Russia's War Against Ukraine

[Tripoli]

Wouldn't that depend on (a) how close the missile was launched (the Moskva was in 'brown water' ops, relatively close to shore); and (b) whether the missile was programmed to lead the target and look where the target was projected to be by arrival?

Edited to add: for comparison, sub launched anti-ship missiles, or ASROC torps, can pretty easily drop onto expected target areas for reasonable search and hit probabilities, even when the ships are moving, and even if the ships are actually 'undersea boats'! (I assume most of us have had that experience playing modern sub sims e.g. Red Storm Rising or Cold Waters.)

The issue in the targeting solution isn't the time the missile has to travel.  That would in most cases only be 10-15 minutes or so for a missile like the Neptune.  Rather, the issue is the amount of time it takes for the satellite to 1) download the image with the ship on it and process it; 2) have the ship identified in the photo and its location determined; 3) make the decision made to attack the target and 4) have that information transmitted to the missile site and programed into the missile.  Steps 2-4 can take hours or even days, depending on whether you have AI doing the image search for you.  As a general rule, using imaging derived from orbital platforms for targeting mobile platforms doesn't work, although I'm sure the technology has improved a lot since I was on active duty.

[markh]

  The Neptune/KH-35 missiles were supposed to be cheaper missiles to be used against mid-range targets like destroyers or frigates in the 2000-7000 ton range. Moskava was a lot bigger than that at around 13000 tons.

this is what happens when you keep your main anti-ship missiles on the outside of the hull.

  Those were noted as being intact -- the big missile cannisters.  Indeed, it would have been wise not to have those 16 one-ton warheaded mach 3+ monsters on the ship at all.  What were they ever going to shoot those at?
They'd have to go out in the Med and hope a US carrier wandered into range pretty quick.  The 64 grumble SAMs packed in a small verticle launch thing well aft seems like a more likely site for a  big
ammo fire that would have eaten into the interior of the ship pretty fast.  I still think the Neptunes might be coverage for popping a little infrared -guided Sea Venom off the drone and right down the
packed vertical launch thing.  Who needs hypersonic multiton missiles when a little drone or a few cheap subsonic missiles will finish off your biggest, most heavily defended ship?

Trying to understand what happened here.  The Moskva is a Slava class cruiser.  Accordingly, it is meant to have an advance suite of EW infrastructure and decoys; 8 x 8 Grumble SA-N-6 long range SAMs; 2 x 20 Gecko short range SAMs; 6 AK 630 close in weapons for point defence.  It gets killed by a Neptune subsonic cruise missile.  On paper, and based on the publicly published data surely the odds of this outcome would have to have been very low.    This has to point to a massive equipment/naval personnel failure or am I missing something.  Naval veterans, I am keen for your take on this issue.

[JasonPratt]

If the outer missiles were hit (assuming still loaded) that might explain a lot, but as noted there's a report that they were fine. So now we're talking about a relatively close-range drone sniper shot into a sensitive area (like the SAM launcher, ironically); or a couple of waterline hits that spiraled into catastrophe due to previously existing internal problems (as per Tripoli's theory).

A missile-launcher detonation would seem to be the simplest solution -- and I like the hubristic outcome! -- but does it fit the data? Unclear.

This reminds me that Cold Water videos have started popping up today already, featuring sub strikes on the Moskva. Go 80s!  :clap:

[JasonPratt]

Meanwhile (not sure if this was linked earlier, don't recall seeing it...?), I ran across a Jordan Harbinger show today, from a week ago (not too out of date already ;) ), interviewing Peter Zeihan (geopolitical strategist author) for an armchair analysis. I thought he made some interesting points, although I'm a little fuzzy on his reasoning about why Russia is still going to beat Ukraine -- roughly speaking, the Russians can afford to keep throwing bodies (and anti-civilian ammo) until they solve the problem by sheerly reducing Ukrainian organized resistance to nothing (manpower vs manpower; casualty levels for the time frame are off the charts, beating even WW2 East Front casualty rates from any timeframe of that war). But then he also says other things which suggest Russia won't be able to sustain that rate of casualty infliction, so... wouldn't that mean the Uks can pull out a win?

Either way, his argument is that even if Russia wants to plug invasion holes, and even if they want to go after NATO allies to solve that (perceived) problem (on which the "existential crisis" rhetoric is at least partly based, but which he thinks they'd at least want to try, probably next year), and even if NATO wanted to wimp out and let them take those regions, too, rather than risk nuclear escalation -- it wouldn't matter because keeping Ukraine from rising again will take so much Russian military power that they're permanently screwed and have no chance of doing anything else (like invading NATO allies) within the foreseeable lifetime of Russia as an organized nation. Which under their current circumstances is roughly measured in Putin's lifetime, whatever that remains.

