Have just seen a Japanese news site quoting 'an independent news site' Novaya Gazeta Europe (sp?) with some different figures of 40 dead, 27 missing, and large numbers of wounded. Usual pinch of salt advised.

Notice most of the rear liferaft pods just fwd of the hangar are gone, possibly more got off, or the strike on the mid section blew them overboard?

The fire seems concentrated right in the centre of the ship - which is where you'd expect any missile to lock onto

I don't see much evidence of the heavy sea state that was said to have caused her to sink. :rolleyes:

edit : Just noticed Mr Wotsalizad had already pointed this out.

edited again : I guess that if this is the Russian definition of a stormy sea then it's consistent with a bit of slush in Salisbury being sufficient for two KGB agents to turn back from their visit to the Cathedral due to blizzard conditions. :cool:

Just read a long article in Japanese by a defence analyst who points out a list of reasons why China will be in serious shock over the obvious vulnerability to anti-ship missiles of the Moskva. Their fleet is based on Soviet/Russian design, so they will need a complete rethink. Taiwan is bristling with such missiles which will threaten any sea-borne attempt at invasion. By the same token all of the China Sea countries which have been brow-beaten and bullied by these larger Chinese ships in recent years will have taken due notice and adjusted their shopping lists accordingly.

Very brief video clip, 2 seconds, is doing the rounds now and seem to confirm WillFlyForCheese's sleuthing.

I'm intrigued by those soot marks at various locations along the hull-deck join. Suggests widespread fire below decks?

That's sea state 1...

There's even a brief video of it taken from astern, with that tug pulled away a little. The wind direction is from the north if anyone wants to figure out the time of day from the shadows.

"I guess that if this is the Russian definition of a stormy sea then it's consistent with a bit of slush in Salisbury"

The Black Sea can get VERY rough but as you say this is milk pond conditions in the pictures

The main damage appears to be exactly where the port mid-deck CIWS is located

Russian upper decks tend to be painted red. Might be for the same reason as the British army used to wear red coats! - or maybe just anti-rust.

Mog

Good analysis. Seems the strike took out all power and damage control at the same time - design concentrates them exactly where SSMs seem targeted. Reinforcing the worries for China mentioned by Joli…

With large ships it is the same as with tanks. If the defender has access to high tech weapons they are easy prey. I assume even a CVBG will not be able to withstand an assault with several hypersonic missiles. It will boil down to a severe EW and jamming war. The time of large surface ships was over in WW2 as soon as you lost air superiority.

shurely the below decks fire..........:)

Nothing new here.

There are reasons, military wants the latest of the latest technology: to be better than the potential enemy.

Without a CVBG or tank battalions, etc, you won't have any "offensive" options, so you need these. Just more fancy stuff to protect your classics.

Actually, given the majority of water ingress moves towards the stern, it suggests the initial explosion ripped through the ship, from the impact (roughly 1/3 front) to nearly the stern, either ripping out all (or at least releasing these from their water-tightness purposes) the bulkheads or just being confronted with all open bulkhead doors, which no longer close after the explosion. We need to be aware, the hull itself would be very strong, potentially the same for the deck itself, so an explosion stays inside the hull, unless deck or hull are heavily compromised. When this happens, people below deck have very little chances to survive the pressure wave. Given the impact timing, most people would have been in their quarters, below deck. Maybe this explains, we only see so little people saved.

Reasons to abandon a warship: imminent sinking or an expected big boom.

Just wondering: Did the Moskva turn-over, though was still floating ? In which position, the tow-back was attempted ? Given the latest pictures, there are little tow-attempts, whereas the timing would be not far from the "it's gone" moment.

If it did have certain assets on board, would you want to tow it back to port while it’s on fire? I know these kinds of weapons are by nature highly unlikely to go off properly unless triggered on purpose, but even a “fizzle” might be a big problem...

I'm inclined to go with the original report straight after the event, there doesn't appear to be any storm, the smoke indicates the wind is not all that strong, she is already listing to port while on fire and there are no life boats/rafts in the water. I very much doubt she was ever under tow, or that the fire was extinguished before she sank.
P.S I also note one of the helideck doors is ajar, if that's because it was blasted open, you wouldn't expect able bodied survivors below decks

It took me a while to realise that what looks like a blackened and bent mast may actually have been a deck crane, normally stowed between the funnels. What were they trying to do with this crane before abandoning it in this odd position?

Also I notice that the water level on the port side is about the line where a dozen portholes are normally sited, way above normal water level. I guess Moskva must have been filling with water rapidly by this point?

The fact that is is daylight makes one wonder if they have cut the tow as it was in danger of foundering, the storm was a Russian excuse if I remember correctly.

If the enemy can return to the fray, then yup!

At what point did the Turkish ship take crew off the upturned "Hill"?

IG

That crane has to be stowed forwards as it obstructs the S300 VLS cells in the aft position (presumably it has a role in handling reloads).

