Lessons Learned in Sinking the Moskva
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.พ. 2025
- Naval Warfare Doctrine lessons learned from the sinking of the Russian Cruiser Moskva in the Black Sea.
In April 2022, the Russian guided-missile cruiser Moskva, the flagship of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, sank following an engagement with Ukrainian forces. Ukraine reported striking the Moskva with two domestically developed R-360 Neptune anti-ship missiles while it was approximately 60 nautical miles off the coast of Odessa in the Black Sea. The Neptune missile, designed to evade radar and strike targets up to 280 kilometers away, successfully bypassed the ship’s defenses.
After the reported missile impact, the Moskva was severely damaged, and despite Russian attempts to stabilize and tow the ship to port, it ultimately sank. The incident marked one of the most high-profile losses of a naval asset in recent history and highlighted the evolving role of long-range anti-ship missiles in coastal defense strategies.
📫 Promotional inquiries subbrief@solaromgmt.com
🐦► / subbrief
🕺► / subbrief
⏰► / subbrief
😃► / subbriefmedia
🏴☠️► www.SubBrief.com
💵► / subbrief
🔗► / aaron-amick-9538a4171
💌 Contact Aaron ► Aaron@subbrief.com
🦃 Jive Turkey / jivturky
#subbrief #subs #navy
Aaron's PC Spec
------------------------
CPU: Intel i9-10850K @3.60GHz
RAM: 64GB
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080
Accelsior 4M2 16.0TB PCIe M.2 NVMe SSD
sub brief, sme, subject matter expert, naval, policy, technology, tactical use of the ocean, sonar, submarine tactics, weapons employment, aip, air independent power, 21st century, aaron, amick, aaron amick, sonar, sonarman, sme, SME, subject matter expert, naval, games, wargames, testing, tactics, news, history, tactical use of the ocean, hide, find, search, jive turkey, jive, subbrief,
Lesson #1: Don't let water fill your ship. This is detrimental to the ship's ability to carry out its tasks and may void your warranty.
I bet Putin ignored those calls for the extended warranty, too.
no no, lesson 1 is never get involved in a land war in asia
Lesson #2: To successfully keep water outside of your ship (see lesson #1 for further clarification), you must MAINTAIN YOUR DAMN SHIP.
Not an approved TTP.
You're in good hands with Redstate.
The Moskva's last readiness report is a horror show. Basically nothing worked, the emergency equipment was locked away to stop the crew from stealing it, the engines were all but inoperable due to being run so long and the worst part despite all that the report was still signed off as "acceptable" by the Admiral. Russia is losing a naval war to a country that doesn't really have a navy.
they are questions whenever the report is real. Nevertheless, it would explain how such small attack would not just get through but sink it.
If fire fighting equipment was missing or needed keys from the admiral, then no wonder they didn't fight to save the ship
If the have either communications or radar, it is no wonder they didn't have they radar active.
If the air defense systems are not working, then yeah a couple of Neptune's are enough.
A repeat of the russian navy in 1905.
Sure, dude, Ukr & NATO is fighting a naval war, not a LAND war, and sinking old rusty ship will put them a step closer to the Ultimate Victory....
In mid-time, 1/3 of Ukr is gone, Murica is throwing elensky under the bus, and probably next year will be no Ukr at all, considering how much ground they lose each day. But keep dreaming, listening to a dude who have nothing interestent to say, and instead upload a short clip about a war incident in a country of other side of the world, in a country he has no clue about, and using only Ukr & western presstitute corporate media as "sources"...
But hey, is no rule to invent BS and upload to YT in order to keep ignorant muppets on subscriptions count...
Doesn't have a navy is a nonsense statement. They had one and destroyed it themselves. Then reconstituted it under a different format, drones, patrol boats etc. However, that's all irrelevant because of the size of the area, land based missiles can also attack ships. Who cares if there's a navy or not?
The only battles the Russians won in the Black Sea were when they had a Ukrainian-origin admiral, Nakhimov. Rus and later Ukraine, with its capital Kyiv, had had centuries-long sea battle experience against the Byzantine and Ottoman empires, especially as raiders, starting from the late VII century; the very same time Moscow Tsardom(later the Russian empire), centuries before the Ukraine occupation, was a landlocked country with natives to forest and swamps Moscowites(later Russians) who somehow learned about the sea in the XVIII century. Russians lost all other battles in this sea, either during Tsar or Red Russia, the Russia-Ottoman wars, WWI, or WWII.
The USS Cole is one counterpoint. USS Samuel B. Robert's survival after a Persian Gulf mine strike seems like another. Cole is a destroyer, Sammy B. was a smaller frigate, but she survived because her crew didn't quit fighting for her survival. U.S. naval history and tradition play a part: "Don't give up the ship."
There was also that American destroy that got rammed by a freighter. By some miracle the crew was able to keep it afloat and under its own power even though the captain was one of the first to die.
If I'm not mistaken, the official story is that a saboteur started a fire in the weapons hold. Can't really do much after that...
@@edwardloomis887 I just wrote a big ole comment and I used the Sammy B as an example and then I read this. (But the WW2 one) That name has a hell of a legacy.
Reminds me of the Sheffield in the Falklands (part of the advanced air defence screen but its main air search radar was shut down to allow satcom transmissions which I suspect were not critical - they never saw the Exocet until it was seconds away as a result)
Reminds me a lot of the Sheffield sinking too. That ship was hit by just a single Exocet missile, and if you look at the things the board of inquiry identified as factors in her sinking, ask yourself if you think the Russians may have had similar deficiencies in training and response time. Yeah.
Agreed but there are several distinct differences between Sheffield and Moskva.
1) Sheffield was destroyed in part due to a complete lack of a CIWS last line of defence. Sheffield showed the vulnerability of large warships to fast aircraft carrying anti shipping missiles. Most if not all warships since carry one form of CIWS if not more than one.
