Moskva down
You note the action was to remove, Guessing here, but given the position and size of the missile tubes, I would have thought swapping out would be a dockyard job and therefore a precursor to sailing with an appropriate weapon fit.
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?
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?
Even so a nuke in the Black Sea is not the best decision in the book. I always understood that would be more open ocean against a large force. We will know soon. If you see a barge with flag Alpha over the wreck site with an aggressive defence round it then they lost something they want back.
Some newspapers have reported - likely nonsensically - seamen jumping into life-boats. This prompted me to think about raft-stowage on warships: I am not sure if I have ever noticed this. It is well-known that passenger-ships have to have one place per person, but what is the norm on warships ?
Some newspapers have reported - likely nonsensically - seamen jumping into life-boats. This prompted me to think about raft-stowage on warships: I am not sure if I have ever noticed this. It is well-known that passenger-ships have to have one place per person, but what is the norm on warships ?
I can't speak to current naval practice but I'd imagine no worse than SOLAS (i.e. 125%) would be a starting point, though I've an inkling that warships tend more towards use of inflatables than rigid lifeboats for operational reasons.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Interesting point. However, presumably ‘inflatables’ would be subject to perforation in a conflict, so I would guess some buoyancy material in a semi-rigid doughnut.
For RU Navy, I guess one lifeboat for the Captain, one for the Commissar … and swimming lessons for the rest.
For RU Navy, I guess one lifeboat for the Captain, one for the Commissar … and swimming lessons for the rest.
Even so a nuke in the Black Sea is not the best decision in the book. I always understood that would be more open ocean against a large force. We will know soon. If you see a barge with flag Alpha over the wreck site with an aggressive defence round it then they lost something they want back.
If the NATO surveillance aircraft shared the location data with the Ukraine, do they become de facto co belligerents subject to Russian jamming/attack?
In either case what difference does it make? Whatever term you use, many western nations have been making substantial contributions to the Ukrainian war effort and could in no sense be described as neutral. Russia knows this and if they felt that they would gain an advantage by expanding the scope of their war, you can be sure that they would not need a legal justification. Direct confrontation with NATO would be catastrophic for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Interesting point. However, presumably ‘inflatables’ would be subject to perforation in a conflict, so I would guess some buoyancy material in a semi-rigid doughnut.
For RU Navy, I guess one lifeboat for the Captain, one for the Commissar … and swimming lessons for the rest.
For RU Navy, I guess one lifeboat for the Captain, one for the Commissar … and swimming lessons for the rest.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have zero military knowledge, so my apologies if this is a stupid question.
Now I naively think of any military vehicle as platform for launching missiles, rockets etc. For what does one need ships? Isn't an airborne missile platform always more powerful, more agile, more versatile, more difficult to locate? Is it the fire power of the canons?
Now I naively think of any military vehicle as platform for launching missiles, rockets etc. For what does one need ships? Isn't an airborne missile platform always more powerful, more agile, more versatile, more difficult to locate? Is it the fire power of the canons?
I always thought that Soviet ships looked better than western ones due to their appearance of bristling with weapons. I mean compare the Moskva with the USS Sullivans above. It now seems possible that strapping 16 cruise missiles to the upper deck is asking for an ammo fire if struck by enemy weaponry? I'm guessing Nato ships that store missiles internally have more options for fire suppression in the event of fires?
0. Our Navy was built from the ground up for power projection, the Soviets more for sea denial, although Admiral Gorshkov moved toward power projection and sea line control as he led the Soviet Navy in it's growth into a true Blue Water Navy.
1. The major surface combatants were built - the Slava(CG) / Kirov(CGN) / Udaloy (DDG)/ Sovreminyy(DDG) classes in particular - with an eye towards Naval warfare being a case of "the battle of the first salvo". (Among others, John Keegan covers stuff like this in his various evolution of warfare books).
2. Their long range cruise missiles were big and meant to disable aircraft carriers (when not nuclear tipped) and more (when nuclear tipped). This was a complement to Oscar and Charlie SSGNs who had similar long range and big cruise missiles meant to take out major formations of surface combatants (USN/NATO) and in particular CV battle groups. The Aegis Anti Air Warfare system had as its primary objective the neutralization of the cruise missile saturation scheme (Air, surface and sub surface launched) which was understood to be the Soviet's opening gambit in any 'battle of the first salvo' engagement. (It had other uses, but that's where its hard requirements came from back in the 70's).
3. The Soviets did not spend the money on habitability that we did.
4. Lots of Gatling type gun mounts for their own Cruise Missile defense systems.
5. Hormones replaced by Helix eventually (hey, look, aviation content!) and based on our observations of watching their flight ops, for night ops they just turned on the lights, while the USN did stuff in the dark with red lights, etc. (This before NVGs became a standard bit of kit~ we did unaided night flying and we liked it!).
