Moskva down
Does anyone here feel qualified to estimate what effect a 150kg Neptune warhead, plus residual fuel, would have on the occupants of a ship this size when it detonates under the deck?
Just going with what seems pretty certain, that at least one Neptune exploded most likely somewhere in or under the main superstructure, what kind of blast wave and fire would one get before considering secondary explosions, and what could be the survivability under deck?
The conflicting reports on survivors range from all dead to all rescued. Most of them are probably pure fantasy, even the supposed survivors parade video raises more questions than answers, such as: when was that even filmed.
The photos of the ship seems to be the only fairly reliable information we have, and those make me think that the former (all dead) is probably closer to the truth, but i have no qualifications in that area at all, I'm just curious. A lot of people also seem to think that the open hangar door means the helicopter took off after the hit. My guess would be that this is unlikely, unless it happened to be airborne at the time anyways - but again, i am clueless.
Just going with what seems pretty certain, that at least one Neptune exploded most likely somewhere in or under the main superstructure, what kind of blast wave and fire would one get before considering secondary explosions, and what could be the survivability under deck?
The conflicting reports on survivors range from all dead to all rescued. Most of them are probably pure fantasy, even the supposed survivors parade video raises more questions than answers, such as: when was that even filmed.
The photos of the ship seems to be the only fairly reliable information we have, and those make me think that the former (all dead) is probably closer to the truth, but i have no qualifications in that area at all, I'm just curious. A lot of people also seem to think that the open hangar door means the helicopter took off after the hit. My guess would be that this is unlikely, unless it happened to be airborne at the time anyways - but again, i am clueless.
Would be astonishing if they didn't have the deadlights closed at night and close to an enemy shore (though much about the incident is surprising) . It certainly doesn't look like there would have been any downflooding at the time the photo was taken although she could have been flooding rapidly due to hull damage.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Assuming that a complacent crew hadn’t even bother to close down, as they weren’t actually at Battle Stations? Just a thought.
We will never know, of course. Speculation is such fun!
We will never know, of course. Speculation is such fun!
On what basis is it plausible ? I have read nothing that says there were hundreds of drones, or even that Moskva was engaging any of them . AFAIK Neptun is a sea-skimmer ( it's derived from the Kh 35 which has a cruising altitude of 10-15m and terminal of 4m ): the missile in this video is soaring thousand s of feet up. Finally, all previous reports have seemed to assume land-launch; how could that plane remain undetected at that high altitude when it fired the Neptunes ?
Last edited by Tartiflette Fan; 19th Apr 2022 at 20:20.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
Does anyone here feel qualified to estimate what effect a 150kg Neptune warhead, plus residual fuel, would have on the occupants of a ship this size when it detonates under the deck?
Just going with what seems pretty certain, that at least one Neptune exploded most likely somewhere in or under the main superstructure, what kind of blast wave and fire would one get before considering secondary explosions, and what could be the survivability under deck?
.
Just going with what seems pretty certain, that at least one Neptune exploded most likely somewhere in or under the main superstructure, what kind of blast wave and fire would one get before considering secondary explosions, and what could be the survivability under deck?
.
I read somewhere the Helicopter flew some people off but i cannot find the link, if it was a flagship it makes sense to transfer command however the picture below shows the deck rigged for helicopter operations, Ie, railings dropped and flag staff, they are up on the burning ship pictures, but in an emergency I could see anything possible and a contra rotating rotor has no tail rotor low down to worry about, it gives you a clear view of the aft torpedo door too, so a fire in that area could be bad news
ok translation. (this is what the Neptune was developed from)
Ocean rescue tug project 1452 "Mashuk" of the Pacific Fleet after launching Kh-35U missiles from Su-34 aircraft
Last edited by NutLoose; 19th Apr 2022 at 22:12.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
This is a cracking painting
My comment was based on two other member's posts preceeding mine. One detailed the effects of internal explosions destroying the integrity of the seals on watertight doors. Another pointed out the smoke staining around all of the upper portholes. It seemed possible that the blast(s) may have blown out or buckled the seals on the portholes and any covers?
A few things are worth noting. First, the two ships were at different states of readiness when they were struck; Glamorgan was at action-stations, Sheffield was not. Second, it appears that most of those killed in both instances were killed by the initial explosion rather than the subsequent fires. The layout and condition of the ship's fire-fighting equipment and the quality of training and procedures would have been factors. Third, despite impactful hits, a devastating hit regards Sheffield, total casualties as a percentage of crew was less than 20 percent. We see something not dissimilar with the USS Stark also. Two Exocet hits that were not all that widely separated, both striking fairly densely populated sections of the ship, killed thirty-seven and injured twenty-one out of a crew of 175 or so, a total casualty rate of around 33 percent in this case.