Difference being that Moskva had those systems installed and had 6 of them. But only one of them was operational and the rest damaged or used for spare parts.
2) Sheffield had it's air defence screen shut off and relied on other ships to do it for them. So Sheffield was in a flotilla of ships operating as a team so the other ships could make up for one ships shortcomings.
Moskva was alone and had an air defense system that could have interfered with the missiles ability to hit the ship..... Had the system been turned on. They found that this system interferes with their own ships ability to use radio communication so they left their air defence system off. So when the ship was hit. They immediately turned the air defence system back on cutting ALL communication within the large ship until a runner came to the bridge to tell the captain what was going on face to face. This had the effect of making it nearly impossible for the ships crew to organise a damage control action.
@ of course no one situation is the same as another
Another aspect of the Sheffield was readiness it was right at the start of the war and the hard lessons had to be relearnt (underestimating your enemy being as old as warfare itself)
While the RN was and still is one of the best trained navies on the planet 35 years of limited action at sea and then a sudden shift from peacetime to combat in a new era of weaponry must have had a part to play too
@@jasonaris5316 And the conservatives doing their best to make the Uk.... An island nation a nation without a navy to protect it.
Honestly if Argentina had waited just one more year the UK would not have had a functional navy to send to the Falkland's.
Though the war itself was only a UK Argentina thing it in and of itself paved the way to modern navel warfare for the whole world.
Firstly showing the effectiveness of carrier VTOL aircraft at performing raid missions on island targets and doing so unmolested by the possibly more advanced high altitude aircraft like the Mirage the Argentineans were using.
Secondly that ships need a last line of physical defence against aircraft and missiles and not just short range missiles that require a crew to know they are being shot at to work. CIWS can track identify and eliminate an incoming threat before the crew can even lift a finger.
thirdly. though the sinking of the Belgrano is controversial if or not it was a right decision to make it puts into perspective the very real threat of nuclear submarines in the theatre of war. Not only surveying enemy warships from underwater completely unseen for weeks but also being able to deliver precision weaponry and sink even a heavily armoured target.
Let's not forget that the Belgrano was once a US Brooklyn class light cruiser and had much thicker armour than modern destroyers and cruisers being a survivor of ww2 and yet it was no match for a modern RN submarine torpedo.
@@jasonaris5316 I was thinking the same thing. Though I suspect that moral, lack of training, poor equipment and incompetent leadership, played a grater part than equipment being turned off. Just look at how the invasion started and HALTED, and now how they are bogged down and if not losing, sure as the devil not winning.
The sinking Moskva reminds me so much of the Strike on the Stark (FFG-31). Both cases, two combatants were operating in war zones where antiship missiles among other threats were operating. Stark was hit accidentally by two missiles without using the SM-1, 3inch 76mm gun or CIWS for various reasons. The ship also did not employ chaff rockets. One of the Exocet missiles failed to detonate, its turbojet ironically caused more casualties and damage.The Moskova was likewise operating in a combat zone, was hit by two similar ASMs and apparently failed to use the various sensors to detect, decoy or destroy the two missiles. The Stark enjoyed better training as far as damage control and in spite of the dangerous Aluminum Superstructure a more compartmentalized design, the crew was able to save the ship and attend to wounded shipmates. The Moskva apparently was not able to contain the explosions or fires and suffered from large open magazines of the S-300F launchers and other ordnance. As you pointed out, Moskva did not get the support Stark did. Very good report Aaron!
@@00calvinlee00 couldn't have said it better myself. The Starks Air Search Radar now EW's picked up the threat. If I remember correctly CIWS was in standby. Chaff/Torch was not deployed cuz the EW's didn't detect the missiles and it took a heroic effort from the ships damage control teams for the fire not to spread to the missile magazine. This is not similar to the USS Cole situation which was truly an asynchronous attack
@@gmikegainesStark was a really good wake up call for the Navy to mature it’s AAW capability. It’s insane how far the Aegis Block 3 has come.. I think Carney shot down something like 51 ASCMs, ballistic missiles, and drones. Granted those missiles aren’t exactly top of the line, but still a crazy feat.
@@gmikegaines Agreed. One of the other things that really was awful about the Cole was the fact it was sent there like the Sullivans to make Yemen "feel better" about being on the list of State Sponsors of Terror. IIRC Gen. Zinni put them on the list and then agreed to let the Navy refuel their. Both cases were awful. Ironically, there were four Destroyers at Penn's Landing that day. My Dad noticed something on the Bridge and "all visitors were requested to leave". The four DDGs all spooled up and rolled out. We found out about the Stark later that evening. Feel great my Niece who is now in Guam has SAMs and Aegis Ashore.
The Moskva was also the only ship of the class to not have it's firefighting capabilities upgraded.
One notable difference between the Stark & Moskva: while the Gulf was certainly a warzone, at that moment the US wasn't one of the belligerents, so Stark wasn't an active combatant. The Iraqi Exocet attack was accidental, as you mention (pilot thought he was targeting a commercial tanker). Moskva, on the other hand, was both in a warzone AND obviously a participating combatant and thus a legitimate target. I make this distinction not to excuse Stark's posture and/or readiness state (obviously it should have been higher), but to highlight how even more egregious was Moskva's lack of such.
I'm reminded of another parallel in Russian naval history: the 1904-05 Baltic Fleet voyage during the Russo-Japanese War, culminating in utter defeat at Tsushima. As it turns out, sending run-down ships with poor material condition, low crew morale, and inadequate training into a combat situation doesn't end well. A lesson which sadly needs to be re-learned from time to time.
3:20 There are other more fundamental mistakes:
1. The fire suppression gear was locked away because of rampant theft.
2. Moskva was not properly maintained. The very systems that should have protected him (it's Russian, so - him!) were offline. Had the Moskva been maintained the Neptunes never would have scored hits.