While I won't comment on the seaworthiness of their various surface combatants - my overall naval architecture knowledge is very slim - there were surface officers/fish heads of my acquaintance who questioned the general sea keeping qualities of some of the Soviet designs.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 15th Apr 2022 at 15:22.
I have zero military knowledge, so my apologies if this is a stupid question.
Now I naively think of any military vehicle as platform for launching missiles, rockets etc. For what does one need ships? Isn't an airborne missile platform always more powerful, more agile, more versatile, more difficult to locate? Is it the fire power of the canons?
Now I naively think of any military vehicle as platform for launching missiles, rockets etc. For what does one need ships? Isn't an airborne missile platform always more powerful, more agile, more versatile, more difficult to locate? Is it the fire power of the canons?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
Sam, not a stupid question.
The Russians only have one carrier and it is well past it’s sell by date, it is continually breaking down, the idea of these floating missile cruisers is to support landings etc by give air defence and bombardment capability.
About the carrier
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...hipyard-201390
..
The Russians only have one carrier and it is well past it’s sell by date, it is continually breaking down, the idea of these floating missile cruisers is to support landings etc by give air defence and bombardment capability.
About the carrier
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...hipyard-201390
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 15th Apr 2022 at 16:31.
Now I naively think of any military vehicle as platform for launching missiles, rockets etc. For what does one need ships? Isn't an airborne missile platform always more powerful, more agile, more versatile, more difficult to locate? Is it the fire power of the canons?
Also, most naval war ships are Multi Purpose Combatants. They are not just "a floating missile battery" meaning that they have guns, radios, radars, sonars, and Intelligence collection systems.
They also (nowadays) act as floating airfields for UAVs, for Helicopters, and/or (as you get much bigger ships) fixed wing aircraft. (By they VSTOL or CATABAR). They can also carry people to put ashore if the circumstances require that.
To a certain extent, you are looking at an apple and trying to see how it compares to a lug nut.
Even before this all kicked off the RJs, CSs and KCs etc were out there daily. They fly over us outbound so hear/see them all the time, 7 days a week. And, before anyone shouts "OPSEC" at me, FR24 clearly shows many of them (clearly not all by a long way) up from various bases - so NATO clearly wants some of them to be seen - and where they come from - to send that message out too! Black Sea, Romania, Poland, Lithuania, the Baltic..... and from all over Europe.... The E-3s will be having a full-time job just keeping tabs of all that friendly activity. But I'm sure the E-3s have other "interests" too. 
OK, I'll get my anorak off........
PS. Talk of the devil, just heard the next KC-10 off on its next trip. Again, on FR24. Anorak really off now! Byeeee! H 'n' H
Black Sea, Romania, Poland, Lithuania, the Baltic..... and from all over Europe.... The E-3s will be having a full-time job just keeping tabs of all that friendly activity. But I'm sure the E-3s have other "interests" too. OK, I'll get my anorak off........
PS. Talk of the devil, just heard the next KC-10 off on its next trip. Again, on FR24. Anorak really off now! Byeeee! H 'n' H
https://theaviationist.com/wp-conten...-info-full.jpg
Does anyone know how far offshore the ship was when hit?
A general Idea of location:
Nothing to gloat about here, a lot of men died and some of the comments are out of order. Those who go down to the sea in ships...
For comparison:
IG
Nothing to gloat about here, a lot of men died and some of the comments are out of order. Those who go down to the sea in ships...
For comparison:
IG
Last edited by Imagegear; 15th Apr 2022 at 16:47.
When one wishes to learn one is ignorant, not stupid.
A ship at sea can stay on station for days/weeks/months. An aircraft can stay on station for hours (and in rare cases, days).
Also, most naval war ships are Multi Purpose Combatants. They are not just "a floating missile battery" meaning that they have guns, radios, radars, sonars, and Intelligence collection systems.
They also (nowadays) act as floating airfields for UAVs, for Helicopters, and/or (as you get much bigger ships) fixed wing aircraft. (By they VSTOL or CATABAR). They can also carry people to put ashore if the circumstances require that.
To a certain extent, you are looking at an apple and trying to see how it compares to a lug nut.
A ship at sea can stay on station for days/weeks/months. An aircraft can stay on station for hours (and in rare cases, days).
Also, most naval war ships are Multi Purpose Combatants. They are not just "a floating missile battery" meaning that they have guns, radios, radars, sonars, and Intelligence collection systems.
They also (nowadays) act as floating airfields for UAVs, for Helicopters, and/or (as you get much bigger ships) fixed wing aircraft. (By they VSTOL or CATABAR). They can also carry people to put ashore if the circumstances require that.
To a certain extent, you are looking at an apple and trying to see how it compares to a lug nut.
