This "Thing" was made in the Ukraine !!!!!!!! In the 1980s. I guess a couple of Billion Rubles that went to CZAR Putin and his Buddies should have build Newer Ships, Etc.
Back in the early and mid 1980's my job in the US Navy was to be familiar with many ship and airborne radars. It was amazing to hear the NATO names of these radars still in use on this ship 40 nearly years later. From what I remember, some were not very good back then, and apparently still not very good.
Apparently you did not watch the video. It was not radar issue. It was issue with air defences that cannot engage flying targets below 20 meters. So if you have sea skimming missile flying 5 meters above sea level Moskva defences could not engage it.
@@kvarnerinfoTV I watched of course. All missiles are detectable low level as long as a surface based propagation duct is present. Remove the ducting under certain atmospheric conditions and all missiles are undetectable. A CIWS type weapon would be able to remove this incoming missile as long as ducting was present. Any ship that states it is unable to defend itself against inbound missiles at low level is lying. I still stand that the radar didn't detect the incoming, because they are crappy or the was a sub-refractive atmospheric condition present. Or both.
I love how the russian cover story is "it was an ammunition fire that sunk the ship" Imagine being in the middle of a war, and having ammunition handling so bad that it sinks the flagship of an entire fleet. That's as much an admission of failure as anything else, and in some ways would be even MORE embarrassing than the reality that it was slapped silly by Ukrainian advanced Anti Ship Missile. At least in the anti-ship missile route you can tell your country that it was the evil Ukrainian Nazi's who sunk your prideful ship NAMED AFTER YOUR CAPITAL. It seems the old soviet moniker "Never learn from failure" is hard at work even today in modern Russia.
The Russians didn’t lie. From all sources I saw, the fire that swept through the ship started in the midships magazine for the AK-630 mounts. So it was an ammunition fire…. Sure the ammunition caught fire due to the sudden impact of an anti ship missile but an ammunition fire is still an ammunition fire regardless of what starts it 😂
I think back to the falklands and just wonder how nuts it would of been if we just blamed the crew for the sinking of those ships. How is that better for anyone? Death throes of an authoritarian regime?
@@speed150mph I doubt it was primarily from the explosive warhead, but a breach opening the magazine to the burning jet fuel left over from the missile - plus the damaged external missiles.
Perhaps, this is the new Russian propaganda machine? Just a normal practice exercise, Comrade. See great attention we give to old film clips of the crew. They all look that way now …. but they are now in stealth mode.
@@janicmeier1 We don’t know that they did that. It could be that there is a crack in the radar coverage-right above the surface. It could be that four Neptunes were launched and two were lost to ocean swells, because they were cutting it so close. I also wonder if there was a single drone harassing the Moskva, and I also wonder if there were drones that had been harassing the ship over a period of days. You could send out all sorts of cheaper drones, unarmed, to fly in and out of range until the radar operators became used to them. Radar operators could get in trouble for wasting expensive missiles on non-threatening targets. Suddenly, two bogies appear, close by and moving fast. You hadn’t been paying much attention to them because earlier radar hits were inconsistent. Now it’s too late . . . I think Russia has an Unmanned Naval Vessel, submarine launched and capable of carrying a nuke. The big threat is that it could enter a harbor of a port city. The weakness there is that city-destroying nukes can be detected by their radioactivity. I imagine (but don’t know) that USN ships have finer grained detection capabilities that could protect a carrier task force, but who knows? Maybe the navy of the future will include fishing boats!
@@christianmagno984 No, I don't support any political group . I do care about the suffering of individual humans. You sound brainwashed. Stop watching the news.
I agree that the TB2 didn’t make the radar blind to all other threats. It did much more importantly saturate the crews tasks and their commanders’ attention. With the command structure being top down only, and training and equipment knowledge and reliability being suspect, the sinking becomes much more likely.
Fire control for S-300 covers only 180 degrees, so if you maneuver Slava to provide radar coverage to the dreaded Bayraktar, then you blind the other half of the battle space to attack by anything else, Neptunes included.
Add in that the Neptune is not a high altitude missile. Being sea skimming it flies literally below the radar's sight. As he says there was only about a 3 second window of opportunity to react. If anyone even noticed it.
@@kenibnanak5554 Those three seconds is more than enough for a ship with automated defences activated to obliterate more than one missile. The only logical conclusion is that Russia does not have those.
A single slow moving target saturated the crews abilities? If true that's pretty pathetic. Apparently the radar could only see 180 degrees. I guess they thought there wasn't a chance of something like this happening. Ukraine was probably waiting intentionally to put them in a false sense of security.
@Hatemode_NJ from listening to discussions from former navy veterans there were multiple redundant radars, that together would have given full 360 coverage. Bayraktar drones have been surprisingly hard to target and multiple drones may have been used as well. We know that at least 1 was used we will know more later. Professionalism among Russian forces has degraded significantly since 1990 and there have been reports of subpar training across the services, so lack of familiarity with the equipment was also a factor. With the command structure The Russians have 1 or 2 task could saturate the crew
@@ChessNoobX Ah! But it's a feel-good assessment, no? So, I'm happy with it. And we'll also just happily wait for mmmatharussia to build bigger and better war...I mean, 'special military operations' ships to litter the black sea. Or, they could just convert their oligarchs' luxury yachts into mean fighting machines - that'd be awesome!...or maybe let them start building the armata tanks in large numbers first to replace the indestructible t728090s lost in ukraine.
@@robert506007Kinda like one of those bollywood movies where the gravely wounded hero is just steps from home but couldn't quite make it back no matter how hard he tries, and just dies there inches from where he was born...still manages to blurt out a song tho.🐊😢
@@Jaime7000 they're not focused on the radar when it reach 50th day, they thought there's no threat since Ukraine air defense and air force were destroyed. Neptune Just like bastion were mobile coastal defense battery with fire and forget capability.
@@Jaime7000 True, but there are often things like helicopters flying between ships, possibly doing ASW, or moving supplies around. They may also have had their own drone in the air. Who knows?
@@Jaime7000 Our phalanx CIWS accidentally shot one of our ships in one of the gulf wars . nobody was hurt but CIWS are unfortunately turned off most of the time because there is crap effort at putting IFF technology in them .
Moskva appeared to have been operating in a repeating fashion based on information presented in media (so far). Ship was providing anti air screen for the task force and given her unique radar suite it would have been possible to track the ship using direction finding (DF). With a known location, the Ukrainian forces could have launched the Neptune missiles down a bearing with radar set to come on as it crossed the radar horizon of the ship. At that point it would be up to the ships self defense systems to work as designed. PS - Ship may have sunk from progressive flooding or Russian military might have made decision to let ship sink offshore rather then letting it sink at dock. Who needs a 45 year old burned out hull in your harbor reminding population about your failures. PS2 - Neptune missile was based on Russian 30+ year old tech KH35 cruise missile with upgrades PS3 - Wonder if cruiser had automatic chaff launchers?
I enjoyed reading your PSs …. Don’t give the Russians too much credit, they aren’t that smart. I’m not saying they’re dummies, but they do have a habit of killing off their smartest people, and given all the corruption in everything that they do, we can be sure that the remainder of the cream does not necessarily rise to the top. Being I am an electrical engineer, not necessarily a electronic warfare type, but I’m familiar with some of the systems, and you can sniff right through chaff buy a variety of simple electronic techniques. Trust me! This has been done for decades.
Q: Neptune missile was based on Russian 30+ year old tech KH35 cruise missile... A: Muscovites are not Russians, not speaking of the USSR citizens. KH35 was build in the Ukrainian SSR, exactly why the blueprints are survived. Just to not draw the airframe from scratch, but everything inside is brand new.
Not completely accurate: the Neptune is inspired by both the Soviet knockoff Kh-35 and American RGM-84 to create the second Ukrainian built model. PS: If Russian propaganda is more accurate than Ukraine claiming to have sunk the same flagship in February and April, then perhaps automatic defenses were successful again??? Then while both sides were celebrating, an accidental explosion cracked open an atomic warhead, towing the radioactive ship into deeper water and blaming a storm when scuttling the evidence of their incompetence!!! 🤣
@@betterdonotanswer the Kh-35 itself was based on GM-84 of the United States... 1977 was the birth of missiles that looked like this, although internals have completely changed.
Q: Ukraine claiming to have sunk the same flagship in February and April... A: Ukraine never claimed anything like that, although the Moskva cruiser was used for blackmailing every Ukrainian government for over three decades.
I was on a US east coast base when a damaged Polaris motor high ordered 1/4 of the way into a disposal burn 3,000 pounds of Nitrocellulose based propellant makes one hell of a big bang. 16 going off in sequence is horrifying. Like a string of super crackers.
