"Russian cruiser Moskva hit by missiles?" Topic

Not sure who started the topic, as there were no comments.

Anyway, here is a link to a story about this subject.
link

Not sure if it is true or not at this stage. Sinking the flag ship of the Black Sea fleet would be a huge accomplishment.

They think they hit it with a Neptune, a locally-manufactured anti-ship missile. Bad weather makes it hard to verify.

As the article states, the ship was originally built… in Ukraine.

Apparently, they hit it with two of them and the Moskva is on fire. This still need to be confirmed, however. IF, and I stress IF, this is true, either the ship's crew is incompetent or all of those Harpoon games, Victory Games Fleet series board games, etc., that we used to simulate modern naval combat have all been wrong in how the Russian ships/weapons are rated.

Supposedly Russian Defense Ministry confirmed significant damage to the cruiser Moskva.

Russia claimed they intercepted the Neptune class missiles but now state "there was a fire" which set off its munitions and "reasons behind it are being established".

Sounds like severe damage, ongoing fires and the weather conditions in the sea are "poor". I would not be surprised if she cooks off and goes down.

According to a Russian Defense Ministry source the ship has been completely evacuated.

Does evacuated=abandoned?

It sounds like there is no active effort to contain the fire.

That's gonna leave a mark.

Russia says it was accidental ammo explosion on the Moskva.

Forbes: link

USNI: link

Should a cruiser be lost from either an ammo explosion or two missile strikes? Is there a problem with Russian naval vessels?

According to Ukraine (as reported by the BBC), Russian rescuers were unable to reach the Moskva due to the storm.

Moskva was operating as a command ship and air defense ship; she is not equipped with land-attack cruise missiles.

Naval News: link

The Slava class carries 16 SSN-12 in cannisters on the main deck level along both sides of the forward superstructure. The SSN-12 is huge, if they detonate or even burn out it would likely result in the loss of the ship. Completely plausible to lose the ship from two Harpoonski hits. It only takes about two minutes for a sea skimmer to clear the radar horizon until impact, if the ship was not already at GQ they likely would not have time to react.

Does evacuated = abandoned? Yes it does.

Russian fire-fighting was always second class. The USS Belknap CG-26 collided with the JFK the whole superstructure melted to the hull. She was kept afloat and managed to extinguished the fire with the assistance of 2 destroyers.

Note there are rumors that NATO secretly has naval tracking teams in Odesa, but I've seen no proof.

They can't buff that damage out. Ouch!

I have no doubt that US surveillance satellite info is being passed to the Ukrainians in real time.

"The Russian Cruiser is in B3, B4 and B5."

You just sunk my cruiser!

I don't know which scenario is worse…
You got hit by two missiles because your missile defenses are worthless or
You took out those missiles before they hit, but somehow doing that you set your ship ablaze

Just when you thought you had gotten to terms with how bad our old scary enemy really is, they manage to keep surprising you

Wow, that's serious.

I don't think it's a matter of our old enemy being bad, but they've allowed their military to degrade considerably.

You got hit by two missiles because your missile defenses are worthless…

And the Moskva was supposed to be the air-defense ship.

Perhaps its defenses were degraded due to the ongoing storm?

Australian news reports Moskva sending distress signals, crew might not be evacuated. youtu.be/c-BRW9Y2bhY

Russia appearantly claims that Moskva was not seriously damaged. The crew jumped overboard. If I was an admiral I would prefer that my ship was hit bad and sunk rather than almost not damaged at all and the crew jump overboard and swims alway…

There is a claim that she had 600 marines on board and that most of the them and the crew has perished.

Ukrainians claim the Moskva overturned and 'began to sink'; the Russians claim they are towing it to port.

Latest, but hard to verify:

Frederik Van Lokeren
@KaptainLOMA
Moskva is reportedly not sunk but it looks she is heavily damaged and unable to move under her own power.
The vessel is under tow, most likely towards Sevastopol. Hopefully we see some pictures of her when she enters port.

If both missiles hit there would be serious damage but missiles have some trouble sinking ships as the integrity of the hull is seldom breached. For a ship to sink water must enter and missiles rarely damage the hull that way. The ship might be lost due to fire but it wont sink. Kind of like the xarriers at Midway, burning hulks but still afloat.

I hope she sinks. Regardless she is most likely a total loss. I do trust CNN, a US admiral have access to good intel.

If she does not make it to some harbour, there is only so long that the Russian ministry of defense can keep on inventing imaginative excuses for the delays before they would need to admit the loss.

There is certainly a fair bit of symbolic value here. Not only is she the flagship of the Black Sea fleet, but she is also named after Moscow (Moskva), the capital city. And the symbolic value goes even further up if she really got hit by Ukrainian-made missiles.

