6 ms·

It seems almost bizarre that someone would try to take lessons on the US military from the Moskva. I mean.... you can but I think the lessons would be more alon

It seems almost bizarre that someone would try to take lessons on the US military from the Moskva. I mean.... you can but I think the lessons would be more along the lines of "Make sure you have well maintained military equipment with well trained personnel". All the reporting I've seen suggests that the Moskva was very old, wasn't refurbished very well, and even with these big caveats something must have gone seriously wrong for it to be sunk in the way it was. So taking that and drawing larger conclusions seems strange.

SamBam 4y ago
Yes, most of the consensus I've seen is that even if a modern ship somehow failed to intercept those missiles (which it probably wouldn't have), a modern and well-trained/motivated crew should have been able to immediately shut down the flooding and damaged caused by two comparatively small explosions, and prevented the ship from sinking. An entire ship sinking because of that level of damage is what was most mind-boggling, from what I understand. Regardless, the point of the article is less about the specifics of the Moskva, so I think it's a fair hook.
- Sharlin 4y ago
  If the missiles managed to blow the Moskva's ammo, that would certainly be enough to explain the sinking. That would've been a lucky hit however.
nimbius 4y ago
navies in general are in a very pondersome position in the 21st century. Most missile technology has significantly outpaced their ability to operate uncontested in blue water. this has led to endless, aimless voyages, rattling the chains of kissingers soft power to evermore capable adversaries who simply arent as interested as they were 50 years ago. These fleets are expensive to maintain. without a purpose like the cold war which afforded constant meaningful training, they become little more than a floating maritime exercise in cleaning and cooking. The accident rate of the US navy in the past decade serves as far more of a teachable resource than the Moskva.
XorNot 4y ago
This would be a mistake: since the Millennium Challenge war games [1] its been apparent the US is making some very bold (read: dangerous) assumptions about the safety of their fleet operating in coastal areas, and a Moskva-like outcome was something which was essentially predicted by them. Ukraine (with US support most likely) essentially pulled off this sort of operation in the exact sort of environment it was expected. The biggest distinction is the Ukranians have a very limited number of weapons in play to use on operations like this. At the very least the US needs to assume that in limited scale regional wars like this, the presumption of ideal warfighting conditions won't exist and you might be dealing with someone overtly receiving a lot of state backing - i.e. the US can't reasonably sanction China. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
- ericmay 4y ago
  > about the safety of their fleet operating in coastal areas > i.e. the US can't reasonably sanction China. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you're linking these ideas together. From a military standpoint, at least today, the US can use its blue water navy to patrol and shut down shipments of resources going in to China pretty well. You don't need to get near the Chinese coast to do that. The US also has no interest in any sort of land warfare in China, so ultimately the strategy is containment. That's why the US (and Biden announced this again today) would absolutely go to war with China over Taiwan, because for China to take Taiwan is to break out of this containment zone and basically eliminate most of the effectiveness of the US Navy in the Pacific as it would relate to China, and undoubtedly end the US as global hegemon. I think people assume that the US Navy has to be close to China in order to do damage and therefore naval ships are screwed because China will launch missles. While I do think the US Navy would conduct operations and quickly learn what exact capabilities the Chinese have, I don't think their effectiveness is limited to near-shore operations. Frankly, the US can shut down all maritime trade for China and now all of a sudden the Chinese are trying to ship in food and goods and energy products (oil and coal) via road, which I don't think is currently feasible. But I also don't think China is foolish enough to actually try and invade Taiwan, because that would be like Ukraine, except with the US actively fighting. Some suggest China may try and launch a limited nuclear strike on a location like Guam, but I think that's very dangerous because the US would no doubt retaliate on mainland Chinese military assets and it either ends right then and there with both sides calling a truce (and China not invading Taiwan) or it would continue to escalate into a limited nuclear exchange, which would be catastrophic. China doesn't and won't have the military strength to take over Taiwan unless it's willing to take insane losses, like Russia is now (but worse) in Ukraine. * I also have a pet conspiracy theory that the war in Iraq was launched to warm up the US military and give it practice with combined arms tactics against an enemy that can fight back, but not too hard.
mhh__ 4y ago
This war is like crack cocaine for the twitter contrarian mob. They'll complain other people are just following the current thing, but they absolutely love it too.

