Moskva down
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,747 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
The question must be were her cruise missiles onboard nuclear capable and was she carrying nuclear weapons, in which case, with her being on fire, sinking was probably the best outcome, as fire and nukes do not mix well. It makes you wonder if there was a risk did they scuttle her.
https://dip.org.ua/en/russia/experts...lear-warheads/
https://dip.org.ua/en/russia/experts...lear-warheads/
The Ukrainian industry portal Defense Express, in turn, reports that the Moskva cruiser may have nuclear warheads. The Moskva cruiser carries 16 R-1000 Vulkan missiles, which can be armed with nuclear warheads with a yield of up to 350 kilotons. However, it is not clear whether nuclear warheads are always present at the installation, or whether they are placed there only by special order.
The cruiser “Moskva” is part of the permanent readiness forces of the Black Sea Fleet, so it must be able to quickly go to the open sea to perform combat missions. Reloading the warheads of the P-500/1000 missile is a time-consuming task and should only be carried out at the base.
The ratio of the number of nuclear warheads to conventional warheads on Russian cruisers is currently unknown. During Soviet times, there could have been several of 16 nuclear warheads.
According to Defense Express, in the short term, there is no risk of a possible explosion of these missiles in the event of a sinking of the cruiser. As the portal emphasizes, there are currently about 10 reactors, about 10 torpedoes and about 20 ballistic missiles at the bottom of the seas and oceans, most of which ended up there as a result of accidents on Soviet ships that took place from the 1960s to the 1980s.
The cruiser “Moskva” is part of the permanent readiness forces of the Black Sea Fleet, so it must be able to quickly go to the open sea to perform combat missions. Reloading the warheads of the P-500/1000 missile is a time-consuming task and should only be carried out at the base.
The ratio of the number of nuclear warheads to conventional warheads on Russian cruisers is currently unknown. During Soviet times, there could have been several of 16 nuclear warheads.
There are two possible nuclear weapons systems on the ship
In addition, the cruiser can carry other nuclear weapons – missiles for the Fort system, which is a ship-based analogue of the S-300. During Soviet times, several of them were regularly on board 64 missiles of this system.According to Defense Express, in the short term, there is no risk of a possible explosion of these missiles in the event of a sinking of the cruiser. As the portal emphasizes, there are currently about 10 reactors, about 10 torpedoes and about 20 ballistic missiles at the bottom of the seas and oceans, most of which ended up there as a result of accidents on Soviet ships that took place from the 1960s to the 1980s.
Looking at the photos of the vessel, the design would seem much less ‘battle worthy’ than a traditional cruiser. It does look fearsome as an offensive weapon, but the external mounting of the large anti-ship missiles certainly gives the impression that it could be seriously damaged by a well placed RPG, never mind anything larger. Presumably each tube contains not just a warhead, but a significant amount of propellant?
Designed in the 1960's to lead ASW battle Groups etc. To get the range the missiles had to be BIG and to make it worthwhile (as they couldn't easily be reloaded at sea) you had to have 16 - which takes up a lot of space. They needed the missile range (circa 800kms) to stay as far as possible from any NATO carriers
So, no mention of the words ‘top heavy’ then? Mum’s the word.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
2. It was a [NATO?] missile.
3. It was scuttled as scrap.
4. It was scuttled as beyond economic repair.
5. It sank under tow due to big waves.
I do wish they'd make a decision on which lie to tell.
"Deliberately sunk as it reached the end of it's operational life"
I wonder how they will square any of them when the news of ( I feel likely ) 400+ deaths leaks out ?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,747 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
What can one say but LOL,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=456c62fc75e5
Scuttled possibly, if you have nuclear weapons on board and possibly cruise missile versions, you would be bricking it that the fire could reach them.
The Russian navy cruiser Moskva by far is the most powerful warship in the Black Sea. If Russian President Vladimir Putin orders his troops to widen their war in Ukraine, Moskva, the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, undoubtedly would lead the naval assault.
Think of Moskva as a 12,500-ton, 612-foot mobile missile battery with nearly 500 people aboard. She packs enough anti-ship missiles to wipe out the entire Ukrainian navy and enough air-defense missiles to swat away any conceivable aerial attack on the Black Sea Fleet’s amphibious flotilla.
She packs 16 fixed launchers for P-1000 anti-ship missiles with a range of 300 miles, vertical tubes for 64 S-300 air-defense missiles with a range of 56 miles, rail launchers for 40 Osa missiles for aerial self-defense plus a bevy of guns—twin 130-millimeter guns that can hit targets 15 miles away plus self-defense guns. Torpedo tubes and a helicopter round out her capabilities.