I'm about 52 minutes through it already (on 2x speed as usual ;) ), of an hour 13 minute show. So far I don't recall any problematic political content (or any current political content at all), so should be non-contentious from that angle. (At least up to the 52 minute mark.)

[Tripoli]

  The Neptune/KH-35 missiles were supposed to be cheaper missiles to be used against mid-range targets like destroyers or frigates in the 2000-7000 ton range. Moskava was a lot bigger than that at around 13000 tons.

this is what happens when you keep your main anti-ship missiles on the outside of the hull.

  Those were noted as being intact -- the big missile cannisters.  Indeed, it would have been wise not to have those 16 one-ton warheaded mach 3+ monsters on the ship at all.  What were they ever going to shoot those at?
They'd have to go out in the Med and hope a US carrier wandered into range pretty quick.  The 64 grumble SAMs packed in a small verticle launch thing well aft seems like a more likely site for a  big
ammo fire that would have eaten into the interior of the ship pretty fast.  I still think the Neptunes might be coverage for popping a little infrared -guided Sea Venom off the drone and right down the
packed vertical launch thing.  Who needs hypersonic multiton missiles when a little drone or a few cheap subsonic missiles will finish off your biggest, most heavily defended ship?

Trying to understand what happened here.  The Moskva is a Slava class cruiser.  Accordingly, it is meant to have an advance suite of EW infrastructure and decoys; 8 x 8 Grumble SA-N-6 long range SAMs; 2 x 20 Gecko short range SAMs; 6 AK 630 close in weapons for point defence.  It gets killed by a Neptune subsonic cruise missile.  On paper, and based on the publicly published data surely the odds of this outcome would have to have been very low.    This has to point to a massive equipment/naval personnel failure or am I missing something.  Naval veterans, I am keen for your take on this issue.

I am a veteran of the US Navy, and I am a qualified surface warfare officer, with significant operational experience, although none after 2002.  I'm also a Naval War College graduate, and have experience on the staff of 7th Fleet.  With that said, I could be wrong on what I am about to say, as 1) my experience is dated; 2) we are missing a lot of information, and some of the information we have could be simply wrong and 3) naval warfare is complex, so I may very well be missing something.  As I posted earlier, I estimate that if the Ukrainians achieved 2 hits with Neptune missiles, under the best of circumstances they would have needed to fire at least 6 (and possibly more) such missiles to have gotten those two hits.  However, that is assuming 1) a competent Russian crew who 2) was not effectively caught napping in a combat zone and 3) had at  their primary defensive systems operational, especially the SA-N-4, Jamming gear and the AK-630 gatling guns.  I honestly don't know if the SA-N-6 would have been useful against the Neptune, as it might not be able to engage targets as low as the Neptune can fly (open source claims a minimum engagement altitude of 25 m for the SA-N-6, while the Neptune is reported to cruise at 15 meters, and do its attack run at 3-10 meters altitude.)   https://theancestory.com/cruiser-missile-that-damaged-russian-warship/  Then there is the question of escorts.  Presumably, the Black Sea flagship would be well escorted in a war zone.  The escorts should have been able to both provide early warning  as well as provide some defensive jamming and firepower to engage the Neptune missiles.  There is no indication from the news yet released that the escorts were effective. (However, we are undoubtedly not getting all the information at this point.  Essentially, I am reading "between the lines" in the news reports, and so could very well be wrong on these points).  Based on what I've both experienced and read about the Soviet navy, it could very well be a combination of poor crew training, poor maintenance, and the resulting inoperable gear that prevented the Moskva's systems from being employed.  In addition, it could be poor planning that allowed it to go into a combat zone with either an inadequate escort or while in poor material condition.  We really don't know at this point.  However, historically, the Soviet/Russian navy is not known for its high standards of training and maintenance.