SamBam 4y ago

Yes, most of the consensus I've seen is that even if a modern ship somehow failed to intercept those missiles (which it probably wouldn't have), a modern and well-trained/motivated crew should have been able to immediately shut down the flooding and damaged caused by two comparatively small explosions, and prevented the ship from sinking. An entire ship sinking because of that level of damage is what was most mind-boggling, from what I understand. Regardless, the point of the article is less about the specifics of the Moskva, so I think it's a fair hook.

Sharlin 4y ago
If the missiles managed to blow the Moskva's ammo, that would certainly be enough to explain the sinking. That would've been a lucky hit however.

nimbius 4y ago

navies in general are in a very pondersome position in the 21st century. Most missile technology has significantly outpaced their ability to operate uncontested in blue water. this has led to endless, aimless voyages, rattling the chains of kissingers soft power to evermore capable adversaries who simply arent as interested as they were 50 years ago. These fleets are expensive to maintain. without a purpose like the cold war which afforded constant meaningful training, they become little more than a floating maritime exercise in cleaning and cooking. The accident rate of the US navy in the past decade serves as far more of a teachable resource than the Moskva.

XorNot 4y ago

This would be a mistake: since the Millennium Challenge war games [1] its been apparent the US is making some very bold (read: dangerous) assumptions about the safety of their fleet operating in coastal areas, and a Moskva-like outcome was something which was essentially predicted by them. Ukraine (with US support most likely) essentially pulled off this sort of operation in the exact sort of environment it was expected. The biggest distinction is the Ukranians have a very limited number of weapons in play to use on operations like this. At the very least the US needs to assume that in limited scale regional wars like this, the presumption of ideal warfighting conditions won't exist and you might be dealing with someone overtly receiving a lot of state backing - i.e. the US can't reasonably sanction China. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

ericmay 4y ago
> about the safety of their fleet operating in coastal areas > i.e. the US can't reasonably sanction China. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you're linking these ideas together. From a military standpoint, at least today, the US can use its blue water navy to patrol and shut down shipments of resources going in to China pretty well. You don't need to get near the Chinese coast to do that. The US also has no interest in any sort of land warfare in China, so ultimately the strategy is containment. That's why the US (and Biden announced this again today) would absolutely go to war with China over Taiwan, because for China to take Taiwan is to break out of this containment zone and basically eliminate most of the effectiveness of the US Navy in the Pacific as it would relate to China, and undoubtedly end the US as global hegemon. I think people assume that the US Navy has to be close to China in order to do damage and therefore naval ships are screwed because China will launch missles. While I do think the US Navy would conduct operations and quickly learn what exact capabilities the Chinese have, I don't think their effectiveness is limited to near-shore operations. Frankly, the US can shut down all maritime trade for China and now all of a sudden the Chinese are trying to ship in food and goods and energy products (oil and coal) via road, which I don't think is currently feasible. But I also don't think China is foolish enough to actually try and invade Taiwan, because that would be like Ukraine, except with the US actively fighting. Some suggest China may try and launch a limited nuclear strike on a location like Guam, but I think that's very dangerous because the US would no doubt retaliate on mainland Chinese military assets and it either ends right then and there with both sides calling a truce (and China not invading Taiwan) or it would continue to escalate into a limited nuclear exchange, which would be catastrophic. China doesn't and won't have the military strength to take over Taiwan unless it's willing to take insane losses, like Russia is now (but worse) in Ukraine. * I also have a pet conspiracy theory that the war in Iraq was launched to warm up the US military and give it practice with combined arms tactics against an enemy that can fight back, but not too hard.

mhh__ 4y ago

This war is like crack cocaine for the twitter contrarian mob. They'll complain other people are just following the current thing, but they absolutely love it too.