Ukraine does own the unfinished Slava class cruiser which means they would have a reasonable approximation of hull construction and integrity of the Slava class. Which could be used to exploit weaknesses.
@@johnscott7210 This is true, in fact the Ukraine was the heartland of Soviet Era weapons design and manufacturing. It was the Ukraine that made the USSR strong, and without them Russia is nothing.
Maybe so, but that assumes the missile has the ability to target a particular area of the ship rather than aiming for the centre of the radar signature. Honestly if I could direct the missile to any part of the ship I'd probably have aimed it for the Vulkan missiles on the bow, the secondary explosions from that may have torn the Moskva in half.
There was also a P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft from NAS Sigonella in Sicily over the Black Sea at the time. It took up station off the Romanian coast, where it went "dark" for roughly three hours, before switching it's IFF back on for it's return to base. That probably wasn't just a coincedence. I guarantee they were providing the Ukrainians with position updates on the Moskva.
Thank you for the interesting & informative video. I have seen it reported that a major radar on the Moskva was not 360° scan, because it was a phase array with 180° virtual sweep. It could of course be rotated, but is it not plausible that it might have been aimed at the drone for the brief period required for missile approach?
There are 3 main radars we must take into account, the MR710 and MR800, on the front 2 masts, both are mechanically rotated air surveillance radars, there is no provision to stop them and 'point' them at a target. The newer MR750 (front mast, two square panes back to back, look kind of crooked) has been installed on the modernized Slavas, the Varyag I think, this is a phased array and doesn't rotate. Now, the Volna/Top Dome S300F fire control director (huge bell shaped thing on the stern), this does have to 'point' at a target, as it provides target illumination/missile guidance. It is conceivable this would have been slewed at the Bayraktar, and not being pointed at the incoming Neptunes. BUT, as I said, both the S300f and the OSA-M have minimum engagement altitudes of +20m, so in any case neither of the missile based systems could have protected from the sea-skimming Neptune. The only chance the ship had was the AK630 CIWS, which I speculate was not in its active/auto mode, it would have had less than 3s engagement time, and its radar would have still had to have dealt with the difficult task of discriminating sea clutter and getting a good lock on the ASMs, a tall order.
@@forfun5238 Oh I see. I guess that is certainly possible if you can calculate the flight time and aim at the point where the ship will be at that point. Like old school gunnery. Or if two missiles were used one with the seeker active and one not to confuse the defensive system?
Two missiles have been launched (both hit), Ukraine does not yet have that many to waste. The way they even formulated it - "we went wild (implying not trying to save) and used 2 missiles to be sure at least one hits" (anticipating one could be shot down by close range defenses). Admiral Essen was also hit by Neptune reportedly, but that was in a separate strike, a while ago, and it only got damaged, plus, it seems the missiles haven't been properly tuned yet at that point (some even implied sabotage in a guidance block), so it kinda served as a test launch..
"Moskva" a a third russian flagship to be sunk. The first one was "Petropavlovsk" which hit a mine near Port Arthur and the second was "Knyaz Suvorov" which sank in the battle of Tsushima.
The only Russian battleship of the Borodino class to survive the Russo-Japanese War was the Slava. Ironically enough, the original name of the Moskva was Slava.
Another Moskva was one of six Leningrad-class destroyers built for the Soviet Navy during the 1930s, one of the three Project 1 variants. Completed in 1938 and assigned to the Black Sea Fleet, she participated in the Raid on Constanta on 26 June 1941, a few days after the beginning of the German invasion of the Soviet Union. After the ship had finished bombarding targets in the port, she was sunk by a mine.
They used Snake Island as cover. If you look at the most southerly point of Ukraine it's right where Snake Island is. If they launched from the coast, sea skimmed up to the Island, popped over then dropped down into terminal phase the Moskva would have had seconds to react. Odessa would have been too far for a successful launch.
@@timk.3286 It's genius because the Russians figured their rear was secured and they didn't cover the Island or the land behind it. This why you never bring capital ships close into shore without throughly securing that coastline first.
@@tonyyates2012 Is snake island big enough so they use it as cover to hide detection? I mean the height of the highest point and the avg height of the island?
Does that ship have watertight compartments? Grim Reaper interview two men, one who had been serving on a US frigate. If I heard him right, he visited the Moskva, and he said there were no such compartments. It was mentioned that the Soviet Navy went for quantity over quality, and skipped the expenses of compartments.
It has neither waterproof compartments nor fireproofing between bulkheads. In the pic of the sinking you can see smoke damage from the portholes almost to the stern. Fire gutted the insides.
Search radars cover 360 degrees, but tracking radars work more like flashlights. The S300 tracking radar uses a phased array and a servo system to point the antenna towards the target(s). The scope dopes on the S300 could easily be distracted by a more illuminated target.
Great video! I forgot that the SA-10 Grumble and OSA have a minimum engagement altitude as all SAMs do. The US Navy had similar problems with their CIWS in Desert Storm. A British destroyer fired countermeasures because they thought they had an incomimg missile and the Battleship Missouri's CIWS was in auto mode. The guns fired on the British destroyer!
I believe in that incident, it was not the Missouri who Friendly fire the British ship, but rather another US escort ship.. During a convoy, Missouri was targeted by 1 or 2 AShM (I believe ot was Silkworm Missile or Exocet), and its CIWS was unable to shoot at the target due to radar interference from multiple nearby ships that are packed together in the convoy. It launched it's flares and chaff, evaded the missile, then HMS Gloucester managed to hit it down with AA Missile.. Unfortunately after that, a nearby US Ship Phalanx CIWS still picked up the remains of the missile as a threat, then proceed to shoot at it, which crossfire with another British ship... I think nobody was injured in this incident.
@@X.Y.Z.07 Ha Ha, I remember Sea Cat well from the my time in the RAN. Complete piece of junk. The director had to be pushed around by hand.😁 I think the Pommys had Sea Dart? as well by then. The Sea Cat used to pump its hydraulic oil overboard in flight. You only got a couple of manoeuvrers out of it before it ran dry. 😁
It’s interesting and I bet there are a lot of naval strategists trying to figure out what happened . The use of the drone . How come CIWS didn’t click in . Very informative video . Put together very well . Thank you
We can't be sure the if the CIWS was on automatic, deciding to turn it on could have only had left seconds for one missile... Knowing much the Kremlin loves propaganda, we may never learn the truth. Perhaps while both sides were celebrating, a sailor cracked open an atomic warhead and had to scuttle in deeper water to hide evidence of their incompetence? 🤣
The main armament of anti-ship missiles has the warhead and an initial solid rocket booster, but the motor on the P-500 and P-1000 is liquid fueled. The persistent fire was likely from the dispersal of that fuel after the strike.
I can't believe the Russians use liquid missiles on their naval vessels still?! The US perfected solid fuel missiles decades ago. The liquid fueled kind are so dangerous, especially in a submarine, no US navy ship has liquid fueled missiles onboard. That Russia still uses them is a sign of how backwards their naval tech still is and how constrained by costs they really are today. The Russians should not be surprised in the least that it finally came back to bite their collective butts, and cost them a billion dollar warship that was sunk with relative ease! The US Navy would mop the floor with any Russian fleet and that's probably one of the reasons they've never seriously challenged America at sea. Russian military power is same as it ever was, while it is a force to be reckoned with on land, the seas and the skies still belong to the US.
@ Robert Maybeth Well, to be fair, so do we. Any of our ships that carry Tomahawks are the same. They have a solid booster from the vertical launcher and a turbofan engine that uses liquid fuel. The difference is the size of the Russian P-1000 and its vulnerable placement of the launch tubes.
Missile doesn't actually have to sneak, a sea skimming attack profile is VERY hard to detect, its why it was used. The curve of the earth gets in the way of detecting the missile via radar. So when it DOES appear, if it can even be seen (it's relatively small, smaller than your average IRB), it will be for a VERY short time. The video mentions 3 seconds reaction time. If you aren't on top alert or have an active defensive net (which was suggested in the video) then there is basically no way for any human to react that fast and the ship is, more or less, toast. What this does represent though is an opportunity for other navies to learn by example, having greater situational awareness is key to detecting ship skimming missiles. Its possible, though unlikely, that a look down radar from an early warning aircraft may have detected the missile launch/transit. This would give any naval group much more warning and potentially have saved this ship. We'll see if anyone learns from that.
@@pinkyfull a tethered radar a thousand feet above the ship would have over the horizon detection but the US uses awacs or e3c aircraft for over the horizon protection. The sea state at the time of the attack was also likely a factor as there were supposedly 30 ft waves. It was also suggested the the island was used as cover for the approach. I was just giving the simple answer.
