Russian Guided Missile Cruiser Moskva “Sleeps With The Fishes”

The Russian navy isn't the only one with potential vulnerabilities :

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sinking-r...163928574.html Originally Posted by JohnnyGleet

Shit we'd be lucky to at least lose our vessels to missiles... instead ours tend to burn at the pier or get run into by merchant ships because we've got a bunch of female drivers at the helm.

The Russian navy isn't the only one with potential vulnerabilities :

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sinking-r...163928574.html Originally Posted by JohnnyGleet

Capital Ship technology took a sudden turn at the beginning of WW-2 and soon after.

True “Capital Ships” were true BB’s, that being they were designed to absorb as much punishment as they could dish out. This meant it’s armor protection could, in theory, withstand hits from the same caliber and weight shells that it’s guns had, with a reasonable expectation of getting home.

This was Defensive Armor.

It worked until the Aicraft Carrier and it’s aircraft, capable of carrying armor piercing bombs, came on the scene.

The sinking of the British Battlrships Duke of York and Prince of Wales by Japanese planes was a huge wake up call.

Of course, those two ships had very little in the way of adequate anti-aircraft armament.

Later in the war, Battleships, , as well as most other surface vessels, literally became floating anti-aircraft platforms and the tide actually turned against the Japanese, as witnessed in “Yhe Great Mirrianas Turkyshoot”., where US warships shot just about every attacking Japanese plane out f the sky.

There are very few missiles that could put a true Battleship out of commision. It simply cannot penetrate to the vitals.

But todays warships have just about no armor. The depend on shooting down what ever is trying to get to you before it gets there. If it does get there, you are in for a bad day.

This works because of the evolution of armament. No one builds ships with 16 inch or larger Guns and 14 inches of armor anymore. You depend on some very sophisticated weaponry to literally put a wall of lead between you and what’s coming at you.

I was listening to Fox News this morning, and they heat referring to that Russian ship as a “Battleship” The term Battleship is describing a very specific type of Naval Vessel that is not a Destroyer, not a Frigate, not a Light Cruiser, not a Heavy Cruiser, or even a “Battle Cruiser” such as the HMS Hood.

A good, if not the best example was in The Battle of Denmark Straight where the British Battleships Rodney and King George V caught up to the then crippled German Battleship Bismarck and pounded it into a smoking hulk until it finally sand.

But to this day, many believe that all of that punishment might have put her out of commission, but in truth, the crew finally opened the sea chests and scuttled her.

The Russian navy isn't the only one with potential vulnerabilities :

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sinking-r...163928574.html Originally Posted by JohnnyGleet

i read that article too, it mainly talks about a lack of spare parts, it doesn't really address or compare anti-ship missile defense systems between US and Russian ships.



Russian ships don't have as sophisticated Radar to compare with the Aegis combat system of the Burke class destroyer. seems like the Navy has no active duty frigates with a new class in planning for 2026.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleig...lass_destroyer


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...erry-class_FFG


it turns out the Nimitz class carriers never had a lot of electrical power to spare. rather surprising this was not addressed over the long build of this class. this is why new systems for weapons like laser and railguns would be too power intensive without new electrical generators.



the Ford class was designed for far greater electrical capacity to support new advanced weapons platforms and current new electromagnetic launch systems and elevators for weapons.



the Ford took longer to build and to become combat operational due to issues with these new systems.


video of the russian ship ..






short history of US carriers

The Japanese found out that Aviation Gasoline burns beautifully. Originally Posted by Jackie S

AvGas was the bane to both navies.

...
the Ford class was designed for far greater electrical capacity to support new advanced weapons platforms and current new electromagnetic launch systems and elevators for weapons.



the Ford took longer to build and to become combat operational due to issues with these new systems.

... Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

That's a great bit of info.
I've been real interested in the chemical laser that they put on an airplay to study the intercepting of intercontinental ballistic missles. Idk what kind of energy requirements would satisfy that with electricity.
And the rail guns are awesome. Imagine firing that with less of a flash and lord knows how many times the speed to get to target.


And an example of the beating a BB hull armour takes:

AvGas was the bane to both navies.



