How many KA-52 in VVS service in the first place tho ? is 200-300 a realistic number ?
Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Notice the top dome is in default position, if it was tracking something (incoming AShMs, alleged distracting drone...etc) prior to the detonation/impact I doubt they'd have the presence of mind to swing it back to default position afterwards, also it would be pretty pointless....
Which makes me think if the ship was indeed attacked by AShMs the ship was unaware of it until the hit (or at least too late/too close to engage with S-300). Yeah I know it is pretty flimsy bit of circumstantial evidence, the ship still have power for several hours the crew may just swing it back to default when they attempt to tow it...
Which makes me think if the ship was indeed attacked by AShMs the ship was unaware of it until the hit (or at least too late/too close to engage with S-300). Yeah I know it is pretty flimsy bit of circumstantial evidence, the ship still have power for several hours the crew may just swing it back to default when they attempt to tow it...
Last edited:
Broccoli
Senior Member
Supposedly less than 150 KA-52 are in service + 50 or so single-seat KA-50 choppers.
The past month(s) have shown to me the caliber of the Russian Military.
As such, I am heavily in favour of stupidity/idiocy being the reason for why Moskva got sank.
Damage/PR control. The issue is systemic. We all know the person who is responsible for all this
According to Naval News, the delivery of first Neptune missiles to Ukraine's armed forces was scheduled for April 2022:
Ukraine’s assault with Neptune missiles is another curious matter. Because, according to the December 2021 announcement of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence, the delivery of Neptune anti-ship missiles was scheduled for April 2022. However, the war fully broke out in February, so it was unclear whether Ukraine has these missiles in its arsenal.
Furthermore, the author is of the opinion that Moskva's ESM and RWR should have detected Neptune's active radar seeker and alerted the crew, even if the search radars failed to detect it:
Slava-class cruisers are equipped with the 4xRum Tub electronic support system, which can detect Neptune anti-ship missiles’ radar seekers. After detecting the radar seeker, the ship would have about 2 minutes to defend against the missile. In addition, the Moskva was armed with 6x30mm/AK630 close-in weapon systems that have their own radar and are capable of detecting and engaging the incoming missiles themselves
Full analysis:
According to Sergei Markov, former advisor to Putin in an interview with the BBC, Moskva was sunk with NATO ASCM delivered to Ukraine in January.
Source (Italian):
If they had these missiles since January, why did they wait this long to use them? A passive guided missile like the NSM would have a far higher chance of slipping through undetected.
Ukraine’s assault with Neptune missiles is another curious matter. Because, according to the December 2021 announcement of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence, the delivery of Neptune anti-ship missiles was scheduled for April 2022. However, the war fully broke out in February, so it was unclear whether Ukraine has these missiles in its arsenal.
Furthermore, the author is of the opinion that Moskva's ESM and RWR should have detected Neptune's active radar seeker and alerted the crew, even if the search radars failed to detect it:
Slava-class cruisers are equipped with the 4xRum Tub electronic support system, which can detect Neptune anti-ship missiles’ radar seekers. After detecting the radar seeker, the ship would have about 2 minutes to defend against the missile. In addition, the Moskva was armed with 6x30mm/AK630 close-in weapon systems that have their own radar and are capable of detecting and engaging the incoming missiles themselves
Full analysis:
According to Sergei Markov, former advisor to Putin in an interview with the BBC, Moskva was sunk with NATO ASCM delivered to Ukraine in January.
Source (Italian):
If they had these missiles since January, why did they wait this long to use them? A passive guided missile like the NSM would have a far higher chance of slipping through undetected.
Sorry for the odd topic rant but correct me if my perception is wrong: The Russians have bungled their military operations badly that their once feared military prowess has been reduced to memes and being clowned by the entire collective west which can lead to reduce export sales of their military HARDWARES, which means another reduction in Russian economic growth. Russian civilian infrastructure according to some supposed Russians like their roads are not in the best conditions so much so that whenever they look with envy on buying Chinese electric cars their concern is whether the cars can handle the apparent shitty Russian road conditions.