Not sure how much practical effect this has, since IIRC so far the Black Sea fleet has not been too active (other than launching cruise missiles), though feel free to correct if I have missed something. So far, they have for example not attempted amphibious operations against Odessa – and this event probably does not make them any more willing to try.

I think a more interesting question is was the Moskva just cruising around by herself? In war you think the ship would be part of a SAG (Surface Action Group), so where were the outer defenses, coordinated air defense, etc.? It looks like Amateur Hour on the high seas.

I will wait until all of Moscow sinks into misery.
It has already begun below its mediocrity, kept afloat only by its pomposity.

"The great Carthage waged three wars. It was still powerful after the first, still habitable after the second. It was untraceable after the third."

Russian warships do not sink, they are converted into stationary submarines.

I think a more interesting question is was the Moskva just cruising around by herself? In war you think the ship would be part of a SAG (Surface Action Group), so where were the outer defenses, coordinated air defense, etc.?

Especially considering that it was a flagship, which is sort of expected to lead a naval group… and the Black Sea fleet is presumably still able to command a number of vessels.

Presuming that Moskva does not get promoted to a submarine (satellite images of the area will probably be monitored rather closely), it probably will not be in a condition to lead any 9th of May naval parades this year… though the Ukrainian postal office might honour her with another stamp at some point.

It looks like Amateur Hour on the high seas.

Perhaps nobody bothered to figure out whether the Ukrainians have anti-shipping missiles, never mind how far they would be able to reach. Apparently the Ukrainians claim 280 kilometer maximum range, which would cover fair bit of Black Sea between Odessa and Sevastopol.

And on the other hand, if you bring fewer AA missiles on board, you will be able fit in more bottles of vodka. All that salty sea air can make man mightily thirsty…

Perhaps nobody bothered to figure out whether the Ukrainians have anti-shipping missiles, never mind how far they would be able to reach…

Her triple-tiered air defenses should have been able to cope with two missiles, right? Weather may have been a factor. She was also reportedly following a pattern, therefore predictable, and uses the same dock in harbor every time.

It was thought Moskva was providing air defense to the fleet, as well as being the command ship. Some sources claim she carried cruise missiles, but most sources say her main armament was anti-shipping missiles.

Pentagon is reporting that the Moskva is under power and moving towards the east. No estimate of damage.

Going to be interesting to find out what hit her. The Ukrainians are claiming home developed Neptunes.
This claim could be for several reasons:

1) Morale boost of Ukrainian technology sinking the Russian Flag ship
2) It was Neptunes that actually hit the ship
3) If it was a NATO made missile, there may be reasons why they don't want that information made public. Hitting a tank with a Javelin is one thing, sinking the Moskva with a Harpoon is quite another.

I wonder whether the eventual photos of the Moskva might reveal the location of the hit and give some hint of the type of missiles used.

I have to think the Pentagon is the most reliable info source. The US has been painfully transparent about everything the Russkies have had going on. Though it is surprising they haven't shared satellite pix.

It is a bit surprising that a fire reached the ammunition and yet the ship is more than an oil slick. Mayhaps all their SSM pods were empty?

Who in their right mind is going to invest in rebuilding a 40 year old warship?

Just saw a report on Ukraine live map that other Black Sea fleet vessels have moved farther away from the shore.
I guess the further at sea, the chance of an accidental fire decreases?
:-)

The United States believes the Russian warship Moskva is still dealing with a fire and the ship is believed to have experienced significant damage, a senior U.S. defense official said on Thursday…

gCaptain: link

If the crew are evacuated, who is fighting the fire?

…It is not clear if the warship is being towed toward Sevastopol or sailing on its own, the [US] official said..

USNI: link

My take is the Russians were planning to fire a cruise missile at a school or something and instead it cooked off in the tube.

Serves them right.

My take is the Russians were planning to fire a cruise missile at a school or something and instead it cooked off in the tube.

If I understand correctly, the Moskva has only anti-shipping cruise missiles. That's why it was being used as fleet air defense, in addition to command ship.

Just heard she has sunk.

Russia's defence ministry has put out a statement to say its Moskva missile cruiser has sunk in the Black Sea off southern Ukraine.

The Guardian: link

Tass reporting that it sank while under tow in a storm. Only 54 rescued?

More likely scuttled to prevent anyone from determining the cause…

Revell came out with a new kit.

Well I hope the Ukrainians if they can do it, sink them all. Maybe we and the Brits can get those anti ship missiles to them.

Then Eventually Putin can view his fleet, from a glass bottom boat.

AND THE QUARTERBACK IS TOAST!

Seriously, though. Can any outcome of this conflict really be a Russian 'victory' at this point?

Her triple-tiered air defenses should have been able to cope with two missiles, right?