Well 2 might not be true, the Neptune missiles are under the Moskva minimum engagement range of all there missiles, and at that angle the guns if they were working can only engage 1 second before they hit (which means the missiles will hit). Btw the minimum engagement range on the Russian missiles 50 meters and the Neptunes fly at 5 meters on their final approach.
That western propaganda yoh fool, do you really believe this nonsense, you probably believe Russia fighting with shovel according to British intelligence, that’s the type of nonsense they come up with, a complete joke
@@ricardoospina5970 2 is in fact true whether or not its anti-air systems could have intercepted the neptune. It is known that the radar could not be operated without inhibiting the function of vital ship systems
Quibble: The Cole was an asymmetric attack but Moskva was not. It was a major national naval asset defeated by a major national coastal defense asset. Just because ammunition costs less than warships that does not mean it is asymmetrical.
And how do you know what hit Moskva? and was she hit at all?
@histrion5390 The Moskva definitely sank. Are you saying she just sank all by herself? Isn’t that even worse?
@@histrion5390well the Russian version of events can’t be true because the Russians say that it sank during a storm and rough seas, but the last picture we ever saw of the Moskva show calm seas. Sky is gray, but not dark.
@@histrion5390 True, we don't really know with any certainty. Russia isn't going to tell the truth and Ukraine and NATO have every reason to lie, at least until the war is over. We can assume that none of us have the clearance and that those that do have the good sense to keep their mouths shut about important details. Hell, for all we know it was the most classic of modern Russian mistakes and some idiot was smoking when and where he shouldn't have been!
@@matthewkantar5583 We simply don't know. Yes, that would be worse.
If as I understand it the Russian navy makes use of the same 1 year conscripts that the army uses, then a large portion of the crew would not have been properly trained to deal with such damage. It takes a minimum of a year on board a modern combat ship to understand all the systems involved. In western Navies new recruits would likely have spent a minimum of 3-4 months in shore base training before stepping on a ship & they would still need on average another year to be fully qualified. That means if most a crew only has a maximum of a year in the Navy they would be discharged right around the time they would become useful.
This empire-horde under different names, Moscow Tsardom(before 1721), Russian Empire, RSFSR(1917), USSR(1922), and Russian Federation(1991), pays most attention to the shire size of its army and, after XVIII century, fleet; there is nothing about efficiency or quality, all about the quantity that produces fear factor. Russian Navy epically failed all Russia-Ottoman wars, WWI, and WWII in the Black Sea; there were exceptions when Ukrainians were the sailor's core and Ukrainian-origin admirals served in the Russian imperial navy. Rus and later Ukraine, with the capital in Kyiv, had 1000+ years of sea battles experience against Byzantines and later Ottoman empires; at the same time, the centuries-long vassal to Turk nomads, Moscow Tsardom(and later Russia) before 1700 were fully landlocked with no navy tradition at all.
@@denisoko8494 In your initial name calling tirade, you may want to use the start of Russian Tsardom instead if the date it changed its name to "empire" . However in so doing you must avoid claiming years of Ukrainian rule as part of its enemy timeline . Many countries trace back their rulers to Vladimir of Kiev.
Or the Falklands. 1980's tech was probably the Moskva standard to be honest.
As with the Falklands, in war stuff happens. Then people make documentaries about it as if those were the key reasons for the military success or failure. They are not. The boots on the ground decide
I think they were trying to put out the fire by submerging the ship in water 😂
That part probably worked.
@NothernNate Hysterical! observation. Wow, the Ukrainians provided both the problem AND the solution, which presents the muskovites with a DILEMMA, & is such the ultimate insult to Putin.
The method, although generally effective*, is quite expensive. *See Horizon, Deepwater and Ixtoc 1.
@@joeselch5917 I'm sure it's extra expensive when it's your Navys flag ship named after the capital and could have been saved with good tactics and maintenance.
The only lesson I really learnt from this incident is to not send a warship, that hasn't been properly cared for and cannot defend itself, into a warzone.
I believe that the files of the ships evaluation report before it was sent out it is mentioned that most of her equipment weren't working including most of her defensive weapons and damage control, her engines were in dire need of replacing which also made her have to move slower, her radar had to be shut off, and numerous other issues including fire extinguishers having to be locked away due to theft and doors having to kept open. So it really does seem that with all these issues two Neptune missiles could destroy a large warship.
It seems thag many of Russia's older ships, including destroyers, cruisers, and their aircraft carrier are really not cared for, the best ones are their new frigates, new corvettes, and sub fleet. Unlike the USSR, Russia currently doesn't have much of a reason to keep an ocean going fleet with large warships. So focus is placed on newer warships while the older ones are given leftovers based on necessity and mainly only exist for their looks not actual power. Though after Moskva they likely changed this a bit and are keeping them in better condition. It's sad, as I am a big fan of all Navy ships and to see these ships in such a state pains me, but I guess it's understandable.
LazerPig's (despite his flaws and clear biases) video on the Moskva does have the evaluation reports including both translated and not translated versions so do check it out as I may have gotten a few things wrong.
As usual I do enjoy the content.
Although it's probably part of the problem, BUT... You cannot rule out the training and the attitude of the crew and leadership. Even with a ship equipped with the most modern equipment in existence, if you're not acting like your in a danger zone, if your radars are not looking for threats, if the crew believes it is in a safe environment, it can also happen.
And unless we get access to more details, there is no way to know what share is due to the equipment, the training, the attitude, the leadership.
Why M1s sent in? They were not able to defend themselves either.
@@fungames24 What a stupid comment.
A tank (up to the most modern ones) have no self-protection system.
A cruiser ship of this size is packed with self-defence, and even area defence systems.
@@fungames24 land warfare is very different than naval warfare. Also the tanks do have defenses to counter drones, and future tanks are being designed with ways to counter drones as well. You still can't compare the two. Moskva didn't have a chance so sending it out was pointless.
