More on the Moskva sinking
We still don’t know exactly why the Moskva sank. But we do know that it did sink, and that the cause was a fire igniting munitions onboard and causing structural damage. The Russians say the cause of the fire was unknown; the Ukrainians say it was an anti-ship cruise missile they had fired.
It would be a little coincidental if a fire had broken out on the ship for no particular known reason right smack dab in the middle of a war, and therefore it makes more sense to me that it was more likely a Ukrainian missile. But either way:
“Both explanations for the sinking of the Moskva indicate possible Russian deficiencies — either poor air defenses or incredibly lax safety procedures and damage control on the Black Sea Fleet’s flagship,” analysts Mason Clark, Kateryna Stepanenko, and George Barros at the Institute for the Study of War wrote in their daily war briefing…
Carl Schuster, a former US Navy captain, said the doubts went all the way to the Kremlin.
“It raises questions about naval competence 10 years after (Russian President Vladimir) Putin announced he was going to restore the navy’s capabilities, morale and professionalism,” Schuster said.
Furthermore, other countries could learn something from this:
Timothy Heath, senior international defense researcher at the RAND Corp. think tank, said the strike on the Moskva would underscore to both China and the US “the vulnerability of surface ships” in any potential military clash.
The Moskva was considered “a symbol of Russia’s military power.” So the sinking has to be a morale-sinker as well for Russia, although it’s not clear how much strategic military importance it has.
One of the many infamous actions of WWII was the sinking of the HMS Hood. A German shell hit the ammo magazine area of the ship breaking the back of its superstructure and it sank in 3 minutes.
Fifteen or 20 years ago I attended a lecture by a guy who ran one of the US’s weapons proving grounds. They tested both US and our enemy’s weapons and countermeasures.
One point he made was that it used to be true that it took considerable knowledge and training to use weapons like artillery and mortars effectively. With modern weapons any fool can put a laser dot on a target and pull a trigger. (Oversimplifying)
I don’t know the answer to this, but it occurs to me that there is a big difference between being able to target an antiship missile with 30-50 meter accuracy and targeting with 2-3 meter accuracy. It may or may not have been a lucky hit that sunk the Moskva.
Putin governs Russia the way a warden rules a correctional facility. So his armed forces are the equivalent of an army of prisoners…reluctant at best, with a command chain of yes men.
The US could learn from that, also.
There are not that many cruisers in the world. Moskva was one of three of its class and I think Russia has only 5 total. (The US has 22–the US has more aircraft carriers than Russia has cruisers).
In modern navies cruisers are the second biggest ships after the carriers. It’s a big deal to lose a cruiser. It’s an EXTREMELY big deal to lose one because it caught fire while you were sailing it.
Russia has 1 aircraft carrier which has been in refit since 2017 and also has been catching fire, having cranes dropped on it, etc.
The US Navy needs to go back to “Jeep Carriers” and stop building these multibillion dollar targets.
Recalls the sinking of the German cruiser Blücher in the Oslofjord in April 1940:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Bl%C3%BCcher
Movie treatment, from “The King’s Choice” (2016):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ79i11JSnU
The Germans eventually won that battle and occupied Norway. Not sure the Russians can pull it off in Ukraine. Whatever its causes, the loss of Moskva is another dent in Russia’s military reputation. A pretty big one.
How many nukes did it have on board?
The Russian story is not implausible. These things happen on warships. Doesn’t mean it is true though.
Here is a short list of capital ships lost in WWI alone due to defective ammunition:
26 Nov 1914 British battleship Bulwark blew up while anchored off Sheerness (781 dead)
2 Aug 1916 Italian battleship Leonardo di Vinci caught fire, blew up and capsized at Taranto (249 dead)
20 Oct 1916 Russian battleship Imperatritsa Maria sank after magazine fire and explosion at Sevastopol (225 dead) [this ship was only a year old and one of only two dreadnoughts in the Black Sea Fleet]
9 July 1917 British battleship Vanguard blew up in Scapa Flow (804 dead)
12 July 1918 Japanese battleship Kawachi blew up in Tokuyama Bay (700 dead)
Tactically, this is a big loss for Russia’s air defenses in the Black Sea, especially as Turkey will not permit reinforcements to enter the Black Sea. Ukraine now has many more options for air warfare, the threat to Odessa is reduced as amphibious landings have become much, much harder. Expect Russian forces to react in fury in order to placate Putin and the ultranationalists around him in the government and military ranks.
