Ukraine-Russia Series: Fulcrum/Flanker vs Foxbat/Super Flanker: kzread.info/dash/bejne/dJyMyNqcaZewcbg.html NASAMS vs Russian Cruise Missiles: kzread.info/dash/bejne/on59wcRyZc3goM4.html Russian KH-47M2 vs Polish Air Force: kzread.info/dash/bejne/laKmuNqqfJjXado.html Su-27 & Drone vs Snake Island: kzread.info/dash/bejne/hpOjtNGOYqTfltI.html Su-25s vs Russian Convoy At Kyiv: kzread.info/dash/bejne/pK2KmJebha3goto.html NATO Eurofighters vs Crimean AWACS: kzread.info/dash/bejne/d51-lMZ_gsufZco.html Patriot, Gepard & Gripen vs KH-65: kzread.info/dash/bejne/jJysxtSHmszNYco.html A-10s vs Russian Convoy At Kyiv: kzread.info/dash/bejne/dGSovNGoYNiymJc.html USN Tomahawk Strike Kerch Bridge: kzread.info/dash/bejne/Yqqky5qxctzNhps.html USAF Stealth Strike Kerch Bridge: kzread.info/dash/bejne/e36WyJt7k9vUp5M.html Ukrainian Jets Strike Kerch Bridge: kzread.info/dash/bejne/e2x618-uirXLcpc.html F-22 Raptors vs Russian Fighters: kzread.info/dash/bejne/daOhtMWmotqwh84.html Raptor/Eagle vs Super Flanker: kzread.info/dash/bejne/nZmlu8-ug6jVXZs.html USAF Bombers vs Mariupol Defenses: kzread.info/dash/bejne/k3enxNGId5O3hZc.html Ukraine Bombs Snake Island: kzread.info/dash/bejne/dIxqm5iGe8fRkps.html Stealth Fighters vs Russian Bombers: kzread.info/dash/bejne/pK2hm5KjnrSqo6Q.html Sinking Of Moskva #3: kzread.info/dash/bejne/gH2e0duCmci1qrw.html Sinking Of Moskva #2: kzread.info/dash/bejne/paKeyMSjj6jdh5c.html Sinking Of Moskva #1: kzread.info/dash/bejne/dKyrypiGd6-wfsY.html Russia Nukes Britain: kzread.info/dash/bejne/pK6flpeLdrTdcZs.html Ukraine Uses Danish F-16s: kzread.info/dash/bejne/Y2uEy82roJO3kbw.html Ukraine Uses Polish Mig-29s: kzread.info/dash/bejne/rHedltZ6ed3bf7g.html Russian-Britain Missile Attack: kzread.info/dash/bejne/rKt9qciaktngeKQ.html Ghost Of Kyiv: kzread.info/dash/bejne/i6aX1pqPZNGXXbg.html Belgorod Raid: kzread.info/dash/bejne/n4WtzbaxpJnMpNo.html Eurofighter/Fulcrum vs Super Flanker: kzread.info/dash/bejne/f4Stq8updcvNgpM.html US Strike vs Odessa kzread.info/dash/bejne/fZmdsaqgqszJZrw.html Russian Helo Rocket Lob: kzread.info/dash/bejne/Y2VsqcmAnrPFo7A.html Russian Su-25 vs US Patriot SAM: kzread.info/dash/bejne/k6ekmJuTdMLaf5M.html Understanding Russian SAMs: kzread.info/dash/bejne/hGisttqFfr2-k9o.html Ukrainian Jets Road Operations: kzread.info/dash/bejne/mnak3LOhmdG2kto.html Russian 40 Mile Convoy: kzread.info/dash/bejne/iKaTj5R_fMXScs4.html Flanker vs Super Flanker: kzread.info/dash/bejne/iIN117F_fK2tm5c.html

@klowen7778

Жыл бұрын

Yep, fires can be so unpredictable on a ship, especially one carrying so much 'volatile' gear. Was stationed in WestPac in 1967 when news came of the catastrophic fire hitting the nearby USS Forrestal, resulting in 134 dead. And that was caused by a freak 'chain reaction', starting with an electrical problem that caused a rocket to accidentally fire, and successively igniting jet fuel that quickly spread to a bunch of other ammo and 'flammables'. Any confined space, packed with all sorts of extremely volatile 'stuff'... not good!