Extremely professional concise analysis. Love this channel to bits.
No, the Moskva didn't sink, it is simply conducting a special underwater operation.
Simple yet brilliant.
In the spirit of Soviet/Russian propaganda.
Like most USSR ships, Moskva was designed for suicide missions. The buoyancy was sacrificed to put as many weapons as possible.
Moskva single damage control post was located at the center of the ship, between two engine rooms, the point where missiles would aim. That actually exactly where Moskava was hit. So, no damage control and no power.
The huge single compartment accommodated 48 S-300, if flooded it would make impossible to right the ship. The 1/4 of upper desk houses 16 huge ASMs.
The rumorse are that the S-300 radar was never fully operational and can be used for several hrs a day only before requiring maintains.. From the pictures, it is clear that all defense systems were never engaged.
I think you should make a video series for this kind of events, maybe like the sinking of belgrano or other ships
British intelligence reported that most of the air defence systems are not working in Moskva, and also poor training lead the sinking of it.
Doesn't make it true, though it also doesn't mean it isn't true.
I think it was the last maintenance report from the shipyard/navy that detailed all the problems
The russian sailors were throwing infantry shovels at the incoming missiles. They manged to stop the leading one, but the back up missile hit. The ship was transporting emergency shovel supply to the front at the time.
You are doubly correct. The air defense systems where not woking on the Moskva, and the air defense systems are not working in Moskva
@@Statueshop297 This was it, there was a report leaked from around 2 week prior to the invasion. Lazerpig goes over it in detail but it boils down to:
1 CIWS out of 6 was "operational"
FCS radar interfeared with onboard communications so was usually disabled meaning the S300 system was INOP
IF the FCS was enabled it supposedly struggled to lock onto sea skimming weapons which the neptune is of this class
130mm Gun was INOP due to hydraulics failures
Of the DCS basically all of it was either INOP/Locked Down to a single key held by the admiral on board or alread stolen
It was a ship that shouldnt have been out of dry dock let alone anywhere near the front lines
The open bar in the CIC maybe should be limited some...
1. Don't invade a neighboring country before you have sufficient Naval assets. The Black Sea Fleet had on paper a Corvette with better short-range air defense but failed to provide sufficient time for it to return to the Black Sea. Likewise, they could have added additional frigates with air defense capabilities.
2. Speaking of which, your flagship should always be escorted.
3. If you're fighting a country that has the possibility of having anti-ship missiles, have continuous combat air patrol flights over your Fleet in action.
4. Have crews that are confidently trained and led.
5. During a war and in a war zone, air defense equipment and radars must be in operation at all times. (The British also failed this test in the Falklands.)
you had me at "don't invade a neighboring country"...
6. Stay out of coastal defense missile range upon being major/capital surface combatant. Coast always will have more missiles easier and coastal launchers are really hard to track, since it's literally "Hi, I'm a cargo truck with tarped cargo box on the back. Surprise under the tarps is a missile box launcher".
Any big ship just hanging around that close to coast of their with in war nation with Anti-ship missiles is asking to be shot at. Ones air patrol probably helps none, since the missiles will go to sea skimming and would take very specific long range assets to hit. Heck I don't think there is such thing as long range anti-sea skimming missile, missile. It will come down to, you get alert earlier, but it comes down to close in defences. Which will always be game of... do we get lucky or not lucky. Sooo one gets to pucker ones ass longer in knowledge, that long range sensors have picked up incoming missiles and there frankly is nothing anyone can do until those missiles fly within short range close-in air defence envelope of some friendly ship.
Sea skimming ASM simply are nasty pieces of kit. Which is why so many nations get them. They create very efficient area denial with flexible deployment and fraction of cost of major surface combatants. Even the mightiest navies can't just waltz to shore, since ones recon might say there is no missiles. However that missile truck can be hidden in a big barn.... sooooo did all the barns, nooks and crannies get checked and are rechecked all the time.
@@aritakalo8011 Your argument applies equally to sea defense cannons in more ancient wars, such as WW2 (A major German ship was sunk by a Norwegian coastal gun battery in the first hours of the invasion), similarly England's Royal Navy also lost some assets to Turkish cannons in the WW1 Dardannelles offensive (Churchill v. Ataturk) . Lesson applies as far back as fire arrows against wooden flagships .
Sounds to me they didn't have all water tight hatches and doors dogged down. "Set condition Zebra throughout the ship." USN 77-83
The Moskva was not sunk by asymmetric warfare. Anti-ship cruise missiles have been around since the 1960s. It's telling that this powerful cruiser armed with multi-layered air defense, could not defeat subsonic cruise missiles which, the naval variant of the S-300 should have been able to handle. The Aegis combat system used by USN cruisers and destroyers was designed to detect and destroy this kind of threat and has been proven in the Red Sea. I'm not saying the Russian air defense system on Moskva sucks. I'm guessing there was a major readiness issue.
While this incident is significant, the more significant naval incident is how the New Zealand Navy managed to sink a good proportion of its fleet, recently, without any enemy combatant in the entire Pacific Ocean…
DEI
@@PhilippeDoyleGray
At least NZ has the Americas Cup, which might be more useful.
@PhilippeDoyleGray - NZer here - agreed, that was embarrassing!
I agree with the many commenters who blame "diversity hiring" as a core reason.
That, plus taking a large ship so near a known reef.
The *sensible* thing to do would have been to throw a mapping sonar and GPS on a small boat (even an "inflatable") that could get close to shore and map the reefs. Much safer. Heck, you could even put a remote-control unit on it so it could be controlled from the larger ship.
@gaius_enceladus disgraceful by the captain of any ship anywhere ever. Doing it on a modern ship - worse; modern military ship - much worse.
A Survey ship!!?!! Beyond belief. Only DEI could do it.
this what happens when you get your news solely from propaganda sources.
the RNZN had one ship run aground.
