Moskva down
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 29,926
Received 1,352 Likes
on
608 Posts
Possibly low resolution radar images of Moskva last moments and also news the fleet in Sevastopol may have sailed and is heading for Ukraine.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...d/#prettyPhoto
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...d/#prettyPhoto
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 1,069
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes
on
11 Posts
It makes me wonder what the state of their ballistic missiles are like in that environment among those engineers that believe they would never be used. probably why those engineers go to North Korea, where the pay is better.
Possibly low resolution radar images of Moskva last moments and also news the fleet in Sevastopol may have sailed and is heading for Ukraine.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...d/#prettyPhoto
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...d/#prettyPhoto
Edit, in order to add a reader's comment I found on another site.
Sister ships of her class visited Norfolk and San Diego in the 1990s. The visits were well documented in the press and in some naval publications, one of which I still have. One of the things US Navy visitors found noteworthy was the complete lack of firefighting and damage control equipment in them. Every compartment and passageway of US and Japanese warships are packed full of fire hoses, fire mains, low light cameras, breathing apparatus, wooden timbers to shore up sagging bulkhead, wooden wedges to hammer into leaks, fire axes, saws, sledge hammers, battery operated battle lanterns, etc.. None of that was apparent on the Russian ships. It doesn't surprise me they could not control the fires and flooding. However they did have a real fancy spa with a pool and fake waterfall for the crew to relax in.
From https://japantoday.com/category/worl...sinks#comments
Last edited by jolihokistix; 16th Apr 2022 at 02:32.
What does the loss of life say about crew training, resilience or command? Loss of the ship doesn't appear to have been "instantaneous" and it wasn't in Arctic (albeit possibly cold) water. The loss of life in the apparent circumstances is shocking.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 1,069
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes
on
11 Posts
Given what has been happening to people who failed Putin it would be no surprise if the command staff chose to go down with the ship. The whole business continues to demonstrate Russian overconfidence in the superiority of their war machine and of course the pointless tragedy caused by one man‘s megalomania.
Do you have a reference for that, because it doesn't fit with the way that the P-500 Bazalt/P-1000 Vulkan missiles were deployed operationally.
Those missiles were originally fitted to Russian submarines and the tubes were mounted outside the pressure hull. It would not be feasible to fuel the missiles before launch. Same same for warships like the Kievs and the Slavas - it's just not feasible to have tanks of liquid rocket fuel and oxidiser stored on a warship that needs to be pumped into your main offensive armament before you can use it.
Everything I have read indicates that the missiles are loaded to their launch canisters fuelled. That would be no different to US practice with the Tomahawk and Harpoon.
Those missiles were originally fitted to Russian submarines and the tubes were mounted outside the pressure hull. It would not be feasible to fuel the missiles before launch. Same same for warships like the Kievs and the Slavas - it's just not feasible to have tanks of liquid rocket fuel and oxidiser stored on a warship that needs to be pumped into your main offensive armament before you can use it.
Everything I have read indicates that the missiles are loaded to their launch canisters fuelled. That would be no different to US practice with the Tomahawk and Harpoon.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 1,069
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes
on
11 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 29,926
Received 1,352 Likes
on
608 Posts
While not the missile used, could you imagine two of these hitting a fully armed ship, no wonder there could be heavy casualties.
Does anyone know the time of missile(s) impact ?
The [RORSAT] satellite passed at 6.52pm local time, on [Wednesday] April 13, https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...as-she-burned/
Then here are the key timings of subsequent events from the wiki source references (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva)
"Ukrainian presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych and Odesa governor Maksym Marchenko said their forces hit Moskva on 13 April 2022, with two R-360 Neptune anti-ship cruise missiles, and she was on fire"
(I've not been able to locate this tweet, though I recollect seeing something like it at about 10pm in Greece, which is the same time zone as Odessa in Ukraine)
"According to him, an SOS signal was recorded from the cruiser at 1:05 p.m."
"At 1.14 a.m., the cruiser lay on its side, and after half an hour, all the electricity went out. From 2 a.m., the Turkish ship evacuated 54 sailors from the cruiser, and at about 3 a.m., Turkiye and Romania reported that the ship had completely sunk. The related loss of Russian personnel is still unknown, although there were 485 crew on board (66 of them officers)," Anusauskas said.
The various accounts of Bayraktar TB2 involvement are inconclusive re timing, though the Forbes one suggests that Moskva was on fire by time of local darkness:
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/3...-attack-moskva
https://charter97.org/en/news/2022/4/14/463477/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/unicefu...ucha-ukraine/?
The [RORSAT] satellite passed at 6.52pm local time, on [Wednesday] April 13, https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...as-she-burned/
Then here are the key timings of subsequent events from the wiki source references (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva)
"Ukrainian presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych and Odesa governor Maksym Marchenko said their forces hit Moskva on 13 April 2022, with two R-360 Neptune anti-ship cruise missiles, and she was on fire"
(I've not been able to locate this tweet, though I recollect seeing something like it at about 10pm in Greece, which is the same time zone as Odessa in Ukraine)
"According to him, an SOS signal was recorded from the cruiser at 1:05 p.m."