Applying those analogues to the Moskva, the initial impacts and explosions may have killed up to 100-120. Subsequent casualties would, to a large extent, come down to the fire-fighting equipment and training.
Last edited by MickG0105; 20th Apr 2022 at 01:14. Reason: Typo, correction re ship types
The Exocet strikes on HMS Sheffield and HMS Glamorgan are probably reasonable analogues. There is some conjecture over whether the warhead on the missile that hit Sheffield exploded or not, but it hit roughly amidships and killed twenty and injured twenty-six. The missile that hit Glamorgan didn't penetrate the hull but did explode on the hangar deck, above the crew's galley. Fourteen were killed. Sheffield and Glamorgan were both Type 42 destroyers with crews of around 270.
A few things are worth noting. First, the two ships were at different states of readiness when they were struck; Glamorgan was at action-stations, Sheffield was not. Second, it appears that most of those killed in both instances were killed by the initial explosion rather than the subsequent fires. The layout and condition of the ship's fire-fighting equipment and the quality of training and procedures would have been factors. Third, despite impactful hits, a devastating hit regards Sheffield, casualties as a percentage of crew were not particularly high. We see something similar with the USS Stark also. Two Exocet hits that were not all that widely separated, both striking fairly densely populated sections of the ship, killed thirty-seven and injured twenty-one out of a crew of 175 or so.
Applying those analogues to the Moskva, the initial impacts and explosions may have killed up to 100-120. Subsequent casualties would, to a large extent, come down to the fire-fighting equipment and training.
A few things are worth noting. First, the two ships were at different states of readiness when they were struck; Glamorgan was at action-stations, Sheffield was not. Second, it appears that most of those killed in both instances were killed by the initial explosion rather than the subsequent fires. The layout and condition of the ship's fire-fighting equipment and the quality of training and procedures would have been factors. Third, despite impactful hits, a devastating hit regards Sheffield, casualties as a percentage of crew were not particularly high. We see something similar with the USS Stark also. Two Exocet hits that were not all that widely separated, both striking fairly densely populated sections of the ship, killed thirty-seven and injured twenty-one out of a crew of 175 or so.
Applying those analogues to the Moskva, the initial impacts and explosions may have killed up to 100-120. Subsequent casualties would, to a large extent, come down to the fire-fighting equipment and training.
Quite right, my mistake. Glamorgan was the older and larger of the two destroyers. Fixed now in edit.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: In a Pineapple Under the Sea
Age: 61
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US maritime surveillance plane was over Black Sea minutes before Russian flagship Moskva was ‘hit by Ukrainian missiles’
Did the US supply Ukraine with location of Moskva?
if true - it’s interesting. I would have thought, at most, a NATO surveillance plane would have located her. It will be interesting to see any response if the US provided Ukraine with the precise location.
On what basis is it plausible ? I have read nothing that says there were hundreds of drones, or even that Moskva was engaging any of them . AFAIK Neptun is a sea-skimmer ( it's derived from the Kh 35 which has a cruising altitude of 10-15m and terminal of 4m ): the missile in this video is soaring thousand s of feet up. Finally, all previous reports have seemed to assume land-launch; how could that plane remain undetected at that high altitude when it fired the Neptunes ?
Last edited by fdr; 20th Apr 2022 at 06:17.
Cynical mode off for a moment, I heard that they had launched it from around 15~20 km inland.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Ukraine is the technical center of advanced weapons for Russia, something that Putin forgot about apparently as he finds himself short of spares for planes and systems. I'm saying that there are a number of ways the missile system can be deployed by inventive and motivated people to get some surprise to the Russians who remain fighting the Great Patriotic War. Duck hunting season for the Russian fleet may be open.
US maritime surveillance plane was over Black Sea minutes before Russian flagship Moskva was ‘hit by Ukrainian missiles’
Did the US supply Ukraine with location of Moskva?
if true - it’s interesting. I would have thought, at most, a NATO surveillance plane would have located her. It will be interesting to see any response if the US provided Ukraine with the precise location.
That said, Moskva's whereabouts would have have been relatively easy to determine, given that it is one enormous radio/radar emitter.
What is intriguing is the deployment of six USN EA-18G into Poland a few weeks ago. Why these particular aircraft, given the USAF have their own EW assets? USN keen to get in on the action, or maybe they have some specific capabilities useful for engagements with Russian naval vessels?
I and others have commented on social media that Russia could quite easily - and credibly - implicated NATO in the sinking. The fact that they didn't even hint at this speaks volumes.