4 ms·

What this blogpost does, is start with the base assumptions of "Command Modern Operations", a military-simulator from MatrixGames, as well as the assumption of

What this blogpost does, is start with the base assumptions of "Command Modern Operations", a military-simulator from MatrixGames, as well as the assumption of 2x Neptunes fired + 1x Drone nearby the ship. With the base assumptions, the Moskva detects both missiles and destroys them long before they're anywhere close to a threat. Of course, this isn't what happened in reality.... From there, the blogpost doubles the OODA loop: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act, making the ship's crew less-and-less competent until the missiles hit. The OODA-loop originally assumes a response time of 15-seconds. But what if it was 30-seconds? 60-seconds? 120-seconds? How long do we give the "crew" to not see the missiles? A second experiment is then run: what if the RADAR is off? It looks like the CWIS detects the missiles, but its too late: the CWIS can only disable one missile before the second one strikes the ship. ------- Of course, just playing around with assumptions probably won't get us to the truth of the matter. But maybe it gives us at least an idea of what the crew was thinking and/or not thinking. Personally speaking, I would have increased the number of Neptune missiles until two missiles struck the ship in the simulation. There's just a lot of unknown variables here...

Sakos 5y ago
Site's down atm but he does mention towards the end 28+ missiles would've been necessary to start overwhelming the Moskva's defenses. I think it's unlikely they had that many in place to fire at it simultaneously. The launchers for it aren't exactly small and can only carry 4 each AFAIK.
- bostonsre 5y ago
  It wouldn't be that surprising if the navy was corrupt and inept as well. The weather conditions, the command structure, and the fact that it was night time could have also played into it. If the people on watch were tired, it could have slowed reaction times. If they weren't allowed to launch counter measures without the captain and the captain was sleeping, it could have slowed reaction times.
  - Sakos 5y ago
    I would assume it's a combination of poor readiness, poor training, poor leadership and a high pressure/stress environment due to the drone harassment.
    - tintor 5y ago
      Wouldn't drone harassment increase readiness and alertness?
      - Sakos 5y ago
        I think you're confusing readiness with military readiness (which is what I mean in this context). https://www.idb.org/what-is-military-readiness/ https://www.idb.org/what-is-military-readiness/
    - bigbizisverywyz 5y ago
      Never seen it discussed, but maybe the drone landed a bomb on the superstructure which knocked out their radar or other detection systems.
      - dragontamer 5y ago
        > Never seen it discussed, but maybe the drone landed a bomb on the superstructure which knocked out their radar or other detection systems. But that's also ridiculous: a cruiser, with full anti-air capabilities, would be disabled from an aerial bomb? Missile-defense is harder than anti-air (especially vs slow, non-stealthy aerial drones). It makes far more sense that Moskva failed against the sea-skimming missiles, rather than the obvious drone in the vicinity. Then again: the Moskva *should* have been able to disable the missiles.
      - bostonsre 5y ago
        It would be hilarious if a slow moving drone snuck up on a ship that was supposed to provide anti air cover for a fleet.
kmonsen 5y ago
This one reviews it in a different game, and there the defense fails if the seas are too choppy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxwh6MGLJNc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxwh6MGLJNc I would say these are all games and have little value but what do I know.
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  >>>I would say these are all games and have little value but what do I know. The US and UK militaries use the licensed version of Command: Modern Operations to do wargaming / modeling & simulation. For ~$20,000/copy it mostly lets the end user edit/update the database (probably to incorporate classified capabilities/performance envelopes). The game has a ton of references for its radar/EMS and physics models. It's probably the best and most accessible military simulation on the open market. I have some ideas about writing adversarial AIs for it to sell to the military but I'm too swamped with other stuff.
praptak 5y ago
I have seen an ex-military comment on the recent pics of the Moskva and it somewhat corroborates the hypothesis that the ship didn't engage the defenses. The person said that the AA radar was in the inactive position and the AA launchers were down in the wells. Obviously it is possible that they were retracted after the attack so it's not a hundred percent proof.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > AA radar was in the inactive position and the AA launchers were down in the wells That is confusingly incompetent for a vessel at war, off the enemy’s coast, an enemy which manufactures anti-ship missiles and has been potting your side’s planes for weeks. I’m more liable to believe the radars were broken. It fits the pattern of logistical and maintenance issues across the Russian military.
  - praptak 5y ago
    Maybe they were. Anyway this starts to look like the Ukrainians did not overwhelm or disable the AA defenses. The more realistic explanation is that they had good intelligence and just knew the missiles have a good chance of landing (either due to incompetence or poor maintenance of the AA systems).
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      Maybe Ukraine felt like "trying to get lucky" and... lo and behold, they got lucky? Not everything is necessarily down to intelligence. If Ukraine saw a chance to fire upon the ship, maybe they were like "Lets test out their missile-defense systems and see if they're as good as they claim..." ------ If you have an intelligence-advantage against the opponent, you can fish for lucky chances more often, knowing that the opponent doesn't really have a good counter-response.
      - praptak 5y ago
        I believe these missiles cost a crapload of money, are slow to make and Ukraine has a small number of these. It would be irrational for them to use not one but at least two of them (some sources say there even were 3 hits) without a decent chance of a hit.
farseer 5y ago
Missile defense is hard, even if everything goes according to plan. A small sea skimming object travelling at near wave height means very little reaction time for even the likes of an AEGIS system.
- lambdasquirrel 5y ago
  Now that you said it, maybe the weapon height of 30ft above sea level was a tad bit too high, given the report of sea state 3. Still, it seems unlikely that the missile would have been that much lower, and that the Moskva "should've" detected it at 10nm out. Which does make you wonder, if the drones had been carrying out electronic warfare, faking radar locks, then that makes things complicated for the Moskva.
laichzeit0 5y ago
I read that it was 3 drones, not 1. Wonder how it would play out with 3 drones and 2 Neptunes.
topspin 5y ago
History tells us a lot. Exocets punished the UK in the Falklands. The USS Stark got nailed by Iraqi Exocets. The Georgians actually scored a missile hit on the very same Moskva in 2008. Apparently naval defensive systems -- even with the depth of Moskva, which was festooned with anti-missile defenses -- are not capable of protecting vessels under all conditions. Every case can be endlessly Monday morning quarterbacked, but it appears to me that if your navies defensive systems are not fully automated, continuously available or compromised by tracking limitations, including those induced by tunnel vision-ed crews, weather or any other conceivable condition, then you risk having your capital ships blown apart by a relatively inexpensive bit of ordinance that can be launched from hundreds of kilometers away using a variety of platforms. The missiles involved weren't even all that extraordinary. They're based on an old Soviet design (Kh-35). Not especially stealthy. Not hypersonic. Yet here we are. What is the actual feasibility of protecting surface ships? An important question because everyone has sea skimming anti-ship missiles.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  > The missiles involved weren't even all that extraordinary. They're based on an old Soviet design (Kh-35). Not especially stealthy. Not hypersonic. Yet here we are. I mean, that's what I've generally heard about "hypersonic" missiles. Sure, they're harder to shoot down. But regular-ol' cruise missiles are already hard to shoot down. Its probably more worthwhile to just fire 20x simultaneous cruise missiles rather than to develop 1x hypersonic missile.
  - topspin 5y ago
    Seeking arguments against hypersonic weapons is as futile as arguing against every other leg of the perpetual arms race. The advantages are clear; the speed of hypersonic missiles makes all current anti-missile systems (limited as they already are,) obsolete. The first iterations of hypersonic missiles are already in service with two major powers and a third will join soon. Everyone else will follow.
    - dragontamer 5y ago

