Russia/Ukraine conflict

[petit_bateau]

Also would be easy to think that these weapons will never be used, so no need to maintain them.

Nuclear weapons and their associated delivery systems are quite maintenance intensive. Especially the older ones. The maintenance is costly and requires skilled personnel at all stages. Not a comforting thought !

 

[petit_bateau]

There are many stories about high casualties from the Moskva. I have read from several places (though it might be cross contamination) that there were only something like 58 survivors. The supposed video of the survivors had a number of hints that it was an old video. Also none of the "survivors" in the video had any injuries. A warship sinks and nobody has as much as a band aid (plaster)?

But in the pictures, all the boats are gone. Somebody used those boats. There are also stories the Moskva was operating alone with no frigates or other Russian ships nearby. Any sane navy only operates their largest ships with escorts, though there have been exceptions, which is how the Indianapolis got sunk in 1945.

Western naval officers who had toured the Moskva had observed some oddities such as water bibs on deck for firefighting equipment was heavily painted to prevent corrosion to a point where it would be difficult to hook up a hose or open the valves. There are also stories that all life jackets were locked away to keep them pristine for inspections and only a few officers had the keys. In the confusion after the ship was hit the crew probably couldn't get to the life jackets.

We also know the Russians are poor at maintenance. I wonder if the ship's boats were so poorly maintained they immediately started leaking upon hitting the water and a lot of the boats sank? That's the only explanation I can think of that would square the boats being deployed and so few crew surviving. Without life jackets in water that was 40 F, they would have died of hypothermia pretty quickly.



I don't want to find out, but considering how bad Russians are at maintenance, their nuclear stock pile may not be usable. The smaller the warhead, the faster it degrades to a point where it won't go off. If their tactical nukes haven't been maintained in a while, they might just be dirty bombs at this point.

The Russians have been doing probing attacks on the Ukrainians in the Donbas to find weak points. So far they haven't found any. Their doctrine is to find a weak point, then pummel it with artillery to soften it up, and finally launch an armored attack into the breach to create an opening and following infantry secures it. Similar to WW II breakthrough warfare with a bit more artillery. The problem is they don't train to do that and would likely bollocks up the operation.

I have read that if they can't find a good weak point they might create one with a tactical nuke. It would probably be launched from an Iskander. That's the most plausible scenario for using a tactical nuke.

Putin's disregard for human life is not unusual. The Russian military has historically been very insensitive to large loss of life to their own troops in war. The difference is the country has never been in a large scale conflict since the birthrate dropped through the floor and people with any skills have emigrated. When the birthrate is high, such tactics are horrific, but survivable, but with a low replacement rate, this is probably Russia's last military hurrah.

I have read that even before this war Russia was faced with the probability that they would not be able to mount a large military operation within a few decades because of the declining birthrate. This war is probably accelerating that.



I've been reading Kamil Galeev for insight into Russian culture and thinking. He's Russian born (he mentioned the Russian intelligence services tried to hire him), but he now works for an American think tank.

I find the thread reader to be best for reading long Twitter threads
Latest Twitter Threads by @kamilkazani on Thread Reader App

I don't know if the threadreader automatically harvests long threads or if people sign up to it and manually add them, but I've been able to find a thread reader page for every long thread I've wanted to read. Just replace the username after /user/ with the Twitter name for who you want to read.

We are extremely short of reliable information regarding Moskva casualties. It could be as low as 40-50 deaths or as high as 400, we simply do not know from the available data. My personal suspicion is that deaths are at the lower end of the range given the photo evidence.

The distribution of the Russian naval vessels and their spacing has been roughly as I would expect, with possibly one exception. It has been consistent with their mission(s), and consistent with the lack of a submarine threat, and consistent with the capabilities of their weapon systems. WW2 spacings have long gone away in most scenarios.

We are still lacking some data re time of missile(s) impact. Clearly the Russians did not excel in the engagement phase. However any 12,000 tonne warship impacted by two Neptune's each with half their fuel remaining (given the range) which makes it equivalent to about 4 warheads in total, will have a hard time staying afloat. Being still the right way up and above water 10-hours later is pretty good in the circumstances. Notably none of the major magazines or weapons stores onboard appears to have gone up. Maybe some ready use small calibre stuff and some ready use fuel, but not anything major from the port aft photos I've seen so far. I wouldn't have expected any comparable Western warship to have fared any better after those impacts.