"At 1.14 a.m., the cruiser lay on its side, and after half an hour, all the electricity went out. From 2 a.m., the Turkish ship evacuated 54 sailors from the cruiser, and at about 3 a.m., Turkiye and Romania reported that the ship had completely sunk. The related loss of Russian personnel is still unknown, although there were 485 crew on board (66 of them officers)," Anusauskas said.
The various accounts of Bayraktar TB2 involvement are inconclusive re timing, though the Forbes one suggests that Moskva was on fire by time of local darkness:
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/3...-attack-moskva
https://charter97.org/en/news/2022/4/14/463477/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/unicefu...ucha-ukraine/?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 29,926
Received 1,352 Likes
on
608 Posts
I wonder where they landed the survivors, or did they transfer them to a Russian ship.
Sky news talks about 100 survivors 'confirmed'. but despite a few snippets of other information it does not support that confirmation. Their resident expert also alleges that one of the missiles hit a large launcher tube on deck.
https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-w...safer-12590711
https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-w...safer-12590711
Last edited by jolihokistix; 16th Apr 2022 at 08:07.
What does the loss of life say about crew training, resilience or command? Loss of the ship doesn't appear to have been "instantaneous" and it wasn't in Arctic (albeit possibly cold) water. The loss of life in the apparent circumstances is shocking.
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 16th Apr 2022 at 08:32. Reason: Fix quote
The discussion I seen from pro russian sites is that the 2 missiles struck. Completely out of control fire and flooding. Ammunition explosion about 20 minutes later turtled the ship. Sunk about an hour or so later. They are also claiming about 400 dead from crew and additional naval marines billeted on the ship for special operations. So about 100 to 150 survivors
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 16th Apr 2022 at 08:35. Reason: Fix quote
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 29,926
Received 1,352 Likes
on
608 Posts
Sky said one may have hit one of the launcher tubes which are near the bridge.
The first line of that interesting article is quite clever: "The Russian cruiser Moskva will go down in history."
Edit, in order to add a reader's comment I found on another site.
Sister ships of her class visited Norfolk and San Diego in the 1990s. The visits were well documented in the press and in some naval publications, one of which I still have. One of the things US Navy visitors found noteworthy was the complete lack of firefighting and damage control equipment in them. Every compartment and passageway of US and Japanese warships are packed full of fire hoses, fire mains, low light cameras, breathing apparatus, wooden timbers to shore up sagging bulkhead, wooden wedges to hammer into leaks, fire axes, saws, sledge hammers, battery operated battle lanterns, etc.. None of that was apparent on the Russian ships. It doesn't surprise me they could not control the fires and flooding. However they did have a real fancy spa with a pool and fake waterfall for the crew to relax in.
From https://japantoday.com/category/worl...sinks#comments
Edit, in order to add a reader's comment I found on another site.
Sister ships of her class visited Norfolk and San Diego in the 1990s. The visits were well documented in the press and in some naval publications, one of which I still have. One of the things US Navy visitors found noteworthy was the complete lack of firefighting and damage control equipment in them. Every compartment and passageway of US and Japanese warships are packed full of fire hoses, fire mains, low light cameras, breathing apparatus, wooden timbers to shore up sagging bulkhead, wooden wedges to hammer into leaks, fire axes, saws, sledge hammers, battery operated battle lanterns, etc.. None of that was apparent on the Russian ships. It doesn't surprise me they could not control the fires and flooding. However they did have a real fancy spa with a pool and fake waterfall for the crew to relax in.
From https://japantoday.com/category/worl...sinks#comments
Who would have been onboard a vessel like this? The crew and the captain, above him an admiral and staff for the Black Sea fleet group and a detachment of naval infantry for special operations and such? What happened to them? Who was in charge and who is accounted for?
Local sunset in Odeassa is 19:45 direction 286° West. So if the two (?) missiles did not either/both put in significant doglegs (though some doglegs would be the norm) then they were likely coming from roughly up-sun if it was a late-afternoon / early evening engagement. That is one reason I am trying to understand the time of engagement. Another is to understand the damage control timing better.
If the main phased array radar was either trying to track one (or more ?) TB2 on a different bearing, then it is possible that the first observation might have been visual. That is not so unusual with these sorts of naval engagements.
The RORSAT pictures show the Russian vessels in a NE-SW line, almost as if they were seeking to act as a radar blockade as well as a surface blockade, the point being that it is possible there was no other vessel that was more up-threat than the Moskva itself.
The speculation regarding the SSN-12 deck-mounted missles going up has, as far as I can see, no evidence basis. I'm not saying it is unlikely, but we have no reason to believe it vs any other explanation. I too suspect she rolled over fairly quickly - that would be consistent with what has been observed about Russian naval architecture and the likely damage and the reported level of casualties. Again, understanding the timeline is informative if more information is forthcoming.