Anti-ship missiles are no joke
it was a subsonic munition. Pretty easy to intercept if the ships defense were working at the time.
@@Spearhead45in theory.. stuff breaks while at sea , and electronics are challenge even for a real navy .. not a cut rate ex Soviet fleet where the toilets don’t work
@@Spearhead45 the exocet is subsonic and had success in the past against western frigates equipped with both SAMs and CIWS
the effectiveness of these systems can be questioned, especially against the newer threats (supersonic-hypersonic missiles)
@@stephenrickstrew7237 I mean, you are right. The Russian surface fleet is not very up-to-date and leadership is bad but there submarine Fleet is very capable
@@billwhoever2830 when were these tests taken place?
"Very advanced russian naval technology, surface ships that can transform into submersibles. You go, Ivan!" -- MR
I’d say the Stark is a better comparison in this scenario than the Cole.
Cole, Stark and Roberts all suffered worse damage than Moskva and all were saved by the bravery of their crews and the level of training and competence the US Navy insists on. I was in the USCG (1972-77) and we were just as fanatical about damage control as the Navy..... we had more damn exercises at odd times than I care to remember starting in boot camp and when I got on board my cutter. One time in port the cutter moored behind us called our quarterdeck and informed us they had a fire in their JP5 pump room. They weren't asking for assistance but would we please standby. Word went out on my cutter "standby rescue and assistance personnel" Almost before I could hang up the microphone folks were scrambling to the quarter deck pulling on their equipment as they ran. Most of our crew (180 people) with the exception of the watch standers were on the fantail inside of a few minutes. CGC Gallatins crew fought the fire successfully by themselves. Russia always pays a high price for their stoopidity and it never seems to change. I was a sonar tech and have always watched the Russian subs all these years with great interest..... they always seem to be loosing boats or have fires and the fire fighting equipment suffocates the crew. It's always for some really idiotic reason too. I think their surface fleet is even worse when it comes to safety, their technical competence is lacking also. Like you said in the case of Moskva they weren't rotating and radiating while they were exposed in range of anti ship missiles
To this day Russian trolls are still coping hard about losing the Moskva
I LOVE YOU, ZELENSKYYIII! ❤
Hip-hip, SLAVA!
Not really. Russia has a long history of naval disasters. They have never been a sea power, land power on the other hand ... No one seems to have beaten them in the end.
@@billalumni9142 Afghanis would like a word with you
@@billalumni9142 Japan and Finland did wonders against Russian ground forces in both Russo-Japanese and Winter war respectively. In both cases they where fighting a smaller force and japan won so hard they played a part in starting a communist revolution years later.
@@billalumni9142oh and let’s not forget about the British handing Russian defeat after defeat in the Crimean War.
I don't think the USS Cole is a good example to compare the damage control efforts. The Cole was in port and after the initial attack they could be reasonably sure the no further attacks would happen / or get through. The Moskwa on the other hand was still inside enemy attack range and a follow up attack was definitely a concern. Plenty of ships that could have been saved have been given up and scuttled due to concerns that trying to save them would just expose more units to enemy attack, e.g. the USS Hornet and HMAS Canberra during WW2.
Important to note that western nations have better damage control experience than Russia.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't think the sailors on the Cole felt that way. They were in a port, but they were in a hostile one. They positioned themselves to make a fast getaway as soon as they were finished because of the security intelligence reports they were receiving. I have 2 good friends that were on the Cole at the time. 1 was on the mess decks and woke up 3 days later in Germany. The other immediately took a topside security role. Imagine that happening and there are still 100 small boats in the water in visual range. They basically rotated damage control and security around the clock for 3 days. Not to mention addressing all the casualty situations, which were just a nightmare and far too gruesome to be discussed here. Still, I think it's safe to say that every incident is different and comes with it's own unique challenges and considerations.
Another GREAT analysis! Watching this from Traer Iowa
there are still multiple questions well sooner or later will find answers to.
for me there are some key fragments.
1. how well did the firefighting systems work?
2. how well did the firefighting crews perform?
3. did the watertight doors work?
4. did the comms still work?
5. was the central command and bridge still operate?
6. how well did the ships design handle the strikes?
7. how well was the interior of the ship maintained and how much was flammable?
this reminds me mostly of the loss of HMBS Sheffield during the Falklands war.
firstly poor use and handling of Radar and other systems onboard.
Secondly firefighting and after some time forced evacuation leading to the complete loss of the vessel.
Now Shieffield was much smaller of a vessel but it is quite similar.
(Since im Swedish and the Swedish navy uses the "Hans Majestäts Skepp" to and is older by around 20 years thus the Brits get the B and they can suck it up)
Also we had our own massive ship explosing already back in the year of 1676 when HMS Kronan aka HMS RoyalCrown decided to explode in the middle of The Battle of Öland against the Danes.
HMS Kronan was about the size of Admiral Nelsons HMBS Victory and had more and larger guns.
over 800 men died in the explosion.
Soon after he predeccesor as the Flagship which had retaken that role when Kronan exploded HMS The Royal Sword was destroyed to with the loss of over 650 men.
Naval battle in the years of 1550-1850 was truly terrifying.
Rather than comparing to the Cole, a comparison with the Stark might be more revealing. I think many of the same conclusions might be reached, but the difference in ship and crew performance where indeed stark, no pun intended.
Perhaps another lesson is "don't attack a peaceful neighbour that actually built a lot of your naval vessels" ?
peaceful ? brother they were at war with their own people for 8 years lol . 13,000 UA soldiers died and we have an unknown number for Luhansk and Donetsk separatists
@@cherrypoptart2001 Isn't A-FRUCKING-MAZING how ignorant of the facts these Ukraine lovers are? Civilains were shelled and bombed for longer than 8 years by Ukraine drivign the people of the DOnbass to declare their indepdence and Ukraine is described as PEACEFUL?