That's a great bit of info.
I've been real interested in the chemical laser that they put on an airplay to study the intercepting of intercontinental ballistic missles. Idk what kind of energy requirements would satisfy that with electricity.
And the rail guns are awesome. Imagine firing that with less of a flash and lord knows how many times the speed to get to target.


And an example of the beating a BB hull armour takes:

Originally Posted by Precious_b

in theory they can get enough power in a converted airliner for a laser capable of intercepting ICBM's and ship based missiles.









probably not any first class seats in this airliner. but the pilot and gunner have one hell of a view!



the more interesting item is laser pods for fighters. i wonder what range they have? and its instant hit too. speed of light and all that. even russkie hyper-sonic weapons are crawling like a VW running on two cylinders compared to a instant on laser.

in theory they can get enough power in a converted airliner for a laser capable of intercepting ICBM's and ship based missiles.









probably not any first class seats in this airliner. but the pilot and gunner have one hell of a view!



the more interesting item is laser pods for fighters. i wonder what range they have? and its instant hit too. speed of light and all that. even russkie hyper-sonic weapons are crawling like a VW running on two cylinders compared to a instant on laser. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

This was the proof of concept.
That aerial laser platform was developed for ICBMs. The neatest thing about it was that it shot a secondary laser to determine atmospheric abborations (sp) and would be able to set the primary laser for the tightest beam on the target. It would have to lase for a few moments to ignite the fuel supply of the rocket and explode.

The mockup they used in the video doesn't seem to be able to bear out the concept of the original. But it is for a much shorter distance than YAL.

AvGas was the bane to both navies.



That's a great bit of info.
I've been real interested in the chemical laser that they put on an airplay to study the intercepting of intercontinental ballistic missles. Idk what kind of energy requirements would satisfy that with electricity.
And the rail guns are awesome. Imagine firing that with less of a flash and lord knows how many times the speed to get to target. Originally Posted by Precious_b

its awesome, but rail guns has problems. it wears down lining too fast in the barrel of the rail gun.

This was the proof of concept.
That aerial laser platform was developed for ICBMs. The neatest thing about it was that it shot a secondary laser to determine atmospheric abborations (sp) and would be able to set the primary laser for the tightest beam on the target. It would have to lase for a few moments to ignite the fuel supply of the rocket and explode.

The mockup they used in the video doesn't seem to be able to bear out the concept of the original. But it is for a much shorter distance than YAL. Originally Posted by Precious_b

even lasers has problems. USAF was going to go with chemical lasers aircraft but discovered that it cannot penetrate cloudy weather.

its awesome, but rail guns has problems. it wears down lining too fast in the barrel of the rail gun. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

BB guns only last a few hundred rounds before it has to be addressed. Ima sure that sleeves are used. Be nice if they can be addressed without having to return to port.

even lasers has problems. USAF was going to go with chemical lasers aircraft but discovered that it cannot penetrate cloudy weather. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Figured they'd stay above the clouds. And also the use of the focusing laser to adjust the big one. But I haven't kept up since they stopped using the YAL. Obviously a great concept seeing others are taking note of it.

Neptunes, the MOSKVA, and How Not to Sink a Cruiser.
By Anthony Cowden
April 19, 2022

The United States is now confirming that the Ukrainians did indeed fire Neptune anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) which led to the sinking of the Russian cruiser MOSKVA, flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.[i]

A careful analysis of the engagement would indicate that the Ukrainians did not shoot enough missiles and that the defensive capability of the MOSKVA was flawed. The purpose of this article is to lay out that analysis.