The YouTube videos that I posted yesterday cover many of the above points. Except ammunition handling issues which from the early 20th century. Could the Russians be lax enough not to have learned those basic, “don’t do this or you will all die” concept? Well untrained ignorant people can be deadly to all hands.
Hubert, H.I. Sutton’s YouTube channel “Covert Shores” has some very good analysis of the Moskva, and he may also have cited the Blucher sinking in WWII.
The Roosian navy had 3 cruisers of the Moskva class. Not 5. The other 2 are still in the Mediterranian Sea as a counter to USN carrier groups. See the YouTube links posted yesterday evening.
om 1:32 pm:The Roosian navy had 3 cruisers of the Moskva class.
Frederick 12:01 pm:Moskva was one of three of its class
om:1:32 pm: Not 5.
Frederick 12:01 pm:Russia has only 5 total.
There are 2 Kirov class cruisers in addition to 3 Moskva, but one of the Kirovs is on the same overhaul program as the Russian carrier apparently.
Western analysts often refer to the Kirovs as “battlecruisers” because they are so much larger than the Moskva class “cruisers.”
The USN reactivated the Iowa class battleships as a counter to the Kirov “battlecruisers.”
Now only two sisters of the Moskva.
Mike K: “The US Navy needs to go back to “Jeep Carriers” and stop building these multibillion dollar targets.”
I was in the Navy from 1954 to 1975. An airdale who spent many months at sea on our carriers. We knew in 1956 that defending them was very difficult. The plan today is to have guided missile cruisers and destroyers as protection for the carrier battle group. However, with stand-off precision weapons and improved submarines, protecting carriers has become even more problematic. They are useful for “showing the flag” in situations where there is no credible air power or sub threat. Beyond that, you’re correct, they are expensive targets.
Unfortunately, our defense needs are not always driven by realism, but rather by interservice rivalry for prestige. That said, our military is still a cut above all others because of high quality weapons systems, excellent logistics capabilities, and an all-volunteer force.
Russian military capabilities shown so far have been underwhelming and a big surprise to our intelligence community. Which has not surprised me
What struck me about the Moskva and her sisters is the 16 cruise missiles arranged in four rows of four, two rows on each forward upper deck.
These are long-range, high speed, carrier busters that are the raison d’être of the class.
That means they have:
– large amounts of propellant
– huge warheads
– little protection
– lots of mass high up and outboard
So if a missile (or even a shell) hits one of them, there is a good chance of an explosion that can cause serious damage – these things are designed to sink a carrier right?
Assuming the defenses of such an older ship might not be automated, or might only be primitively automated, it is not hard to believe a drone feint could allow an anti-ship missile or two to slip through the defenses.
And firefighting usually involves water, and that usually involves listing, and those cruise missiles are heavy bastards sitting high up… even if they don’t blow up, they could make it difficult to control the stability of the ship.
Almost like trying to fight a guy armed with a switchblade when you have a broadsword… in a phone booth! The Russians could well be in danger of losing more ships unless they withdraw south, and there ain’t a lot of south left where they are!
As I understand it, the Moskva’s sister ships cannot be moved into the Black Sea as long as Russia is at war in Ukraine because that is not their home port. Turkey is enforcing that restriction.
Kate;
That is correct.
@Mike K
Find me a “jeep carrier” with the sort of standoff ability of a Cruiser and ability to conduct flotilla protection and we’ll talk. Until then Cruisers are sadly necessary.
That’s not at all helped by how lean spending on the Navies has become lately, particularly in terms of new types. The Russian Navy is even worse than most, Thank God.
