Russia's War Against Ukraine

[MengJiao]

^ 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

  It's always been in the back of everyone's mind that the Russians might be upset enough to go nuclear (at least locally) -- but I wonder if how they keep mentioning it isn't sort of reducing the actual
danger by making them think it through:
1) one little bomb on Kyiv
2) you get kicked out of the UN and the whole world comes after you
3) is it really worth it?

[Gusington]

Nothing has stopped the insanity so far.

[Sir Slash]

Anybody else find it ironic that a WW II Russian Heavy Cruiser with armor probably would've been a far more effective, and survivable, ship than the Moskva for this kind of inshore work? Or one of their old BB's? Or maybe a monitor, the Russians had some excellent monitors working the Amur River vs Japan in 1945. Just an uneducated thought.

[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.

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.

Wow.  Excellent post Tripoli.  Thank you for taking the time and generously sharing that information. 

Happy Easter.

[Tripoli]

Here's a "Quick Look" at the effect(s) of the loss of the Moskva on the war and on Russia.  It's a quick read, but worth it.  gCaptain is a good site for things maritime

https://gcaptain.com/moskva-missile-cruiser-sinking-significance/

[Gusington]

^From the above:

'If it was holed by Ukrainian anti-ship missiles, it would be the biggest Russian warship to be lost in action since 1941, when German dive bombers crippled the Soviet battleship Marat in Kronshtadt harbor. Western diplomats and experts expect senior officers in the Black Sea Fleet to lose their jobs over the sinking.'

nice

[Skoop]

I think Russia is making a strong case for why we can't let Iran or any bad actor state get Nukes.  Russia would be a nation of nobodies if they had no nukes.

[FarAway Sooner]

I think we all agree that Iran getting nukes is a bad idea.  The dispute has always been about the means, rather than the ends.  I can imagine a world where the Chinese actively encourage nuclear proliferation over the next 20 or 30 years, whatever we do about Iran.

[ArizonaTank]

Last Saturday the UK announced a major weapons package for Ukraine. Anti-ship Harpoon missiles are part of that package. Looks like the Ukrainians will put them to good use.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18217396/britain-armoured-vehicles-zelensky-kyiv-2/

[Gusington]

CNN - 'Zelensky says world should be prepared for possibility Putin could use nuclear weapons':

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/15/politics/tapper-zelensky-interview-cnntv/index.h

[ArizonaTank]

CNN - 'Zelensky says world should be prepared for possibility Putin could use nuclear weapons':

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/15/politics/tapper-zelensky-interview-cnntv/index.h

That combined with Russia warning the US to stop arming the Ukrainians means this could all spin in a very bad direction, very soon.

[MengJiao]

Anybody else find it ironic that a WW II Russian Heavy Cruiser with armor probably would've been a far more effective, and survivable, ship than the Moskva for this kind of inshore work? Or one of their old BB's? Or maybe a monitor, the Russians had some excellent monitors working the Amur River vs Japan in 1945. Just an uneducated thought.

  Amphibious attacks aren't easy for any navy.  The catch here is that Moskava was the most survivable of a mixed bag of ships.  Theoretically, with all her radars on, she could deal with
anything the Ukrainians could dish out.  Now the Russians don't have a credible threat of making an amphibious attack on Odessa and that adds 2-3 brigade-sized formations to what the
Ukrainians can make available elsewhere.
How good was Moskava? On a good day, probably around half as capable as a USN Arleigh Burke for the same air defense job.  We have about 70 of those.  The Russians have 2 remaining PR1164 (the Atlantico/Slava class that Moskava was in) and those aren't looking great.  An article on the PR1164s concludes that within a decade ( after 2020) they will be more dangerous to their crews than anyone else unless they undergo massive modernization (prophetic words) .

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/1164-mods.htm

[JasonPratt]

Masterly posts, Trip! (including the prior one)

Anybody else find it ironic that a WW II Russian Heavy Cruiser with armor probably would've been a far more effective, and survivable, ship than the Moskva for this kind of inshore work? Or one of their old BB's? Or maybe a monitor, the Russians had some excellent monitors working the Amur River vs Japan in 1945. Just an uneducated thought.

They had some very bossy monitors on the Dnepr, too, until Hitler came to power; then they got divided up and moved to the Pripyat swamp naval base, and to a naval base on the river (Dnester), in recently "liberated" Bukhovina, leading to the Ploesti oil fields. Whereupon they got blitzed a couple of years later, though in the case of the Dnester river fleet it wasn't for lack of strong support (including shelling by the Soviet Black Sea navy and a successful special ops invasion of Romania across the river.)

Meanwhile, 15 days ago on April 1st...  ^-^

...actually a good discussion, despite the April 1st theme.

[JasonPratt]

Over on Military History Visualized: the day of the tank is over y'all!

Zombie tanks roam the battlefield -- since 1919!  ^-^

(It's really a discussion on why the tank keeps coming back as a successful weapon platform despite being thoroughly defeated many times over the decades, starting with a quote about the death of tank warfare in 1973 due to Israeli losses.)

[al_infierno]

This looks like a metal album cover.   \m/