Russian MIG-29 Shoots Georgian UAV

[Dalregementet]

Georgia do these threating postures every 3 months, so i dont expect anything serious out of it.

Btw, 2 UAV's confirmed by Abkhazia. Georgia deny any UAV was shot down.

I guess this will end any discussion whenever Abkhazia have assets to shot down UAV's.

Do you really think we buy this? Forget it!

 

[Feanor]

When they present the wreckage on TV, one set of wreckage has already been located, I bet the Georgians will change their story. Finally the two new UAV's shot down could also have been by the VVS, or even by Russian PVO units.

 

[Feanor]

Sorry for double post but a new issue just came up. Abkhazia said they are willing to give Russia full military control over their territory in exchange for security guarantees. Sorry that the article is in Russian. Maybe someone here can find an English translation.

http://newsru.com/world/06may2008/shamba.html

 

[Chrom]

Sorry for double post but a new issue just came up. Abkhazia said they are willing to give Russia full military control over their territory in exchange for security guarantees. Sorry that the article is in Russian. Maybe someone here can find an English translation.

http://newsru.com/world/06may2008/shamba.html

Flash news! (sarcasm)

Abkhazia and Osetia asks for several years straight to join Russia... OPENLY, and EACH month they officially issue these requests...

 

[windscorpion]

The UN concludes the Russians did shoot down the drone

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jMXy0-Aj-K91ZUgT_ot6_pPnxZaw

 

[Chrom]

The UN concludes the Russians did shoot down the drone

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jMXy0-Aj-K91ZUgT_ot6_pPnxZaw

Some quotes from UN report: http://www.unomig.org/data/other/080526_unomig_report.pdf

This was not the first UNOMIG investigation into the downing of a UAV. One
month earlier, on 18 March, the Abkhaz side already claimed that one of their L-39 had
destroyed a Georgian UAV off the coast of Ochamchira, in Abkhaz-controlled territory.
At the time, the Georgian authorities denied having lost any UAV. After examining the
debris from the UAV, the initial investigation by UNOMIG concluded that a Hermes 450
UAV was most probably involved, the maximum range of which was consistent with
Georgian ownership. UNOMIG informed the Georgian Ministry of Defence that it
considered that a reconnaissance mission by a military aircraft, whether manned or
unmanned, constituted “military action” and therefore contravened the Moscow
Agreement, which stipulates that the parties “shall scrupulously observe the ceasefire on
land, at sea and in the air and shall refrain from all military actions against each other”.
The Mission also called both sides’ attention to the fact that the Georgian action and the
Abkhaz reaction had generated a threat to those who use the airspace over the Zone of
Conflict and its surroundings. The Department of Peacekeeping Operations expressed
these concerns in the verbal update presented to the Security Council on 14 April.

...........

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. In their explanation of the purpose of the 20 April overflight,
Georgian officials have referred to the need to conduct reconnaissance of Abkhaz
military formations and movements north of the Ceasefire line. However legitimate this
purpose may seem to the Georgian side, it stands to reason that this kind of military
intelligence-gathering is bound to be interpreted by the Abkhaz side as a precursor to a
military operation, particularly in a period of tense relations between the sides. (It is
worth recalling that the Abkhaz side reported 16 UAV overflights since last August). A
ceasefire regime has a major advantage – preventing war. It does however impose, in
return, limitations on the freedom of the sides, including the undertaking by one side of
measures that can and will be perceived as threats by the other side.

UN first time openly acknowledged the UAV flight were violation of cease-fire convention.

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. The video was presented by the master
controller and camera operator of the UAV that was shot down on 20 April

..............


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.

LOL!! The commission couldnt differentiate Su-27 from Mig-29 on that video... should tell us something about real quality. Besides, it also jeopardize any conclusion made.

п.4 ...Regrettably, the Abkhaz side declined to do so, but it nevertheless provided UNOMIG with access to the debris collected from the incidents of 18 March, 20 April and 12 May 08. (The Abkhaz side claims that it has downed 7 UAVs in the period 18 March – 12 May however UNOMIG can confirm only the debris from the incidents on 18 March, 20 April and 12 May to be from Hermes 450.)

As you see, even "Georgian friendly" commission couldnt deny at least 3 Israel UAV wrecks presented. Btw, Georgia aknowledged only 2, and there were some more UAV shot down besides Israel ones.

Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, this leads to the conclusion that the aircraft belonged to the Russian air force," the UN report said. (Writing by Christian Lowe; Editing by Guy Faulconbridge)

The commission conclusion was based on recording of single (yup) Georgian radar. Such recording can be mastered by any computer freak in about 5 min.
All in all, Georgian position look quite weak. By that, i give 50/50 % chance what the aircraft (Mig-29 or whatever) was indeed russian.

All sides obviously lie here.

 

[Feanor]

It's more then likely that it was a Russian plane. I'm guessing that the assumption was made on the Russian side that Georgia wouldn't complain about illegal UAV's over Abkhazia. It would certainly fit in with the foreign policy line in the region. Again the video (if it is real) shows a MiG-29 shooting down the UAV. Morever Abkhaz AD is not (in most cases) sophisticated enough to detect the UAV's (in my opinion).

 

[Chrom]

It's more then likely that it was a Russian plane. I'm guessing that the assumption was made on the Russian side that Georgia wouldn't complain about illegal UAV's over Abkhazia. It would certainly fit in with the foreign policy line in the region. Again the video (if it is real) shows a MiG-29 shooting down the UAV. Morever Abkhaz AD is not (in most cases) sophisticated enough to detect the UAV's (in my opinion).

Well, i dont deny what the Mig-29 could be russian. But the main question is - was it indeed Mig-29? Not Su-27? Not L-39? Not SAM? In recent events Abkhazia demonstrated it can reliable shot down Georgian UAV just on its own, without russian help. Even UN report clearly stated such Abkhazian ability.

 

[Feanor]

More news, Russian railroad troops are brought into the province to rebuild the rail network. Georgia considers this a step towards annexation.

 

[Baker.Duan]

reply

Some guys told me that the Mig29 were the sucks battleplane compare with other same level plane.

Admin: You need to spend some time reading other posts for a while before making any more comments. This style of engagement is unacceptable and is considered to be flaming.