@doogssmee9742

Жыл бұрын

Hi Just new to this content so a bit behind lol With relations to this video, what happened and my limited experiences at sea (small commercial fishing) With the sort of radar we used on fishing boats in a 30knt sea they were useless under about 5 miles with what we called sea clutter. I would imaging the tracking radar on these ships would be way much very better thou. So I guess it is possible a object close to the water and also in rain could blend into the sea clutter especially when you consider the speed, how often the radar was seeing it between the sea clutter if it wasn't tuned out and possibly not seeing ever sweep of the radar. Also a engine room fire can quickly get hot enough to disable power and melt brass water and hull fittings allowing water to ingress, then of cause there are the stored explosives even thou the pictures you were showing it didn't look like there was much damage from explosives going off. Ps some of your ex forces buddies may be able to shed more light on the radar and weather stuff. thanks for the videos, the good the bad and the ugly lol

@jamesanderson6838

Жыл бұрын

Richland bombers score

@jordanwilliams2557

Жыл бұрын

Some of its defenses were disabled, and the ship was in bad condition, it’s sinking was expected, maybe Russia didn’t think they would need defense since they were fighting Ukraine

Clearly the Ukrainian missiles used NordVPN to bypass the Russian defenses.

@veespike

2 жыл бұрын

The Russians thought the missile was being uploaded from Russia.

@mbak7801

2 жыл бұрын

Ahh yes that one. The VPN that was hacked and open for 3 months. When they found out they tried to keep it secret but eventually had to own up. I am amased they stayed in business.

@jaybird3651

2 жыл бұрын

I'm invincible to Russian and Ukrainian missiles because I use NordVPN plus

@gradycdenton

2 жыл бұрын

H4x0r! 😂

@ebenitez2011

2 жыл бұрын

Lol well played

It's hilarious that the Russian explanation of why their ship was sunk is essentially: "It sank due to our own incompetence, rather than Ukrainian attacks." You can't make this stuff up.

@PieterBreda

2 жыл бұрын

It is hilarious isn't it. The entire campaign is a shamble.

@flipadavis

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, it's a lose, lose argument. It would sound just as bad if you claimed that you lost multiple BTGs due to friendly fire rather than from enemy fire.

@Itwillblend

2 жыл бұрын

@@PieterBreda its a shamble that cost thousands their life... Thats what scary...

@Vexas345

2 жыл бұрын

Tbh, do you think it'd be more embarrassing for the US if an aircraft carrier got sunk by stupid people on board or a North Korean ICBM? I can see the logic. But why didn't they just credit it to NATO or US intelligence competence, instead of anything Ukraine did, idk. Seems like something more plausible and defensible. But Russia isn't known for making good decisions lol

@ericstefko4852

2 жыл бұрын

I was thinking the same, Imagine being a Russian sailor in a non combat region now being worried that they will die due to the poorly designed and maintained ship they are on. Most likely the dumbest explanation they could have ever come up with.

As shown, the ship is exceptionally defended. If hit, it can go underwater to fight off fire and hide from more enemy fire.

On the bright side, the Moskva now has the perfect defense against anti ship missiles.

@hubertsang7418

2 жыл бұрын

Surrounded by water, big water on all sides and top.

@joshuacheung6518

2 жыл бұрын

I wonder how her torpedo defense is now

@joshuacheung6518

2 жыл бұрын

I said torpedo, not anti air

@fz1000red

2 жыл бұрын

@Violet Canzonetti ahh yes! With millions of tons of water now stacked on top of the ship, there is no known weapon in any military service able to breach the mighty Russian vessel's hull! *#SavelivesSmokePutin*

@Helpertin

2 жыл бұрын

Watch out for torpedoes there, Ivan.