Rusbots very active here. Ukraine was peaceful until imperialistic russia annexed parts of it in 2014.
Euromaidan masscare happened before the referendum, tho.
@@cherrypoptart2001 13k is a sum of ukrainians, pro-russian ukrainians, russians and civillians killed after Russia-instigated invasion (between April 12, 2014, and February 24, 2022)
The Moskva was a 40 year old ship when sunk that apparently was not updated. Its radars, the key to any missile engagement, were likely manually operated. A well trained crew can use such systems effectively like they were in the Moskva for only period of time before fatigue reduces efficiency. Ships like the Burke Class destroyers can operate in full automatic and remain high readiness 24/7. The Moskva was an old ship in the wrong place too long and paid the price.
What? Hand cranked turrets and coal fired radar?
Did they use galley slaves on outrigger oars for propulsion too?
Thanks for this one .. these ships were carrier sailors nightmares .
Interesting as always, thanks!
Those land based Neptunes must be hell on wheels.
I think other factors - maintian your ships and your crews. Do damage control drills and fire fighting drills. Build your ships with compartmentalistion. Having lots of diffierent air defence systems can make it complex to activate the right ones at the right time rather than integrated sensor and weapons systems. I also understand that there may have been drones around so having fire directors that can only deal with a couple of targets at once in a certain direction may also have been a factor.
Thank you for your video.
Excellent and Outstanding Analysis!!!!
Happy Halloween, Aaron. I hope you've gotten another fluffy friend but also where can a person get a large print or a high resolution file of that painting at 5:50? That's freaking awesome.
Right!?
The year was 1984, I was on watch in CIC operating my WLR-! ESM equipment. I picked up the Moskva's and it's escorts surface search radars. A while later my ships radar picked them up. Bottom line , I know the radars worked in 1984.
We sailed within 50 miles of it. I would of enjoyed that Snoopy Detail if it happened.
That's pretty incredible - you saw her (with your equipment, but that counts, right?) at the start of her career, she was only commissioned on January 30th, 1983. 😮
@@MeeesterBond17 She was navigating to the Black Sea after her commissioning. I was returning from the Artic Circle in February.
@@nunyabeeswax9463 was it this Moskva? I know some of their ships’ names had changed with the collapse of the USSR. I thought there was a helicopter carrier (sort of) in the 1980s named Moskva.
Came out of the med and intercepted here to gather information and underwater looks big ship but noisy heard here from miles away
Hypohystericalhistory anyone? That video on modern missiles is the GOAT.
Yes that guy is amazing. Love his vids too
Apparently, Operation Weserübung (Drobak Narrows) is not mandatory reading at the Naval Academy in Russia.
Part of the problem with the damage control is that most of the fire fighting and damage control equipment was in locked cabinets that only a few officers had access to because the crew would steal such equipment and sell it on the black market. Also, they could not use their main search radar, and also have radio communications at the same time. Plus there were several other issues which crippled the CIWS and the anti-aircraft missiles.
Great vid ❤
Ukraine reclassified the Moskva as a submersible.
This is one of the surface ship that converts to a submarine
Great video as always, but a correction. The moskva has just 64 s300 missiles, which is a lot but it isn't the 256 showned in the video. It probably was a multiplication error that should of been 8x8 not 64x8. Thanks for the awesome content you provide.👍👍👍
The Moskva was on it´s own, not in condition Z and if i compare it today with the interception rate of Russian air defence systems...she didn´t even see those missiles coming otherwise the FCR would have been turned to Port for interception.
Wanna hear a joke? Moskva.
I wouldn't so much compare the Moskva sinking to the Cole attack, as much as I would the attacks on the USSs Stark and Mason, and the ongoing actions of the USS Carney in the Red Sea. The Stark was hit by two AShMs. While severely damaged, determined and effective damage control kept it afloat and put out the fires. The Mason was attacked by Houthi Rebels in the Gulf of Aden, who launched two AShMs at the ship. The Mason, unlike the Moskva, deployed it's sensors, weapons, and countermeasures to defend itself, and the attack was defeated. The Carney has dealt with a number of attacks by the Houthis using various forms of aerial weaponry over a significant period of time, successfully defending itself, and friendly shipping in the area.
You could also compare to the Samuel B Roberts hit an Iranian Sea mine during the Iran/Iraq war while escorting a Kuwaiti oil tanker blew the keel up and they still managed to save it
@@KiRiTO72987 My point was that with the attacks I mentioned, their was an ability to defend against the attacks, The Stark, like the Moskva didn't, but it's damage control kept it afloat. The Mason and Carney defended, and were successful.
The loss of the Moskva was very similar to the loss of the Sheffield during the Falklands War. In both cases, not all required systems could be active at once because they caused interference between them.
This is known as a "co-site" problem.
If this is the case, then operate any surface ships within the range of the enemy land based long range standoff weapons are risky. That kinda makes area denial easier. It is far cheaper to build missiles than building ships.
"240 people survived"
-[citation needed]
It’s impressive that the Russian Black Sea Fleet essentially conceded defeat against an adversary that has no seizable navy……
hi,can you tell me how much the explosive charge in each warhead weighed? AND do we know what type of fire fighting equipment these was on board?
The Ukrainian Neptune missile has a reported payload of about 150 kilograms (approximately 330 pounds). This missile is designed for anti-ship operations and can carry both high-explosive and fragmentation warheads, making it effective against naval targets. The Neptune is an evolution of the Soviet-era Kh-35 missile, adapted for modern warfare.
4:12
The HMS Coventry was sunk due to critical damage to her engineering spaces during the Falklands War. So potentially Moskva suffered similarly.
Vodka played a role in the sinking.
The ship was hit while it was raining, stormy, so the radar was not operating properly. They never knew what hit them. Ukrainian intel knew of this vulnerability and exploited it. Viva Ukraine.