Whether that was due to luck, design, weather, or good on-board performance post impact I have not got the data to form a view.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

"Ex-Putin adviser proposes 'smart embargo' on Russia to end war​

Apr 20, 2022
Andrei Illarionov, the former chief economic adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin, tells CNN's Jim Sciutto that he thinks imposing a "smart embargo" on Russia, where money accumulated by countries dependent on Russian gas and oil is not given back to Putin, could end the war in Ukraine quickly."

 

[MontyFloyd]

There are many stories about high casualties from the Moskva. I have read from several places (though it might be cross contamination) that there were only something like 58 survivors. The supposed video of the survivors had a number of hints that it was an old video. Also none of the "survivors" in the video had any injuries. A warship sinks and nobody has as much as a band aid (plaster)?

But in the pictures, all the boats are gone. Somebody used those boats. There are also stories the Moskva was operating alone with no frigates or other Russian ships nearby. Any sane navy only operates their largest ships with escorts, though there have been exceptions, which is how the Indianapolis got sunk in 1945.

Western naval officers who had toured the Moskva had observed some oddities such as water bibs on deck for firefighting equipment was heavily painted to prevent corrosion to a point where it would be difficult to hook up a hose or open the valves. There are also stories that all life jackets were locked away to keep them pristine for inspections and only a few officers had the keys. In the confusion after the ship was hit the crew probably couldn't get to the life jackets.

We also know the Russians are poor at maintenance. I wonder if the ship's boats were so poorly maintained they immediately started leaking upon hitting the water and a lot of the boats sank? That's the only explanation I can think of that would square the boats being deployed and so few crew surviving. Without life jackets in water that was 40 F, they would have died of hypothermia pretty quickly.



I don't want to find out, but considering how bad Russians are at maintenance, their nuclear stock pile may not be usable. The smaller the warhead, the faster it degrades to a point where it won't go off. If their tactical nukes haven't been maintained in a while, they might just be dirty bombs at this point.

The Russians have been doing probing attacks on the Ukrainians in the Donbas to find weak points. So far they haven't found any. Their doctrine is to find a weak point, then pummel it with artillery to soften it up, and finally launch an armored attack into the breach to create an opening and following infantry secures it. Similar to WW II breakthrough warfare with a bit more artillery. The problem is they don't train to do that and would likely bollocks up the operation.

I have read that if they can't find a good weak point they might create one with a tactical nuke. It would probably be launched from an Iskander. That's the most plausible scenario for using a tactical nuke.

Putin's disregard for human life is not unusual. The Russian military has historically been very insensitive to large loss of life to their own troops in war. The difference is the country has never been in a large scale conflict since the birthrate dropped through the floor and people with any skills have emigrated. When the birthrate is high, such tactics are horrific, but survivable, but with a low replacement rate, this is probably Russia's last military hurrah.

I have read that even before this war Russia was faced with the probability that they would not be able to mount a large military operation within a few decades because of the declining birthrate. This war is probably accelerating that.



I've been reading Kamil Galeev for insight into Russian culture and thinking. He's Russian born (he mentioned the Russian intelligence services tried to hire him), but he now works for an American think tank.

I find the thread reader to be best for reading long Twitter threads
Latest Twitter Threads by @kamilkazani on Thread Reader App

I don't know if the threadreader automatically harvests long threads or if people sign up to it and manually add them, but I've been able to find a thread reader page for every long thread I've wanted to read. Just replace the username after /user/ with the Twitter name for who you want to read.

Yes, I too noticed fleet oddities in operations and images after being hit. Moskva was still afloat hours after being hit, and the impacts was not massive, and in pretty calm waters. One would think survival rate would be very high, except for those near the warhead impact.
I would also have believe a well trained crew would have been able to keep her afloat.

Seeing the not just countless but flood of images of poor and poorly maintained equipment in Russian army, why should we be surprised Moskva sank? 2 days ago I saw video of Ukrainians unwrapping Russian package of C4 type explosives, only to find it was blocks of wood! The Russian military has been embezzled to death.

 

[MontyFloyd]

However any 12,000 tonne warship impacted by two Neptune's each with half their fuel remaining (given the range) which makes it equivalent to about 4 warheads in total, will have a hard time staying afloat.