@Chases Eagles
I was willing to consider the Russian story as plausible right up until it changed and I started hearing casualty estimates, with fewer than 50 of the crew in a ship with 500 surviving. That’s an abysmal amount and while not inconsistent with an ammunition explosion makes me strongly think this was some kind of hit by the Ukrainians.
RVD: “So if a missile (or even a shell) hits one of them, there is a good chance of an explosion that can cause serious damage – these things are designed to sink a carrier right?”.
Right. Japanese heavy cruisers in WWII had a similar weak spot: Type 93 (“Long Lance”) torpedoes, which had massive warheads and were powered by highly compressed pure oxygen. The Mogami class was especially susceptible: two cruisers in this class–the Mikuma and the Suzuya–were lost when their torpedoes exploded after being hit.
Here’s a photo of the Mikuma shortly before it sank on the last day of the Battle of Midway in June 1942, showing the devastation amidships (right above the portside torpedo launchers):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Mikuma#/media/File:Japanese_heavy_cruiser_Mikuma_sinking_on_6_June_1942_(80-G-414422)
Note the Long Lances protruding out of their tubes. By the way, the Mogami class cruisers were slightly larger than the Moskva: displacement = 13,600 tons (Moskva: 12,490 tons), length = 650 feet (Moskva: 611 feet), beam = 66 feet (Moskva: 68 feet).
Hubert, captain of the Mogami was smarter:
“ However, Lieutenant Commander Masayushi Saruwatari had jettisoned torpedoes and other explosives, making it easier to save the cruiser when it was hit by a bomb near the torpedo tubes.”
Chases Eagles: smart move by Lt. Commander Saruwatari.
We used to do book recommendations in this forum. In that spirit, I recently picked up a first edition of Ray Parkin’s “Out of the Smoke” (1960), his first-hand account of the sinking of light cruiser HMAS Perth at the Battle of Sunda Strait in March 1942 and the first of three books describing his wartime experiences. The heavy cruiser USS Houston was sunk in the same action–by Mikuma and Mogami. Mikuma got hers at Midway; Mogami two and a half years later, at the Battle of Surigao Strait in October 1944.
More on Parkin’s trilogy at Mr. Bezos’ shoppe: https://www.amazon.com/Ray-Parkins-Wartime-Trilogy-Smother/dp/0522850677
Chases Eagles–
Your discussion of ammunition explosions in WWI warships reminded me that similar disasters happened in the era of fighting sail. Napoleon’s flagship L’Orient, a 118-gun ship of the line, was lost at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 when a cannon ball from one of Nelson’s ships entered her powder magazine, causing an explosion that was heard as far away as Alexandria and stopping the sea battle completely for about 15 minutes. There are no fewer than eight period paintings of L’Orient’s destruction that can be seen online. There may have been as few as 70 survivors out of a crew of 1100.
One macabre detail of the ship’s destruction is that Nelson was presented with a coffin carved from L’Orient’s mainmast shortly after the battle. He was buried in this coffin after his death at Trafalgar in 1805.
@PA+Cat:Nelson was presented with a coffin carved from L’Orient’s mainmast
My favorite Nelson story is about “tapping the admiral” but unfortunately it seems to be a myth, as the term was used before his death.
Frederick–
The body of Edward Pakenham, the British general who was killed at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, was returned to his widow in Ireland, as he detested Americans and did not want to be buried in American soil. His body was preserved in a cask of rum for the return voyage, though I don’t know whether any of the sailors on board “tapped the General.”
Andrew Jackson did not feel any ill will toward the British commander as an individual. He later wrote to James Monroe about Pakenham’s fatal injury: I heard a single rifle shot from a group of country carts we had been using, and a moment thereafter I saw Pakenham reel and pitch out of his saddle. I have always believed he fell from the bullet of a free man of color, who was a famous rifle shot and came from the Attakapas region of Louisiana. I did not know where General Pakenham was lying or I should have sent to him, or gone in person, to offer any service in my power to render. I was told he lived two hours after he was hit.