Moskva’s value to a Ukraine operation could make her a top target of Ukraine’s missileers. Assuming the Ukrainians can preserve their anti-ship missiles through Russian bombardment and pinpoint Moskva’s location using radars or drones, they might get to take a few shots at the cruiser.
The cruiser’s sensors make her self-sufficient as a missile battery. The ship’s Top Pair and Top Steer radars can peer out to 200 miles or farther. Moskva led the Russian navy’s seaborne assault on the Republic of Georgia back in 2008, protecting three amphibious ships that landed a battalion or two of naval infantry.
During the Russian invasion of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014, the cruiser held station off Donuzlav Bay, bottling up the Ukrainian warships there. In 2015 she deployed to the Syrian coast in order to protect Russian troops from possible air and sea attacks.
Aging and reportedly vulnerable to fire, Moskva in 2016 sailed back to Sevastopol in Crimea for a three-year overhaul. She emerged with P-1000 anti-ship missiles in place of her older P-500s. The overhaul extends her service life by a decade or so.
Back in November, Moskva and the frigate Admiral Essen sailed from Sevastopol to shadow American and Turkish warships patrolling the Black Sea.
Moskva’s sensors and weapons have kept her relevant, even as the Russian navy in recent decades mostly has abandoned Soviet doctrine. Today the Russian navy combines oceangoing submarines with a modest surface force that steadily is replacing big, high-endurance ships with small, short-endurance ones. Those small ships—frigates and corvettes—retain a long-range strike capability in the form of Kalibr cruise missiles.
Moskva is not a Kalibr-carrier. But she can protect the Kalibr-carriers—and other ships—as she sweeps the surrounding sea and air of enemy ships and planes. Aside from Moskva, the Black Sea Fleet operates 10 frigates and corvettes, six diesel-electric submarines and 10 or 11 amphibious ships and boats.
In the likeliest Ukraine scenarios, the corvettes and submarines will lob Kalibrs at targets on land while the amphibs, sailing inside the protective umbrella of Moskva’s missiles, land a couple battalions as part of a possible wider effort to seize Ukrainian ports such as Odessa.
The Ukrainian fleet is powerless to resist. It has no submarines. And its sole major surface combatant, the frigate Hetman Sahaydachniy, lacks major weaponry. The Ukrainian air force retreated from separatist-controlled Donbas in 2015 and since then hasn’t played any major role in Ukraine’s defense.
The only Ukrainian forces that might have any realistic shot at Moskva are the new Neptune anti-ship missile batteries. The stealthy, radar-guided Neptune can strike ships as far away as 175 miles. Kiev has bought Turkish-made TB-2 drones and American-made radars that can spot targets for the Neptunes.
It’s not clear how many Neptunes it might take to punch through Moskva’s defenses. Nor is it clear how many Neptunes the Ukrainians possess.
In any event, Moskva is a big ship and has proved she can take a missile. The Georgian navy reportedly managed to score one hit on the cruiser back in 2008. She spent a year in drydock and was back at sea by 2010.
Think of Moskva as a 12,500-ton, 612-foot mobile missile battery with nearly 500 people aboard. She packs enough anti-ship missiles to wipe out the entire Ukrainian navy and enough air-defense missiles to swat away any conceivable aerial attack on the Black Sea Fleet’s amphibious flotilla.
She packs 16 fixed launchers for P-1000 anti-ship missiles with a range of 300 miles, vertical tubes for 64 S-300 air-defense missiles with a range of 56 miles, rail launchers for 40 Osa missiles for aerial self-defense plus a bevy of guns—twin 130-millimeter guns that can hit targets 15 miles away plus self-defense guns. Torpedo tubes and a helicopter round out her capabilities.
Moskva’s value to a Ukraine operation could make her a top target of Ukraine’s missileers. Assuming the Ukrainians can preserve their anti-ship missiles through Russian bombardment and pinpoint Moskva’s location using radars or drones, they might get to take a few shots at the cruiser.
The cruiser’s sensors make her self-sufficient as a missile battery. The ship’s Top Pair and Top Steer radars can peer out to 200 miles or farther. Moskva led the Russian navy’s seaborne assault on the Republic of Georgia back in 2008, protecting three amphibious ships that landed a battalion or two of naval infantry.
During the Russian invasion of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014, the cruiser held station off Donuzlav Bay, bottling up the Ukrainian warships there. In 2015 she deployed to the Syrian coast in order to protect Russian troops from possible air and sea attacks.
