I was under the impression volume search was done by top plate or fraget and top dome is S-300 FCR? I may be wrong, will look up a bit
Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
I was under the impression volume search was done by top plate or fraget and top dome is S-300 FCR? I may be wrong, will look up a bit
You were right. MR-800 and MR-710 are the search radar. while top dome or 3R41 Is tracking radar. Like her land based siblings 5N63S. Top dome was Optimized to do fire control purpuse, X-band, narrow beamwidth. It may do limited search but it works best for fire control.
So the kill chain would be MR-800 or 710 give target designation and then 3R41 Slew to the target along with other radar's. There is time delay for this which might reduce the response of the defenses.
So according to Ukr story the drone attract the attention of Slava and have its top dome pointing at it thus neglecting the opposite direction?
Still once the volume search spot those missiles coming at them, they'd immediately swing the top dome back to engage those targets. Even if the volume search failed to spot the incoming missiles, the moment those ashm ping the slava with their own radar it should alarm the Russians big time and swing their FCR to bear. How long does it take for top dome to swing 180 degrees? 30 seconds top?
This drone distraction narrative doesn't hold water, not to mention the Osa and AK630 available
You must have confused me with someone else. I don't remember questioning your statements. Personally, I don't think any question regarding why Moskva sank should be considered inappropriate.
It's only by questioning and elimination that we can hope to arrive at some semblance of a picture of what may have transpired two days ago.
I would like an answer to my question, how exactly did the Ukrainians detect, identify and track the Moskva during a storm?
The TB-2 drone does not carry a radar - please correct me if I am wrong. In inclement weather with heavy rain, optical sensors will be severely degraded. I have some reservations that the TB-2 could track the Moskva in those conditions from a safe distance. If there was heavy rain at the time of the attack, I doubt the TB-2 would be able to stay out of even Osa's range and maintain track on target.
Alternatively there could have been some other aerial asset equipped with a radar. But which one?
Theoretically ,the Ukrainians could have detected and tracked the Moskva with an over the horizon terrestrial radar. However, I think it is safe to assume that the Russians have destroyed all such static radars.
Another possibility is that the Ukrainians have used DF and ESM systems to detect, triangulate and identify the Moskva and construct a somewhat rough firing solution. I don't know if they have the networked capability to triangulate ships at sea using passive sensors. Can anyone shed some light on this?
Yet another possibility is espionage: the Ukrainians somehow got hold of Moskva's patrol plans for that day and that was good enough to launch a missile from about a 100km away.
According to a Ukrainian source, this is not the first time Ukraine has attacked Moskva with anti-ship missiles. However, Moskva shot down their missiles in the previous attacks.
Source:
A simulation I ran with CMO gives credence to the position that in a normal situation Moskva is more than capable to defend itself from 2 Neptune style anti-ship missiles.
The major variable that is pointed out by the Ukrainians is the stormy weather on that day. That somehow interfered with the ships ability to defend itself.
It could be the case that the ship was particularly vulnerable to sea skimming missiles in high sea state conditions. Its primary horizon search radar was the outdated Top Steer S-band radar from the late 70s with analog electronics. It's navigation and secondary surface search radar was the X-band Palm Frond, also late 70s technology.
The missiles might have snaked around Snake Island adding additional ground clutter to the equation. The ship appears to have been about 25-30nm from the island when it was spotted ablaze by SAR radar in orbit.
Lethe
Captain
Russia still has four Soviet-era heavies: Pyotr Velikiy, Admiral Nakhimov, Varyag and Marshal Ustinov. Either of the latter two could be reassigned to the Black Sea Fleet if Russia still wants to maintain that kind of presence.
That said, even if Russia were to assign e.g. Marshal Ustinov as the new flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, it would not have the same symbolism as Moskva did prior to her sinking. Everyone would know, or at least think (which is much the same for the purposes of prestige) that this is just another big Soviet rustbucket that can easily be sunk by anyone who cares to take a shot at it. Indeed, that's going to be the image for all of the Soviet-era heavies going forward.
I'm not suggesting that Russia should retire these ships because they no longer strike fear into the hearts of their enemies. Obviously such decisions should be made according to a clear-eyed assessment of capabilities, vulnerabilities, costs and alternatives. But strictly in terms of the prestige of the Russian Navy, the loss of Moskva under these circumstances is a massive blow that the service will likely not recover from for a generation.
Last edited:
You are correct and regret my post! Indeed I confuse you with someone else … sorry for this.
How do they not realize that doing this can also inspire the opposite effect?