Moskva sunk by US Navy - Submarine launched Harpoon

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no way for a fire to sink a ship any more.
All ammunition is easily automatically flooded.

Sure one of the deck mounted missile could cause a lot of damage if it went off.
But clearly none of those missiles did go off.
If they had, it would not have been listing.

There is no way for a fire to sink a ship any more.
All ammunition is easily automatically flooded.

This was a Russian ship......built in the 70s.

 

[Rigby5]

You know nothing about this, do you? Didn't you hear their ammo locker blew up?

Ships have not had a single ammo locker in over 100 years, and all the small distributed ammo are all in flooded chambers.
Even tanks on land use water filled ammo lockers.
Didn't you notice all those big crates along each side?
Those the only missiles they have on board.
So there is no significant "ammo locker".
The only ammo on board other than these external missile crates, is just small antiaircraft ammunition.
Which is not explosive.
There is no reasonable explanation for this ship to list and sink, unless hit below the waterline.

 

[Rigby5]

You think it was a torpedo? LOL!

How would a missile hit to the superstructure cause any taking on of water, to make it list?

 

[Rigby5]

There is no way for a fire to sink a ship any more.
All ammunition is easily automatically flooded.

This was a Russian ship......built in the 70s.

No ships have had vulnerable ammo lockers since WWI.
That is why we stuck all those WWI era ship in Pearl Harbor.
They were not safe in combat.
That is why they sank so easily.
No US ship or tank has had vulnerable ammo lockers in over 70 years.
And this Russian ship did not even have significant ammo lockers because it relied almost entirely on external, self contained, crated missiles.
The only "ammo lockers" would distributed at each anti-aircraft gun.

 

[Rigby5]

There is no way for a fire to sink a ship any more.
All ammunition is easily automatically flooded.

This was a Russian ship......built in the 70s.

To have vulnerable ammo lockers, it would have to have been built before 1920, and would have to use sack propulsion charges. Neither of which is true.
The Russian build cheap, but not stupid.
Nor is there any significant ammo locker on a ship that only carries crated missiles, and does not do artillery.

 

[Rigby5]

What?

I thought you guys said it was a fire

Fire is easily contained on a ship.
Its not like they are going to run out of water.

 

[Redfish]

I can reasonably demonstrate that the Moskva was not attacked from land, but attacked from the sea.

Contrary to what most here think, I'm American - but I do not agree with America's hubris. I think we are playing dangerous games propping up a fascist-Nazi state that is as corrupt as the other quasi-fascist state that's attacking it. I SUPPOSE the idea to raise the costs against Russia is ok to an extent, but it's a very dangerous game so we should cut our losses. I fully disagree with the sanctions and weaponization of SWIFT. Like "Die Hard", where the plan was to use the FBI's own play book against them, Russia knew we'd walk right into that trap.

Now - that being said - I think the US sinking Moskva from a Los Angeles class launched Harpoon is clever as all fuck....BUT....I don't think the risk outweighs the reward. I can't be the only one to have discovered this and Russia will have much better information in the after action review and interrogation of the ship's crew.

View attachment 634724

We've all seen this video, but what most of you probably don't pay attention to is a few things:

1. AK-630s are in the shutdown-stern position. Never activated.
2. S-300 tubes are closed, when the weapon system is activated the tube is open.
3. SA-N-4 GECKOs were also in the offline position.

So the systems were offline - no DOUBT about it. The problem I have is that so many are quick to assume the Russians were just incompetent and didn't turn on their systems.

That's unlikely.

Now, regardless your biases, you cannot refute this evidence.

1. The ship is listing with the wind, the smoke is leaning with the wind.
2. The windage of the Moskva is greatest to the stern, which means the stern would be pulled into the wind (sailing mechanics). This hasn't happened yet therefore the ship is still in its original heading.
3. The firefighting-rescue ships that arrive on scene (origin of picture) have not lashed to the Moskva and have not towed her into any other position.

Because the Moskva was on an air defense mission, presumably it just was station keeping and thus an easy target, regardless it wouldn't have been able to complete a turn, the fact the ship is not underway reveals a few things about its condition before being attacked, but since the attack is so precisely in its engine room it's unlikely the ship completed any kind of turn at all let alone a 180degree turn.

Here is the wind from April 12 to April 15
View attachment 634728
April 12

View attachment 634730
April 13 (Attack) I drew some hypothetical ship positions

View attachment 634734
April 14, about 6am Odessa time.

View attachment 634736

April 14 9AM Odessa time

View attachment 634739

3PM Odessa time.

Anyway - the winds don't change again until night fall when they start to push north.

So at no time is the Moskva subjected to winds that give the Ukrainians a shot. The missile would have had to come from Odessa, Mikolaiv is a war zone and constantly bombarded. The Neptune system is a 6 truck convoy that looks similar to air defense and Russia is blowing-up air defense where ever it finds them in the east. Mikolaiv is a POSSIBLE shot...but very improbable.

And the ship is not perpindicular to the wind but to the starboard of the wind which means that even Mikolaiv would be an unlikely shot.

Also the presumed sinking location is a bit out of reach.

So, why the LA class Sub attack?

If we make the assumption that Moskva would have readied her defenses seeing a sub-sonic missile clunking toward her for 5-10 minutes flight time, then the logical answer is how could they be attacked without enough time to respond?

The Neptune in a round-about way is a derivative of the Harpoon.

Navy Adding Anti-Ship Harpoons Back On Los Angeles Subs Until Tomahawks Ready - Defense Daily

The Navy is going to start putting anti-ship Harpoon missiles on Los Angeles-class submarines this year until the new anti-ship Tomahawk is ready...

www.defensedaily.com

The US Navy has this capability.