You probably know that Pakenham’s brother-in-law was the Duke of Wellington– who was still grieving the family’s loss six months later at Waterloo.
The US does operate light carriers, though they use the term ‘amphibious assault ship.’ It’s worth pointing out that each successive class of these (Tarawa, Wasp, and America) has been modified to be more optimized for aircraft wrangling as opposed to ferrying landing craft and helicopters.
One of the reasons the V/STOL F-35 variant was important was because it’s the only modern fighter or bomber that can fly off these things; fleet carriers are as big as they are largely because modern jets need the space.
Hubert:
Glad to hear from you again, and as you all have noted the Mogami’s Type 93 torpedoes and the Moskva’s “Sandbox?” cruise missiles do seem to be cases of highly capable but highly dangerous systems. The assumption being the missiles were in the loadout.
Not any carrier groups or NATO ships in the Black Sea for them to target.
IMO we won’t know what killed the Moskva until a ROV looks at the wreck.
Here`s Ukrainian view on Moscow sinking, video with English subs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyS9Dk4E83Q
The most dangerous place to be at sea is a Russian ship. Think back to 2000 when the sub Kursk blew up and sank.
Robert Shotzberger:
Regarding the Kursk; they triedfor a while to blame the loss on a collision with a foreign sub too, IIRC. But that lie didn’t float.
At the time I was working with a retired USN nuke sub Chief Petty Officer cleaning up a Pu facility; he didn’t have much sympathy for the Russians.
The Russians are philosophically, not inclined to pay much attention to safety measures. Culturally, they do not put the same value upon the individual, as do we.
In the case of the Moska, I’ve read that it was forced to sail close to shore in order to supply close support to land based forces. Making it vulnerable to cruise missile attack. Missile technology has advanced so far that only a phalanx of magnetic rail guns (still in development) may offer an adequate defense.
The Neptune missile is an upgrade of a Russian copy of the US Harpoon subsonic sea skimming cruise missile. Not a hypersonic wonder weapon. The puzzle seems to be why the Moskva’s defenses against such a threat failed. Another crappy legacy of the USSR?
It was built in 1982.
But that lie didn’t float…
C’mon, who’s going to say it first?
Military Today article about Neptun missiles. Obviously written before the sinking of the Moskva.
https://www.military-today.com/missiles/neptun.htm
On the other hand, remarkable coincidences happen. They should be considered rare but not ruled out without evidence.
Mind you, if the Russians aren’t keeping their stories straight, that’s some evidence.
FYI, for those do not know it – “Moskva” is the Russian name for “Moscow.” So the sinking of the Moskva means the sinking of the ship named after their country’s capital city.
The Moskva was 40 years old and about to be retired. It’s replacement is already currently under construction so it’s no material loss for the Russian to scuttle it, which they probably did. If the Ukrainians did it, all they need to do is produce the radar trajectory of their ‘missile.’ The fact that they haven’t tells you everything you need to know. Btw, I think the Ukrainians also refused to release the missile trajectory data on the Donbas ‘massacres.’ And who shot down those Romanian fighters and chopper early in the war? Hmm… The Black Sea fleet probably has been neglected but I’m guessing it’s partly because their primary fleet hub was the city of Mykolaev – which became a part of the Ukraine.
Hong for Moscow says that “ The Black Sea fleet probably has been neglected but I’m guessing it’s partly because their primary fleet hub was the city of Mykolaev- which became part of Ukraine.”
Dude…they split more than THIRTY years ago, almost a THIRD of a century.
During that same 30 years, the Chinese managed to acquire a partly built Soviet Aircraft Carrier from a Ukraine ship yard and turn it into a working Chinese carrier.
I keep waiting for someone to point out the strange historical coincidence when the Chinese use a Soviet Aircraft carrier from Ukraine to attack Taiwan.
The fact that Hong spins for Vlad tells you everything you need to know.