As a former navy radar operator I can say that in rough seas white caps will cause interference with radar returns called sea return. Radar operator could have turned down the radar gain to get rid of the sea return, but that also lowers your target signal.

@briangallaugher3068

2 жыл бұрын

Sd20 first, thank you for your service sir!!!! You were an OS I assume and all too familiar with the scope-dope after the 6 on 6 off watches, or no sleep and no sleep. As a former navy weapons systems supervisor- operator attacking during heavy sea state or ruff weather with a sea skimming missle is superior tactics. I applaud Ukrainian forces in sinking. Same kind of tactics used by Argentina in the Falkland Islands vs England

@abram730

2 жыл бұрын

Also the Moskva had a single main air defense radar was a 3P41 Volna phased array to guide S300 missiles. Problem is, it only has a 180 degree field of vision. By using a spotting drone Ukrainian forces would be able to fire into the blind spot, and the ship couldn't turn in time. The missiles fired fly low and are not detected at range by search radar due to the curvature of the earth. The storm could also be a factor as you pointed out. Also there are moral and training issues in the Russian military.

@ictpilot

2 жыл бұрын

@@briangallaugher3068 As a retired OS, I never had a problem with port and starboard watches. Yes sometimes you were tired, but not enough to not do your job. And I don't think the sea state was that bad that turning down the gain slightly would be that much of a deal.

@briangallaugher3068

2 жыл бұрын

@@ictpilot thanks for your service sir!!! As a tin can sailor fewer crew a lot more things to handle you know it is.

@ictpilot

2 жыл бұрын

@@briangallaugher3068 I was on USS Truxton CGN- 35, then swapped to the USS Hewitt DD-966 for my active duty ships.

“It is the only cruiser in the Black Sea. Well it used to be.” I mean, technically the ship is still in the Black Sea ;)

@TRPilot06YT

2 жыл бұрын

Technically its now even more in the black sea

@lorenzop6765

2 жыл бұрын

@@TRPilot06YT Actually now the Black Sea is inside it

@danylonimko8419

2 жыл бұрын

WHOOOOOOOOO LIVES UNDER BLACK SEA? SLAVA CLASS CRUSIER MOSKVA and SPONGEBOB SQAURE PANTS

@jloiben12

2 жыл бұрын

@@danylonimko8419 Okay that’s a good one lol You should have stopped it before the and though.

@mrmacias4217

2 жыл бұрын

Unfunny Ukrainian troll

Back in the mists of time, I remember the interview of a Western naval officer invited aboard a Russian ship docked during a goodwill tour. The naval officer nearly had a heart attack when he saw that damage control gear, timbers etc, had literally been painted in place during maintenance. The quality of the crew goes a long way to ensuring a ship can return to port after severe damage.

@daniel_dumile

2 жыл бұрын

What do you mean painted on? Like they are faked? Also Timbers? Thanks

@felixsu375

2 жыл бұрын

Or even to prevent damage. It would help if the radar had detected the missiles and the radar operator actually saw it and deployed their anti-missile missile and the CIWS actually activated. That works much better than damage control.

@crp5591

2 жыл бұрын

@@daniel_dumile Meaning the gear was painted over while still in place, thereby adhering it to the surface the gear was mounted on. Don't know about the timbers.

@arielsison2814

2 жыл бұрын

@@daniel_dumile the equipments have not been used for a long time. Painted over. Which basically means that they don’t practice.