Is this Perun second channel? take it as a compliment that was a good watch
The first lesson about russian navy that I learned from history is: Don't be on a russian ship during wartime.
The other lesson I learned from history is: Don't be on a russian ship during peacetime.
Large, manned platforms have been shadowed by small, unmanned volumes of attacking weapons.
Hi Aaron, if it took you this long to bring out this comprehension video, I know it's solid.
Comprehensive? Both work. I hope? 🧐🤔😉
Also one thing to consider in the loss. How effective was the damage control party?? Were there enough trained personnel on board and did the rest of the crew have any training in fire fighting/damage control??
Does "Moskva cruiser" sound odd to anyone else? I'm used to hearing "cruiser Moskva". Possibly the least important thing I noticed about this video, but I will post it anyway.
It was "A" flagship not "THE" flagship. Whilst there isn't a single flagship, as flagship actually just means that fleets admirals ship, if there was a ship considered the overall flag, it would be the Kirov class battlecruisers.
I was on a Brit sub that tracked the slava (Moskva) when she was first built and the first time she entered the Atlantic they changed the name to Moskva we came out of the Mediterranean to intercept and do the business on here .
Interesting, the ruining ashore of the New Zealand Navy survey ship that lead to its sinking can be attributed toooooooo ,,, finish the sentence. At least the Moscow was in a war zone....
bad surveying
Looking for clams?
I seen a report where they supposed to have elevated 4. 3 of the 4 have failed.
An All Blacks game being played?😉
To be fair, these are the exact same problems the US had in the Stark Incident; they "weren't alert enough" and "never employed their countermeasures or counter-missile weapons" either.
We learnt russia sucks at navy. Wait. We already knew that.
I can't actually believe how little we know about what really happened.
1, allocate your frequencies.
2, don't forge readiness checks.
The water cannon spraying water towards the AFT of the ship into the ocean is a great description of the entire state of the Russian Navy. It's there and it does something, but how much it's actually being effective is pretty questionable
It's a huge ship and those are small cruise missiles like Harpoon missiles.
Imagine going back to 1986 and telling people a Slava-class cruiser was sunk by enemy missile fire...and when they ask who did it, tell them the Ukrainians.
It seems they build their ships like they build their tanks.
0:54 Everyone survived.
The ship was operating with a reduced crew, hence why recovery efforts failed.
Lesson #2: if you designate your flagship as submarine in the first place it cannot get sunk
Gotta say, your original video on this hit way harder. Back then, you weren’t just reading-it was raw, straight from the gut, and the pride showed when you talked about Ukraine taking down the Moskva. But about a year ago, I noticed a shift in your energy. Sad to see, really. The U.S. should’ve done a lot more to stop Russia’s aggression toward Ukraine; now we’ve got Russia rattling the whole world, pushing everything into chaos.
I dont understand why the Moskva was there in the first place. Moskva class are meant to trade blows head to head with other ships. Not being an AA platform, it was a very weird choice for the job. I would imagine the Russians would rather have deployed more smmaler ships more suited for these tasks if they could.
"Hey Perun, can I copy your homework?"
Sub brief predates Perun.
Given how regularly the Russians demonstrate this level of negligence and incompetence, it is valid to question whether their nuclear deterrence is functional.
Well if you assume it’s not then the danger of nuclear war INCREASES 😮
Lol these dumb western warhawks always want to play with fire.
Even if 80% of their nuclear arsenal wasn't working, that 20% is enough to destroy the world.
Don't be an idiot. Assume they work
What does Russia have that works well?
@@frankpinmtl artillery, glide bombs (as inaccurate as they are)
The Moskva's air defence system was not operating as its radar caused the ship's radio to be unusable, inside and out.
Extrapolating these events to a revolution in naval warfare is a bit too far
The Russian navy suffered a critical "ammunition handling incident" where they couldn't handle the ammunition Ukraine was firing at them.
In the naval / sea battlespace, half the time you're fighting the elements trying to smash, shake and rust your nice new steel ship to pieces, let alone actually fight. It's not a place for poor maintenance on critical systems (or the use of unsuitable systems), or it can very quickly become combat ineffective, and just a liability.
I think complacency may have also played a part here, as they thought they were out of range of any significant Ukrainian threat.
It will never not be funny that the "second most powerful military in the world" lost naval dominance and the able to interdict shipping (and was forced to withdraw from naval bases) to a country without a navy.
“It will never not be funny”
They hold naval dominance, they do not hold coastal dominance though. Even in NATO wargames coastal/land based forces regularly pose a threat to surface ships operating close to the shores of a nation with no ability to oppose the opponent in open seas. Like, none of this is unexpected to anyone who knows anything about naval matters.
Okay first of all, when did russia lose naval power and how is ukraine having no navy a disadvantage for ukraine ? Like serieusly the russian navy is ment to figth other ships and submarines, most russian ships arent really build for airdefence and land attack. So ukraine has nk navy so wtf is the russian navy suppose to do ? Its more embarresing for ukraine i would say, they have recived hundreds of missles and the russian naval port is in their historicly close backyard and they still have only managed to hit 30% of the fleet. Seems to me that while ukraine has all the advantages and nothing to lose they still suck at anti shipping. They only managed to sink a 50yo cruiser that was only afloat by hopes and dreams
Russia is mostly a nuclear power, the biggest or second biggest on the world, they have a relatively big army (not second biggest but still big) but their navy was never that strong. On top of that the black sea fleet is only a portion of their fleet and the black sea.
I mean, they have naval dominance in the black sea and they can intercept shipping, merchant ships have no defenses at all.
Normal naval operations are done with long range missiles (kalibr) for land attack and the navy cannot do much more than that since the black sea is not even being contested (they don't have anything else to shoot at).