Rubels or crypto?
The Moskva was not “forty years old”. Its hull was 40 years old. It had been completely refitted since then.
The main USSR naval base was at Sebastopol. Mykolaev is far too far inland — but it was one of the main shipyards.
Couple of points: It only takes a few ounces of high explosive to set off other high explosive. So a hit in the right place can cause a ship to destroy itself–see as has been said, HMS Hood.
So can solid shot with its massive compression and pyrophoric results of the energy of steel hitting steel.
What, exactly, was the kind of support Moskva was providing? Long range artillery support? Potential anti-air?
Ships like Moskva are valuable in proportion to the amount of explosive they carry, modified by accuracy or lack thereof. Presumably, if all of it had gone off at once, the thing would be scrap.
Explosions are more or less destructive depending on confinement or tamping. A missile stored outside the ship’s superstructure can have its propellant fired up and most of the force goes outboard. Not as if it were in a magazine within the ship.
Setting off an internal magazine by accident would be catastrophic. Possibly worse than a hit from a missile, particularly if the hit doesn’t set off other munitions.
The Daily Mail had an article that said a Ukrainian UAV was used as a decoy to fool the defense system of the Moskva.
While the ship was concentrating on tracking the UAV, the anti-ship missiles were approaching from the other side of the ship. If this is true, the Moskva had no idea the missiles were approaching.
Don’t think anyone can claim that the Ukrainians have “sophisticated” anti-ship technology (as do , say, the Chinese).
The implication of this attack will necessarily change how the USA defends its carriers, esp. given the capabilities of the Chinese military. They can launch anti-shop missiles from land, surface ships and submarines.
Imagine they launch a whole bunch, say 20 or 30, anti-ship missiles, all targeted to impact at the same time, and all launched from different locations.
It’s hard to imagine how any ship(s) can defend against such an attack.
And there is no need to sink a carrier; all that is required is that it can no longer be capable as a floating airfield.
Unlike WWII where great efforts were needed just to find enemy ships, today’s technology can readily find them from space.
Assuming the US Navy still has capable leaders (unlike the incompetent, criminally negligent US Army top guys who should be court martialed ( think Afghanistan, think having soldiers take “woke” lessons, etc) , they should be sweating in their Navy blue knickers.
Then again, recall the two collisions at sea of US Naval vessels within the last couple of years.
Makes you wonder what’s going on with those guys.
Speaking of the US military; anyone notice how today’s US military generals are all decked out in elaborately decorated uniforms? They remind me of those Latin American generals who wear about 100 medals on their uniforms to commend them for ?????
I am still trying to identify those great battles fought in Latin America over the last 20 years or so that justified the awarding of all that metal.
I am still looking.
Contrast today’s US military uniforms worn by the top brass with those worn by Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, Marshall, etc.
Maybe if Eisenhower, et. al., had been involved in the Afghanistan “withdrawal” they too would be wearing heavily decorated outfits.
@Hong Dear
God, the amount of stuff you’re peddling would get you either a lengthy prison sentence or lots of plump connections.
By “about to be retired” we mean “in about 18 years.” That’s not exactly getting bumped off the day before you’re decommissioned.
So much wrong with this it isn’t even funny.
Firstly: That should be “its” not “it’s/it is.”
Secondly: SHIP CONSTRUCTION TAKES A REALLY FREAKING LONG TIME. It has for centuries since the 1600s, and it has if anything only gotten lengthier now. So “its replacement” being under construction is neither surprising nor very reassuring given the long turn-around times of naval yards and the fact that the epicenter of Russian military action today just lost its flagship.
Thirdly: Anybody on EARTH claiming that a modern Cruiser being lost ahead of schedule (and particularly the fairly chonky, large cruisers the Russians liked building) is “no material loss”, is obviously deluded and peddling nonsense. A simple perusal of the fact that the Moskva was being actively deployed in the Black Sea for supporting operations shows that the Russians were getting material use out of it, and so the inability to keep using it is- Thus- a material loss.