@mrbouncelol

Жыл бұрын

@@felixsu375 Yes, eg USS Stark incident

The Neptune missile is a much-improved version of the missile you used in the demonstration. The most important is that it is literally sea skimming. That is, it travels only 8 to 30 feet above the water surface - not the 50 ft you used. That is a proven fact as these missiles were in testing for several years and western sources have seen it in action. As for the sea conditions at the time of the strike there is some debate - around 24 hours later a video showed the sea was relatively calm, of course weather can change quickly. Also the the Ukrainians say they distracted Muskva radar by using drones. What 'distraction' means was never explained. More ominously for the Russians is that the Ukrainians say, with some confidence, that this will not be the last ship in the Black sea fleet sunk. Overall that doesn't portend well for ALL large ships from any Navy. Basically Neptune might be considered a 'stealth' subsonic cruise missile - up until the last seconds.

@memkiii

2 жыл бұрын

If there was a 30kt+ wind blowing up a storm, then I doubt that any missile set to fly at 8ft is going to get very far. Even 50ft might be pushing it.

@piscinaiv7937

2 жыл бұрын

There was a report that a Bayraktar was up, and there are traces showing that a US built Raptor surveillance drone may have been way overhead as well. That's all I've seen so far in addition to the 2 Neptunes that hit, no word anywhere of how many may have been launched.

@flavianosico7996

2 жыл бұрын

@@piscinaiv7937 o

@danielcadwell9812

2 жыл бұрын

Flying a missile 8' above a rough sea is asking for the missile to take a dive straight into it.

@zipz8423

2 жыл бұрын

@@muhlenberg2608 If they had a drone they werent too sure about in terms of intention then you would think the crew would have been more alert to some sort of looming danger. What happened to their ESM?

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED: Dimitry was cooking potatoes and by accident put the ship's kitchen on fire. The crew then followed the Russian's procedures to extinguish fire: sinking the ship. By the way, Russia didn't lose a single tank in this war: setting their own tanks on fire is a Russian technique to keep mosquitoes away. Everything is going as planned!

@brutusjudas5842

2 жыл бұрын

I’d believe your story if you said Dimitri was drinking potatoes.

@RAKITHA9

2 жыл бұрын

Dimitry was smoking with his friend in the magazine room, and both were drinking vodka, and when they heard the c.o coming they tossed the cigarettes into a pile of boxes , and realizing their mistake, they tried to extinguish it with the bottle they had and the rest is history

@bhuffman101

2 жыл бұрын

That's funny 🤣😂

@drno3391

2 жыл бұрын

You mean they tried to put the fire out with vodka ?

@harryparatestes

2 жыл бұрын

@@drno3391 no, Dmitry had sold all of the fire extinguishers to buy vodka. His backup plan was to roll down the porthole and let seawater in.

Reality: “Your flagship sunk. Enemy action or incompetence “ Russia: “We choose incompetence”

@TheCardboardJedi

2 жыл бұрын

i've been making that same joke myself.

@Craig-wp3pz

2 жыл бұрын

Only in Russia 🇷🇺 🤦

@ShadowGJ

2 жыл бұрын

Soviets/Russians tend to be surprisingly individualistic in their preference to blame others or underlings or the dead to spare the nation's pride. As if losing a flagship due to own incompetence is less embarrassing than the enemy sinking it in action.

@randomlyentertaining8287

2 жыл бұрын

US: *sweats in USS Bonhomme Richard*

As others have mentioned, one of the dangers of sea-skimmer missiles like the Exocet, Kayak, and Neptune, is that in swelling seas, the fire control radar can't differentiate between the missiles and the sea swell. Once the missiles get close enough, the fire control system can no longer engage. I'm surprised that a missile got through that hail of 30mm but it's feasible! Especially given the reload time of those gatling guns.

@davidelliott5843

2 жыл бұрын

Moskva had a sea-going tug on hand "just in case". Were the crew manning her weapons? Did they even see the missiles coming?

@ronaldthomas9396

2 жыл бұрын

A drone first took out the radar!

