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.

Indeed.

Perhaps Putin is certain that NATO assisted in the sinking of Moskva but outright stating so would require him to respond in some form, something that it's increasingly obvious Russia would be ill-equipped to do?

This would also tie in with the increasing 'freedom' NATO countries are exploiting to provide Ukraine with larger and more potent weapon systems. Russia keeps making noise about "consequences" but what can Russia realistically do?

Given the performance of the Russian armed forces against Ukraine over the past 8 weeks, and their attrition rates, it is pretty obvious that for Putin to declare war on NATO (deliberately attacking any 1 NATO state amounts to the same thing), then the resultant defeat would be far reaching and inevitable. Sure, NATO forces would suffer some significant losses, but Russia would be forced to evacuate all the territory they have claimed, including all of East Ukraine and Crimea, and end up with zero military capability. Their only alternative would be to start a MAD WW3. Would the chain of command 'break down' if the order was given?

Not going to happen.

Why be so obvious when there are probably an endless stream of satellites covering the region ?

The aircrafts in question pick up a bit more information than a satellite does. Especially if there is a cloud layer.

The USAF currently has no deployable tactical EW assts. They are in the process of standing up a unit. Currently they use the Growlers by agreement.

The USAF has been without a dedicated electronic warfare aircraft since it retired the General Dynamics EF-111A Raven in 1998. Instead, the service has relied on the US Navy’s (USN’s) Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler and most recently the Boeing EA-18G Growler via the Joint Airborne Electronic Attack Program. As part of that joint effort, personnel from the USAF’s 390th Electronic Combat Squadron are based at NAS Whidbey Island in Washington State.

Maybe Moskva was a test to see how the Russians responded? If they bleat a bit, we'll reign back in a bit, if not, lets up the ante.

Also, the missile blitz the Russians unleashed in response to this 'non-provocation' (in their eyes, at least publicly) has given the West the perfect excuse to ramp up supplies of AD weaponry and aircraft spares. Russia seems to be outplayed at every turn.

Ok thanks. As conspiracy theories go I thought it had some legs....

I don’t suppose you could call the EC130 Compass Call a “tactical” EW aircraft but it performs much the same role as the growler.

The wild cards would be the opportunity for the Disasterstans to change their client state status with Russia. The Moldovans may have a bit of a say with Transnistria as well if Russia really gets a major defeat through their dissaray and depleted arms. I cannot see why anyone wants to have a piece of Russia, sure G.U.M. was worth a visit, the underground was, meh, antique, St Basils is neat. The Kremlin is not a great bit of architecture, not like.... Dubrovnik, Ljubljana castle, Barokna Kabija, Halászbástya, Schloss Stolzenfels, Kölner Dom, Il Duomo, Rovinj, Arienzo. In fact, Moscow was about as inviting as Mangakino. Half of Russia is set up to grow the staples to make Vodka, and the other half of the country is the reason you need Vodka. Except for St Petersburg, that is speshul. Otherwise, don't see why anyone wants to invade Russia proper unless to get a T-Shirt saying "I went to Norilsk, and it is the most depressing city in the world". The paradox of Russia is the people are in fact warm, while stuck in a cold, inhospitable dangerous country, and that isn't talking about the weather, that is just the incumbents of the Kremlin. Russian literature is often described as being depressive, or just sad, but Vladimir Nabokov maintained that Chekhov wrote “sad books for humorous people”, because “only a reader with a sense of humor can truly appreciate their sadness”. Dostoevsky, Pasternak, Tolstoy, etc make you wish to lose your own sight, so you would have a great excuse to be so depressed by reading the stories. (I think Victor Hugo was Russian at heart). Yet, Russia gave the world Andre Sakharov, and that counts for something (the USA gave the world Edward Teller, and listening to him give a graduation speech was the most horrifying moment of my life). Sure the rest of the world gets sad, William Golding, Khaled Hosseini, Ian McEwan, Kazuo Ishiguro, etc..., all should be honorary Russians.

What would be credible exit scenarios for the Russian government to end this war without losing face?

