4 ms·

> I'm not sure how it could be confirmed that Ukrainian actions cause the ship to sink. One way to dispel doubt is to sink more ships with more missiles.

jrapdx3 5y ago
Pretty sure Ukraine would love to make that happen. If they did that Ukraine probably wouldn't care if people thought sinking other Russian ships didn't constitute proof Ukrainians sank this one.
thelittleone 5y ago
Ship trackers have noted that the remainder of the Russian black sea fleet has since moved further South [1]. If true, that's a fairly interesting indicator. [1] https://news.yahoo.com/russian-ships-heading-south-russian-182931391.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=ma https://news.yahoo.com/russian-ships-heading-south-russian-1...
- gilbetron 5y ago
  Got to move away from those onboard fires!
- jacobolus 5y ago
  To be fair the Moskva was the most capable radar/AA platform for the fleet. Without it they are also more vulnerable to manned/unmanned aircraft.
- topspin 5y ago
  Thing is that although this attack was from a shore battery (assuming the Ukrainian account is true,) the Neptune missile is actually an air launch design. So unless the Russian navy moves out of range of an SU-27 or whatnot they're still vulnerable. Iraq hit the US navy with missiles launched from a business jet. Given what we've seen to date the Ukrainians are at least as resourceful. Bad time to be on a Russian warship in the Black Sea.
  - optimalsolver 5y ago
    This isn't true. They're launched from vehicle-borne platforms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlQ5Hs5OOGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlQ5Hs5OOGU
  - robbiep 5y ago
    Not that I’m any expert, but it sounds pretty much like you are incorrect? When deployed, a Neptune coastal defence system comprises a USPU-360 truck-based mobile launcher, four missiles, a TZM-360 transport/reload vehicle, a RCP-360 command and control vehicle, and a special cargo vehicle. The system is designed to operate up to 25 kilometres (16 mi) inland of the coastline* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-360_Neptune https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-360_Neptune
    - topspin 5y ago
      You'll note in the link you cite that the missile used in this system is a derivative of the Kh-35 anti-ship cruise missile, which Russia can launch from most of their combat jets and various helicopters, several of which are also operated by Ukraine. The missile is fundamentally an air launch design. When launched from a ship, shore battery or helicopter a booster is used to accelerate the missile to cruise speed. A booster is unnecessary when launched from a high speed aircraft. Now, I don't know whether Ukraine has retained air launch capability in the derivative, but that is plausible. I do know that war motivates tremendous initiative, so if not you can bet they're working on it.
      - robbiep 5y ago
        Ahh I see. Still, seems like it still isn’t that correct to call the Neptune an air launch? Like, we don’t know, but clearly from the available info, the Ukrainians have engineered it to be a ground launch. I mean, it requires 3 other vehicles besides the launcher to even launch it. Or so Wikipedia says, which I’ll admit is putting a lot of faith in Wikipedia
      - agapon 5y ago
        It's a heavily modified derivative. It does not have an air-launch capability.
ugl 5y ago
That's some praxis right there.
dgudkov 5y ago
Ukraine may not have more Neptun missiles. They were accepted into military use just weeks before the war started. Only 1 launching unit has been produced, and only a few missiles could be assembled from parts because the manufacturing facility was destroyed by Russia's cruise missiles in the first days of the war. The scarcity may explain why Ukraine waited for 50 days to hit the cruiser. It was an "all or nothing" moment. Also, there were reports that Ukrainian navy used 1 Neptun missile to hit a smaller ship, frigate "Essen", with less success.

jrapdx3 5y ago

Pretty sure Ukraine would love to make that happen. If they did that Ukraine probably wouldn't care if people thought sinking other Russian ships didn't constitute proof Ukrainians sank this one.

thelittleone 5y ago

Ship trackers have noted that the remainder of the Russian black sea fleet has since moved further South [1]. If true, that's a fairly interesting indicator. [1] https://news.yahoo.com/russian-ships-heading-south-russian-182931391.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=ma https://news.yahoo.com/russian-ships-heading-south-russian-1...

gilbetron 5y ago
Got to move away from those onboard fires!
jacobolus 5y ago
To be fair the Moskva was the most capable radar/AA platform for the fleet. Without it they are also more vulnerable to manned/unmanned aircraft.
topspin 5y ago
Thing is that although this attack was from a shore battery (assuming the Ukrainian account is true,) the Neptune missile is actually an air launch design. So unless the Russian navy moves out of range of an SU-27 or whatnot they're still vulnerable. Iraq hit the US navy with missiles launched from a business jet. Given what we've seen to date the Ukrainians are at least as resourceful. Bad time to be on a Russian warship in the Black Sea.
- optimalsolver 5y ago
  This isn't true. They're launched from vehicle-borne platforms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlQ5Hs5OOGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlQ5Hs5OOGU
- robbiep 5y ago
  Not that I’m any expert, but it sounds pretty much like you are incorrect? When deployed, a Neptune coastal defence system comprises a USPU-360 truck-based mobile launcher, four missiles, a TZM-360 transport/reload vehicle, a RCP-360 command and control vehicle, and a special cargo vehicle. The system is designed to operate up to 25 kilometres (16 mi) inland of the coastline* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-360_Neptune https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-360_Neptune
  - topspin 5y ago
    You'll note in the link you cite that the missile used in this system is a derivative of the Kh-35 anti-ship cruise missile, which Russia can launch from most of their combat jets and various helicopters, several of which are also operated by Ukraine. The missile is fundamentally an air launch design. When launched from a ship, shore battery or helicopter a booster is used to accelerate the missile to cruise speed. A booster is unnecessary when launched from a high speed aircraft. Now, I don't know whether Ukraine has retained air launch capability in the derivative, but that is plausible. I do know that war motivates tremendous initiative, so if not you can bet they're working on it.
    - robbiep 5y ago
      Ahh I see. Still, seems like it still isn’t that correct to call the Neptune an air launch? Like, we don’t know, but clearly from the available info, the Ukrainians have engineered it to be a ground launch. I mean, it requires 3 other vehicles besides the launcher to even launch it. Or so Wikipedia says, which I’ll admit is putting a lot of faith in Wikipedia
    - agapon 5y ago
      It's a heavily modified derivative. It does not have an air-launch capability.

ugl 5y ago

That's some praxis right there.

dgudkov 5y ago

Ukraine may not have more Neptun missiles. They were accepted into military use just weeks before the war started. Only 1 launching unit has been produced, and only a few missiles could be assembled from parts because the manufacturing facility was destroyed by Russia's cruise missiles in the first days of the war. The scarcity may explain why Ukraine waited for 50 days to hit the cruiser. It was an "all or nothing" moment. Also, there were reports that Ukrainian navy used 1 Neptun missile to hit a smaller ship, frigate "Essen", with less success.