I disagree with not being able to stay afloat.
The HMS Sheffield was hit by 1 missile but stayed afloat for 4 days, under tow, in rough water despite similar impact area (that is, well above water line). Agree it is not identical situation, but I am inclined to believe Moskva should have been able to stay afloat for longer if the damage control parties knew what they were doing.

As to rest, yes, many questions.

 

[JRP3]

Nuclear weapons and their associated delivery systems are quite maintenance intensive. Especially the older ones. The maintenance is costly and requires skilled personnel at all stages. Not a comforting thought !

I'd say poorly maintained nuclear weapons that would fail to properly detonate would be very comforting.

 

[petit_bateau]

Unidentified fixed wing fighters training in UK, looks like preparing for the long haul

https://twitter.com/x/status/1516593580034473988

(If I'd been on a warship hit by two Neptunes, each with half a fuel load, and I'd managed to keep it afloat and right side up for 10+ hours, I'd be thinking that was a pretty good job. That will have been the equivalent of two separate hits over 500kg of explosive with a fragmentation warhead detonating 3-5m above the waterline and about on the ship centreline. Credit where credit is due, the Moskva performed well after impact.)

 

[petit_bateau]

Useful article

Russia Likely has Local Air Superiority in Donbas, but it May Not Matter

Compared to its initial operations around Kyiv and in the southwest of Ukraine, Russia likely has a measure of localised air superiority in Donbas. However, this is unlikely to produce decisive results on the battlefield.

rusi.org

 

[madodel]

Unidentified fixed wing fighters training in UK, looks like preparing for the long haul

https://twitter.com/x/status/1516593580034473988

(If I'd been on a warship hit by two Neptunes, each with half a fuel load, and I'd managed to keep it afloat and right side up for 10+ hours, I'd be thinking that was a pretty good job. That will have been the equivalent of two separate hits over 500kg of explosive with a fragmentation warhead detonating 3-5m above the waterline and about on the ship centreline. Credit where credit is due, the Moskva performed well after impact.)

Hopefully the Russian navy gets to show us a lot more of how well they can successfully abandon ships in the near future.

 

[nwdiver]

(If I'd been on a warship hit by two Neptunes,

It should have never been hit in the first place. The Moskva was basically designed from the ground up as an air defense platform. On paper it was better defended from air attack than TWO Nimitz class aircraft carriers. #Onejob

I thought this was an interesting simulation of the Moskva's 3 tiers of air defense.

 

[petit_bateau]

I disagree with not being able to stay afloat.
The HMS Sheffield was hit by 1 missile but stayed afloat for 4 days, under tow, in rough water despite similar impact area (that is, well above water line). Agree it is not identical situation, but I am inclined to believe Moskva should have been able to stay afloat for longer if the damage control parties knew what they were doing.

As to rest, yes, many questions.

It is relevant that the one Exocet that hit Sheffield caused the crew the abandon ship approximatetely 4-hours after impact. The reason they abandoned ship was because they were worried about the Sea Dart magazine going up. Given the nature of the stuff on the Moskva they would have had even more very good reasons to worry - the S300 is a much larger missile than the Sea Dart and the main anti-ship missiles are also very vulnerable. It is notable that in both Moskva and in Sheffield neither did actually explode, a testament to the design teams including the ordnance boards in both navies.

Sheffield was about 4,800 tons, so about half that of Moskva at 11,490 tons. The Exocet and the Neptune are very similar missiles in terms of design intent, use, warhead, flight path, impact height, etc.

On Moskva we can see in the port side photos what looks like one impact location, midships going above the centrally located main machinery spaces. It probably hit the machinery control room which is also the primay damage control centre, and likely knocked out both the main main machinery spaces given the observed damage. I don't think we can positively be sure where the other missile(s) hit. It may be further forward on port side, the same place on port side, or even on the starboard side. We don't yet have photos etc to be sure.

The other thing that Moskva's command team will have been worried about is the rapid rollover scenario, such as capsized Coventry in only 20-minutes. The moskva obvoiusly had hull damage on the port side and were listing to port, and they probably were not so sure of exactly what they were dealing with themselves at that time.

I'm seeing a lot of stuff on the internet about poor Russian damage control practices and preparations. I'm not sure all of that is warranted. Some may be, probably not all. After impacts like these, and fires like these, hulls warp and wrinkle, doors and hatches jam open or closed, or get winched open then cannot close. And all sorts of other stuff you just can't imagine - fire hoses, cable, piping, water, oil, fuel, stuff, you name it.

