3 ms·

2x250kg bombs and relatively minor damage. The modern anti-ship missiles seems to have couple things going for them - hitting the ship at their terminal velocit

by trhway 5y ago

2x250kg bombs and relatively minor damage. The modern anti-ship missiles seems to have couple things going for them - hitting the ship at their terminal velocity they explode once they got inside the ship, and they naturally hit more closer toward the center/bulk of the ship. The 1982 Sheffield hit as well as the recent Moskva hit - both with sub 250kg warheads - illustrate that. Moskva burning https://t.me/milinfolive/81443 https://t.me/milinfolive/81443, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/04/18/photos-appear-to-show-moskva-missile-cruiser-burning-a77388 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/04/18/photos-appear-to-s...

monocasa 5y ago
I think the Moskva is also built for a naval doctrine that doesn't make sense for Russia anymore. Just about any ordance will take out a missile cruiser like that because the cruise missiles in the launch tubes will detonate and finish your work for you. Missile cruisers being the back bone of your fleet only make sense when you can trade ship for ship and win out on industrial capacity to build ships. That doesn't really apply to Russia, but the USSR could have convinced itself in the 70s that it applied to them.
- trhway 5y ago
  on the photo it looks like the cruise missiles didn't detonate on Moskva - all 4 rows of the tubes on that left side are visible through the smoke and intact. The Moskva doctrine was based on not being hit :) as it was supposedly the ship with a very capable air-defense. In particular it was it's role to provide "umbrella" air defense to that assault fleet group near Odessa. The air defense based on S-300 was outdated though (and they decided to not spend money on it's upgrade during the most recent Moskva modernization few years ago) and while in theory capable of dealing with those anti-ship missiles, it faced a new type of target - drone - which was harassing the fleet and taking attention away before these 2 missiles came in.
  - daniel-cussen 5y ago
    How do you have this much visibility on the Russian Navy?
    - jterrys 5y ago
      This is honestly pretty common knowledge in armchair general circles. There's practically games out there where former servicemen measure wieners about who is more correct, to the point where they get in trouble for disclosing classified information
    - trhway 5y ago
      it is all open sources as another commenter correctly pointed out.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      They do not, it's all mostly incorrect. S-300F is not the system slated for cruise missiles, it's use is for aircraft, another system is supposed to engage cruise missiles flying low. The Moskva was never modernized at all, that was the two Slavas. Upgrade of the cruise-missile and drone defence system was not cancelled and is still in R&D phase as the Samant-M system, etc...
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    S-300F is not suited for cruise missile interception. it was simply not designed to do so. In fact, the minimum engagement distance of S-300F is only around 5 kilometers. So the idea that S-300F is even theoretically capable of dealing with cruise missiles is not even accurste. It is not capable of doing so, and it's not even supposed to - there is another system for that. Also, the Moskva was never modernized. The Slava class was modernized, with the exception of the Moskva, which was not modernized at all, and only repaired and maintained. The self-defence system for the Slava class is the Osa-M system, which is severly outdated (50 years old). It was actually due for an upcoming upgrade, as the Saman system. Precisely in order to deal with drones and cruise missiles better.
    - trhway 5y ago
      Of course you don't shoot S-300 missile here. You use S-300 radar for early detection and feed that info downstream to Osa and AK-630 CIWS. Those modern missiles were probably too much for Osa (its missiles can't hit such low flying targets), yet AK-630 would have easily dealt with them if, and this is big if, it (its gun turrets as well as its fire control radar) was turned on and warmed up and preferably trained in the general direction of the incoming missiles in time to not lose precious several seconds that the missiles were in its effective range. This is why early detection from big S-300 radar is the key. >Also, the Moskva was never modernized. The Slava class was modernized, with the exception of the Moskva, which was not modernized at all, and only repaired and maintained. you're again very incorrect here. Official state news with official Navy yards PR department statement : https://ria.ru/20200703/1573824385.html https://ria.ru/20200703/1573824385.html "Как сообщили РИА Новости в пресс-службе 13-го судоремонтного завода ЧФ, где ремонтировался корабль, на "Москве" была проведена масштабная работа по ремонту и модернизации." Granted, that normally such modernization should have included upgrade of those old air-defenses, yet they didn't do it, officially - for budget reasons. (while for example its cruise missiles got upgraded from Bazalt to P-1000 thus getting land attack capability - the context of the current war clearly shows where they put their priorities, offensive capabilities over defensive, as they didn't expect Ukraine to provide any meaningful resistance, and as it happens they were very wrong :)
- Spooky23 5y ago
  The operating theory was that these ships would basically fire off their load, take out a carrier, and then do whatever. Survivability isn’t really part of the equation. On the smaller Soviet scale, the Namchucka missile corvettes are an even more in your face example. (You can tour one in Fall River, Mass at battleship cove) These things would operate inshore, and once they fire their missiles, they are detected and get blown up.
- wikidani 5y ago
  There's a problem with your reasoning though, the Moskva was built/used as a seaborne S-300 plattform. Air denial is a big part of Soviet/russian doctrine and that role fits very well within the Russian strategy (limiting NATO from what they consider "their" territory i.e the Black sea and the Baltics)
erdewit 5y ago
On the photo of the Moskva I can't really see a missile impact.
- trhway 5y ago
  Even large Styx missile leaves only less than 10 feet wide entry hole. The Neptune's one would be like 3 feet. It exploded inside. Everyone inside that superstructure died.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- infthi 5y ago
  also: remember that [on the photos circulating on the internet] she is already ~3 meters deeper in the water comapared to the time of the [alleged] hit. Any huge hole next to the waterline would already be underwater and thus not visible.