Regarding the state of the damage control of the Moskva.  Damage control is a difficult skill to master, and requires significant training and resources.  Since WWII, no one has been better in it than the USN.  I can testify that it takes significant training time and resources to be as good as the USN has historically been at it. (Note, I said "Historically".  There are indications that the USN is losing this competency, but that is another post). The Ukrainians are claiming that 2 missiles hit the Moskva.  That would be a mission kill if it happened to a 10,000 ton USN ship, like a Ticonderoga class CG.  The only issue is whether the ship could be saved.  That is determined largely by 3 factors: Luck in what systems were knocked out by the hit(s); 2) the design characteristics of the ship and 3) the damage control skill of the crew.  Because we don't know where the ship was hit, or even how many hits it suffered, it is difficult to evaluate what happened.  The Russians claim they suffered a weapons detonation.  Assuming this is true, and assuming the weapons detonation was the result of a hit by the Neptune missile, then the most likely candidates would be the SS-N-12 launchers or the SA-N-6 VLS.  Either one could cause a major fire under the right conditions.  The SS-N-12/P-1000 is a liquid fuel missile, so if it gets burning, you will get a good fire.  But, the launchers being outside the hull could actually help minimze the damage, as any explosion would largely vent away from the hull.  But, possibly the liquid fuel could seep into the hull through a breech, and start a fire.  Conversely, an explosion in the VLS could either be better, or not.  Presumably, there are fire extinguishing systems in the VLS.  But those could have been knocked out by the hit.  The SA-N-6 is a solid fuel missile, so it is theoretically safer.  But if the VLS begins burning, it is a fire inside the ship, which can spread via cable runs or simple heat transfer through bulkheads or unsecured hatches.  This is where the material condition of the ship and the training of the crew comes in.  Additionally, there is luck.  If the ship suffered a hit in the engineering spaces that took out power, or multiple salt water loops, the crew may not have the power or water to fight the fire even if they are properly trained.  Because the ship was being towed, we know it lost power, although that could have happened via progressive damage instead of as a direct consequence of the hit(s).  However, given the amount of space an engineering plant takes up in a ship, and given that the Neptune is a sea-skimming missile, the odds are that at least one of the hits negatively impacted the engineering plant.  This could potentially have significant repercussions to any fire fighting effort, as without power, it becomes very difficult (but not impossible, depending on the situation) to fight major fires on a ship.

What conclusions can we draw? We really don't have enough information yet.  Right now, all we can do is draw up a list of hypotheses.  With that said, given the 100+ year history of poor Russian naval training and maintenance, I would guess that those were factors in the loss of the Moskva.

[Dammit Carl!]

Very, very good info

Thank you indeed.

[Con]

Thanks
This is very useful insight
FYI a bit off topic but my father was a navy vet and an offshore oil driller (he discovered and drilled several deep sea fields) for 35 years - he always thought the oilrigs could teach the navy a thing or two on damage control -  He was part of the crew that did the post mortem on the Piper Alpha disaster in the North Sea since that was one of his rigs.

[GDS_Starfury]

excellent post Trip.

[MikeGER]

excellent post Trip.

+1


that what i love Grogheads for  :) :hug:

[FarAway Sooner]

Great stuff, Tripoli!  I love the expertise in this group...

I think all we can safely conclude at this point is:  1) The Ukrainians either had help, they got extremely lucky, or both; and 2) Russian malfeasance almost certainly was a contributing factor.

This seems to be more of a symbolic victory for the Ukrainians than a practical military victory.  While I'm skeptical that a poorly trained and led Russian army will fight better in Eastern Ukraine than they did in Northern Ukraine, I know that the Russians have a few more factors working to their benefit there.

[MengJiao]

Great stuff, Tripoli!  I love the expertise in this group...

I think all we can safely conclude at this point is:  1) The Ukrainians either had help, they got extremely lucky, or both; and 2) Russian malfeasance almost certainly was a contributing factor.

This seems to be more of a symbolic victory for the Ukrainians than a practical military victory.  While I'm skeptical that a poorly trained and led Russian army will fight better in Eastern Ukraine than they did in Northern Ukraine, I know that the Russians have a few more factors working to their benefit there.

   I'd rate it as a first-rate military win and give most of the credit to the Ukrainians -- though I base this assessment on some rather speculative suppositions:

1) The Russians were trying something new in their efforts to get control of the coast around Odessa (though by the way, I don't think Moskava had been launching missiles at
anything anywhere in Ukraine ever)
2) the idea would be to get the Ukrainians to use their radars and then plot those or attack them with antiradar missiles
3) this would at least make it look like they could make an amphibious attack there and pull Ukrainian forces off of other fronts
4) two things might have complicated this simple plan: bad weather and the Ukrainian use of drones and infrared targetting...so not much radar use on the Ukrainian side and weather problems
    for the Russians
5) Given that the Russians need to get some points on the board fast -- they tried something unusual and had Moskava  go active as bait and then maybe use a decoy to draw Ukrainian
     radar use to target Moskava
6) of course the real Moskava had to go silent and move out of position (ie no longer in the usual heavily-defended Moskava-spot in the middle of the escorts)
7) so with radars off, Moskava slipped west (not what the Ukrainians would expect after all) while the main force prepared to blast the decieved Ukrainians when they switched on their radars to hit the fake Moskava
8) But the Ukrainians might have seen something like this before and they had drones out and targetted Moskava without switching on any radars and without mistakenly targetting the fake/decoy
Moskava
8.5) without her radars, Moskava has no defenses against missiles
9) BOOM!  no more threats to Odessa and no more Moskava  (the shutting off of the threat to Odessa is the big win)
10) Also nobody's radars saw the hits so nobody was quite sure what happened