Fourthly: If this was some kind of controlled scuttling of such little import, why the Fuck has the Admiral of the Black Sea Fleet been taken into custody and why is there so little report about the majority of the Moskva’s Crew?!?
Rule Number One of Controlled Scuttling is you work to get as many people off the ship as possible either Before or As you’re scuttling it.
The emotional tenor of Russian reporting on this matter once you dig down below the “Yeah it sank while it was being towed” cover story is really raw. Not at all consistent with this not being of any material value. It speaks more like this was some horrible cock-up (whether caused by Ukrainian attack, Russian incompetence, or some mixture of the two) that extracted a high blood toll, including the Captain of the Moskva and probably most of the crew.
That alone should speak volumes about the importance of this.
Or maybe they’re concerned with Russian strategic counter-battery fire if they revealed where they fired their missile from? Assuming they did of course.
You seem to have forgotten that this is a war zone and the magic mixture of Mobility + Secrecy are pretty much the only protection land-based ASM launchers have, so we should expect the Ukrainians to be very hesitant to release specifics about it in case they find the need to yet a bunch of other Russian Navy Ships or otherwise incur some kind of retaliatory bombardment on the area they based off of (which the recent bombardment of Kyiv shows).
See above.
Also, a lot of the massacres were not done by missiles, like Bucha.
Obviously the Ukrainians are not above propaganda and lying, but the fact that you aren’t even willing to CONSIDER alternative explanations for why the Ukrainians aren’t willing to loudly broadcast where they fired an expensive pair of ASMs from- and thus presumably allow Russian intelligence even more of a shortcut to locate where they were fired for – in order to get mad dibs on a kill they already obtained does NOT speak well for your situational awareness or critical thinking skills.
Answer; Nobody as far as I know; at least one of the Romanian Fighters went down due to an error.
Again, this is abject nonsense. The primary fleet hub of the Russian Black Sea Fleet has been and always was Sevastopol. Which ALSO became a part of Ukraine but which the Russians leased rights to for decades after the fact (at least prior to outright invading).
Moreover, Russia has a long arse history of neglecting its navies in the modern era. The Black Sea Front of WWII is particularly morbidly fascinating because it was a conflict between Axis naval forces so small and light they frankly had no business being able to seek active operations at all, and a Soviet Black Sea Fleet so neglected and under-supplied it had no business being operational even BEFORE the Axis conquered its major naval yards at Odessa and the Crimea, basically resulting in a perverse race that saw whether the superior-in-hulls-and-firepower but hideously undersupported Soviet Navy would rot away faster than it could deal with the insanely limited Axis naval assets.
This is also at least a secondary reason for why Khruschev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian SR: experience at how poor the Russian SR administrators had been at keeping an eye on Crimea and the naval importance of it.
It’s debatable whether the story gets better or worse in the Baltic, which was the main focus of Soviet Efforts but still saw a handful of Mid-Dreadnought Ships and lighter craft, with the Soviets being reduced to a single battleship and a greatly diminished fleet due to- among other things- creating floating batteries.
Russia’s always been a land power and that shows it clearly.
As does your ignorance and bias.
Just U
U
Ukes report near 100% Russian casualties. If not true, survivors should be in touch with family soon.
And….no word survivors have contacted anybody. Looking worse.
Strategic implications Ukraine and Russia from the sinking of the Moskva, and comparison to the sinking of the Blucher in WWII by the Norwegians as well as the sinking of the Argentinian cruiser ARA General Belgrano during the Falklands War.
https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/
Friday, April 15, 2022
Fullbore Friday
“From a practical perspective, the loss of the Moskva is significant, not only because it served as the Russian flagship, coordinating the Black Sea fleet, but also because the ship’s significant anti-air and anti-missile capabilities provided an air defense umbrella for the smaller ships around it. Consequently, the Russian amphibious threat to Odessa has virtually been eliminated, allowing Ukraine to redeploy forces assigned to the defense of that key port city to the battle to retake Kherson, about 90 miles to the east along the Black Sea coast.”