In the middle of the pond, with no surface threat worth a damn, wondering why they would not have emcon in force. What would they be radiating for? just curious. As soon as they radiate on the topsail etc, they are able to be identified and triangulated, and even in a presumed low threat environment, they would not have a pressing reason to break emcon. Unless things have changed since the days we did that sort of stuff. I can imagine they would radiate the palm frond intermittently, at least in sector scans, but beyond that, what was the benefit to them, unless they knew that there was a specific threat. The story of the prior days events may give a reason for that, but golly, anything beyond a random search transmission would be asking for a bad day. May have some bias on that, my recollection from chasing boomers at the end of the cold war was the USSR boat drivers were pretty good, their rides were noisy, and the skimmers were happy to track us with their weapons at all times, they seemed quite competent then, prone to sunbathing on the fantail.

Sending Putin to:

1. Lefortovo,
2. Госуда́рственный нау́чный центр социа́льной и суде́бной психиатри́и им. В. П. Се́рбского, or
3. the "St Petersburg Caviar Repository".

That'll do it. Beware who takes over afterward though, the next 100 cabs off the rank also come from the same place. If they installed Navalny they could get sanctions removed pretty quickly, but he is always going to be a target from the former KGB mafia.

I don't think that there is one. The loss of face has already occurred.
The more practical question is what degree of, or level of, sanctions relief will be achievable via negotiations once a cease fire is arranged?
(And that will eventually come to pass, hopefully sooner than later).

Well, maybe the canny Ukrainians put up a TB2 in the area every night or so to keep them honest?

Given the lax conduct of almost every branch of the Russia mil, I wouldn't at all surprised if they didn't bother with emcon ("we're an invincible carrier killer - Ukraine doesn't pose any threat to us!")

As enlightenment goes this thread about a current ' war ' situation and supposed Western assets in the area, is this a case of ' walls have ears ' ??
I'm sure nothing on here will be ' News ' to the Russians, but are we sure?

Let’s hope they do not read the papers !!
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...utm_medium=RSS
Print
By Mike Glenn - The Washington Times - Wednesday, April 20, 2022A U.S. Navy surveillance aircraft was reportedly tracking the flagship of the Russian Black Sea fleet on April 13 in the hours before it was hit by Ukrainian forces.

The British Daily Mail newspaper reported that the Navy’s P-8 Poseidon was providing targeting data to Ukrainian forces, making it possible for them to fire a pair of Neptune missiles at the guided-missile cruiser Moskva while it was patrolling south of Odesa.

The Kremlin initially claimed the damage to the Moskva was the result of an onboard explosion caused by a fire. The warship later sank as it was being towed back to Russia-controlled Crimea for repairs.

:}

They certainly don't read their own papers.

What is needed is a whole bunch of empty B737s to do circuits of the Black Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, off North Cape etc, to just add to the fun quotient of the Russians. They do that and they don't expect others to do it back?

For what it's worth the 12" GWX-70 will pick up the same size target at 60nm, and you can add that to a Cessna Caravan. Plonk in a whole bunch of turtle packs, and pack a lunch and lots of coffee. There is some really neat synthetic aperture sidescan radar systems that can be strapped to the same clunker, and that will give a photo-realistic image in real-time with L/L, COG/SOG etc. not going to be great at avoiding power poles when they get launched, but still there's a lot of the Black sea to deny from the Russians. Great for hour building. bring a parachute and an immersion suit.

Are you suggesting that WW3 may be declared because of what someone said on PPRuNe? Wouldn't be the first time. .

The whole point of the Russians putting a floating S300 battery with its radars & etc in that location is to emit like crazy, and shoot down everything they can reach over Ukraine or coming out of Ukraine. The Moskva gave the Russians coverage that they could not get from any other naval asset*, or from any available (non-threatened) shore location. The downside of being an emitter is that triangulation is a thing. And then somebody gets a precise ID and more accurate location and bad things happen.

* The other Russian vessels have much shorter range anti-air missile systems and associated radars. There is basically now a very significant hole in the Russian coverage that I am sure is receiving attention by all sorts of people.

Just want to publicly acknowledge fdr's PM to me. Very informative
Thanks fdr