by trhway 5y ago

monocasa 5y ago

I think the Moskva is also built for a naval doctrine that doesn't make sense for Russia anymore. Just about any ordance will take out a missile cruiser like that because the cruise missiles in the launch tubes will detonate and finish your work for you. Missile cruisers being the back bone of your fleet only make sense when you can trade ship for ship and win out on industrial capacity to build ships. That doesn't really apply to Russia, but the USSR could have convinced itself in the 70s that it applied to them.

trhway 5y ago
on the photo it looks like the cruise missiles didn't detonate on Moskva - all 4 rows of the tubes on that left side are visible through the smoke and intact. The Moskva doctrine was based on not being hit :) as it was supposedly the ship with a very capable air-defense. In particular it was it's role to provide "umbrella" air defense to that assault fleet group near Odessa. The air defense based on S-300 was outdated though (and they decided to not spend money on it's upgrade during the most recent Moskva modernization few years ago) and while in theory capable of dealing with those anti-ship missiles, it faced a new type of target - drone - which was harassing the fleet and taking attention away before these 2 missiles came in.
- daniel-cussen 5y ago
  How do you have this much visibility on the Russian Navy?
  - jterrys 5y ago
    This is honestly pretty common knowledge in armchair general circles. There's practically games out there where former servicemen measure wieners about who is more correct, to the point where they get in trouble for disclosing classified information
  - trhway 5y ago
    it is all open sources as another commenter correctly pointed out.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    They do not, it's all mostly incorrect. S-300F is not the system slated for cruise missiles, it's use is for aircraft, another system is supposed to engage cruise missiles flying low. The Moskva was never modernized at all, that was the two Slavas. Upgrade of the cruise-missile and drone defence system was not cancelled and is still in R&D phase as the Samant-M system, etc...
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  S-300F is not suited for cruise missile interception. it was simply not designed to do so. In fact, the minimum engagement distance of S-300F is only around 5 kilometers. So the idea that S-300F is even theoretically capable of dealing with cruise missiles is not even accurste. It is not capable of doing so, and it's not even supposed to - there is another system for that. Also, the Moskva was never modernized. The Slava class was modernized, with the exception of the Moskva, which was not modernized at all, and only repaired and maintained. The self-defence system for the Slava class is the Osa-M system, which is severly outdated (50 years old). It was actually due for an upcoming upgrade, as the Saman system. Precisely in order to deal with drones and cruise missiles better.
  - trhway 5y ago
    Of course you don't shoot S-300 missile here. You use S-300 radar for early detection and feed that info downstream to Osa and AK-630 CIWS. Those modern missiles were probably too much for Osa (its missiles can't hit such low flying targets), yet AK-630 would have easily dealt with them if, and this is big if, it (its gun turrets as well as its fire control radar) was turned on and warmed up and preferably trained in the general direction of the incoming missiles in time to not lose precious several seconds that the missiles were in its effective range. This is why early detection from big S-300 radar is the key. >Also, the Moskva was never modernized. The Slava class was modernized, with the exception of the Moskva, which was not modernized at all, and only repaired and maintained. you're again very incorrect here. Official state news with official Navy yards PR department statement : https://ria.ru/20200703/1573824385.html https://ria.ru/20200703/1573824385.html "Как сообщили РИА Новости в пресс-службе 13-го судоремонтного завода ЧФ, где ремонтировался корабль, на "Москве" была проведена масштабная работа по ремонту и модернизации." Granted, that normally such modernization should have included upgrade of those old air-defenses, yet they didn't do it, officially - for budget reasons. (while for example its cruise missiles got upgraded from Bazalt to P-1000 thus getting land attack capability - the context of the current war clearly shows where they put their priorities, offensive capabilities over defensive, as they didn't expect Ukraine to provide any meaningful resistance, and as it happens they were very wrong :)
Spooky23 5y ago
The operating theory was that these ships would basically fire off their load, take out a carrier, and then do whatever. Survivability isn’t really part of the equation. On the smaller Soviet scale, the Namchucka missile corvettes are an even more in your face example. (You can tour one in Fall River, Mass at battleship cove) These things would operate inshore, and once they fire their missiles, they are detected and get blown up.
wikidani 5y ago
There's a problem with your reasoning though, the Moskva was built/used as a seaborne S-300 plattform. Air denial is a big part of Soviet/russian doctrine and that role fits very well within the Russian strategy (limiting NATO from what they consider "their" territory i.e the Black sea and the Baltics)

erdewit 5y ago

On the photo of the Moskva I can't really see a missile impact.

trhway 5y ago
Even large Styx missile leaves only less than 10 feet wide entry hole. The Neptune's one would be like 3 feet. It exploded inside. Everyone inside that superstructure died.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
infthi 5y ago
also: remember that [on the photos circulating on the internet] she is already ~3 meters deeper in the water comapared to the time of the [alleged] hit. Any huge hole next to the waterline would already be underwater and thus not visible.