Moskva would track but not see a Los Angeles class submarine as a threat (if they even detected it at all. Moskva has some anti-sub capability but it's mostly in its helicopter not its subsystems).

The submarine could definitely get within a 30 second shot. Even one minute would be a very short reaction time. 4 minutes the crew could respond to, 1 minute not likely, 30 seconds almost not at all.

I think there is a STRONG case that the wind as evidenced by the smoke's lean, shows that the Moskva was attacked from the south east or easterly direction. Presumably very close range. With a missile that COULD BE MISTAKEN for a Neptune, such that if Russia dives the wreck they won't have that piece of evidence if any could be found.

I think Russia has access to this information as well, and not willing to start WW3 over it, gives out their cockamaime excuse of a fire on board and a storm at sea (can clearly see no storm Apr 13 - Apr 14).

The Russians will ask the crew what went wrong, the likely answer is they had no reaction time. They will report what side of the ship they were hit from, someone will KNOW they were hit port side, and what heading was the ship when hit? Someone will know, presumably south west.

The Russians WILL know the attack didn't come from Ukraine. Regardless if they deduce it from a few images and some wind data.

This can't be 100%, but the Russians will know 100%.

If this is true we just started WW3 or maybe the end of life on earth, stupid, stupid, stupid

 

[Redfish]

Fire is easily contained on a ship.
Its not like they are going to run out of water.

BS, fire is the greatest danger on any ship. Sure you have water all around you but if the ship burns you will end up in the water.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ships have not had a single ammo locker in over 100 years, and all the small distributed ammo are all in flooded chambers.

The commies built Chernobyl with no containment structure in a pile of graphite.
Funny that you credit them with good design decisions.

The Russian build cheap, but not stupid.

Durr

 

[eagle1462010]

Rigby5

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How would a missile hit to the superstructure cause any taking on of water, to make it list?

No anti-ship missiles are designed to hit the side of a ship and sink it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no reasonable explanation for this ship to list and sink, unless hit below the waterline.

Is that why the HMS Sheffield sank? Because missiles and fire can't sink a ship?

 

[HenryBHough]

There wee survivors.

Witnesses.

Not hard to think that if the "Harpoon" story were factual Washington would be glowing in the dark tonight.

But be patient. As The Great Xiden depression grows the need for a war - the Democrat cure for a sick economy - will be overwhelming.

 

[Rigby5]

BS, fire is the greatest danger on any ship. Sure you have water all around you but if the ship burns you will end up in the water.

Ships are metal and most metals do not burn.
Some light superstructure alloys might burn, but that is not going to take on water and sink a ship.
The hull will always be steel and not burn.
You can not sink a ship with a fire.
If there is heavy artillery on board, then you can have a munitions explosion that could sink a ship, but this ship had no such artillery.
It used self contained missiles for that, and none of the self contained missile launchers blew up.

 

[Rigby5]

The commies built Chernobyl with no containment structure in a pile of graphite.
Funny that you credit them with good design decisions.

The Russian build cheap, but not stupid.

Durr

Chernobyl was ancient and done in the hurry caused by the Cold War.
It also was not something they well understood.
Russia has been making warship for longer than the US, so is something they do understand and have experience with.
The Swedish ship builder, John Ericsson who built the USS Monitor in 1862, was originally a builder for Russian ships in 1850.

 

[Rigby5]

No anti-ship missiles are designed to hit the side of a ship and sink it?

The only way an anti-ship missile can sink a ship is if it hits explosive cargo.
The Russian ship had no explosive cargo because it did not have any heavy artillery.
It used self contained missile tubes for that instead.
And none of the missile tubes exploded.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Chernobyl was ancient and done in the hurry caused by the Cold War.
It also was not something they well understood.
Russia has been making warship for longer than the US, so is something they do understand and have experience with.
The Swedish ship builder, John Ericsson who built the USS Monitor in 1862, was originally a builder for Russian ships in 1850.

Chernobyl was ancient and done in the hurry caused by the Cold War.

Russian crappy design in the 1970s was because they had to hurry, Cold War?
Is that why the Moskva was crap? Cold War?

Russia has been making warship for longer than the US

But then the commies killed, or drove away, most of the smart people.

The Swedish ship builder, John Ericsson who built the USS Monitor in 1862, was originally a builder for Russian ships in 1850.

Was it his fault the Moskva sank?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only way an anti-ship missile can sink a ship is if it hits explosive cargo.
The Russian ship had no explosive cargo because it did not have any heavy artillery.
It used self contained missile tubes for that instead.
And none of the missile tubes exploded.

Is that what happened in all these cases?

List of ships sunk by missiles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rigby5]

Is that why the HMS Sheffield sank? Because missiles and fire can't sink a ship?

The HMS Shffield was not sunk by a missile hit.

{...
The Exocet that struck Sheffield hit her on the starboard side at deck level 2, travelling through the junior ratings' scullery and breaching the Forward Auxiliary Machinery Room/Forward Engine Room bulkhead 2.4 metres (7.9 ft) above the waterline, creating a hole in the hull roughly 1.2 metres (3.9 ft) by 3 metres (9.8 ft). ...the missile disabld the ship's electrical distribution systems and breaching the pressurised sea water fire main. The damage to the fire system severely hampered any firefighting response and eventually doomed the ship to be consumed by the fire.[22]
...}

The Sheffield sank 6 days later from fire, and would easily have been saved if not for the odd bad luck of the sea water fire main being hit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Sheffield sank 6 days later from fire,

You said ships don't sink because of fire. Or missiles.