So either the blast from one of the Neptune warheads has sent the crane upwards, or someone raised it. In many of the photos there is a lot of smoke coming from the void where the main mast was (which is the lower mast, carrying the Top Pair / Top Steer radar). That radar & mast seems to have mostly disappeared, unless it is simply hidden by smoke. Below that mast were the machinery control rooms / the damage control rooms. Awkward.

It is just possible that someone raised the crane to try to use it to direct some firefighting hoses into the void. That is a more positive explanation than either they had not stowed it prior to action, or that it just got blown up/back. But a lot of things about this action are odd.

In the most common photo it is (I think) mid-afternoon with the ship listing to port and the water getting quite close to the deck edge at the stern. So maybe 12-15-hours or so after missile impact if it was in the early hours as reported. That rate of sinking is consistent with it going under several hours later, also as reported.

(edit : by the time of that photo I suspect everyone was off the ship who was capable of leaving)

masterfully put out by the skillful counterflooding permitted by cunningly opening up an 8' hole in the port amidship station, thus dousing the fires perfidiously set by the dastardly Alexi Navalny from his prison cell. Quick, add another 25 years to Navalny's sentence, and while you are at it, add 10 more for his setting of a fire on the Alligator class at Berdyans'k. These sneaky Russian extremists, trying to harm the glorious grand fleet from their jail cells.

ah, maybe.... not; according to the ICRC with reference to Articles 12, 13, and 18 of the Second Convention for the Amelioration of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 August 1949, all belligerents have a duty to assist in the life-saving of shipwrecked armed forces, so interfering with that activity would probably get a free visit to the Hague sometime in the future. it is also in keeping with SOLAS. Now, if the red team is also plinking away at your blue tub, then they are a legitimate target in self defense, so, kind of maybe, possibly depends. The HMS Conqueror skipper displayed good judgment and knowledge of the law in not launching another?Mk 10? downrange at the Belgrano's escorts. Had they started to attack the Conqueror, a different matter.

COMMENTARY OF 2017
ARTICLE 18 : SEARCH FOR CASUALTIES AFTER AN ENGAGEMENT

Text of the provision*
(1) After each engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the shipwrecked, wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled.
(2) Whenever circumstances permit, the Parties to the conflict shall conclude local arrangements for the removal of the wounded and sick by sea from a besieged or encircled area and for the passage of medical and religious personnel and equipment on their way to that area.
* Paragraph numbers have been added for ease of reference.

A. Introduction
1616  Article 18(1) complements Article 12 by requiring that, after each engagement, Parties to an international armed conflict take all possible measures to search for and collect persons protected by the Second Convention who are shipwrecked, wounded, sick or dead as a result of the hostilities. Article 18 thus sets out specific obligations that flow from the obligation of Article 12 to respect and protect the wounded, sick and shipwrecked.
1617  Article 18(1) is among the most important provisions in the Second Convention. The search for and collection of casualties after a naval engagement, by the Parties to the conflict themselves, is paramount in achieving one of the core objectives of the Convention. When hostilities are taking place at sea, the Parties to the conflict may be the only entities sufficiently close to the victims to search for and collect them.
1618  The obligations of Article 18 must be implemented impartially, in the sense of Article 12. Accordingly, where the Parties to the armed conflict have suffered casualties, Article 18 requires them to search for and collect all the shipwrecked, wounded, sick and dead, without discriminating between their own and enemy personnel.
1619  The obligation to ‘take all possible measures’ applies, as a matter of international humanitarian law, to the ‘Parties to the conflict’ as a whole. Under international criminal law, conduct in violation of Article 18(1) that leads to the death of protected persons may trigger individual criminal responsibility on the basis of the grave breach of wilful killing by omission.
1620  If an area on land is ‘besieged or encircled’, Article 18(2) requires the Parties to the conflict, whenever circumstances permit, to conclude ‘local arrangements’ to evacuate the wounded and sick by sea or to allow for the passage of medical and religious personnel and equipment to the area.
1621  As far as international humanitarian law is concerned, obligations similar to those in Article 18 are contained in the First Convention, the Fourth Convention and the 1977 Additional Protocols, and they also exist under customary international law.
1622  There is a wide array of rules in general international treaty and customary law requiring entities other than the Parties to the conflict to render assistance to persons in distress at sea. The notion of ‘persons in distress at sea’ covers more than, but also includes, the shipwrecked, wounded and sick who are protected persons in the sense of Articles 12 and 13 of the Second Convention.The application of those rules to Parties to a conflict and to neutral Powers is addressed in the Introduction, section C.5.e-f.

The area around Moscow is pretty flat, as in, flat. So even a 5-degree list could be construed to a landlubber as being a hill if they come from somewhere around the Kremmin. Other than the commentary from the Russian Govt, which is well known as an impeccable source of truth and light, is there any evidence of the Turks having a hull anywhere nearby? As in, AIS data or something evidentiary. The Turks denied being anywhere nearby, and probably would be sensitive to being involved in any manner, even if in keeping with Convention II.