According to Wikipedia: link

Ukrainian sources reported that the attack was supported by a Bayraktar TB2 combat drone, which distracted the Russian ship's defences.

Will there be drone footage?

This is big news! The last major war in which capital warships were sunk occurred 40 years ago – in the Falklands War.

I had a feeling that after the Snake Island incident two months ago, the Ukrainians would be gunning for this "big fish", which was the flagship of the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet. There are two questions that I have, though:

1) How will this action affect the progression of the war?

2) What action, if any, will Putin take against his admirals as a result of the loss of the Moskva, which was considered the pride of the Russian Navy?

By the way, the Moskva was just over forty years old, so I guess her sinking during the conflict was an eventuality because of her apparent outdated electronics?

I do wonder if she was actually under tow when she sunk. I saw reports from the Lithuanian Defense Minister stating that it was sending out SOS and it rolled to it's side. Other reports of a Turkish oil tanker rescuing 50 sailors.

I also wonder how much US Intel was provided in assistance. While I don't think the loss will be a game changer, the Moskva's loss is huge. It's something that can't be denied by Russia, it's the loss of a physical projection of power for a tyrant and it's loss will most likely keep the fleet from getting too close to operational areas.

Saginaw, To partly tackle your two questions, here is my view.

1) How will this affect the war. There is the obvious pride and morale issues that impact both sides. But just looking at the land strike capabilities of the Black Sea Fleet: The main surface combatants are the Moskva, 2 Krivak Class (1 of which is in maintenance) and three Krivak IVs. After this they are down to much smaller ships of various Grisha Class, Tarantuls and the like.
I heard one military commentator say that the loss of the Moskva reduced their surface strike capability by a third.
But this is not the whole story. They also lost some defense capabilities. This will make the remaining fleet less willing to close on the shore. They don't want the same fate as the Moskva. While the Krivak IVs on paper are a very capable frigate, they are only that. They are not cruisers. I suspect that the surface attack capabilities have been reduced by a combination of the loss of the Moskva and loss of confidence. Who knows how much this means but a 70-80% loss would be my uneducated guess.

2) As for the Admiral. My guess is that loosing a flag ship is not a career enhancing move in any navy. One thing that I was really surprised by is that Admiral Igor Vladimirovich Osipov never really had command of a ship, he was assistant commander of a Grisha Class corvette. He then seemed to jump to commanding small flotillas. This surprised me a bit and I looked at various US Fleet commanders. Most of them seemed to have Destroyer, Cruiser, SSN, Carriers and other such commands on their resume. Choosing Fleet commanders is not something that I am experienced in, but I was a little surprised by the lack of command of a significant naval vessel.

How will this action affect the progression of the war?

Almost certainly means no landings at Odesa. Keeps the Russian fleet far offshore. Diminishes the anti-missile/anti-air protection for the fleet.

I heard one military commentator say that the loss of the Moskva reduced their surface strike capability by a third.

But the Moskva had no land-attack missiles, only anti-shipping cruise missiles, as I understand it. It's value was as a command ship and as air protection for the fleet.

I guess her sinking during the conflict was an eventuality because of her apparent outdated electronics?

Moskva had just come out of refitting. Interesting claim that the Ukrainians used a Turkish drone to distract the air defenses.

Russians are claiming the crew was saved; I have doubts. And were Russian marines embarked, as some claim?

"Her triple-tiered air defenses should have been able to cope with two missiles,"

Do we know for sure that only two missiles were fired at it? Could have been 4, or 6 or 8, and only two got through. Just a thought.

Was the ship on battlestation? Was all systems activated? Was the operators paying attention? Or were they caught napping with defensive systems turned off?

Or most likely, are the crew incompetent and unskilled?

"The Moskva was the only ship in the fleet which had long-range air defences on board," said Sidharth Kaushal, a sea power expert at the Royal United Services Institute.

While one [Russian] TV talk show host didn't speculate on Ukraine's claims that it had struck the ship, a clearly emotional studio guest – film director and ex-MP Vladimir Bortko – said the fate of the Moskva was grounds for war.

BBC: link

Did it have nukes on board?

Long-range aid defenses are mostly useless against low flying SSMs like the Harpoon.

I find it hard to believe that some believed the Russian fairy tale version of her cause of her sinking.

The ship should have been part of a SAG but, the Russians seem to be incompetent.

Yes, there was probably nukes on the ship.

I heard one military commentator say that the loss of the Moskva reduced their surface strike capability by a third.
But the Moskva had no land-attack missiles, only anti-shipping cruise missiles, as I understand it. It's value was as a command ship and as air protection for the fleet.

She must have had some surface to surface capability because the Institute for War Studies reported that she was primarily used to launch cruise missiles at Ukrainians airfields and logistics centers. And schools.