4 ms·

Missile attack. On paper the Russian missile defense systems should be able to easily defeat 2 missiles like the neptune. Their CIWS etc are pretty good. On pap

Missile attack. On paper the Russian missile defense systems should be able to easily defeat 2 missiles like the neptune. Their CIWS etc are pretty good. On paper. Accidental fire on board is a freak accident that’s not replicatable. Missile attack means that someone has either competely lied about their capabilities or has corrupted and sold the self defense systems. Or both. The latter means Russian ships in general are now a way easier targets and hence smaller threats. Hence Russia has every incentive to hide this.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Their CIWS etc are pretty good Source please?
- throwaway2037 4y ago
  Normally, I don't like this kind of "source please" reply. However, I feel that CIWS is mostly defensive security theatre. How often are do they actually work in the real world? The number of attacks on vessels carrying CIWS are so small. As a result, CIWS hardly get any real world practice. Events would be studied by military and manuf., then software updates made. As a counterpoint: Think how many cruise missiles have been fired in the last 50 years -- lots(!). There are plenty of case studies for military and manuf. to improve software. (I assume this is also how anti-missile systems are improved, like the US Patriot system.) FYI about this ship (Moskva): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva Says CIWS system is: AK-360 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-630 See section "Service history" for some *highly* speculative writing!
  - yread 4y ago
    This destroyer destroyed a few missiles fired on it and it has CIWS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mason_(DDG-87)#Attacks_off_the_coast_of_Yemen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mason_(DDG-87)#Attacks_off...
    - throwaway2037 4y ago
      Nice reference. Your example is more about anti-missile missiles. I was talking more about the machine gun plus radar setup. I find it hard to believe these work very well in combat situations.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    >Normally, I don't like this kind of "source please" reply. Why not? We are allowed to ask for the sources to claims that are not obvious or easily verifiable, like the ones regarding weapons systems of a secretive country.
    - sharpneli 4y ago
      The sources posted are pretty much the only we even can have. Naturally for these kind of weapons systems we essentially only have the public information, that includes western weapons systems. And all of them naturally boast that they can defend against well, everything. Only when something is actually tested in the field we can see how well it works. Hence Russians have an incentive to deny that it was due to weakness of their CIWS. Or, perhaps more probably, an incentive to say to Putin that they didn't corrupt all the maintenance money and it was just an accident.
baybal2 4y ago
> On paper the Russian missile defense systems should be able to easily defeat 2 missiles like the neptune. Mokva air defence radar only looks one way. They made it look away from the coast using a drone, and then launched missiles when it turned away from the coast — this is how I imagine it happened.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  > Mokva air defence radar only looks one way. That seems like a pretty big flaw, given how easy it could be to, y'know, attack from more than one direction at a time.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    Indeed, which is why the Patriot air defence system the US has is a joke, and why some countries in NATO ( like Turkey) buy or keep the Russian equivalents (S-300/400).
- fer 4y ago
  Some sources say the Bayraktar were decoys, some others say that they actually took down the radars on the Moskva before they fired the missiles. But I have a hard time picturing the Moskva having trouble destroying a drone with the performance of a WWI-era plane. It also had two radars, MR-710 and MR-800, but I'm unable to find if they have differences in terms of target tracking and acquisition.
  - giantrobot 4y ago
    While the Bayraktars don't have stellar maneuverability they are stealthy and relatively small. They also don't use radar for targeting. For a ship to have good defense against such drones the radar's software needs to understand a drone's signatures and the crews also need to be trained for the same. Given the Russian army's current level of performance and the Russian navy's...entire history, I don't have any trouble believing the Moskva was beguiled by a drone.
    - 4y ago

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

>Their CIWS etc are pretty good Source please?

throwaway2037 4y ago
Normally, I don't like this kind of "source please" reply. However, I feel that CIWS is mostly defensive security theatre. How often are do they actually work in the real world? The number of attacks on vessels carrying CIWS are so small. As a result, CIWS hardly get any real world practice. Events would be studied by military and manuf., then software updates made. As a counterpoint: Think how many cruise missiles have been fired in the last 50 years -- lots(!). There are plenty of case studies for military and manuf. to improve software. (I assume this is also how anti-missile systems are improved, like the US Patriot system.) FYI about this ship (Moskva): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva Says CIWS system is: AK-360 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-630 See section "Service history" for some *highly* speculative writing!
- yread 4y ago
  This destroyer destroyed a few missiles fired on it and it has CIWS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mason_(DDG-87)#Attacks_off_the_coast_of_Yemen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mason_(DDG-87)#Attacks_off...
  - throwaway2037 4y ago
    Nice reference. Your example is more about anti-missile missiles. I was talking more about the machine gun plus radar setup. I find it hard to believe these work very well in combat situations.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >Normally, I don't like this kind of "source please" reply. Why not? We are allowed to ask for the sources to claims that are not obvious or easily verifiable, like the ones regarding weapons systems of a secretive country.
  - sharpneli 4y ago
    The sources posted are pretty much the only we even can have. Naturally for these kind of weapons systems we essentially only have the public information, that includes western weapons systems. And all of them naturally boast that they can defend against well, everything. Only when something is actually tested in the field we can see how well it works. Hence Russians have an incentive to deny that it was due to weakness of their CIWS. Or, perhaps more probably, an incentive to say to Putin that they didn't corrupt all the maintenance money and it was just an accident.

baybal2 4y ago

> On paper the Russian missile defense systems should be able to easily defeat 2 missiles like the neptune. Mokva air defence radar only looks one way. They made it look away from the coast using a drone, and then launched missiles when it turned away from the coast — this is how I imagine it happened.

TulliusCicero 4y ago
> Mokva air defence radar only looks one way. That seems like a pretty big flaw, given how easy it could be to, y'know, attack from more than one direction at a time.
- sofixa 4y ago
  Indeed, which is why the Patriot air defence system the US has is a joke, and why some countries in NATO ( like Turkey) buy or keep the Russian equivalents (S-300/400).
fer 4y ago
Some sources say the Bayraktar were decoys, some others say that they actually took down the radars on the Moskva before they fired the missiles. But I have a hard time picturing the Moskva having trouble destroying a drone with the performance of a WWI-era plane. It also had two radars, MR-710 and MR-800, but I'm unable to find if they have differences in terms of target tracking and acquisition.
- giantrobot 4y ago
  While the Bayraktars don't have stellar maneuverability they are stealthy and relatively small. They also don't use radar for targeting. For a ship to have good defense against such drones the radar's software needs to understand a drone's signatures and the crews also need to be trained for the same. Given the Russian army's current level of performance and the Russian navy's...entire history, I don't have any trouble believing the Moskva was beguiled by a drone.
  - 4y ago