@paulwitter7553

2 жыл бұрын

@@ronaldthomas9396 probably not BUT the fire control radar for the S-300 only sees 180° so if the drone was being flown at the edge of the S-300 range on the other side of the ship from where the attack was coming, they could've literally had all eyes (radars) turned that way.

@sameerthakur720

2 жыл бұрын

The problem is the fire control algorithms of the AK-630. It aims and shoots. The re-aiming aspect, or predicting the flight path and firing is underdeveloped.

@teodor4ik183

2 жыл бұрын

Neptune were built specially for this case... 😁 Major difference between kh35 and neptue is flight profile. It fly high before it can be intercepted by s300. Then he goes lower under osa radar view (actually, same on wid, where waves hiding kh35). And final approach - 10ft, to hide from ak630 radar. But not at all... Speaking about drones - bulshit, as on later photos we can see radars on "cruise" positions. Looks like they werent aware of attack at all. They were just not ready to fighting. Even if drones were there, its just to lock target position and (maybe) to check radars. Tb2's can "see" up to 40-50mi from 25000ft. So can scan in passive visual mode staying invisible for s300 radars.

There is at least one thing people haven't noted much here- the actual post-attack photos show the missile/s impacted in exactly the same place that DCS said they did. Forward of the funnels, aft of the P-500s etc.

@lucanoquelfarabuttomane4013

2 жыл бұрын

Must say : Extremely accurate simulation

Something that might be worth considering is the fact that the Slavas were built in Ukraine, at 61 Communards Shipyard in Mykolaiv. If the ships have any weak points then there is a high probability that there are people living in Ukraine who know them quite well.

@Edax_Royeaux

2 жыл бұрын

Or it could just another Kursk type situation where Russian ships are death traps just waiting to explode on their own.

@noahschmartz2354

2 жыл бұрын

@@Edax_Royeaux or it could be that the other comment came from a logically deductive mind.

@nzer19

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe they added a weakness like the deathstar 😏

@ghostmourn_alt

2 жыл бұрын

good point. The people who designed them might still be around

@felixalejos5134

2 жыл бұрын

I think she was part of teh Ukranina Navy until 2014, but the crews then didi choose to join Rusia...

As somebody that has worked with radars, I am not really surprised by the outcome. Heavy rain attenuates radar signals extremely well, especially on high frequencies, like those used for the OSA fire control radar ( somewhere between 10 and 15 GHz). In this case a Radar that is able to track a small target like a missile at a range of 10 km can be reduced to ~2km range. Large search radars, which operate on lower frequencies, generally don't suffer from the same problem nearly as much. So it is entirely possible that they were aware of the two missiles for the last 10 to 15 miles, but were not able to engage them until in range of the CIWS. Would be interesting to know if this has been modeled in DCS, considering that they have an extremel well modeled radar engine.

@milferdjones2573

2 жыл бұрын

That would suck. "Come one defense missiles fire your praying the whole time they come in and they don't fire"

@toasteroven6761

2 жыл бұрын

@@milferdjones2573 It's like seeing death itself approach, but there's nothing you can do about it until it's almost right on top of you.

@Dano12345100

2 жыл бұрын

The Russians may have been overconfident that the Ukrainian's could touch them out to sea. Nothing kills faster in combat than underestimating your opponent.

@admthrawnuru

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dano12345100 that's what I'm thinking. Low-flying missiles in rain and an inattentive crew probably made for a bad combo. There are rumors that Ukraine distracted them with a drone, too, but I have zero confirmation of that.

@HanSolo__

2 жыл бұрын

Dedicated Police radar with a decent rain and your car measured speed can be carried to the court. The judge will check the weather conditions in the report, confirm it at the weather station and your speeding ticket flies out of the window.

The Slavas were originally built to operate in the NORTH ATLANTIC, where the weather is often uniformly horrible. It's pretty hard to believe the systems would refuse to operate. Seems SO much more likely - given the training levels of the crew involved - that the operable problem is human-related.