This is Captain Joe Blow at the Pentagon. Am I speaking to General Natalia? We are tracking a large ship and we are very sure it is the Moskva. Its heading is...Its speed is... its location is...and the closest ship to it is 90 kilometers. Have a great day.
Pretty sure that was the basis for starting such operation - launching few , maybe half of these precious operational Neptune rockets, maybe there not more than few other left
All that radar and no one picked up the neptunes or reacted to shoot them down. I’m wondering if the ukes know of electronic flaws in the ship since they built it.
The Moskva’s own “carrier Killer” missiles that adorn the front half of the ship were it’s own undoing. Just like several Imperial Japanese Navy cruisers of similar size that had liquid oxygen tanks with 1000 pound warheads strapped to their decks in the form of Long Lance torpedoes. Didn’t take a heavy hit to set off devastating secondaries.
A lot of people seems to be saying "dumb Russians" oput their un-armoured missiles on the open decks. (I'm not suggesting the OP here is saying that). But I think those people are forgetting that many NATO/Western vessels are similarly vulnerable. With things like the MK141 Harpoon cannister, MK32 AWS torpedo tubes, deck mounted Exocet which all typially sit on the open decks and are in use in many NATO/Western navies. VLS tubes in the hull at least have some protection from fragment, whereas deck mounted weapons cannisters appear very vulnerable. The only mitigating factor for the Western missiles/torpedos is that they are erelatively weak - slow, short ranged - i.e. less fuel - and small warheads. That said they are still big enough to be a massive risk and damage mulitplier if they are hit. To be fair with the size of the Russian ASu missiles there are not a lof of options for mounting other than deck mounting on anything but the largest of platforms and armouring them would need a LOT of armour. Deck mounted systems are a calculated risk - in this instance it did not work out. I suspect we'd be lamenting a very different risk if we saw the same Russian ASu missiles launched in their intended role.
@@jasont2610 as a side note: in my naval career, we learned that those missiles packed on open deck in individual launch canisters were not supposed to be a great risk multiplier, but the warheads itself were inherent safe and the propellants were solid material, both very difficult to ignite just by a nearby ignition and heat source. And eventually, a missile could be jettisoned if the Situation developed in an unwanted way. But this Was more than 10 years ago. I feel sorry for every sailor drowned or burned in the sinking, on the other hand I feel some relief that this Slava "beast" was sent to the bottom.
All I know from my time in the US Navy is that Rain and Radar don't mix, doubly so in rough seas. I can't talk specific ranges but if the weather is bad enough it becomes EXTREMELY plausible that a naval ships defense systems can be compromised to a frightening degree. I think its something of a guarded secret in the Navy just how suck our radar systems are in bad weather. I think our theory is "well if its hard for us to see them it must be hard for them to see us as well" and while this is correct, I suspect it wouldn't take much to GPS in a missile into the general location of an enemy ship and let its search systems take over.
Yes, reportedly even US Poseidon aircraft over the black sea provided accurate positioning data of the ship. Waves would be a problem too if the missiles fly flow and it would create radar clutter. And it's remarkable they did a simulation "grim reapers" of this strike and once it was done in bad weather the missiles to defend weren't even firing from Moskva anymore. But I'm sure modern US ships with Aegis are much better equiped against these kind of threats, also cuz these would be in a formation where one destroyer would/could protect one another. this moskva was supposed to protect the region & their whole fleet.
I picked this up months after the event but still found it very interesting. I did not understand the tech language about radar systems but that is fine. I need to do additional research. Good to understand each munition system has its own radar so now i understand why military ships have so many different systems.
To me the obvious flaw of this type of warship is all of the offensive missiles are on top of the main deck. Why put high explosive very close next to each with no protection from any type of shell or anti ship missile in such a venerable position.
These ships were designed to be first strike ships against us carriers. By time a counter strike would hit it all the anti ship missiles would have been fired, leaving the AA missiles to defend itself.
@@craigplatel813 Absolutely correct. Also the robust SAM suite was to help the ship survive US Navy air attacks long enough to get within range of the SS-N-12 Sandbox missiles.
All blocks of RGM-84 are surface use, but launchers on land are usually based on naval components. Although, air launched is preferred since there's no standard truck to import with a complete system... the most used Danish truck was retired in 2003 and I don't know anything about a British replacement.
If the Gekco system on the ship is the same as the land based version, the Electronics is almost all Valve driven and the guidance computer is electro-mechanical!!! There were a few Transistors for Op amps in the guidance computer, but most of the electronics in the fire control system used sub miniature Valves.
Translated We know weak area Slava . We use 2 Neptune missile, these skimmer missile. One hit Moskva sd launcher which catch fire. Other missile blow hole in Hull. No fire control help in the situation, too much damage done. We use S400 Sam launcher mti for Neptune launch. Andreas Ukraine Militia 🇺🇦
I saw something saying these ships were designed with few watertight bulkheads basically making it a giant canoe that allowed water/fire to spread with little way of stopping it.
The Neptune missiles are subsonic. What plausible slower threat should a ship’s defense systems be designed for? The Neptune is bigger and slower than an Exocet. If a defense system can’t be bothered to respond to targets this easy then they might as well remove the defense system and throw it away to save weight.
@@NoahSpurrier you did not watch the video. Neptune is sea skimming missile, flying just above sea level, Russian air defences could not engage targets below 20 meters.
I spotted a UK claim that it probably did, and if an atomic warhead was cracked open in the explosion it would make more sense they didn't put more effort into saving the popular Soviet artifact.
Moskva is packed with 'Radar antenna, rocket launcher, cannon, gun, missile tube', it is no doubt a really big cruiser with impressive display of armament. Somehow by becoming a deep-water submarine, it had denied us the pleasure of viewing its formidable weaponry now. 🤭🤭
Very good Analysis. However, I would to add that the TB2 drone theory is feasible due to the fact the the TB2 has the ability and had demonstrated in more than one war theatre its ability to evade and blind Russian air defense systems. Hence, the TB2 creating a havoc on the Moskova Radar screens and distracting the crews is VERY realistic
Oh my goodness does this mean that guided missiles have made ships obsolete?? No, no it doesn't. Just like missiles haven't made tanks obsolete. Good video
Actually those tubes you say were loaded with anti ship missiles can, and were also used for cruise missiles for land attack and that indeed is what the moskva was being used for as there were no ship threats. They used the ship for land attack not just in Ukraine now but in 2014 as well. It was also used in syria and against Georgia and other firmer russian states during the many invasions of putrid putin.
When I first saw the Moskva, I thought that the U.S Navy should arm its ships like it, but due to the recent sinking of the Moskva, I retract the claim. The Moskva is one good example of a ship that is formidable when you see it, but is not that good when you analyze it deeper.
It designed for an entirely different purpose. Russian ships in general are missile trucks. The Moskva was designed to launch its compliment of huge missiles and then run away. It was never designed to have a battle with US fleets. The idea is that the missiles are so large and long ranged that the possibility of them being hit was fairly low. The US navy has much different needs when it comes to its ship design.
Basically the entire russian army ;) but this was still a well-defended ship, ofc so many factors play a role in this, maybe untrained or not standby, so many things that could've led or were part of why the ship failed to defend itself, with even different layers of defense. I'm sure the see-skimming is an important role and ukraine played it smart. I wonder how much more of russian navy they're gonna hit. russia now uses their submarine to launch attacks lol, out of fear i guess to get striked again.
Exactly I’m the latest pictures the bow is completely blown off! It’s being discussed that this was the latest Harpoon anti ship missles which has 1000lb warhead.
Bigger ships were sunk in the falklands war. Argentina's Belgrano and the UK's HMS Sheffield were both bigger I believe than the Moskva. The Sheffield slightly bigger, the Belgrano about half again as big as the Moskva. The lesson is that fighting a nation with anti-ship missiles is a level difference in difficulty compared to a nation without them. The exocet used by Argentina is still in production although it has been upgraded.
Sheffield was far lighter at over 4,000+ tons, a guided missile destroyer. Gen Belgrano was 12,242 tons fully loaded. As old as Moscow was she had a massive ship killing punch against convoys or fleets. 64 VLS tubes with long range SAMs provided a long reach from the ship against enemy air. Flagship of the Black Sea fleet as well Moscow in its heyday was a powerful cruiser.
@@stevepirie8130 Sheffield was 9100 tons. Fully loaded it was 11350 tons, 180 m length. Belgrano was 9,575 tons, 12,242 full load. 185.4 meters. The Moskva was 9,380 tons, 11,490 full load. 186.4 meters in length. So the Moskva was marginally bigger than the Sheffield and smaller than the Belgrano.
A ship in port is like an airplane on air field. It is useless because it is not on the sea operating. Just like during Pear Harbor attack, ships in the port are sitting targets.
