https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....6d28faede.jpeg

Did he perhaps mean there had been three "detentions", not detonations.

An interesting, and on the surface plausible take of what might have happened:

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.

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?

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!

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 ?

No idea, BUT an Exocet has about 165kg and you saw Falklands wise what two did to the Conveyor which was a larger ship.

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


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7a015575d8.png


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....632496f935.png

ok translation. (this is what the Neptune was developed from)



damage

This is a cracking painting


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0c06c5c3be.png

Good points, I hadn't spotted the soot staining around the upper portholes.

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 was a Type 42 destroyer with a crew of around 270; Glamorgan was an older and larger County-class destroyer with around 470 crew.

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.

Glamorgan was a County class destroyer, not a Type 42. She was 520 feet long, 6200 tons displacement and had a crew of around 470. Batch 1 Type 42 was around 410 feet long, had a displacement of 4350 tons and a crew of 250.

Quite right, my mistake. Glamorgan was the older and larger of the two destroyers. Fixed now in edit.

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.

I would have thought NATO would be providing the Ukranians with lots of very precise targeting information?

The Neptune is a land-launched system as advertised, but nothing that the Ukrainians have done to date should make anyone assume that they are not resourceful and committed to their home and families. It took a very short time to make in-flight refuel available in '82, it's not going to take much longer in '22 for a dedicated group to add the Neptune to a rack on an aircraft, and the kh-35/35U came as ASM anyway. Did that happen, why should it? There are easier and more survivable ways to surprise the Russians who have shown a singular failure of imagination and response. I do hope that the Russians continue with their assumption of superiority in numbers "trump"-ing initiative and creativity; a defeat in place of the Russian Black Sea fleet, BSF, is overdue. As Boyd contended, and "Sub" Tzu alludes to, getting inside the decision process of the red team changes the game. When the Ukrainians finally disclose how they approached the Moskva it will be interesting reading, and I hope that doesn't occur before the same tactic removes the remaining BSF from the top of the water to the bottom. Nothing personal, Vlad the impaler, just get out of Ukraine, the criminal and genocidal invasion is unwelcome.

You seem to be saying that "theoretically possible" is the same as "plausible". Time for a re-set perhaps .

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.

There was a concentration of NATO ISR effort along the very eastern edge of Romania in the days prior to the attack on the Moskva (as discussed on various spotter blogs). My working assumption at the time was that 'we' were trying to get a handle on events in eastern Ukraine, but who knows?

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.