====
Looking to the future it is fairly obvious that the loss of that Moskva radar and the associated S300 battery on Moskva leaves a pretty big hole in the Russian anti-air defences in that sector. The remaining vessels do not have anywhere near the same anti-air capabilities as the Moskva did.
The SA-4 "Gecko" SAMs on the two Krivak frigates and the corvettes only have a ~10-mile range. Therefore these have no real impact on the aviation war over the land, and a really only for self-defense purposes.
The naval variant of the SA-11/17/27 "Buk" SAMs on the three Grigorovich are the later VLS type with a range of 50km/30nm, so comparable to Sea Dart and looking at the specs not to be sneered at. Useful as a naval task force area air defence system, but not really capable of directly intervening in the aviation war over the land unless they are able to park the ships right up close to the coast (which to be fair, they can do in Azov Sea and by Crimea).
Overall the loss of the Moskva has pretty much taken the Russian Navy out of the game of direct intervention in aviation over the land area of Ukraine which will reduce complications and provide opportunities for Ukraine pilots / UAVs.
However the remaining naval platforms may still have some utility as ESM platforms, and the Grigorovichs have a pretty potent radar system. I'm not sure if the Russians can network that into a common air picture with their land sensors.
The Ukraine now has a lot more freedom to manouevre both in the air and at sea in the south, onshore and offshore. Whether they have anything left that floats is a different matter. They are however due to receive at least one USV soonish.
[edit : I see Wiki has been updated since my post this morning, and is now saying the missile egagement was in "Ukrainian presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych and Odesa governorMaksym Marchenko said their forces hit Moskva in the early hours of 13 April 2022,". That implies far earlier in the day than previously thought. It is possible that the night-time image referred to in the Forbes aticle I referenced was taken in early morning 13-Apr rather than late evening 13-Apr]
If the main phased array radar was either trying to track one (or more ?) TB2 on a different bearing, then it is possible that the first observation might have been visual. That is not so unusual with these sorts of naval engagements.
The RORSAT pictures show the Russian vessels in a NE-SW line, almost as if they were seeking to act as a radar blockade as well as a surface blockade, the point being that it is possible there was no other vessel that was more up-threat than the Moskva itself.
The speculation regarding the SSN-12 deck-mounted missles going up has, as far as I can see, no evidence basis. I'm not saying it is unlikely, but we have no reason to believe it vs any other explanation. I too suspect she rolled over fairly quickly - that would be consistent with what has been observed about Russian naval architecture and the likely damage and the reported level of casualties. Again, understanding the timeline is informative if more information is forthcoming.
====
Looking to the future it is fairly obvious that the loss of that Moskva radar and the associated S300 battery on Moskva leaves a pretty big hole in the Russian anti-air defences in that sector. The remaining vessels do not have anywhere near the same anti-air capabilities as the Moskva did.
The SA-4 "Gecko" SAMs on the two Krivak frigates and the corvettes only have a ~10-mile range. Therefore these have no real impact on the aviation war over the land, and a really only for self-defense purposes.
The naval variant of the SA-11/17/27 "Buk" SAMs on the three Grigorovich are the later VLS type with a range of 50km/30nm, so comparable to Sea Dart and looking at the specs not to be sneered at. Useful as a naval task force area air defence system, but not really capable of directly intervening in the aviation war over the land unless they are able to park the ships right up close to the coast (which to be fair, they can do in Azov Sea and by Crimea).
Overall the loss of the Moskva has pretty much taken the Russian Navy out of the game of direct intervention in aviation over the land area of Ukraine which will reduce complications and provide opportunities for Ukraine pilots / UAVs.
However the remaining naval platforms may still have some utility as ESM platforms, and the Grigorovichs have a pretty potent radar system. I'm not sure if the Russians can network that into a common air picture with their land sensors.
The Ukraine now has a lot more freedom to manouevre both in the air and at sea in the south, onshore and offshore. Whether they have anything left that floats is a different matter. They are however due to receive at least one USV soonish.
[edit : I see Wiki has been updated since my post this morning, and is now saying the missile egagement was in "Ukrainian presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych and Odesa governorMaksym Marchenko said their forces hit Moskva in the early hours of 13 April 2022,". That implies far earlier in the day than previously thought. It is possible that the night-time image referred to in the Forbes aticle I referenced was taken in early morning 13-Apr rather than late evening 13-Apr]
Last edited by petit plateau; 16th Apr 2022 at 11:10. Reason: to include [update]
Shocking to think the Russian's priority appeared to be to tow the vessel back to Sevastopol to avoid the humiliation of its loss, rather than concentrate on rescuing any crew members who may still have been trapped below decks, or recovering the bodies of those who died. Its the Kursk all over again.