One thing not discussed s that Russian damage control is not up to western standards, meaning that only specific people are trained in damage control. Plus the overall condition of the Russian navy is not really that high. I've heard an American sailor saying he felt "sorry" for the Russian sailors because of the condition of Russian navy, As well, Russian ships do not have the ability to separate stored ammunition essentially making this a powder keg just waiting to be lit. But, when have Russian ships ever been considered formidable?
The British couldn't defend in the Falklands and took losses This war has taught us how fragile some of these dodads are. This must be one of the first large wars with equal technology in recent times Not bombing towels in the sand....
In terms of defending itself I’d say it’s up for debate. In terms of damage control or being sunk? I think a US ship would of still been floating. Mission killed but still floating.
@@sniperfi4532 A U.S. ship would never have been designed with unprotected launchers connected to the ammo supply...same problem storing ammo next to the auto-loaders with no blow-out panels in Putin's tanks. Their military designs confirms Russian leaders don't care much about their assets. To Putin and the Russian elite it's a numbers game.
@@sniperfi4532 the us navy has a great and long reputation for great damage control and for ships tough enough to be savable.(cause we can afford to build it) In stormy seas the call might still have been made to let a struck ship sink
Thank you for the high quality update of the Moskva Also the reactions on the available radar equipment explains a lot and is recognognisible for an old Royal Navy salty dog.
I loved the whole video, except for the section on the frigate launching the missile at the byractar (sp?) because the volume of the clip made it impossible for me to hear what Gadget Engineering was saying. You need to reduce the background noise of the clip so if you can edit and repost that would be helpful. If you can't edit and repost, then make sure the narration is not being drowned out by the background noise from the clips you use. I am puzzled how that even got through the final review of the video. If you don't do a final pass on the whole video, please consider it.
The Russian Moskva Warship was just a "Coffee Ship" used for transporting coffee. Upgraded with screen doors. It's now a new tourist attraction for the fishes.
Well done, i was specifically looking for videos on this, and this is one of the best I've seen, especially considering how quickly you got it out. Thanks and cheers :)
One asepect not covered - the air search radar will scan a wedge, it's not a phased array - if it's pointing up looking for a drone it may not be able ot look for sealevel threats as well. Similarly I believe there was bad weather and rain which may have degraded its higher frequency close in radar. It also demonstrates that Ukraine has the capability to hit ships approaching its coast which is relevant to the amphibious threat. Also worth mentioning is the seamanship and skill of the Turkish and Roumaninan ships that rescued the sailors from the water at 3am in poor weather which would have been horrendous - naval warfare is very unforgiving. This is probably the largest single casualty event the Russians have taken. Harpoons can be land (or at least coastally) launched they just haven't been in a similar way to the exocets launched in the Falklands were.
There is no proof that foreign ships were involved. They would have taken footage of the rescue. Where is it? The short video is from the russian tugboats
Half of the Officers and men of the Mockba were probably drunk at the time and many of those not actively drunk on duty were sneaking some hair of the dog while nursing sailor grade hangovers. Big problem for the Russian Navy.
"Minute... Men... Women... Kids... Elders..." Neighborhood incident management... Comprehensive contingencies management... "Mustering" to resolve crucial issues... Thusly... Basic human survival... You're on the right path... To bring "civil defense" back on line... In a 21st century context... Our secondary manual backup system... Outstanding!
Check out my new video going into a damage assessment of the strike, using the newly released images: ua-cam.com/video/tgM4tAvnlL4/v-deo.html
This "Thing" was made in the Ukraine !!!!!!!! In the 1980s. I guess a couple of Billion Rubles that went to CZAR Putin and his Buddies should have build Newer Ships, Etc.
I'd say if the Iranians got their hands on that missile technology then no American military vessel would want to be touring in the Persian gulf.
@@FoundingUA-camr-2005 so what you're saying is that the missiles on the Moscova should have protected the vessel from this attack?
Well put together informative video:-) I have exclusive underwater footage;-D
@@FoundingUA-camr-2005 is it really necessary to be that rude?
Russian ships have moved further south where accidental fires don't happen as much.
Don't mock the Mockba
@@jazldazl9193
It was there destiny.Orded.They earned it.Ido sleep a bit better now.
@@pekkaansa3734 :)
Want to like but there is 69 likes (nice)
Very accurate asessment
Back in the early and mid 1980's my job in the US Navy was to be familiar with many ship and airborne radars. It was amazing to hear the NATO names of these radars still in use on this ship 40 nearly years later. From what I remember, some were not very good back then, and apparently still not very good.
Apparently you did not watch the video. It was not radar issue. It was issue with air defences that cannot engage flying targets below 20 meters. So if you have sea skimming missile flying 5 meters above sea level Moskva defences could not engage it.
@@kvarnerinfoTV I watched of course. All missiles are detectable low level as long as a surface based propagation duct is present. Remove the ducting under certain atmospheric conditions and all missiles are undetectable. A CIWS type weapon would be able to remove this incoming missile as long as ducting was present.
Any ship that states it is unable to defend itself against inbound missiles at low level is lying. I still stand that the radar didn't detect the incoming, because they are crappy or the was a sub-refractive atmospheric condition present. Or both.
@@billpeterson178 I think they detected them, just could not engage them because they were under 20 meters.
ua-cam.com/video/keAw3NE1E8w/v-deo.html
they do upgrades when their equipment
That was good work. It's called "Target Fixation" when you focus on one threat.....and miss the other one sneaking up on you.
And, just in the nick of time, too!
A trick so ancient that it even predates the existence of humanity. Pack hunter animals do this as well.
I love how the russian cover story is "it was an ammunition fire that sunk the ship"
Imagine being in the middle of a war, and having ammunition handling so bad that it sinks the flagship of an entire fleet.
That's as much an admission of failure as anything else, and in some ways would be even MORE embarrassing than the reality that it was slapped silly by Ukrainian advanced Anti Ship Missile.
At least in the anti-ship missile route you can tell your country that it was the evil Ukrainian Nazi's who sunk your prideful ship NAMED AFTER YOUR CAPITAL.
It seems the old soviet moniker "Never learn from failure" is hard at work even today in modern Russia.
The Russians are heroes for saving another ship from Ukrainian missiles. Keep up the good work
The Russians didn’t lie. From all sources I saw, the fire that swept through the ship started in the midships magazine for the AK-630 mounts. So it was an ammunition fire…. Sure the ammunition caught fire due to the sudden impact of an anti ship missile but an ammunition fire is still an ammunition fire regardless of what starts it 😂
I think back to the falklands and just wonder how nuts it would of been if we just blamed the crew for the sinking of those ships. How is that better for anyone? Death throes of an authoritarian regime?
Shame you know fuck all about what you are talking about. Half the world has given Ukraine arms and it is still being beaten.
@@speed150mph I doubt it was primarily from the explosive warhead, but a breach opening the magazine to the burning jet fuel left over from the missile - plus the damaged external missiles.
I love how you slide memes in between the serious stuff. Very informative, great work!
Thanks, I try my best :)
Yup. Especially love the sinking ship stamp image. 🤣
Thanks. It is always nice have the technical side explained so that a realistic picture can be seen.
This ship was already reconfigured to include it's latest stealth mode. They just set it into the submersible mode configuration for stealth OPPS
Perhaps, this is the new Russian propaganda machine? Just a normal practice exercise, Comrade. See great attention we give to old film clips of the crew. They all look that way now …. but they are now in stealth mode.
Obviously the Moscava was made in China.
For what you need a air defence cruiser if you shut down every air defence system makes no sence
@Muskeln-kaufen.de monkey
@@janicmeier1 We don’t know that they did that. It could be that there is a crack in the radar coverage-right above the surface. It could be that four Neptunes were launched and two were lost to ocean swells, because they were cutting it so close. I also wonder if there was a single drone harassing the Moskva, and I also wonder if there were drones that had been harassing the ship over a period of days. You could send out all sorts of cheaper drones, unarmed, to fly in and out of range until the radar operators became used to them. Radar operators could get in trouble for wasting expensive missiles on non-threatening targets. Suddenly, two bogies appear, close by and moving fast. You hadn’t been paying much attention to them because earlier radar hits were inconsistent. Now it’s too late . . .
I think Russia has an Unmanned Naval Vessel, submarine launched and capable of carrying a nuke. The big threat is that it could enter a harbor of a port city. The weakness there is that city-destroying nukes can be detected by their radioactivity. I imagine (but don’t know) that USN ships have finer grained detection capabilities that could protect a carrier task force, but who knows? Maybe the navy of the future will include fishing boats!
Very interesting and thorough discussion of many aspects I had not considered.. thank you..
Congratulations, I think this is your biggest video yet.
Very informative, even if I didn't understand all of it.
