Russia invades Ukraine

[Annetts key]

Same fate befell the Sheffield in the South Atlantic though I don't recall onboard munitions exploding as having been a factor. Just a very big hole after fire enlarged the initial missile damage. Can any "expert" here make a comparison between the Exocet missile of that era with today's Neptun or similar anti-ship missiles?

I’m no expert. But here’s my take.

Fire on board any ship, especially warships can be extremely damaging.

There were numerous failings that contributed to HMS Sheffield’s loss. After the missile hit, the biggest factor was the resulting fire. The crew has difficulty trying to control this, as the ships firefighting system was damaged by the missile. The fire itself did not cause the ship to sink. It sank due to taking on water after being towed, the water entering via the hole caused by the missile.

It’s likely that the Russian ship was not expecting a missile strike. Two missiles were apparently launched, but we don’t know if both hit the ship.

If a missile hits a ship, the ship can suffer damage due to the impact, due to the warhead exploding, due to the resulting fire, and due to internal systems being damaged. Any of the above may result in secondary explosions if fuel, ammunition, missiles or other ordnance is damaged or is triggered by the heat from fires.

What happens next very much depends on where in the ship the damage has occurred and how effective (or not) the firefighting is.

If the fires can be put out, and the hole(s) caused by the missile(s) can be patched up and made watertight, the ship may be able to be towed to the nearest available friendly port. Or if the damage to the propulsion systems is not too bad, it may be able to proceed under its own power.

But if the damage is too extensive it may not be considered worth trying to save. If water enters through the hole(s), which is more likely if the ship is attempted to be moved or if the sea conditions are poor, then the risk of sinking increases significantly. Especially if no attempt has been made to patch the holes or it’s ineffective.

On the subject of the Sheffield, I once read that the Exocet warhead didn’t actually detonate on impact and became detached, and that it was the “body” of the missile that penetrated the hull through pure kinetic energy. Can anybody confirm if this is actually true?

More recent analysis has concluded that the warhead did explode. See the Wikipedia article

In 2015, a MOD re-assessment of the attack concluded that the Exocet warhead did indeed detonate inside Sheffield, with the results supported by analysis using modern damage analysis tools not available in 1982 and evidence from weapon hits and trials conducted since the end of the Falklands campaign.

 

[najaB]

More recent analysis has concluded that the warhead did explode. See the Wikipedia article

Beat me to it, that's almost exactly what I was posting.

As an aside, I believe that is actually the intended method of operation - the missile makes a hole in the ship through pure kinetic energy and the warhead explodes in the heart of the ship.

 

[yorksrob]

According to the BBC's live news feed, ex Russian MP Vladimir Bortko (who incidentally looks a bit like Alf Garnett) believes that "the fate of the Moskva is grounds for war". He's clearly missed the point that they're already at war.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61101906

 

[TheEdge]

Same fate befell the Sheffield in the South Atlantic though I don't recall onboard munitions exploding as having been a factor. Just a very big hole after fire enlarged the initial missile damage. Can any "expert" here make a comparison between the Exocet missile of that era with today's Neptun or similar anti-ship missiles?

The Neptun and Exocet look quite similar really just comparing their stats. However that's because they are both missiles built to meet a fairly similar brief, that is a relatively small anti ship missile that can be launched from trucks or aircraft. A ship the size of the Moskva is really beyond the size of ship these missiles are meant to defeat, although hitting them twice is a good way to deal with that.

Here comes another quick lesson...

The Soviets loved their cheap blunt force kit rather than more expensive advanced surgical strike things. So NATO forces use more advanced weapons like Harpoon and Exocet that are much smaller and can be importantly hid within a strengthened magazine or launched from vertical launch tubes within the structure of the ship. The Soviets didn't, they went for the blunt solution and build absolutely enourmous turbojet missiles, namely the P500 Bazalt (now P1000 Vulkan), think modern V-1. The problem with those is that they have to be mounted on and stored in large external tubes, visible clearly on Moskva (and many other Soviet and Russian ships), providing a lovely big target with a 1000kg warhead each, for, lets say, a small truck launched cruise missile to hit and detonate.

 

[DustyBin]

Thanks @Annetts key and @najaB - at least I wasn’t imagining the whole thing!