I think the timing of the clearest photo is significant - they have abandoned at that point, and the water is getting awful close to points on the hull where it can enter very freely.

(I once did command exams on something not that different, and in one of the exam sessions I was almost failed for not abandoning early enough. Anyway I passed and ultimately commanded something. I can empathise with whoever was in command on Moskva, they probably made the right call at that point on a very bad hair day.)

How long any given (damaged) ship remains afloat after being abandoned by crew really is just chance from then on.

Some relevant wiki links

HMS Sheffield (D80) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Russian cruiser Moskva - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

HMS Coventry (D118) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

USS Stark incident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The BoI reports on all the British losses and major damage make very sobering reading and can be found on the web these days I think. Ditto for Stark. The pre-impact performance of the Moskva is most odd. But the post-impact performance and decision making of Moskva is perfectly understandable I'd say.

Retrieving what sounds suspiciously like a few special devices from the Moskva is going to be pretty unpleasant.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1516668142856159232

 

[Artful Dodger]

Now the families of the crew are demanding to know where their relatives are, with many pleading for any info, a very few receiving word they are dead, and other saying the surviving crewmen speaking of mass casualties.

I saw a medal award ceremony from Russia yesterday. About 110 sailors received commodations. With a crew compliment of around 500, I presume that means ~400 KIA / Wounded so unable to attend the parade.

Putin's toll. Your turn next, pal. Sic semper tyrannis.

 

[MontyFloyd]

(I once did command exams on something not that different, and in one of the exam sessions I was almost failed for not abandoning early enough. Anyway I passed and ultimately commanded something. I can empathise with whoever was in command on Moskva, they probably made the right call at that point on a very bad hair day.)

How long any given (damaged) ship remains afloat after being abandoned by crew really is just chance from then on.

Thank you very much on your insights and experiences.
Completely agree, cannot truly say without being there, your thoughts are quite valid.

 

[Artful Dodger]

The Exocet and the Neptune are very similar missiles in terms of design intent, use, warhead, flight path, impact height, etc.

The Neptune is often called "Harpoonski" in the U.S.

Kh-35 - Variants​

 

[wdolson]

We are extremely short of reliable information regarding Moskva casualties. It could be as low as 40-50 deaths or as high as 400, we simply do not know from the available data. My personal suspicion is that deaths are at the lower end of the range given the photo evidence.

The distribution of the Russian naval vessels and their spacing has been roughly as I would expect, with possibly one exception. It has been consistent with their mission(s), and consistent with the lack of a submarine threat, and consistent with the capabilities of their weapon systems. WW2 spacings have long gone away in most scenarios.

We are still lacking some data re time of missile(s) impact. Clearly the Russians did not excel in the engagement phase. However any 12,000 tonne warship impacted by two Neptune's each with half their fuel remaining (given the range) which makes it equivalent to about 4 warheads in total, will have a hard time staying afloat. Being still the right way up and above water 10-hours later is pretty good in the circumstances. Notably none of the major magazines or weapons stores onboard appears to have gone up. Maybe some ready use small calibre stuff and some ready use fuel, but not anything major from the port aft photos I've seen so far. I wouldn't have expected any comparable Western warship to have fared any better after those impacts.

Whether that was due to luck, design, weather, or good on-board performance post impact I have not got the data to form a view.

I read a shipboard fire expert's take on the pictures we saw of the Moskva. He thought that a competent damage control team could have saved the ship, but he also observed that the color of the smoke indicated an intense fire deep in the ship.

I also read that the 30mm auto-cannon that is supposed to engage missiles close to the ship was out of operation.

Maybe someday after this war is over somebody who survived the Moskva sinking will leave Russia and tell the world what happened, but right now there is a lot of contradictory information.

The rusi article about local Russian air superiority in the Donbas is interesting too. Rusi do good analysis work, I've read some of their papers. I'm not surprised they have localized air superiority there. From the open source data on equipment losses, the bulk of Ukrainian losses have been in Mariupol and the Donbas.