In conducting this analysis, we will employ the Salvo Equations, developed by the late Captain Wayne Hughes and discussed in detail in Fighting the Fleet: Operational Art and Modern Fleet Combat.[ii] With the Salvo Equations, Captain Hughes…

…showed how modern naval combat follows a salvo model: opponents apply a pulse of combat power to each other in an instantaneous salvo exchange. A salvo exchange is an interaction of offensive combat power (e.g., mines, torpedoes, bombs, or missiles) and defensive combat power (e.g., surface-to-air missiles [SAMs], jamming, chaff, decoys). Combat power remaining from these interactions is applied against a target’s staying power (the number of hits of a particular weapon that a target can withstand and still be useful for combat purposes).[iii]

The Salvo Equations are presented here for reference and are discussed in great detail in Chapter 1 and Appendix A of Fighting the Fleet:



where:



In a normal usage of the Salvo Equations, we would run the equations for both sides in the engagement, representing two (or more) ships firing ASCMs at each other. In this case, we only need to run the equations for the MOSKVA since the Ukrainians fired from a platform that cannot be sunk (i.e., the land).

Using the Salvo Equations is fairly straightforward. Parameters and assumptions associated with this analysis include the following:[iv]

• All ship and weapon system characteristics were derived from UNCLASSIFIED sources (i.e., Wikipedia).
• “Force A” is represented by the MOSKVA[v]

• MOSKVA is equipped with the SA-N-6 surface-to-air missile, which has the ability to shoot down ASCMs.[vi]
• MOSKVA is equipped with AK-630M close-in weapon system (CIWS), which has the ability to shoot down ASCMs.[vii]
• MOSKVA is equipped with the Rum Tub and Side Globe electronic warfare (EW) system and two PK-2 DL chaff and flare launchers, all of which are assumed to have some capability to defeat ASCMs.

• “Force B” is represented by the two Ukrainian Neptune ASCMs.[viii]
• All ASCMs are assumed to be "well-aimed".
• There were no other vessels in the target areas, such that ASCMs did not accidentally strike other vessels instead of the intended target.
• In terms of a3 (the number of well-aimed missiles that could be destroyed by the MOSKVA):

• The MOSKVA’s Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) system could defeat two (2) incoming ASCMs.
• The MOSKVA’s passive and non-kinetic defensive systems (decoys, jamming, etc.) could defeat two (2) incoming ASCMs.
• The MOSKVA’s CIWS could defeat two (2) incoming ASCMs.

• It takes five (5) Neptune ASCMs to put the MOSKVA out of action (a1) (although it could take substantially fewer missiles to damage the MOSKVA).

This last assumption is based on the Cube Root Rule and requires further explanation. In research conducted on steel-hulled ships in combat,…

…the amount of thousand-pound bomb equivalents (TPBEs) of high explosive required to put a ship out of action, on average, was roughly proportional to the cube root of one-thousandth of a ship’s tonnage.[ix]

According to Wikipedia, the warhead on the Neptune ASCM weighs 150 kilograms or 330 lbs. Assuming that 330 lbs of modern explosive is equivalent to 500 lbs of high explosive, and given that the Cube Root rule suggest that it would take 2,320 lbs of HE to put Moskva out of action[x], then it should take 4.64 Neptune ASCMs to put MOSKVA out of action. Rounding up – after all, one can't shoot .64 missiles - it should require five (5) Neptune ASCMs to ensure MOSKVA is put out of action.[xi]

Based on the assumptions outlined above, the Salvo Equation for this engagement between two Ukrainian Neptune ASCMs and the Russian cruiser MOSKVA can be run ahead of time to analyze the engagement. It should be noted here that the Salvo Equations are not predictive in nature – one should not employ them in an attempt to predict what will happen – they are best used to understand the nature of a missile exchange and the considerations involved, not to predict combat outcomes. In any event, this running of the salvo equation is depicted in Figure 1:

Figure 1. Engagement Salvo Equation Results

In this case, we assumed that the Ukrainians fired 11 ASCMs to ensure they would overcome the expected ability of the MOSKVA to defeat six (6) incoming ASCMs. The result indicates that the MOSKVA should be put out of action, but with no margin for error: if the MOSKVA destroyed or defeated more missiles, or if some missiles missed or acquired another target, they would not inflict the expected damage to the MOSKVA, so in reality, the Ukrainians might want to fire more than 11 missiles.