Sakos 5y ago

Site's down atm but he does mention towards the end 28+ missiles would've been necessary to start overwhelming the Moskva's defenses. I think it's unlikely they had that many in place to fire at it simultaneously. The launchers for it aren't exactly small and can only carry 4 each AFAIK.

bostonsre 5y ago
It wouldn't be that surprising if the navy was corrupt and inept as well. The weather conditions, the command structure, and the fact that it was night time could have also played into it. If the people on watch were tired, it could have slowed reaction times. If they weren't allowed to launch counter measures without the captain and the captain was sleeping, it could have slowed reaction times.
- Sakos 5y ago
  I would assume it's a combination of poor readiness, poor training, poor leadership and a high pressure/stress environment due to the drone harassment.
  - tintor 5y ago
    Wouldn't drone harassment increase readiness and alertness?
    - Sakos 5y ago
      I think you're confusing readiness with military readiness (which is what I mean in this context). https://www.idb.org/what-is-military-readiness/ https://www.idb.org/what-is-military-readiness/
  - bigbizisverywyz 5y ago
    Never seen it discussed, but maybe the drone landed a bomb on the superstructure which knocked out their radar or other detection systems.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      > Never seen it discussed, but maybe the drone landed a bomb on the superstructure which knocked out their radar or other detection systems. But that's also ridiculous: a cruiser, with full anti-air capabilities, would be disabled from an aerial bomb? Missile-defense is harder than anti-air (especially vs slow, non-stealthy aerial drones). It makes far more sense that Moskva failed against the sea-skimming missiles, rather than the obvious drone in the vicinity. Then again: the Moskva *should* have been able to disable the missiles.
    - bostonsre 5y ago
      It would be hilarious if a slow moving drone snuck up on a ship that was supposed to provide anti air cover for a fleet.

kmonsen 5y ago

This one reviews it in a different game, and there the defense fails if the seas are too choppy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxwh6MGLJNc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxwh6MGLJNc I would say these are all games and have little value but what do I know.

