Georgia (and potential Georgian POW) too.
– Apparently, marine infantry units have landed near Poti. Russian SpecOps units are operating together with Abkhazian scouts deep inside the western part of Georgia.
– The international airport of Tbilisi has not been bombed after all. Ukraine confirms regular civilian flights to and from the airport still taking place till now.
– The Baku-Poti / Baku-Ceyhan pipeline is still intact, according to BP. BP also denies any reports of nearby bombardments or aerial attacks.
– Satcom is getting more and more difficult to establish in Georgia today for some reason, according to my own contacts there.
That’s all for the moment, see you later (hopefully this thread will at least manage to survive political rants).

There’s some stuff in that post by RSM55 which to be frank, is nationalist handwaving,

To be frank, I get the impression that if your analysis capacity is matched by your ability to commit two factual errors at the very beginning of a post (i.e. labelling me as a)nationalist b)probably Russian), there is a fair chance that the rest of the post is similarly flawed. I personally get much more upset about Indian chest-banging and baseless claims, for example, but I would never label anyone as nationalist just like that.

including that bit about EW fit and what not being far superior to that on the Raptor.

Dear Nick, I don’t know why, but I suppute you’re not an expert in Soviet/Russian EW/RWR doctrine and capability. Because if you were, you would know that the bloody Russkies have been aware of the importance of the latter since at least the Zapad 1977 maneuvers (notwithstanding Ogarkov’s ramblings about strategic depth etc and his traditional unrequited love for everything armoured). I also suppute you don’t have any ideas about the results of the Zapad 81 maneuver (because it’s still classified), and you’ve never heard of the results of a series of tests conducted in the late 80’s and involving a Tu-95 with its EW suit switched on and a Foxhound bound to intercept it. Without giving up boring details, the MiG-31 got a “launch authorised” on his HUD when the bomber was in sight (that might explain why the Bears still retain their tail guns btw). Of course, you may argue that it doesn’t prove anything but that the tracking/lock-on capability of the 31 is just s**t, but that would deny the results of another series of tests involving the 31 which I might elaborate upon later if you need it.
Just to sum my argument up: your focus on compact packaging and DF accuracy is absobloodylutely irrelevant when one talks about the efficiency of an EW suite. Radio-wave propagation rules can be learned at college level, but the algorithms permitting the said efficiency of an EW suite is quite another thing – and you won’t argue that the Sovs/Russkies were/are bad at math. And for heaven’s sakes, we’re talking about 80’s/90 tech vs. 21st century tech here!

Also for instance, that bit about downgrades and what not about the Indians not being helpful (well gee! how nasty of them, they should have just handed over a blank check with no expected ROI!!)

You didn’t get the irony in using the term “helpful”, that’s all. I was only saying that India did want to get involved in the design process, and the Russians duly said no way. That’s all. Everything that happens (see above) and will happen in and around this project has till now met my prediction – India will remain a junior partner, do some build-it-yourself job and provide some money. Period.

to be frank, the IAF knows enough details about the program and avionics

The IAF does know what it needs to know – i.e. they haven’t even seen the shape of the aircraft – and I know that for sure. Avionics are classified anyway. The Indians were shown the specs the Russian set for themselves.

India is involved in choosing and tailoring its specific fit

Of course, as any foreign customer would be.

precisely because the “oh so superior” Russian Tech needs to be tailored to IAF operational requirements.

No, just because the “oh so superior” Russian Tech has been denied to them and because they want to produce their own avionics suites with Russian backing.

Meanwhile, India itself is fielding its own ESM pod for Kh31s and onboard RHAWS. And has its own towed decoy plans as well.

I am sure India has plans galore (remember the Trishul?). But would you please enlighten me what kind of ESM pod India is developing for the Krypton? I’m extremely interested. Because what I’ve heard is that the Russians don’t want to to give away their AR tech and certainly not their RW recognition codes, especially since the Kh-31 electronic suite shares components with almost all Russian anti-radiation missiles (when talking about the “P” version), and some guidance components from Moskit and Granit ASMs. So India is getting what’s India’s getting, meaning a Russian electronic suite with Indian algorithms and threat profile databases.

Hmmm…incidently, the fairing added to the S-37 recently (with the serrated doors), was probably because the original bay wasn’t ‘deep’ enough…maybe they are going rotary! or maybe they’ll have one rotary bay & the others with conventional release/launch mechanisms- for mission redundancy.

Sorry to be a party pooper again – but the Berkut has no bomb bay – just fairing demonstrators and an internal launch test mechanism. It is not a proper bomb bay in any case.
In any case: bear in mind that other mechanisms exists that “look like” a bomb door and bear in mind that there could be other solutions to push a missile out of a bay than the rotary launcher or the normal railed (passive or pneumatic) solution.

The Rhetoric and vitriol will greatly reduce now no matter what comes out of any investigations.

What “western” news agencies will never ever quote (from the UN report):

“36. By the same token, and from the same peacekeeping perspective, the Mission reiterates its position stated to the Georgian Minister of Defence on 7 April 2008 that the overflight of the zone of conflict by surveillance aircraft constitutes a breach of the Moscow Agreement.”

…and some hedging again:

“10. On 14 May, after the visit to the radar site in POTI, a full DVD was given to UNOMIG providing nearly the full video stream of the UAV camera taken on 20 April. However, the starting procedure was left out. (…)

15. On this basis, the FFT could conclude that, owing to the distinctive twin-fin configuration of the jet aircraft and the location of the air intakes, the aircraft seen on the video is either a MiG-29 “Fulcrum” or a Su-27 “Flanker”. It was not possible to decide between the two aircrafts because the quality of the video did not allow to ascertain the angle of the fins, or to determine whether the missile was launched from an outer pylon below the wing, characteristic of the MIG-29, or from a wingtip launcher, characteristic of the SU-27.(…)

(…)”Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, this leads to the conclusion that the aircraft belonged to the Russian air force”

Meaning:
we, the UN, are sure that:
– an UAV was downed
– it was downed by a missile
– it was downed by a twin-fin aircraft, a Mig, a Su, well, er, whatever
– we don’t have any evidence other than the Georgian one
– Israeli UAVs shoot pretty bad quality vids
– whoever downed it had the right to do so.

QED.