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.

Back to a port: Of course.

There is no need to move it into the harbor right away, though just outside, to let it cool down, etc. Why not. Even, when it would be upright, still sinking, you might be interested to let it land on a shallow seabed and, when salvageable, raise again, etc. Being able to recover a hull of a warship could be a significant saving, compared to "new". Although, this one is 40 years old, but, yeah, when having a situation with a lack of money, maybe better a wrinkled hull, than no hull. And, when still floating, a huge amount of accessories would be available for salvaging and reuse. These accessories tend to be "custom-made", so spares would be welcome.

So - if you look closely at the higher res photos - the explosions appear to have been catastrophic. You can see buckling in the aft deck areas - and it appears the roof of the helo hanger is also buckled, below the rear radar dome. Still can’t tell if the line in the hull aft of the missile bay is smoke, or actually a break in the hull. There certainly appears to be creasing of the hull in that area.

it may simply be that this catastrophic explosion resulted in the death of many of the crew - with a significant number caught below deck and killed by the pressure wave and those that survived the initial explosion overtaken by fire and smoke.

I would not be surprised if she broke in two around that creased area.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1c54dda82.jpeg

If you look at the bathymetric maps of the Black Sea - it looks more like she was brought to the deepest part of the sea. Broken arrow? Just didn’t want anyone to dive and have a look at her? Who knows - but she went down in the deepest part of the sea.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....57bef9944.jpeg

Questions being asked by families as to why conscripts were on the ship and why the officers survived but the conscripts didn’t, though if you read the comments he was pro war, pro Putin and believed Ukraine shouldn’t exist right up until the war came home to him.

And reading the responses to that, it seems the father is pro-Russia and vehemently anti-Ukraine. No tears shed here: sorry.

Assuming one can believe anything on the internet these days.

Many pre-attack photos show a small boat (Captains Gig) on the portside of the left funnel. I do not spot any davits above this boat. Perhaps the crane was raised to launch the small boat as abandoned ship was undertaken? It is practice to lower small boats to shepherd the evacuees aboard the inflatable lifeboats.

You can make out the gig below a protective cover in this file photo.

https://www.reporter.am/pentagon-the...erica-morning/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ng-crew-russia

“His wife, Irina, told the independent Russian website the Insider that they had seen about 200 injured sailors at a military hospital in Crimea while looking for their son. The total crew of the Moskva was estimated at just over 500.

“We looked at every burnt kid,” she told the Insider. “I can’t tell you how hard it was, but I couldn’t find mine. There were only 200 people, and there were more than 500 onboard the cruiser.

Where were the others? We looked in Krasnodar, and everywhere else, we called every place, but we couldn’t find him.”….

Good catch, and nice to see a high-res version of this picture.

Checking further, it looks like, the helo desk does have a big hole in it, with, as it seems, penetration from the top and a subsequent big explosion underneath the deck, maybe even 1 or 2 decks lower, inside the ship. Not to mention the crumbling and burn damage visible all over the port side on the deck below the helo deck.

Could it be Neptune Nr 2 did penetrate the helo deck and just blew up the whole inside of the stern section ? Given there will be not that many explosives and/or fuel around there, the only igniting stuff would be the neptune warhead itself with maybe some residual neptune fuel.

This could certainly explain the damage to the rear part of the ship and in front of the helo hangar, the structure below the rear radar dome itself. That part seems to be completely blown up from the inside out.

On his VK page, he denies about the 200 wounded, his wife would have seen. She wasn't there, see the bold text in the quote ......

https://m.vk.com/d.vetrov78?from=post

Or, so to say: It could very well be, significantly less Russians managed to escape the inferno (and those unharmed, parading in the thank-you-hero propaganda, are just staged actors, or this is a completely different event ......)

I see no hole in the heli pad, just a pile of debris near the centre spot.

Whichever, the ship has gone. What effect that will have on the land campaign remains to be seen. I’m not comforted by apparent Russian progress in that respect.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ce7251cdf.jpeg



https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0272077af.jpeg

Interesting to see the fire damage and black square forward of the rear deck step down below the hangar as is that not the missing torpedo door so it looks like they have gone up or have been jettisoned?

you can just make it out below the liferaft stowages on this image and it correlates with the black square on the top image. Also it looks like the motor launch is still onboard just below the stacks, all be it destroyed, is that a rotor lying on the fwd hangar deck far side?


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d9171344b.jpeg

I do wonder considering the uproar when the photos were released of the F35’s going overboard whether there is a witch-hunt going on in Russia to find out who let these out, not exactly what Russia would want emblazoned all over the web and the worlds press.

Do we have a credible positon for the wreck yet?
Some say in deepest water which is quite contrary to my observations - and if there really are "jackups" in attendance surely they must be identifiable? My amateur research on AIS has been inconclusive, bar one site that showed multiple utility assets right about where I thougt the incident happened, and in (very roughly) rather less than 100 m of water.

Ideas?