Was very surprised by the quality of this considering it's not a military focused channel. Got my sub.
You support nazis/marxists! God bless Russia!
@@christianmagno984 No, I don't support any political group . I do care about the suffering of individual humans. You sound brainwashed. Stop watching the news.
I agree that the TB2 didn’t make the radar blind to all other threats. It did much more importantly saturate the crews tasks and their commanders’ attention. With the command structure being top down only, and training and equipment knowledge and reliability being suspect, the sinking becomes much more likely.
Fire control for S-300 covers only 180 degrees, so if you maneuver Slava to provide radar coverage to the dreaded Bayraktar, then you blind the other half of the battle space to attack by anything else, Neptunes included.
Add in that the Neptune is not a high altitude missile. Being sea skimming it flies literally below the radar's sight. As he says there was only about a 3 second window of opportunity to react. If anyone even noticed it.
@@kenibnanak5554 Those three seconds is more than enough for a ship with automated defences activated to obliterate more than one missile. The only logical conclusion is that Russia does not have those.
A single slow moving target saturated the crews abilities? If true that's pretty pathetic. Apparently the radar could only see 180 degrees. I guess they thought there wasn't a chance of something like this happening. Ukraine was probably waiting intentionally to put them in a false sense of security.
@Hatemode_NJ from listening to discussions from former navy veterans there were multiple redundant radars, that together would have given full 360 coverage. Bayraktar drones have been surprisingly hard to target and multiple drones may have been used as well. We know that at least 1 was used we will know more later. Professionalism among Russian forces has degraded significantly since 1990 and there have been reports of subpar training across the services, so lack of familiarity with the equipment was also a factor. With the command structure The Russians have 1 or 2 task could saturate the crew
What really happened was that the heroic Moskva destroyed two cruise missiles fired by the Ukrainian aggressor using it's own hull.
Putin invades Ukraine and you are saying that Ukraine is the aggressor?
HA!
Good one Sir!
Must have learned that from the British 🤣🤣🤣
And they are heroes for doing so. Eventually the Ukrainians will run out of missiles. Go Putin lol
The most important thing is that Russia cannot build such ship anymore. That's because the ship was wholly built in Ukraine! Imagine the irony...
Wrong assessment...Russia has the capability to build more...but they very old designs so won't make much sense building this old model.
@@ChessNoobX Ah! But it's a feel-good assessment, no? So, I'm happy with it. And we'll also just happily wait for mmmatharussia to build bigger and better war...I mean, 'special military operations' ships to litter the black sea. Or, they could just convert their oligarchs' luxury yachts into mean fighting machines - that'd be awesome!...or maybe let them start building the armata tanks in large numbers first to replace the indestructible t728090s lost in ukraine.
Oddly enough she wasn't that far from her build yard in the Ukraine either probably a days travel for her.
@@robert506007Kinda like one of those bollywood movies where the gravely wounded hero is just steps from home but couldn't quite make it back no matter how hard he tries, and just dies there inches from where he was born...still manages to blurt out a song tho.🐊😢
Ukraine: we brought you into the world and we took you out. Never listened... lol🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🤭🤭🤣😹😹😊😅😃😂😁😆😄🙂☺️😸
Same as the US CWIS system, the AK630s only work if they're turned on. They are often turned off if friendly air assets are possible in the area.
Friendly? There is a war on
@@Jaime7000 they're not focused on the radar when it reach 50th day, they thought there's no threat since Ukraine air defense and air force were destroyed.
Neptune Just like bastion were mobile coastal defense battery with fire and forget capability.
@@haqqizillysozo The Ukraine airforce is still operational. Most likely Moskva was hit just due to poor leadership, maintenance and or procedures.
@@Jaime7000 True, but there are often things like helicopters flying between ships, possibly doing ASW, or moving supplies around. They may also have had their own drone in the air. Who knows?
@@Jaime7000
Our phalanx CIWS accidentally shot one of our ships in one of the gulf wars . nobody was hurt but CIWS are unfortunately turned off most of the time because there is crap effort at putting IFF technology in them .
Moskva appeared to have been operating in a repeating fashion based on information presented in media (so far). Ship was providing anti air screen for the task force and given her unique radar suite it would have been possible to track the ship using direction finding (DF). With a known location, the Ukrainian forces could have launched the Neptune missiles down a bearing with radar set to come on as it crossed the radar horizon of the ship. At that point it would be up to the ships self defense systems to work as designed.
PS - Ship may have sunk from progressive flooding or Russian military might have made decision to let ship sink offshore rather then letting it sink at dock. Who needs a 45 year old burned out hull in your harbor reminding population about your failures.
PS2 - Neptune missile was based on Russian 30+ year old tech KH35 cruise missile with upgrades
PS3 - Wonder if cruiser had automatic chaff launchers?
I enjoyed reading your PSs …. Don’t give the Russians too much credit, they aren’t that smart. I’m not saying they’re dummies, but they do have a habit of killing off their smartest people, and given all the corruption in everything that they do, we can be sure that the remainder of the cream does not necessarily rise to the top. Being I am an electrical engineer, not necessarily a electronic warfare type, but I’m familiar with some of the systems, and you can sniff right through chaff buy a variety of simple electronic techniques. Trust me! This has been done for decades.
Q: Neptune missile was based on Russian 30+ year old tech KH35 cruise missile...
A: Muscovites are not Russians, not speaking of the USSR citizens. KH35 was build in the Ukrainian SSR, exactly why the blueprints are survived. Just to not draw the airframe from scratch, but everything inside is brand new.
Not completely accurate: the Neptune is inspired by both the Soviet knockoff Kh-35 and American RGM-84 to create the second Ukrainian built model.
PS: If Russian propaganda is more accurate than Ukraine claiming to have sunk the same flagship in February and April, then perhaps automatic defenses were successful again??? Then while both sides were celebrating, an accidental explosion cracked open an atomic warhead, towing the radioactive ship into deeper water and blaming a storm when scuttling the evidence of their incompetence!!! 🤣
@@betterdonotanswer the Kh-35 itself was based on GM-84 of the United States... 1977 was the birth of missiles that looked like this, although internals have completely changed.
Q: Ukraine claiming to have sunk the same flagship in February and April...
A: Ukraine never claimed anything like that, although the Moskva cruiser was used for blackmailing every Ukrainian government for over three decades.
BY FAR the best perspective and assessment of this engagement I have seen or heard to date. Thank-you and Job Well Done!
Absolutely EXCELLENT video! Very detailed and thorough. Some great original work here. Well done, thank you.
I was on a US east coast base when a damaged Polaris motor high ordered 1/4 of the way into a disposal burn 3,000 pounds of Nitrocellulose based propellant makes one hell of a big bang. 16 going off in sequence is horrifying. Like a string of super crackers.
Those p500/p1000 was massive which contains so much fuel and big warhead.
Subsequently I believe most of crew perished ignominiously
I thought a "super cracker" was a trump rally goer ....
Ukraine does own the unfinished Slava class cruiser which means they would have a reasonable approximation of hull construction and integrity of the Slava class. Which could be used to exploit weaknesses.
Not like the Ukrainians built that ship in the 1st place or anything... /s
@@Awsimilate built or not by them they still had it
@@Awsimilate but they did :), I think all the Slava class was built in what is current day Ukraine :)
@@johnscott7210 This is true, in fact the Ukraine was the heartland of Soviet Era weapons design and manufacturing. It was the Ukraine that made the USSR strong, and without them Russia is nothing.
Maybe so, but that assumes the missile has the ability to target a particular area of the ship rather than aiming for the centre of the radar signature.
Honestly if I could direct the missile to any part of the ship I'd probably have aimed it for the Vulkan missiles on the bow, the secondary explosions from that may have torn the Moskva in half.
I really enjoyed this very informative video, and I really like your speaking-style, you've gained another sub!
There was also a P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft from NAS Sigonella in Sicily over the Black Sea at the time. It took up station off the Romanian coast, where it went "dark" for roughly three hours, before switching it's IFF back on for it's return to base. That probably wasn't just a coincedence. I guarantee they were providing the Ukrainians with position updates on the Moskva.
Thank you for the interesting & informative video.
I have seen it reported that a major radar on the Moskva was not 360° scan, because it was a phase array with 180° virtual sweep. It could of course be rotated, but is it not plausible that it might have been aimed at the drone for the brief period required for missile approach?