The reason they moved back was because of strikes on the ports by sea drones and cruise missiles, their ships can still operate in the black sea but from a greater-safe distance. It doesn't make sense to have your ships operating that close to the enemy mainland to begin with, I'm not sure why they even used those ports for as long as they did.
The loss of Moskva was due to them being careless and exposing that old-unprepared ship too much. The Moskva couldn't even fire the Kalibr missiles and was mostly useless, the main weapons carried are carrier killing missiles, they are useless in the Ukraine conflict. Moskva could basically only fire the 130mm guns she had. The modern Russian frigates and corvettes are the ships that fire the Kalibrs
@@kuunoooo7293I’ve read this posted somewhere else twice today.
The russians claimed that the ukrainians were buzzing the moskva relentlessly for hours with drones which messed with their ability to detect them. Idk how they can prioritize drones and not big ass missiles coming at them
Great analysis, thank you. It further highlights Russia's inability to function during wartime and the Bear we've all feared and respected for so many years is really just an imagination projected by it's leaders.
Russian Navy has a centuries long tradition to maintain and in that, they have maintained it admirably. 🙃
If this really was just 2 anti ship missiles then crew readiness at one or more levels really was the issue. It's unsurprising from that perspective, although I'm still surprised by it's depth. Moskva was armed to the teeth and NONE of it's defenses engaged? Why have a navy Russia?
My guess is the same arrogance that saw a US chief install a Starlink on her ship. They become arrogant believing that no one can touch them, so they stop taking all of the time consuming and energy intensive precautions necessary to be untouchable.
There was a report indicating that the Moskva was in a poor condition at the time of her sinking, with most of her CIWS guns not working and many systems operating at reduced capacity. Also apparently the primary radar interfered with the ships communications so was often turned off.
Surprised they didn’t call the bridge the scherzelifter.
Bottom line : scary tech specs are no match for the human factor.
All lessons the Chinese are learning daily.
How many vital components were in a pawn shop somewhere in Russia?
Sold to someone in N Korea?
If you are part of the Russian Black Sea fleet please be aware that sailing in the Black Sea will void your insurance
Fighting anti-ship missiles is about managing probability. Ship as this was already in a poor operational state, would have no chance, especially if caught alone without supporting fleet.
Ships in general are going to be ruled obsolete by the growing use of drones and hypersonics, not to mention submarines.
Cruiser? Hell, I thought it was a pile of garbage floating in the middle of the Black Sea...
Pride goeth before a fall. I'm confidently going to bet that they were told about missile threats and they said "Our anti-missile system cannot be beat". As well as saying any retreat would embarrass Russia and be seen as weakness by the enemy.
Bonus Lesson: if the heavy surface combatants of your Navy are build in a foreign country, dont invade that country.
It only two holes in her side, I wonder if it would be possible to raise the Moskva. If the ship remained intact and didn't take too much damage when it hit the sea floor, it might by salvageable.
@@MarchHare59 You uh, failed, skipped, or slept through Physics, didn’t you?
@@colayco Warships are raised all the time. Check your history. The Japanese raised and recommissioned several of their own and some Russian battleships sunk during the Sino Russian war of 1905, and numerous warships in WWII that were sunk were raised and put back into service, some more than once. The U.S. and British did this too. The U.S. raised Battleships and repaired some that were considered beyond salvage after they were sunk in Pearl Harbor, and more recently, the 145 meter long, 6800 ton passenger ferry MV Sewol that sank in 2014 was raised intact in 2017 out of 45 meters of water. My question is based on the condition of the Moskva's hull when it sank and what state its in now. It's an honest question, I don't know. There are a lot of unknowns in this, but let's review what we do know. Fact: the missile strikes didn't split the ship in two or break the keel. The holes are close together and make up a small percentage of the hull form. Fact: the ship did not suffer a major ammunition cook-off. Fact: the ship sank slowly and the majority of the damage appears to be confined to the engine room. The operations room, Bridge and missile bays were not struck by the missiles and may still be intact, assuming the subsequent fire didn't destroy them, and if those compartments were sealed off from the fire, they could have survived. If the ship wasn't wrecked any further when it struck the sea bed, then it may be in decent enough shape to attempt to patch the holes, pump some air into it and raise the ship, a practice that is hundreds of years old and has been accomplished successfully countless times. FACT: The wreck of the Moskva is in relatively shallow water, only 50 meters (164 feet) down. A large section of the wreck of the 154 meter long, 22,000 ton Russian submarine Kursk was 108 meters down so raising the 186 meter, 11,000 ton Moskva at less than half that depth is not outside the realm of possibility. Moskva was not a commercial vessel. It's a warship and warships are built to be tough. Their hulls are also subdivided specifically to prevent sinking. If enough intact compartments can be sealed by divers and air forced into those voids, the wreck will regain its' buoyancy and ascend to the surface as was done with Kursk. I don't need a degree in Physics to know that, a 10 year old boy with a deflated beach ball, a long tube and a pair of lungs could figure that out. In short, I didn't say it can be done, I only asked IF it could be done. Again, an honest question. Switch to decaf.
@@colayco It wasn't salvageable before it was hit.
@@colayco I wasn't making a statement, I only asked a question based on historical fact. It doesn't take a Physics degree to know that a Sunken ship can be raised if it is reasonably intact, and with the damage to Moskva confined to her engine room it might be possible. Moskva didn't explode or break in two when she was hit, and the wreck is in relatively shallow water, just 50 meters below the surface, so salvage divers can reach it without special equipment. If the holes can be patched and enough intact compartments sealed, the wreck can be raised up again. It's a technique that has been used successfully to raise sunken ships going back hundreds of years. Moskva isn't that big, only 11,000 tons loaded. If the wreck is intact, why can't she be raised?
@ You can try to raise her, but WHY? Do you actually believe a ship that filled with water will ever be useful again? Name me ONE ship raised from the bottom that sailed again!