Aging and reportedly vulnerable to fire, Moskva in 2016 sailed back to Sevastopol in Crimea for a three-year overhaul. She emerged with P-1000 anti-ship missiles in place of her older P-500s. The overhaul extends her service life by a decade or so.
Back in November, Moskva and the frigate Admiral Essen sailed from Sevastopol to shadow American and Turkish warships patrolling the Black Sea.
Moskva’s sensors and weapons have kept her relevant, even as the Russian navy in recent decades mostly has abandoned Soviet doctrine. Today the Russian navy combines oceangoing submarines with a modest surface force that steadily is replacing big, high-endurance ships with small, short-endurance ones. Those small ships—frigates and corvettes—retain a long-range strike capability in the form of Kalibr cruise missiles.
Moskva is not a Kalibr-carrier. But she can protect the Kalibr-carriers—and other ships—as she sweeps the surrounding sea and air of enemy ships and planes. Aside from Moskva, the Black Sea Fleet operates 10 frigates and corvettes, six diesel-electric submarines and 10 or 11 amphibious ships and boats.
In the likeliest Ukraine scenarios, the corvettes and submarines will lob Kalibrs at targets on land while the amphibs, sailing inside the protective umbrella of Moskva’s missiles, land a couple battalions as part of a possible wider effort to seize Ukrainian ports such as Odessa.
The Ukrainian fleet is powerless to resist. It has no submarines. And its sole major surface combatant, the frigate Hetman Sahaydachniy, lacks major weaponry. The Ukrainian air force retreated from separatist-controlled Donbas in 2015 and since then hasn’t played any major role in Ukraine’s defense.
The only Ukrainian forces that might have any realistic shot at Moskva are the new Neptune anti-ship missile batteries. The stealthy, radar-guided Neptune can strike ships as far away as 175 miles. Kiev has bought Turkish-made TB-2 drones and American-made radars that can spot targets for the Neptunes.
It’s not clear how many Neptunes it might take to punch through Moskva’s defenses. Nor is it clear how many Neptunes the Ukrainians possess.
In any event, Moskva is a big ship and has proved she can take a missile. The Georgian navy reportedly managed to score one hit on the cruiser back in 2008. She spent a year in drydock and was back at sea by 2010.
Scuttled possibly, if you have nuclear weapons on board and possibly cruise missile versions, you would be bricking it that the fire could reach them.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
The common method is opening the sea cocks and placing demolition charges on the sea chests. I doubt experienced naval personnel would consider these "extremely dangerous" tasks, given the ability to distance yourself from subsequent detonations with timing and/or remote trigger devices.
I would have thought within the context of operations in the north Black Sea against a negligible maritime threat, the requirement for a nuclear warhead on an anti-shipping missile would be very low. Certainly detonation against a maritime target in comparatively shallow sea would create intense fallout.
Perhaps in retrospect, strapping 8 missiles in tubes to the outside of your ship was not the cleverest idea.
Perhaps in retrospect, strapping 8 missiles in tubes to the outside of your ship was not the cleverest idea.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,747 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
I would have thought within the context of operations in the north Black Sea against a negligible maritime threat, the requirement for a nuclear warhead on an anti-shipping missile would be very low. Certainly detonation against a maritime target in comparatively shallow sea would create intense fallout.
Perhaps in retrospect, strapping 8 missiles in tubes to the outside of your ship was not the cleverest idea.
Perhaps in retrospect, strapping 8 missiles in tubes to the outside of your ship was not the cleverest idea.
https://declassifieduk.org/uk-deploy...falklands-war/
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,747 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
It's being reported the Capt. was killed in the explosions. Scratch one more senior officer, and if he was on the Bridge possibly several more.
Captain of sunk Russian warship Moskva ‘killed in explosion’, says Ukraine (msn.com)
Captain of sunk Russian warship Moskva ‘killed in explosion’, says Ukraine (msn.com)
You say that. but we had nukes on board ships during the Falklands, indeed they did a ship to ship transfer mid ocean to remove some.
https://declassifieduk.org/uk-deploy...falklands-war/
https://declassifieduk.org/uk-deploy...falklands-war/
I am still not clear in my own mind that the ASMs were not pretty much decorative anyway unless there was a credible threat could they be used against? Are there any large NATO vessels lurking around and liable to interfere?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,747 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
But as with the Falkland's you have to be ready for any situation including the West getting involved, no point being there if you have to nip back to port to change your weapon fit to suit the West joining in etc.