One area where the Russians have failed to learn their lessons is in the area of protecting their flanks and rear areas. The forces at Izium are being fed down one road within range of Ukrainian artillery. They run the risk of having a large force at Izium starving for lack of supply.
Thread by @PhillipsPOBrien on Thread Reader App

In another article by Phillips P O'Brien he thinks at maximum the Russian have about 65K combat troops left.
Thread by @PhillipsPOBrien on Thread Reader App

Almost certainly a lot less considering their losses and their forces include a large number of even greener replacements than those who started the war. They also appear to be throwing their mauled forces from the north into battle without taking the time to rest and refit them which greatly reduces their combat effectiveness.

They have an artificially imposed deadline of May 9 to capture Donbas. That's pushing senior officers to take unnecessary risks with weak forces against a well prepared enemy. This will not end well for Russia.

 

[Sandor]

Under the WTF category. Guardian is not the best at reliability but not the worst either. But this stretches the limits of imagination (from last week):

Russia ‘using weapons smuggled by Iran from Iraq against Ukraine’

Iraqi militias and others say undercover networks being used to supply materiel such as RPGs and anti-tank missiles

www.theguardian.com

Honestly I don't buy it as Russia still has plenty of S-300 systems, over 2000 launchers before the start of the invasion. Why deal with incompatible logistics for Bavar-373's 340mm Sayyad-4 missiles vs the 450 or 500mm missiles that S-300 uses, when their logistics are already an ungodly mess. Same apply to getting Brazilian Astro II MRLS. Where/how/why make your logistics even worse?

Maybe that's part of the "volunteer" units from Middle East, but those are just Syrian/Libyan light infantry. Makes no sense, I guess clickbait...

 

[nwdiver]

I also read that the 30mm auto-cannon that is supposed to engage missiles close to the ship was out of operation.

All six of them?

 

[wdolson]

All six of them?

Not sure. It could be that the control station for the air defense system had problem?

 

[stopcrazypp]

Not sure. It could be that the control station for the air defense system had problem?

I saw an analysis elsewhere that their 30mm system seemed to have a hard time hitting a slow floating balloon target during testing, but I think I found the source here (see about 54 seconds in):

Makes me kind of doubt even if it was operational that it would have necessarily done much against a fast moving target like a missile.

To be fair, I'm not sure our own Phalanx CIWS would have done much better. The incidents that have occurred are not exactly flattering and I wasn't able to find footage of how well it did against flying targets in tests (there is footage but doesn't show the results, only does for tests against boats).
Phalanx CIWS - Wikipedia

Instead the successful intercept example pointed out in the above wiki pages was the British Sea Dart missile system. Our US equivalent is the Standard Missile:
Standard Missile - Wikipedia
Specifically our Aegis system could use SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, and ESSM.
Aegis Combat System - Wikipedia

Here's an article that talks about what the US Navy can learn about Moskva that mentioned that Aegis was able to intercept a missile attack back in 2016 when the USS Mason was attacked near Yemen.
What should the US Navy learn from Moskva's demise? - Breaking Defense

It linked to this article, but it had no details on what was used to intercept the missile during the incident on Wednesday (the first incident on Sunday it was not clear if the missiles just fell into sea, but on Wednesday it was sure it was the Aegis system that intercepted it).

On Sunday, the Mason was again cruising the strait when its defense system detected two cruise missiles fired from a Houthi-controlled coastal area of Yemen, Pentagon officials said Wednesday. The Mason’s AN/SPY-1D radar detected the incoming missiles launched from a site in Yemen about 30 miles from the Mason and the Aegis system fired missiles in response. The Mason was not hit by either missile. But the Navy is not certain whether its defense system stopped the first incoming missile or it just fell into the sea about 12 miles from the ship. The second missile fired at the Mason fell about nine miles from the ship, one of the officials said.

On Wednesday, during the second attack on the Mason, the Aegis system detected and tracked the missile and the ship’s crew responded and destroyed it, the officials said.

Aegis defense system helped stop missile attack on USS Mason

This report about the first attack said "Mason launched two Standard Missile-2s (SM-2s) and a single Evolved Seasparrow Missile (ESSM)".
USS Mason Fired 3 Missiles to Defend From Yemen Cruise Missiles Attack
Business insider claims the SM-2 was used on Wednesday, but they may have confused things with the Sunday incident (which would have been the first use):
"The SM-2 interceptor missile fired by the Mason on Wednesday was likely the first combat use seen by the US Navy ever."
The US Navy had 90 seconds to defend itself when Iranian-backed militants fired on them off Yemen

It never mentions CIWS however, so I doubt it was the deciding factor (it's more like a last line of defense).