Discussions of the sinking of the Moskva usually include references to the Bismark sinking the Hood. I think a more relevant analogy would be Japanese land based IJN torpedo bombers G3M Nells and G4M Bettys sinking the British battleship HMS Prince of Wales and battlecruiser HMS Repulse on 10 December 1941. Like the Moskva they were sailing without organic aircover. One land based RAF squadron had been designated the fleet air defense force but when those Brewster Buffalos arrived on scene the ships had already been hit and were in the process of sinking.
The was the first time maneuvering, actively defending capital ships had been sunk by aircraft alone. And the Prince of Wales had the most sophisticated air defense system of its day. This loss not only shocked the British, who thought this feat was impossible, it also stunned the Japanese who were pretty much of the same opinion despite the success of the Pearl Harbor attack 3 days earlier. After all, those were old battleships at anchor. Hara Tameichi writes about his stunned reaction in his WWII memoir, “Japanese Destroyer Captain.”
To my mind aircraft launched torpedoes are about as close we can get in a WWII scenario to the modern problem; aircraft launched cruise missiles. There is no way we’re going to let an aircraft carried (including the LHD/LHA large deck amphibs) get close enough to be picked off by land based cruise missiles.
Turning to the Moskva, the idea that someone set off a fire that resulted in a magazine explosion is plausible. Zelensky joked that maybe a Russian sailor was sneaking a smoke somewhere he shouldn’t have been. They do that. Hell, I know of at least one Russian air force transport plane that crashed when the embarked soldiers discovered the hydraulic fluid was alcohol based (no doubt to prevent it from freezing in Russian winters). They drained the system, causing the plane to crash. But then, shipboard fires have been a known hazard for centuries. Why didn’t the Moskva have a fire suppression system adequate to the task? They didn’t have one installed, which is impossible to believe, or was it improperly maintained and operated?
But the fact is Ukrainian voice transmissions show the Ukrainians were aware immediately the Moskva was in trouble. Which strongly indicates they had fired the missiles that sank the Moskva. They wouldn’t have known immediately if the Moskva had a fire aboard.
Which leads to the next question; why didn’t the Moskva’s air defense system engage the Neptunes? Theoretically they have a three layered air defense system and sensor suite designed to deal with cruise missiles (the Slavas have been refitted many times in their long careers). Either it wasn’t functioning or it wasn’t in the state of readiness required to detect the missiles.
All these possibilities, whether Russian or Ukrainian, point to two glaring shortcomings. Poor maintenance practices and horribly insufficient crew training. Which we also see hobbling the Russian ground offensive. And frankly both poor maintenance practices and insufficient crew training stem largely from the same source. Corruption on a massive scale. The Ukrainians have captured Russian army stores including MREs. There are youtube videos showing the expiration dates on the meals was in 2015. Are we really to believe that the Russians haven’t allocated funds to update their food stores since 2015.
And what would your morale be like as a Russian conscript being sent to war with MREs that expired nearly seven years ago?
“Either [the three layered air defense system] wasn’t functioning or it wasn’t in the state of readiness required to detect the missiles.”
Occam would say the Moskva’s captain simply didn’t deploy it.
Why not?
Because he didn’t think it was necessary.
(This is precisely what happened in 2006 to the Israeli Navy corvette that was badly damaged by a Chinese missile fired by Hezbullah. It was a major screw up, since there were warnings—by Israel’s military itself—that Hezbullah had such missiles in its possession.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Hanit
…Of course it’s also entirely possible that the Captain of the Moskva knew that the defense system just didn’t work effectively….
It looked to me in the picture that the fire was around the port side P-1000 Vulcan anti-ship missiles. Those are stored in tubes topside facing forward. I suspect the Ukranian missile hit one of those and caused a resulting fire.
Ray+Van+Dune on April 15, 2022 at 2:20 pm said:
What struck me about the Moskva and her sisters is the 16 cruise missiles arranged in four rows of four, two rows on each forward upper deck.