 

[TheEdge]

As an aside, I believe that is actually the intended method of operation - the missile makes a hole in the ship through pure kinetic energy and the warhead explodes in the heart of the ship.

That's the method of operation for pretty much every anti ship weapon since the Royal Navy introduced the molten iron filled Martin Shell in the 1860s. The naval artillery of the glory days of big gun battleships primarily fired armour piercing shells for detonating within the ship. The Imperial Japanese Navy fired diving shells designed to land short of the target, travel through the water, have enough energy to still penetrate the hull then detonate under the water line.

 

[Falcon1200]

According to the BBC's live news feed, ex Russian MP Vladimir Bortko (who incidentally looks a bit like Alf Garnett) believes that "the fate of the Moskva is grounds for war".

Thus admitting that it was hit by a missile.

 

[TheEdge]

Thus admitting that it was hit by a missile.

You misunderstood, Putin will follow in the stable actions of Caligula and declare war on the sea for this act of aggression

 

[yorksrob]

Thus admitting that it was hit by a missile.

Oops, do you think anyone watching noticed !

 

[jon0844]

According to the BBC's live news feed, ex Russian MP Vladimir Bortko (who incidentally looks a bit like Alf Garnett) believes that "the fate of the Moskva is grounds for war". He's clearly missed the point that they're already at war.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61101906

He also looks a bit like George Galloway, which would probably explain a lot... separated at birth?

 

[Cowley]

He also looks a bit like George Galloway, which would probably explain a lot... separated at birth?

From that same news feed is this snippet which is somewhat disgusting to take on board:

We do understand they're under pressure from Putin to deliver results by the first week of May, and the victory parade in Russia. And that's included an order, we understand, to destroy things that can't be taken by then. And that may extend as far as the capital city... which saw raids last night.

 

[Yew]

I’m not an expert by any means but I believe they are, on the face of it, fairly comparable certainly in terms of speed, size and weight although the Exocet carries a slightly larger warhead. I’m sure somebody more knowledgable can provide a more detailed comparison.

The Exocet, has a payload of around 165kg and is subsonic, the Neptune has a payload of 150kg and is also subsonic. Whilst I can't say anything about their relative chances of penetrating a given ships anti-missile defences, once a hit was established, the outcome would be similar.

I would imagine that Russian Cruisers would be particularly liable to damage, as the angled tubes on their decks are designed to hold large anti-shipping missiles, some of which have warheads of around 1000kg and are designed to sink super carriers.

 

[AM9]

The Exocet, has a payload of around 165kg and is subsonic, the Neptune has a payload of 150kg and is also subsonic. Whilst I can't say anything about their relative chances of penetrating a given ships anti-missile defences, once a hit was established, the outcome would be similar.

I would imagine that Russian Cruisers would be particularly liable to damage, as the angled tubes on their decks are designed to hold large anti-shipping missiles, some of which have warheads of around 1000kg and are designed to sink super carriers.

Add to that the fact that thata cruiser must have a massive radar cross-section. Modern military ships don't have a smooth sloping profile to reduce wind resistance.

 

[philosopher]

The Neptun and Exocet look quite similar really just comparing their stats. However that's because they are both missiles built to meet a fairly similar brief, that is a relatively small anti ship missile that can be launched from trucks or aircraft. A ship the size of the Moskva is really beyond the size of ship these missiles are meant to defeat, although hitting them twice is a good way to deal with that.

I am not sure whether you can target specific parts of a ship with these missiles, but given the ship was built in Ukraine, then the Ukrainian military would have very likely known the ship’s weak points. The fact that the missile strike appeared to result in ammunition exploding suggests either the Ukrainian military deliberately targeted the ship’s weak spots, or they got lucky.

 

[Strathclyder]

I don't have a link, but apparently everyone's favourite right-wing nutjob (of the US variety) Marjorie Taylor Greene has released a video saying that the US should stop providing assistance to Ukraine because there's no possible way they can win and it just prolongs the war and increases suffering.

She's my favourite right-wing US variety nutjob as much as torn muscles are my favourite back injury. In other words, I'd rather stick a white-hot cattle-prod into the base of my spine than even considering taking her and the BS she spouts even remotely seriously.

