You can triangulation and target a ship at sea long range via its own emissions using ESM or passive. The Ukrainians have access, even possibly has design and manufacturing contribution to the Bandstand/Mineral antiship radar and targeting system that allows for both active OTH detection and targeting of a ship via ducting, or by passive detection and tracking also OTH in long ranges. These systems are in the Sovremenny and 052B and are copied/inherited to the PLAN as the ubiquitous Type 366 radars and systems on board the 052C/D and 054A. See the large white dome on top of the bridge.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
You can triangulation and target a ship at sea long range via its own emissions using ESM or passive. The Ukrainians have access, even possibly has design and manufacturing contribution to the Bandstand/Mineral antiship radar and targeting system that allows for both active OTH detection and targeting of a ship via ducting, or by passive detection and tracking also OTH in long ranges. These systems are in the Sovremenny and 052B and are copied/inherited to the PLAN as the ubiquitous Type 366 radars and systems on board the 052C/D and 054A. See the large white dome on top of the bridge.
First footage (claimed) of the Moskva crew since the sinking:
if the sea is rough, the ship may well have trouble detecting an incoming sea skimming missile. I find it odd that people are so resistant to believing the Moskva could succumb to two Neptune missiles. The following facts suggest to me it is entirely not unexpected that 2 missiles could sink the Moskva under the circumstances:
1. Moskva is old, have not seen a major refit or upgrade. it is by no means clear what the true material state of the ship is in. Are all her systems even functional. are all her radar and equipment in working order and performing up to original specs. If they are functional but not function at designed level, have the russian navy actually ascertained exactly what level are they functioning at and made allowances accordingly, or are they operating in a fog not knowing the precise current capability of the ship given her current t material state?
2. Have the 40 year old seals around all her watertight doors and glands around piping and cable or penetrations through watertight bulkheads been kept in top shape since the fall of the USSR 30 years ago?
3. the sea was rough. a ship with compromised watertight integrity is exponentially more likely to succumb to progressive flooding in rough weather than in calm weather.
4. we know from interior photos of Kirov class that large Russia warships are much less well subdivided internally than would be considered acceptable in the west, For example the S-300 battery on the Kirov was housed in a single large compartment. if such a large compartment floods on rough weather, free surface effect will quickly rob the ship of stability much faster than the flooding would rob the ship of bouyancy.
5. Moskva is a particularly susceptible ship to sympathetic demotion of her own warhead in the case of a hit by antiship missile thanks to the massive battery of P-500 tubes that takes up 1/4 of the ship’s length just forward of midship. so a hits that might have just left a couple of big smoking holes on another warship can trigger a cascaded series of sympathetic detonations and fuel fires on the moskva.
1. Moskva is old, have not seen a major refit or upgrade. it is by no means clear what the true material state of the ship is in. Are all her systems even functional. are all her radar and equipment in working order and performing up to original specs. If they are functional but not function at designed level, have the russian navy actually ascertained exactly what level are they functioning at and made allowances accordingly, or are they operating in a fog not knowing the precise current capability of the ship given her current t material state?
2. Have the 40 year old seals around all her watertight doors and glands around piping and cable or penetrations through watertight bulkheads been kept in top shape since the fall of the USSR 30 years ago?
3. the sea was rough. a ship with compromised watertight integrity is exponentially more likely to succumb to progressive flooding in rough weather than in calm weather.
4. we know from interior photos of Kirov class that large Russia warships are much less well subdivided internally than would be considered acceptable in the west, For example the S-300 battery on the Kirov was housed in a single large compartment. if such a large compartment floods on rough weather, free surface effect will quickly rob the ship of stability much faster than the flooding would rob the ship of bouyancy.
5. Moskva is a particularly susceptible ship to sympathetic demotion of her own warhead in the case of a hit by antiship missile thanks to the massive battery of P-500 tubes that takes up 1/4 of the ship’s length just forward of midship. so a hits that might have just left a couple of big smoking holes on another warship can trigger a cascaded series of sympathetic detonations and fuel fires on the moskva.
Last edited:
I would have to say given the performance of the Russian military in this war, I would not be surprised at all, if the Moskva was not exactly a well-maintained ship, run by an experienced and highly competent crew. I would also not be surprised if in fact no one in the Russian black sea fleet knows maskva precise current capability given her current material condition.
I have to say the performance of the Russian military in this war call strongly to mind the blundering incompetence of the Soviet army that attempted to invade Finland in 1939, all the dissolute Russian army and navy that fought the Japanese doing the Russo Japanese war in 1904 to 1905
At around 10 minutes Xi Yazhou talks about an experience he had boarding the 'newest' slava class ship (the Varyag, about 10ish years younger than the Moskva?), and well, his description is: "rust all around the gun (is what I think the translation is), some doors have their locks broken and instead uses some rope, there's some civilian airconditioner installed around the place, and it smells like the garbage hasn't been taken out".
According to a Ukrainian report, this was not the first attack on Moskva with anti-ship missiles during this war. In the prior attack(s) Moskva shot down incoming Ukrainian missiles.I would have to say given the performance of the Russian military in this war, I would not be surprised at all, if the Moskva was not exactly a well-maintained ship, run by an experienced and highly competent crew. I would also not be surprised if in fact no one in the Russian black sea fleet knows maskva precise current capability given her current material condition.
The US is feeding intel to Ukraine. The US have SAR satellite data. The US can easily track and spot a ship as large as that and provide the location data to Ukraine. Since Ukraine makes the Neptune they could probably modify it to manually input the target coordinates before launch or maybe even add a mid course guidance mechanism if it did not have that already. I do not think that is the problem here. The problem is the ship is huge and the ammo payload in the Neptune is tiny. And while the Moskva had loads of weapons most are in sealed containers. And some of the other missiles they claimed had been used before, Penguin missiles, Brimstone, do not even have the range to hit that location from the Ukrainian coastline. Then again, like Andrei Martyanov said, the fire supression system on the ship was obsolete.You can triangulation and target a ship at sea long range via its own emissions using ESM or passive. The Ukrainians have access, even possibly has design and manufacturing contribution to the Bandstand/Mineral antiship radar and targeting system that allows for both active OTH detection and targeting of a ship via ducting, or by passive detection and tracking also OTH in long ranges.
So maybe it did cause a tiny fire and that was not supressed and caused critical damage. But you know what? Where is their corroborating evidence? Missile launch video? Zip. Video feed from the drone they claim they used? Nada. That is why I simply keep an open mind about it. And Ukraine hasn't had a good track record at this kind of info.