There are 3 main radars we must take into account, the MR710 and MR800, on the front 2 masts, both are mechanically rotated air surveillance radars, there is no provision to stop them and 'point' them at a target. The newer MR750 (front mast, two square panes back to back, look kind of crooked) has been installed on the modernized Slavas, the Varyag I think, this is a phased array and doesn't rotate. Now, the Volna/Top Dome S300F fire control director (huge bell shaped thing on the stern), this does have to 'point' at a target, as it provides target illumination/missile guidance. It is conceivable this would have been slewed at the Bayraktar, and not being pointed at the incoming Neptunes. BUT, as I said, both the S300f and the OSA-M have minimum engagement altitudes of +20m, so in any case neither of the missile based systems could have protected from the sea-skimming Neptune. The only chance the ship had was the AK630 CIWS, which I speculate was not in its active/auto mode, it would have had less than 3s engagement time, and its radar would have still had to have dealt with the difficult task of discriminating sea clutter and getting a good lock on the ASMs, a tall order.
@@GadgetEngineering When neptune switches on its active seeker, u know the ESM onboard moskva should've detected it. or the TB-2 story must be fake.
@@forfun5238 Detecting it doesn’t always mean defending against or killing it.
@@steveturner3999 Yes i understand, but im thinking about possibility if they can hit with out switching on seeker
@@forfun5238 Oh I see. I guess that is certainly possible if you can calculate the flight time and aim at the point where the ship will be at that point. Like old school gunnery. Or if two missiles were used one with the seeker active and one not to confuse the defensive system?
Two missiles have been launched (both hit), Ukraine does not yet have that many to waste. The way they even formulated it - "we went wild (implying not trying to save) and used 2 missiles to be sure at least one hits" (anticipating one could be shot down by close range defenses). Admiral Essen was also hit by Neptune reportedly, but that was in a separate strike, a while ago, and it only got damaged, plus, it seems the missiles haven't been properly tuned yet at that point (some even implied sabotage in a guidance block), so it kinda served as a test launch..
I have no knowledge of engineering but your explanation is understandable is comprehensive and sounds accurate
"Moskva" a a third russian flagship to be sunk. The first one was "Petropavlovsk" which hit a mine near Port Arthur and the second was "Knyaz Suvorov" which sank in the battle of Tsushima.
Happy to hear that russia continues this glorious tradition XD
A Russian heavy cruiser that was flagship of the Black Sea Fleet was sunk in WW2 by the Germans.
The only Russian battleship of the Borodino class to survive the Russo-Japanese War was the Slava. Ironically enough, the original name of the Moskva was Slava.
It’s only $750,000,000 per pop
Another Moskva was one of six Leningrad-class destroyers built for the Soviet Navy during the 1930s, one of the three Project 1 variants. Completed in 1938 and assigned to the Black Sea Fleet, she participated in the Raid on Constanta on 26 June 1941, a few days after the beginning of the German invasion of the Soviet Union. After the ship had finished bombarding targets in the port, she was sunk by a mine.
The tractor meme was priceless. Another war trophy.
I imagine that 16 tons of Hi explosive warheads (p1000 vulcans) sitting on top of their deck didn’t help matters
Kudos to the missile crews.
Thank you for a detailed and thorough assessment of of this situation.👍
good video am impressed with such good basic information - best info Ive sen so far
They used Snake Island as cover.
If you look at the most southerly point of Ukraine it's right where Snake Island is.
If they launched from the coast, sea skimmed up to the Island, popped over then dropped down into terminal phase the Moskva would have had seconds to react.
Odessa would have been too far for a successful launch.
thats exactly what i was just thinking, they will say from Odessa anyway, just to mask that they were doing operation from Snake island
gotta admit though, that WAS one bad ass ship.
@@timk.3286 It's genius because the Russians figured their rear was secured and they didn't cover the Island or the land behind it.
This why you never bring capital ships close into shore without throughly securing that coastline first.
@@timk.3286 Bad ass on paper, floating tinderbox in reality.
@@tonyyates2012 Is snake island big enough so they use it as cover to hide detection? I mean the height of the highest point and the avg height of the island?
The vessel has not sunk. It has just gone on a special underwater operation 🤣
...it identifies as a submarine now!
@@patgould2586 👍😁
Dullard.
Amazing quality investigation! Subbed
Really an awesome presentation. Wish you could do more videos! I will watch.
Does that ship have watertight compartments? Grim Reaper interview two men, one who had been serving on a US frigate. If I heard him right, he visited the Moskva, and he said there were no such compartments. It was mentioned that the Soviet Navy went for quantity over quality, and skipped the expenses of compartments.
It has neither waterproof compartments nor fireproofing between bulkheads. In the pic of the sinking you can see smoke damage from the portholes almost to the stern. Fire gutted the insides.
It definitely had compartments. The bulkheads are standards on all ships. They provide riidity to the ull. Finally it is not big expense.
If that is true, then these ships are death traps for the crew in a war.
Search radars cover 360 degrees, but tracking radars work more like flashlights. The S300 tracking radar uses a phased array and a servo system to point the antenna towards the target(s). The scope dopes on the S300 could easily be distracted by a more illuminated target.
Great video! I forgot that the SA-10 Grumble and OSA have a minimum engagement altitude as all SAMs do. The US Navy had similar problems with their CIWS in Desert Storm. A British destroyer fired countermeasures because they thought they had an incomimg missile and the Battleship Missouri's CIWS was in auto mode. The guns fired on the British destroyer!
I believe in that incident, it was not the Missouri who Friendly fire the British ship, but rather another US escort ship..
During a convoy, Missouri was targeted by 1 or 2 AShM (I believe ot was Silkworm Missile or Exocet), and its CIWS was unable to shoot at the target due to radar interference from multiple nearby ships that are packed together in the convoy.
It launched it's flares and chaff, evaded the missile, then HMS Gloucester managed to hit it down with AA Missile..
Unfortunately after that, a nearby US Ship Phalanx CIWS still picked up the remains of the missile as a threat, then proceed to shoot at it, which crossfire with another British ship...
I think nobody was injured in this incident.
@@X.Y.Z.07 Same problem in the Falklands war. The British ships were wiping each others radar which enabled the Exocets to get through.
@@bossdog1480 didn't the Royal Navy relied only on Sea Cat Semi Active guided missile for its AA back then?
@@X.Y.Z.07 The RN also had Sea Dart and Sea Wolf missile systems during the Falklands war.
@@X.Y.Z.07 Ha Ha, I remember Sea Cat well from the my time in the RAN. Complete piece of junk. The director had to be pushed around by hand.😁
I think the Pommys had Sea Dart? as well by then.
The Sea Cat used to pump its hydraulic oil overboard in flight. You only got a couple of manoeuvrers out of it before it ran dry. 😁
Love the photo Memes. Your report was spot on and well thought out good job.
It’s interesting and I bet there are a lot of naval strategists trying to figure out what happened . The use of the drone . How come CIWS didn’t click in . Very informative video . Put together very well . Thank you
Well CIWS are mostly just depedent on chance, they are not as reliable they get 3-2 seconds to fire on the missile
We can't be sure the if the CIWS was on automatic, deciding to turn it on could have only had left seconds for one missile... Knowing much the Kremlin loves propaganda, we may never learn the truth.
Perhaps while both sides were celebrating, a sailor cracked open an atomic warhead and had to scuttle in deeper water to hide evidence of their incompetence? 🤣
The main armament of anti-ship missiles has the warhead and an initial solid rocket booster, but the motor on the P-500 and P-1000 is liquid fueled. The persistent fire was likely from the dispersal of that fuel after the strike.
Yes...lesson Learned from HMS Sheffield and exocet in the Atlantic sea 1982
I can't believe the Russians use liquid missiles on their naval vessels still?! The US perfected solid fuel missiles decades ago. The liquid fueled kind are so dangerous, especially in a submarine, no US navy ship has liquid fueled missiles onboard. That Russia still uses them is a sign of how backwards their naval tech still is and how constrained by costs they really are today. The Russians should not be surprised in the least that it finally came back to bite their collective butts, and cost them a billion dollar warship that was sunk with relative ease! The US Navy would mop the floor with any Russian fleet and that's probably one of the reasons they've never seriously challenged America at sea. Russian military power is same as it ever was, while it is a force to be reckoned with on land, the seas and the skies still belong to the US.
@ Robert Maybeth
Well, to be fair, so do we. Any of our ships that carry Tomahawks are the same. They have a solid booster from the vertical launcher and a turbofan engine that uses liquid fuel. The difference is the size of the Russian P-1000 and its vulnerable placement of the launch tubes.
Short explanation: Ukraine forces saturated the ships defenses with drones and the missiles snuck in under cover of the distractions.
They had the Russian Vodka Breathalyzer Drones. .
Missile doesn't actually have to sneak, a sea skimming attack profile is VERY hard to detect, its why it was used. The curve of the earth gets in the way of detecting the missile via radar. So when it DOES appear, if it can even be seen (it's relatively small, smaller than your average IRB), it will be for a VERY short time. The video mentions 3 seconds reaction time. If you aren't on top alert or have an active defensive net (which was suggested in the video) then there is basically no way for any human to react that fast and the ship is, more or less, toast.