In all seriousness, Greene and her bottom-of-the-barrel ilk (Trump and 99% of the Republican Party included) are the ultimate in irony and contradiction: they come from the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower etc and yet here they are trying to justify Putin's actions (in Ukraine and/or generally), dismiss them entirely or heaping praise on him. Not that I'm surprised mind you, am merely revolted. You honestly couldn't make it up if you tried and am sure the mental gymnastics required to keep this disconnect going long-term are well outwith the capabilities of most of them, Greene included.

From that same news feed is this snippet which is somewhat disgusting to take on board:

Utterly disgusting is far too light a phrase for that. Bascially amounts to 'If we can't have it , then we'll destroy it and to hell with everything/everyone else'.

 

[DustyBin]

I am not sure whether you can target specific parts of a ship with these missiles, but given the ship was built in Ukraine, then the Ukrainian military would have very likely known the ship’s weak points. The fact that the missile strike appeared to result in ammunition exploding suggests either the Ukrainian military deliberately targeted the ship’s weak spots, or they got lucky.

There’s some interesting analysis online regarding how Ukrainian forces defeated the ships defensive systems. Apparently it’s main radar which can detect low flying missiles can only scan 180 degrees, and the Ukrainians distracted it with drones to turn it away from the missile threat. It’s remaining radar wouldn’t have been able to detect the missiles, particularly in the adverse weather conditions, leaving it a sitting duck. Very clever if true (which I’ve no reason to doubt it is).

 

[TheEdge]

I am not sure whether you can target specific parts of a ship with these missiles, but given the ship was built in Ukraine, then the Ukrainian military would have very likely known the ship’s weak points. The fact that the missile strike appeared to result in ammunition exploding suggests either the Ukrainian military deliberately targeted the ship’s weak spots, or they got lucky.

You don't really need to target. Look at pictures of the Moskva, all you need to do is get a solid hit on the front quarter in on either side and you'd have a good chance of getting secondary explosions from the on board missiles.

There’s some interesting analysis online regarding how Ukrainian forces defeated the ships defensive systems. Apparently it’s main radar which can detect low flying missiles can only scan 180 degrees, and the Ukrainians distracted it with drones to turn it away from the missile threat. It’s remaining radar wouldn’t have been able to detect the missiles, particularly in the adverse weather conditions, leaving it a sitting duck. Very clever if true (which I’ve no reason to doubt it is).

The only real way to defeat modern CIWS systems is to overwhelm or confuse them in some way. The Argentinians managed it in the Falklands, the Phalanx and Goalkeeper systems used by NATO are sold on their ability to track, aim and kill multiple targets quickly. The weakness is well known and the Ukrainians have exploited it

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So let's get this right. There was a missile factory in Kyiv.

For 6 weeks, Russia has been ruthlessly firing missiles at such strategic military targets as hospitals, people's homes, theatres, etc.

And it's only last night that it finally occurred to them that it might make sense to their war effort if they were to target the missile factory?

(Or were the missiles actually aimed at some more obvious military target, like a local church or something, and they veered off course and hit the missile factory by mistake?)

Of course, it's total coincidence that this happened the night after the Russians accidentally started a fire on one of their own ships causing it to sink...

 

[yorksrob]

He also looks a bit like George Galloway, which would probably explain a lot... separated at birth?

Meeow !

 

[Trackman]

Why did the Russian missile Cruiser not defend itself?
To quote from the BBC:

It carried over a dozen Vulkan anti-ship missiles and an array of anti-submarine and mine-torpedo weapons, the reports said.

Surely they must have been on high alert, I think the Ukrainians had a pop at a military ship in port a few weeks back.

 

[yorksrob]

Why did the Russian missile Cruiser not defend itself?
To quote from the BBC:

Surely they must have been on high alert, I think the Ukrainians had a pop at a military ship in port a few weeks back.

I thought the Ukrainian system that got it was land based, so it might not have had the right weapon ?

 

[najaB]

Why did the Russian missile Cruiser not defend itself?

As noted above, the Ukrainian tactic was apparently to exploit a weakness in the radar system - basically that it couldn't look in two directions at the same time. So they flew a drone high up and at the limit of the detection range to catch their attention, and then fired a surface skimming missile from the other direction.

 

[bspahh]

I thought the Ukrainian system that got it was land based, so it might not have had the right weapon ?