What we believe actually happened, however, is that the Ukrainians fired two (2) Neptune ASCMs, the MOSKVA did not destroy or defeat either of them, both missiles hit the MOSKVA, and the MOSKVA suffered severe damage that eventually led it to sink.[xii] The actual Salvo Equation, then is depicted in Figure 2:

Figure 2. Salvo Equation Results for the Actual Engagement

This analysis shows that the MOSKVA, while likely to be severely damaged, should not have been sunk. And, in fact, MOSKVA did not sink immediately. However, it does suggest that possibly MOSKVA's damage control (DC) efforts to combat the sustained damage were not all they could have been. However, ship design plays a significant part in the ability of a given ship to sustain damage. For example, MOSKVA's main armament, 16 large P-500 Bazalt or P-1000 Vulcan ASCMs, were housed in 16 large missile tubes, taking up much of the exposed deck space of the MOSKVA. Should a missile hit one or more of these launchers, it is presumed that it might cause a significant secondary fire or explosion, causing even more damage than an incoming missile might cause.

In summary, then – and again, the reader is urged to take the Salvo Equations for a spin using their own assumptions – it is fair to say that the Ukrainians probably should have shot more missiles, the MOSKVA should have destroyed or defeated more missiles, and that MOSKVA’s DC efforts or ship design to sustain damage could have used improvement.

Anthony Cowden is the Managing Director of Stari Consulting Services and co-author of Fighting the Fleet: Operational Art and Modern Fleet Combat, all royalties for which go to the Navy/Marine Corps Relief Society.

Notes:

[i] Current open-source reporting does not confirm how many missiles were fired, how many missiles might have been destroyed or decoyed by the MOSKVA, or how many missiles hit the MOSKVA, but we will assume the answers are two (2) missiles fired, none defeated/destroyed, and two (2) hit.

[ii] The assumptions presented here are just that – assumptions. The reader is invited – nay, urged! - to come up with their own assumptions and take the Salvo Equations for a spin themselves!

[iii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva

[iv] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_...S-300F_(SA-N-6)

[v] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-630

[vi] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-360_Neptune

[vii] https://www.usni.org/press/books/fighting-fleet, p. 23

[viii] MOSKVA displaced 12,490 tons, a thousandth of which is 12.49, the cube root of which is 2.3201.

[ix] Of course, “stuff” happens in combat, and as we have seen, it is possible that significantly fewer ASCMs could put MOSKVA out of action. That is part of "combat entropy," also discussed in Fighting the Fleet, Chapter 1.

[x] https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian...ms-11650043527

[xi] Cares, Jeffrey R. and Anthony Cowden, Fighting the Fleet: Operational Art and Modern Fleet Combat. Annapolis: US Naval Institute, 2021. https://www.usni.org/press/books/fighting-fleet

[xii] https://www.usni.org/press/books/fighting-fleet, p. 16

Does that equation factor in screw ups by the crew?
I.e. like leaving the powder doors on the British ships at Jutland?

Does that equation factor in screw ups by the crew?
I.e. like leaving the powder doors on the British ships at Jutland? Originally Posted by Precious_b

To quote Admiral Beady…….”Three seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships”

The major ships sunk were the new “Battle Cruisers” that sacrificed armor for speed.

But you are correct. The crew was responsible for the blast getting to the powder magazines. Big mistake.

HMS Hood, really a Battle Cruiser, was sunk by a salvo from Bismarck that just happen to hit in the poorly armored deck and into the powder magazines.

All of the US battleships from the “Treaty Ships” to the Iowa class had substantial deck armor protection,

Given the age, the Moskow probably had an aluminum superstructure. We changed that after the Stark's superstructure started to burn. You think we would have learned our lesson after the Belknap but naval architecture takes time.

To quote Admiral Beady…….”Three seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships”

The major ships sunk were the new “Battle Cruisers” that sacrificed armor for speed.

But you are correct. The crew was responsible for the blast getting to the powder magazines. Big mistake.

HMS Hood, really a Battle Cruiser, was sunk by a salvo from Bismarck that just happen to hit in the poorly armored deck and into the powder magazines.

All of the US battleships from the “Treaty Ships” to the Iowa class had substantial deck armor protection, Originally Posted by Jackie S

Guess that means "nah" to factoring into the equation.