What this does represent though is an opportunity for other navies to learn by example, having greater situational awareness is key to detecting ship skimming missiles. Its possible, though unlikely, that a look down radar from an early warning aircraft may have detected the missile launch/transit. This would give any naval group much more warning and potentially have saved this ship. We'll see if anyone learns from that.
@@pinkyfull a tethered radar a thousand feet above the ship would have over the horizon detection but the US uses awacs or e3c aircraft for over the horizon protection. The sea state at the time of the attack was also likely a factor as there were supposedly 30 ft waves. It was also suggested the the island was used as cover for the approach. I was just giving the simple answer.
This is Captain Joe Blow at the Pentagon. Am I speaking to General Natalia? We are tracking a large ship and we are very sure it is the Moskva. Its heading is...Its speed is... its location is...and the closest ship to it is 90 kilometers. Have a great day.
Pretty sure that was the basis for starting such operation - launching few , maybe half of these precious operational Neptune rockets, maybe there not more than few other left
@@cnaeuspompeus3188 England is sending "Harpoon" Anti Ship Missles.
All that radar and no one picked up the neptunes or reacted to shoot them down. I’m wondering if the ukes know of electronic flaws in the ship since they built it.
The Moskva’s own “carrier Killer” missiles that adorn the front half of the ship were it’s own undoing. Just like several Imperial Japanese Navy cruisers of similar size that had liquid oxygen tanks with 1000 pound warheads strapped to their decks in the form of Long Lance torpedoes. Didn’t take a heavy hit to set off devastating secondaries.
That’s my opinion too. The ordinance is very vulnerable.
@@larry648 id imagine large amounts of rocket propellant is a vulnerability... so ,for instance,a Tico's VLS is a horror story if its hit
A lot of people seems to be saying "dumb Russians" oput their un-armoured missiles on the open decks. (I'm not suggesting the OP here is saying that).
But I think those people are forgetting that many NATO/Western vessels are similarly vulnerable.
With things like the MK141 Harpoon cannister, MK32 AWS torpedo tubes, deck mounted Exocet which all typially sit on the open decks and are in use in many NATO/Western navies.
VLS tubes in the hull at least have some protection from fragment, whereas deck mounted weapons cannisters appear very vulnerable.
The only mitigating factor for the Western missiles/torpedos is that they are erelatively weak - slow, short ranged - i.e. less fuel - and small warheads. That said they are still big enough to be a massive risk and damage mulitplier if they are hit.
To be fair with the size of the Russian ASu missiles there are not a lof of options for mounting other than deck mounting on anything but the largest of platforms and armouring them would need a LOT of armour.
Deck mounted systems are a calculated risk - in this instance it did not work out.
I suspect we'd be lamenting a very different risk if we saw the same Russian ASu missiles launched in their intended role.
@@jasont2610 as a side note: in my naval career, we learned that those missiles packed on open deck in individual launch canisters were not supposed to be a great risk multiplier, but the warheads itself were inherent safe and the propellants were solid material, both very difficult to ignite just by a nearby ignition and heat source. And eventually, a missile could be jettisoned if the Situation developed in an unwanted way.
But this Was more than 10 years ago.
I feel sorry for every sailor drowned or burned in the sinking, on the other hand I feel some relief that this Slava "beast" was sent to the bottom.
this is incorrect, we seen picture of the ship damage and the damage was midship, so russia statement that their missile were intact were likely true.
All I know from my time in the US Navy is that Rain and Radar don't mix, doubly so in rough seas. I can't talk specific ranges but if the weather is bad enough it becomes EXTREMELY plausible that a naval ships defense systems can be compromised to a frightening degree. I think its something of a guarded secret in the Navy just how suck our radar systems are in bad weather.
I think our theory is "well if its hard for us to see them it must be hard for them to see us as well" and while this is correct, I suspect it wouldn't take much to GPS in a missile into the general location of an enemy ship and let its search systems take over.
Yes, reportedly even US Poseidon aircraft over the black sea provided accurate positioning data of the ship. Waves would be a problem too if the missiles fly flow and it would create radar clutter. And it's remarkable they did a simulation "grim reapers" of this strike and once it was done in bad weather the missiles to defend weren't even firing from Moskva anymore. But I'm sure modern US ships with Aegis are much better equiped against these kind of threats, also cuz these would be in a formation where one destroyer would/could protect one another. this moskva was supposed to protect the region & their whole fleet.
I picked this up months after the event but still found it very interesting. I did not understand the tech language about radar systems but that is fine. I need to do additional research.
Good to understand each munition system has its own radar so now i understand why military ships have so many different systems.
To me the obvious flaw of this type of warship is all of the offensive missiles are on top of the main deck. Why put high explosive very close next to each with no protection from any type of shell or anti ship missile in such a venerable position.
These ships were designed to be first strike ships against us carriers. By time a counter strike would hit it all the anti ship missiles would have been fired, leaving the AA missiles to defend itself.
@@craigplatel813 Absolutely correct. Also the robust SAM suite was to help the ship survive US Navy air attacks long enough to get within range of the SS-N-12 Sandbox missiles.
I have the theory that the Ukrainians build the ship the way it is with prophetic foresight.
@@Peteralleyman ukranians built nothing!!! It was built by soviet Russians!!! Wake up brainwashed 🐑!
Hooray!!!! Way to go ,Ukraine! Pity another one wasn't hit simultaneously.
I believe the block 1c harpoon has a land based version that Britian is sending, but hadn't been delivered yet.
All blocks of RGM-84 are surface use, but launchers on land are usually based on naval components. Although, air launched is preferred since there's no standard truck to import with a complete system... the most used Danish truck was retired in 2003 and I don't know anything about a British replacement.
Astonishingly comprehensive. Bravo!
If the Gekco system on the ship is the same as the land based version, the Electronics is almost all Valve driven and the guidance computer is electro-mechanical!!! There were a few Transistors for Op amps in the guidance computer, but most of the electronics in the fire control system used sub miniature Valves.
Translated
We know weak area Slava .
We use 2 Neptune missile, these skimmer missile. One hit Moskva sd launcher which catch fire. Other missile blow hole in Hull.
No fire control help in the situation, too much damage done.
We use S400 Sam launcher mti for Neptune launch.
Andreas
Ukraine Militia
🇺🇦
I'm curious to hear depth of water ship is in.
Excellent job 👏 really enjoyed your video dude
Excellent video. Well done.
I saw something saying these ships were designed with few watertight bulkheads basically making it a giant canoe that allowed water/fire to spread with little way of stopping it.
The Ukraine missile would have been moving along at about 10 miles per minute so the detection time to time of impact could have been quite short.
The Neptune missiles are subsonic. What plausible slower threat should a ship’s defense systems be designed for? The Neptune is bigger and slower than an Exocet. If a defense system can’t be bothered to respond to targets this easy then they might as well remove the defense system and throw it away to save weight.
@@NoahSpurrier you did not watch the video. Neptune is sea skimming missile, flying just above sea level, Russian air defences could not engage targets below 20 meters.
Excellent. I've watched both videos. Thank you for superb reporting on this incident. I have subscribed.
that moskva was the naval version of a suicide bomber wearing an explosive belt. The Ukrainian Navy executed the strike brilliantly
I found your presentation to be most intresting. Thank you
Any idea if the Moskva had nuclear weapons on board when it sank?
I spotted a UK claim that it probably did, and if an atomic warhead was cracked open in the explosion it would make more sense they didn't put more effort into saving the popular Soviet artifact.
Distractar … The Bayraktar just got a new verse in its song …
Moskva is packed with 'Radar antenna, rocket launcher, cannon, gun, missile tube', it is no doubt a really big cruiser with impressive display of armament. Somehow by becoming a deep-water submarine, it had denied us the pleasure of viewing its formidable weaponry now. 🤭🤭
It's not a submarine. It's a tactical reef.
Also packed with a couple Neptune missiles now
The Moskva was carrying a secret cargo of gaping holes. The holes leaked out of their containers, and got on the hull.
they are deploying the newest addition to the Great Russian Arsenal - Cruise Torpedoes! Operated by a skeleton crew of course...
@William Henry Toys on Moskva are great for fishes to play hide seek game . 😂🥰🤗
Well done: Rating is 5/5 Beaver Tails (Canadian rating system served with maple syrup)
Very good Analysis. However, I would to add that the TB2 drone theory is feasible due to the fact the the TB2 has the ability and had demonstrated in more than one war theatre its ability to evade and blind Russian air defense systems. Hence, the TB2 creating a havoc on the Moskova Radar screens and distracting the crews is VERY realistic
Oh my goodness does this mean that guided missiles have made ships obsolete?? No, no it doesn't. Just like missiles haven't made tanks obsolete. Good video
The harpoon does have a land base system called the HCDS.