These are long-range, high speed, carrier busters that are the raison d’être of the class.
That means they have:
– large amounts of propellant
– huge warheads
– little protection
– lots of mass high up and outboard
So if a missile (or even a shell) hits one of them, there is a good chance of an explosion that can cause serious damage – these things are designed to sink a carrier right?
The picture of it burning suggested the fire was on the port side where these missiles were located.
Barry, if the captain of the Moskva didn’t think he needed his air defense systems then that would add an element I hadn’t considered earlier; towering stupidity. The fact that Ukraine was developing the Neptune, a lightly improved version of the Russian Kh-35 was an open secret. Western reporting on the missile goes back years. The Ukrainian defense ministry made public announcements on its progress, such as its first successful test flight in 2018.
The Russians claim the Moskva was operating 60 nautical miles off the Ukrainian coast. But according the U.S. track she was actually only 25nm off the coast. In a shooting war. If you ever need your air defense systems up and running, that’s the time. Even if the Ukrainians hadn’t been operating an improved version of the older Kh-35 either stand-off distance was within the effective range of 80nm of the older missile. If it had been a Kh-35 then making a 60nm shot with an 80nm weapon would have involved a degree of luck. But open source reporting going back to 2019 shows that the 170nm range of the Neptune was public knowledge.
I can’t rule out towering stupidity, of course. I just can’t see how such a stupid captain would make it through his first command tour let alone have a career that lasted long enough to be given command of the fleet flagship. Where his performance would be directly observed by the fleet commander (the Ukrainian navy equivalent of a USN 3 star or Vice Admiral). In fact, I still haven’t seen enough information to know whether or not the Black Sea fleet commander was embarked in his flagship on the day the Moskva was struck. In any barely competent navy if a fleet commander knew the skipper of his flagship was operating 25 – 60nm off the coast of the nation his country was at war with while the air defense systems were deliberately shut off, the admiral would have relieved the skipper on the spot and taken direct command.
But then the Moskva was hit at 1900 (7p.m.) local time so maybe the captain (along with the admiral if embarked) would have been cracking open their third bottle of vodka since they were at least 3 hours into Happy Hour.
cdr salamander has an article about the Moskva with two photos and thoughts about the engagement, No crowing for the sailors that Vlad got killed. He notes that the life rafts appear to have been deployed.
“I’m sorry, I don’t care what nation’s flag they fly under; once defeated they are simply Sailors in need of rescue. If you don’t get that, we should all pray for you.”
https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/
Monday, April 18, 2022
Moskva’s Last PHOTOEX
It appears some of the crew were conscripts. It’s supposed to be against Russian law to send conscripts into combat outside of Russian territory. Conscripts shouldn’t be engaging in combat as soldiers in Ukraine or as sailors off the coast. Yet here we are.
Conscripts are notoriously poorly trained, and consequently of course their morale is low. As I asked how high your morale be when you fighting as an infantryman find out your rations passed their use-by date seven years ago? Poorly trained, poorly victualed, poorly equipped, I doubt it would be too high. Apparently the Russian army focuses on brutal hazing more than training; hardly a morale booster, that. Of course this is in no way the fault of the soldiers or sailors. It’s entirely the fault of their leadership all the way up the chain-of-command to Putin.
But it appears that Putin is as willing to use his own troops as fodder for his meat grinder as he is to use unarmed Ukrainian civilians.
I’m more convinced than ever that the Moskva had to have been operating it’s air defense systems. After all, the Ukrainians claim they used a drone as a decoy. No doubt the systems were operating in a degraded mode due to poor material condition and maintenance. Now that the Slava is gone the Black Sea Fleet’s most capable ships are three Admiral Grigorovich-class Guided Missile Frigates. These 3,800 ton frigates are of course much less capable than the 12,500 ton Slava. They’re supposedly capable of self-defense against air threats but it appears the Admiral Essen was struck by a Ukrainian Neptune on 7 April, a few days before the Slava was sunk.