And now that their economy is in a pickle a lot of Russians are going to be struggling even more than before. I don't understand the exact mindset of Putin when it launched the attack against Ukraine knowing that his country's economic vitality was already struggling pre-covid, pre-invasion and chosing to attack with a force that grossly underestimated Ukrainian resolve, as well as NATO'S collective actions. It can be argued that Russian economy of force has a direct corrolation with Russian economy that's relatively poor and that it had no choice but to attack now while it can because if Russia waits for a couple more years the Russian economy may not be able to afford the overall costs for the operation not to mention the improvements that Ukraine military fully integrated with NATO official member or not.
I agree with most of your points. In my opinion (which doesn't mean alot), I think Putin felt that the west was in a weak spot as well with covid, inflation, supply chain disruptions, etc. Doing it now before NATO adds more to Ukraine and while the west would also suggest more pain after the last two years, relatively Russia is probably in a stronger position than they would be in 2-3 years time. Waiting for Ukraine to donbass may be too late since then you are waiting for your enemy to choose the right time.
lcloo
Captain
Looking at the photo, there is no obvious sign of explosion caused by missile detonation. Seem like missiles failed to explode, just like the Exocet that hit HMS Sheffield in Falkland but failed to explode, instead the unspend fuel of the missile caused fire that sunk the ship.
The suspected missile entry points are just meters below the ship's CIWS.
The suspected missile entry points are just meters below the ship's CIWS.
This is precisely the cause of the confusion.
There are actually passive radars that are those that perceive fixed radio and TV broadcasts and use them to generate an image of space.
What is commonly called “passive radar” is actually the use of electronic warfare support systems that adopt passive sensors/receivers that can detect radiofrequency transmissions from radars or communication systems.
These systems are very useful but they also work within the line of sight (disregarding that there is some refraction in the atmosphere that increases the radar horizon in relation to the visual and real horizons), so they are not useful for detecting ships from the surface.
They are useful when installed on aircraft or satellites. In this way, by triangulation, it is possible to estimate the position of ships with great precision, hence in a real war operation, ships must have a very competent emission control, especially knowing when they are in the range of satellites (generally ELINT satellites operate in groups of 3 to be able to triangulate in real time).
A patrol plane could estimate the position of a ship without needing another plane because it travels quickly and from there you can get an idea of where the RF beam originates.
That is, using passive radar receivers from the surface, whether from sea or land, would not be very useful for detecting ships beyond the radar horizon (OTH).
Electronic countermeasures are in charge of the AN/SLQ-32(V)3 system, which is one of these passive sensors and receivers to support the electronic reconnaissance of enemy ships.
Which changes my original question:
Do Mineral-ME, Mineral-U, Monolit-B use radars or just receivers and sensors to perform passive detection of enemy ship radio waves like electronic warfare device like AN/SLQ32?
For example, "Mineral-ME complex includes the following facilities:
Mineral-ME1 active radar station;
Mineral-ME2 passive radar station;
Mineral Station-ME3 for data exchange, relative guidance and control of joint military operations."
In the media even in primary sources, they use the word "radar" to designate what may represent search sensors/receivers for electronic recognition that may be being put in the wrong perspective in terms of context in the argument.
How to call the "Mineral-ME1 Active Radar Station" a "radar" that operates in band I(band X) when this is not possible because such tropospheric dispersion effect is not suitable for radar operation due to mirroring and absorption by the troposphere . It can have any tunneling, it can have any troposphere, will it detect targets 250 km away being a land-based system? Even considering that the system can be placed at a higher altitude, but to have the visibility to perform the search at 250 km, the system would need to be at 1-2 km altitude, most coastal regions in the world do not have a mountain or relief in these proportions and even if it does, it will be kilometers away from the region closest to the sea, which would affect the range of the coastal surface search system.
And as for the "Mineral-ME2 Passive Radar Station", this radar is said to operate in the L, S, C and X bands and the sobriquet of calling it a radar could be wrong, when in fact it is an electronic recognition sensor/receiver , that which detects radiofrequency in the I, E, F, E band or if you prefer L, S, C and X , may not be a radar but an electronic recognition system called in its set of equipment for measures to support electronic warfare . It is not passive "radar".