It has been sent to them.
I hope we send lots of them to Taiwan
LOVE the painting at the end!
Actually those tubes you say were loaded with anti ship missiles can, and were also used for cruise missiles for land attack and that indeed is what the moskva was being used for as there were no ship threats. They used the ship for land attack not just in Ukraine now but in 2014 as well. It was also used in syria and against Georgia and other firmer russian states during the many invasions of putrid putin.
You are putrid! You are a liar! God bless Putin!
Good point.
I heard that the Bayraktar shot the ship radar antenna then they were able to fire the antiship missile Neptun.
I heard the Ukranian forces have commissioned glass-bottomed boats so they can keep an eye on the Russian Air Force...
awesome video, very informative, thanks for all the information about the strike, the ship, and the missiles, thank you
When I first saw the Moskva, I thought that the U.S Navy should arm its ships like it, but due to the recent sinking of the Moskva, I retract the claim. The Moskva is one good example of a ship that is formidable when you see it, but is not that good when you analyze it deeper.
It designed for an entirely different purpose. Russian ships in general are missile trucks. The Moskva was designed to launch its compliment of huge missiles and then run away. It was never designed to have a battle with US fleets. The idea is that the missiles are so large and long ranged that the possibility of them being hit was fairly low.
The US navy has much different needs when it comes to its ship design.
Basically the entire russian army ;) but this was still a well-defended ship, ofc so many factors play a role in this, maybe untrained or not standby, so many things that could've led or were part of why the ship failed to defend itself, with even different layers of defense. I'm sure the see-skimming is an important role and ukraine played it smart. I wonder how much more of russian navy they're gonna hit. russia now uses their submarine to launch attacks lol, out of fear i guess to get striked again.
An excellent explanation of the attack. Truly appreciate it.
The whole front end of the ship was a massive explosion waiting to happen all those missile launchers on the deck.
They didn't explode!
Exactly I’m the latest pictures the bow is completely blown off! It’s being discussed that this was the latest Harpoon anti ship missles which has 1000lb warhead.
Bigger ships were sunk in the falklands war. Argentina's Belgrano and the UK's HMS Sheffield were both bigger I believe than the Moskva. The Sheffield slightly bigger, the Belgrano about half again as big as the Moskva. The lesson is that fighting a nation with anti-ship missiles is a level difference in difficulty compared to a nation without them. The exocet used by Argentina is still in production although it has been upgraded.
Sheffield was far lighter at over 4,000+ tons, a guided missile destroyer. Gen Belgrano was 12,242 tons fully loaded. As old as Moscow was she had a massive ship killing punch against convoys or fleets. 64 VLS tubes with long range SAMs provided a long reach from the ship against enemy air. Flagship of the Black Sea fleet as well Moscow in its heyday was a powerful cruiser.
@@stevepirie8130 Sheffield was 9100 tons. Fully loaded it was 11350 tons, 180 m length. Belgrano was 9,575 tons, 12,242 full load. 185.4 meters. The Moskva was 9,380 tons, 11,490 full load. 186.4 meters in length. So the Moskva was marginally bigger than the Sheffield and smaller than the Belgrano.
A ship in port is like an airplane on air field. It is useless because it is not on the sea operating. Just like during Pear Harbor attack, ships in the port are sitting targets.
The ship was at sea, what are u talking about?
Ship was at sea.
One thing not discussed s that Russian damage control is not up to western standards, meaning that only specific people are trained in damage control. Plus the overall condition of the Russian navy is not really that high. I've heard an American sailor saying he felt "sorry" for the Russian sailors because of the condition of Russian navy,
As well, Russian ships do not have the ability to separate stored ammunition essentially making this a powder keg just waiting to be lit. But, when have Russian ships ever been considered formidable?
Great vid thanks. My question is would a similar US ship have been able to defend itself?
Good question. The age of big military assets may be coming to a close.
The British couldn't defend in the Falklands and took losses
This war has taught us how fragile some of these dodads are.
This must be one of the first large wars with equal technology in recent times
Not bombing towels in the sand....
In terms of defending itself I’d say it’s up for debate. In terms of damage control or being sunk? I think a US ship would of still been floating. Mission killed but still floating.
@@sniperfi4532 A U.S. ship would never have been designed with unprotected launchers connected to the ammo supply...same problem storing ammo next to the auto-loaders with no blow-out panels in Putin's tanks. Their military designs confirms Russian leaders don't care much about their assets. To Putin and the Russian elite it's a numbers game.
@@sniperfi4532 the us navy has a great and long reputation for great damage control and for ships tough enough to be savable.(cause we can afford to build it)
In stormy seas the call might still have been made to let a struck ship sink
Fantastic presentation!
As an ex US Navy damage control officer, that ship looked like a really bad design. All those exposed missiles! Could the entire crew have escaped?
Everyone who was evacuated survived
Not a chance. The only solid survivor numbers I've heard are 56 and only 14 (!) out of over 500.
@@lhaviland8602 Several weren't evacuated ;)
@@lhaviland8602 FAKE NEWS!
@@lhaviland8602 I just spotted a Russian propaganda video showing about 100 alleged survivors... but wouldn't surprise me if they were imposters.
Ok. Really interesting. Lots of information. But do you have a script? Because the "ahs"and "uhs" are very distracting.
Thank you for the high quality update of the Moskva
Also the reactions on the available radar equipment explains a lot and is recognognisible for an old Royal Navy salty dog.
I loved the whole video, except for the section on the frigate launching the missile at the byractar (sp?) because the volume of the clip made it impossible for me to hear what Gadget Engineering was saying. You need to reduce the background noise of the clip so if you can edit and repost that would be helpful. If you can't edit and repost, then make sure the narration is not being drowned out by the background noise from the clips you use. I am puzzled how that even got through the final review of the video. If you don't do a final pass on the whole video, please consider it.
Clear the ship had a manufactering flaw It was sensitive to ukranian untested missils.
The ship was Ukrainian shipyard built just like antonov
Ships are targets, planes are targets, tanks are targets - anything less than that is hard work and a prayer.
Very intelligent and coherent presentation.
This is pretty simple. Ship! Missiles! Explosion! Big Hole! Very Deep Water! There you go!
How far is it from ukraine to kremlin ? Could this missile get there ?
The Russian Moskva Warship was just a "Coffee Ship" used for transporting coffee. Upgraded with screen doors. It's now a new tourist attraction for the fishes.
i thought is was a top secret weapon that turned into a sub before our eyes, i was impressed,
Well done, i was specifically looking for videos on this, and this is one of the best I've seen, especially considering how quickly you got it out. Thanks and cheers :)
The Moskva was supposed to provide air defense for other ships, but it couldn’t even provide air defense for itself!
One asepect not covered - the air search radar will scan a wedge, it's not a phased array - if it's pointing up looking for a drone it may not be able ot look for sealevel threats as well. Similarly I believe there was bad weather and rain which may have degraded its higher frequency close in radar. It also demonstrates that Ukraine has the capability to hit ships approaching its coast which is relevant to the amphibious threat. Also worth mentioning is the seamanship and skill of the Turkish and Roumaninan ships that rescued the sailors from the water at 3am in poor weather which would have been horrendous - naval warfare is very unforgiving. This is probably the largest single casualty event the Russians have taken. Harpoons can be land (or at least coastally) launched they just haven't been in a similar way to the exocets launched in the Falklands were.
There is no proof that foreign ships were involved. They would have taken footage of the rescue. Where is it? The short video is from the russian tugboats
I also heard that the drone launched a missile and took out the radar on the ship but I don't know if you can see that from the pictures or not.
This ship loss is about the same shock as the stealth bomber loss over Serbia in the 90's
Spirit of Washington..
Interesting video. ☺️👍 No biasness.
Half of the Officers and men of the Mockba were probably drunk at the time and many of those not actively drunk on duty were sneaking some hair of the dog while nursing sailor grade hangovers. Big problem for the Russian Navy.
AA officer of HMS Sheffield had a coffee break during his watch...
Exactly Rich - they thought they were cruising until they tried Smirnoff Vodka 💤🤮
"Minute... Men... Women... Kids... Elders..."
Neighborhood incident management...
Comprehensive contingencies management...
"Mustering" to resolve crucial issues...
Thusly... Basic human survival...
You're on the right path...
To bring "civil defense" back on line...
In a 21st century context...
Our secondary manual backup system...
Outstanding!
In modern days ,you can not fight with an old( Lada) It is time to work for a new MW
Great video! Excellent analysis and information.