CapricornNoble 5y ago
>>>I would say these are all games and have little value but what do I know. The US and UK militaries use the licensed version of Command: Modern Operations to do wargaming / modeling & simulation. For ~$20,000/copy it mostly lets the end user edit/update the database (probably to incorporate classified capabilities/performance envelopes). The game has a ton of references for its radar/EMS and physics models. It's probably the best and most accessible military simulation on the open market. I have some ideas about writing adversarial AIs for it to sell to the military but I'm too swamped with other stuff.

praptak 5y ago

I have seen an ex-military comment on the recent pics of the Moskva and it somewhat corroborates the hypothesis that the ship didn't engage the defenses. The person said that the AA radar was in the inactive position and the AA launchers were down in the wells. Obviously it is possible that they were retracted after the attack so it's not a hundred percent proof.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> AA radar was in the inactive position and the AA launchers were down in the wells That is confusingly incompetent for a vessel at war, off the enemy’s coast, an enemy which manufactures anti-ship missiles and has been potting your side’s planes for weeks. I’m more liable to believe the radars were broken. It fits the pattern of logistical and maintenance issues across the Russian military.
- praptak 5y ago
  Maybe they were. Anyway this starts to look like the Ukrainians did not overwhelm or disable the AA defenses. The more realistic explanation is that they had good intelligence and just knew the missiles have a good chance of landing (either due to incompetence or poor maintenance of the AA systems).
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    Maybe Ukraine felt like "trying to get lucky" and... lo and behold, they got lucky? Not everything is necessarily down to intelligence. If Ukraine saw a chance to fire upon the ship, maybe they were like "Lets test out their missile-defense systems and see if they're as good as they claim..." ------ If you have an intelligence-advantage against the opponent, you can fish for lucky chances more often, knowing that the opponent doesn't really have a good counter-response.
    - praptak 5y ago
      I believe these missiles cost a crapload of money, are slow to make and Ukraine has a small number of these. It would be irrational for them to use not one but at least two of them (some sources say there even were 3 hits) without a decent chance of a hit.

farseer 5y ago

Missile defense is hard, even if everything goes according to plan. A small sea skimming object travelling at near wave height means very little reaction time for even the likes of an AEGIS system.

lambdasquirrel 5y ago
Now that you said it, maybe the weapon height of 30ft above sea level was a tad bit too high, given the report of sea state 3. Still, it seems unlikely that the missile would have been that much lower, and that the Moskva "should've" detected it at 10nm out. Which does make you wonder, if the drones had been carrying out electronic warfare, faking radar locks, then that makes things complicated for the Moskva.

laichzeit0 5y ago

I read that it was 3 drones, not 1. Wonder how it would play out with 3 drones and 2 Neptunes.

topspin 5y ago

History tells us a lot. Exocets punished the UK in the Falklands. The USS Stark got nailed by Iraqi Exocets. The Georgians actually scored a missile hit on the very same Moskva in 2008. Apparently naval defensive systems -- even with the depth of Moskva, which was festooned with anti-missile defenses -- are not capable of protecting vessels under all conditions. Every case can be endlessly Monday morning quarterbacked, but it appears to me that if your navies defensive systems are not fully automated, continuously available or compromised by tracking limitations, including those induced by tunnel vision-ed crews, weather or any other conceivable condition, then you risk having your capital ships blown apart by a relatively inexpensive bit of ordinance that can be launched from hundreds of kilometers away using a variety of platforms. The missiles involved weren't even all that extraordinary. They're based on an old Soviet design (Kh-35). Not especially stealthy. Not hypersonic. Yet here we are. What is the actual feasibility of protecting surface ships? An important question because everyone has sea skimming anti-ship missiles.

dragontamer 5y ago
> The missiles involved weren't even all that extraordinary. They're based on an old Soviet design (Kh-35). Not especially stealthy. Not hypersonic. Yet here we are. I mean, that's what I've generally heard about "hypersonic" missiles. Sure, they're harder to shoot down. But regular-ol' cruise missiles are already hard to shoot down. Its probably more worthwhile to just fire 20x simultaneous cruise missiles rather than to develop 1x hypersonic missile.
- topspin 5y ago
  Seeking arguments against hypersonic weapons is as futile as arguing against every other leg of the perpetual arms race. The advantages are clear; the speed of hypersonic missiles makes all current anti-missile systems (limited as they already are,) obsolete. The first iterations of hypersonic missiles are already in service with two major powers and a third will join soon. Everyone else will follow.
  - dragontamer 5y ago