[Pete Dero]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10721423/Russian-air-strike-hits-Ukrainian-missile-factory-Kyiv.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-moskva-ukraine-antiship-missiles-b2058712.html

Russian Ministry of Defense issued a statement that Russia bombed a factory in Kyiv overnight where Neptune missiles are made in a retaliatory attack.

But not because their ship was hit by those missiles  :hide:.

[MengJiao]

b]#msg707691 date=1650021669]
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10721423/Russian-air-strike-hits-Ukrainian-missile-factory-Kyiv.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-moskva-ukraine-antiship-missiles-b2058712.html

Russian Ministry of Defense issued a statement that Russia bombed a factory in Kyiv overnight where Neptune missiles are made in a retaliatory attack.

But not because their ship was hit by those missiles  :hide:.

Yes, it's pretty confusing to be a Russian pundit these days.  You have to ritually call the Ukrainians a whole list of insulting terms ('freaks' for example...sounds a little recherchee( re·cher·ché ?!)
to me, but hey you'd probably go to prison for 15 years if you mentioned that 'freak' is not all that threatening an insult at least once it's translated into English). 
Plus, well the war that isn't a war, the bombs
you haven't already dropped all over the place and the Navy that had the ship that sink itself rather than be sent to prison for 15 years
for mentioning that the freaks shoot back occasionally, but even
the regime stalwarts can't get it right all the time:

"Even the fact there is an attack against our territory is casus belli, an absolute cause for war," Bortko said. "For real, no fooling around without any—what's it called? What are we waging right now?"

From Newsweek:
  Russian TV pundit has raged against Ukraine and called for the bombing of the capital city of Kyiv following the sinking of the Russian missile cruiser Moskva in the Black Sea.

Vladimir Bortko, a filmmaker and former member of the Russian State Duma, said on state TV on Thursday that the Russian "motherland" had been attacked after Ukraine said it had hit the ship with missiles.

"We should bomb Kyiv," said Bortko at one point in an exchange with the TV host.

Russia, which began its invasion of Ukraine on February 24, has not officially said the vessel was attacked but the country's Defense Ministry has confirmed that the Moskva, which had a crew of 510, sank after a fire on the ship was caused by the detonation of ammunition.

Bortko was speaking as part of a panel on Russian state TV and his comments were flagged on Twitter by Julia Davis, columnist for The Daily Beast and a Russian media analyst, who shared a clip of the show with English subtitles.

The TV host noted that they were talking "about the flagship of Russia's Black Sea fleet." Moskva is the Russian word for Moscow, the nation's capital city.

"Even the fact there is an attack against our territory is casus belli, an absolute cause for war," Bortko said. "For real, no fooling around without any—what's it called? What are we waging right now?"

Russia has not described the ongoing conflict in Ukraine as an invasion or a war, referring to it instead as a "special military operation," while the country has introduced a law that bans journalists from describing that operation as a war or invasion with the penalty of up to 15 years in prison.[/b]

PS: it might be a translation problem, but I think a casus belli is not an "absolute' cause of war (ie not a trigger) but a logically valid argument for an actual war, which would be logically lacking in Russian rhetoric these days unless you want to spend 15 years in prison for mentioning such things even if your name is Bortko or something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli  Wikipedia is enlightening on this topic and I think Putin is suing them for mentioning some other things about reality.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/04/russia-threatens-wikipedia-with-fines-over-false-information/

[Pete Dero]

^ I understand the Russian point of view.  It is not fair when the country you invade shoots back.


Try to keep up : the attack is a casus belli but there was no attack, it was just a fire ...


The translation from Bortko I have seen is different but more dangerous because it hints at the use of nuclear weapons : "We should bomb Kyiv! Then they won't come," he said.
"That's what needs to be done. This should never happen, what we are seeing on the screen right now. 'We have one way of responding. Bomb them once and that's it."

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-pundit-rages-warship-sinking-bomb-kyiv-ukraine-moskva-1698207

[Gusington]

'Hints at the use of nuclear weapons' 

I have given up on trying to understand what the hell the Russians are doing and I think the Russians have too.

And that is one hell of a post up there Tripoli