I read a report which said that the Moskva had two radar systems for detecting incoming missiles. One only covers an angle of 180 degrees, and they were tricked to point this in the wrong direction with a decoy attack from a drone.

The second system has all-round coverage, but is not as accurate, and the article assumed that it had been not been able to tell the difference between the missile and the noise from waves, as the sea was quite rough.

 

[yorksrob]

As noted above, the Ukrainian tactic was apparently to exploit a weakness in the radar system - basically that it couldn't look in two directions at the same time. So they flew a drone high up and at the limit of the detection range to catch their attention, and then fired a surface skimming missile from the other direction.

I read a report which said that the Moskva had two radar systems for detecting incoming missiles. One only covers an angle of 180 degrees, and they were tricked to point this in the wrong direction with a decoy attack from a drone.

The second system has all-round coverage, but is not as accurate, and the article assumed that it had been not been able to tell the difference between the missile and the noise from waves, as the sea was quite rough.

Very clever !

The most important thing for the West to do going forward, is to develop a conveyor belt of munitions to replenish the Ukranian front line, so that their forces aren't forced to survive hand to mouth.

 

[TheEdge]

Why did the Russian missile Cruiser not defend itself?
To quote from the BBC:
It carried over a dozen Vulkan anti-ship missiles and an array of anti-submarine and mine-torpedo weapons, the reports said.
Surely they must have been on high alert, I think the Ukrainians had a pop at a military ship in port a few weeks back.

I thought the Ukrainian system that got it was land based, so it might not have had the right weapon ?

None of which are any use against a camouflaged shore based anti-ship missile launcher while all their close in weapons systems are being distracted by a drone.

 

[Loppylugs]

Would it not have been better for Ukraine not to have suggested they had anything to do with the ship's demise? Diddums Putin might have blamed them of course, but then that would be admitting Ukraine was capable of doing such a thing. Russia is lamenting it's loss - good riddance. Other warships have now backed off somewhat to a "safer" distance, had Ukraine kept quiet they might have stayed within range, after all, it was an accidental fire on board wasn't it Vladdy?

 

[yorksrob]

Would it not have been better for Ukraine not to have suggested they had anything to do with the ship's demise? Diddums Putin might have blamed them of course, but then that would be admitting Ukraine was capable of doing such a thing. Russia is lamenting it's loss - good riddance. Other warships have now backed off somewhat to a "safer" distance, had Ukraine kept quiet they might have stayed within range, after all, it was an accidental fire on board wasn't it Vladdy?

Vladdy would have known it was a missile sinking regardless of the propaganda output, so he would have still have backed off his other warships.

 

[najaB]

Would it not have been better for Ukraine not to have suggested they had anything to do with the ship's demise? Diddums Putin might have blamed them of course, but then that would be admitting Ukraine was capable of doing such a thing. Russia is lamenting it's loss - good riddance. Other warships have now backed off somewhat to a "safer" distance, had Ukraine kept quiet they might have stayed within range, after all, it was an accidental fire on board wasn't it Vladdy?

The morale boost on the Ukrainian side and loss on the Russian side of claiming the attack is much greater than any military advantage that could be derived from not doing so. They just lost the third largest vessel in their navy to a country that doesn't currently have a functional navy.

 

[philosopher]

The morale boost on the Ukrainian side and loss on the Russian side of claiming the attack is much greater than any military advantage that could be derived from not doing so. They just lost the third largest vessel in their navy to a country that doesn't currently have a functional navy.

If I was a Russian admiral at the moment I would stay away from windows on high floors or avoid getting too close to the edge of the pavement!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As noted above, the Ukrainian tactic was apparently to exploit a weakness in the radar system - basically that it couldn't look in two directions at the same time. So they flew a drone high up and at the limit of the detection range to catch their attention, and then fired a surface skimming missile from the other direction.

Interesting and clever tactic. But begs some questions of, how did they achieve that. I would assume the Moskva must've been pretty close to some land for that to be possible because drones don't exactly have ranges of hundreds of miles - or fly that fast - and seeing as you'd have to have the drone approach the ship from the opposite side of the ship to the missiles, that means that either the drone or the missiles would need to take a very roundabout route to get to the ship. Would seem like some quite tricky logistics to pull off.