First the Moskva was lured by a drone at the opposite side of the ship. Second the missiles used the drone system to launch at the good direction (without using the batteries radars so their launch was un detected). Third the Neptune missiles used a blind launch and low flight to prevent detection until their about 1 minute from impact were their used their own radar, it's too late for defences to be used at this time. the time for pointing radars and armament, acquiring the target and firing is too short. One last thing, somme of the missiles on the Moskva can't engage a target with low altitude (50 meters from old missiles, 10 from new, the Moskva didn't have the new ones).

@marksmith9303

2 жыл бұрын

Good old drones again in this war coming threw .drones are future warfare i think ??

@WmSrite-pi8ck

2 жыл бұрын

You need to work on your English language skills. You are so terrible at writing in English I can't puzzle out what you're trying to say.

@bekeneel

2 жыл бұрын

I don't believe a ship like that could be distracted just by something on the other side too, these are combined 3d radars etc. But yes a drone was used with some kind of electronic warfare to jam the radars so the missiles could slip in. But since the missiles skim slow why would a launch be detected, and not from a drone? it would only be detected once over the horizon, but if the sea is rough that can create clutter. I heard a usa plane "poseidon" was uszed tho to give the exact location of the ship, so perhaps indeed the missile didn't really need his own radar to track the ship, I'm not sure. But ukraine certainly played it smart, cuz this was their best protected air defense ship they had.

Sea state would change how the radar sees the "sea clutter" I was an OS on USN Cruisers in the 70s and 80s. The radar can't see the missile because all it can see is sea clutter. And that's how the Ukrainians snuck them in. Edit: Also these are not Doppler radar. We had Phased Array radar with systems like the A/N SPS-48c. And is surface mode those could cut through that clutter to a certain extent. However, it was a problem for all navies at the time. OS2 USN 76-83.

@TheHitbear

2 жыл бұрын

Thought that. Nice that DCS modeled it

@pottyputter05

2 жыл бұрын

My more recent info says it's still a major issue in choppy seas especially for these boats as the state of Russian silicon is rough. Obviously this may use something else that was available a while back but either way its 10 years out or full of noise and heat related issues that might have been resolved.

@stevek6486

2 жыл бұрын

🫡

@Rednax42

2 жыл бұрын

I came here to suggest radar clutter from the waves was probably the problem

@carlryden2720

2 жыл бұрын

It was stormy that night. I was wondering of the impact of both rain and seas on longer range radar systems. I wondered if UA waited for the conditions for best success (ie stormy weather) as that would be their best strategy.

Regardless of the Moskva's defensive capabilities, you're looking at it from a country that knows how to operate a navy. Re the question about the cause of the explosion, if it had been an accidental ammunition explosion, that would not explain the Russians suddenly moving the rest of their targets - excuse me, ships - much farther out to sea.

@justinblake420

2 жыл бұрын

Moskva would not have been the only ship in the vicinity with defence and intercept capabilities either There would have been 100 defence systems in the area

@James-hb8qu

2 жыл бұрын

If the Moskva represented a significant portion of the fleet's anti-air defense then its loss would, of itself, dictate moving the rest of the ships further out.

@coolbreeze2.0-mortemadfasc13

2 жыл бұрын

@@James-hb8qu Very good point.

@tomk3732

2 жыл бұрын

Not really, main role of the cruiser was defense against... missiles. With that defense gone you would move all other ships out of range of possible attacks. Still - the range of these anti ship missiles is 250km so curvature of earth is helping you out there.

@alainrobillard4300

2 жыл бұрын

If it was an accidental fire that doomed the ship, why the event was followed by anger againt Kyiv and such a need for retaliation?

As a former RF engineer, I can think of a few things that might be going on here. First, there is a thing called "rain fade" that affects microwaves (and presumably radar). So the effective detection distance might be greatly shortened. Remember that in the radar equation the returned signal power falls off as the 4th power of the distance. Adding a loss element such as rain fade in both the forward and returned direction could greatly affect signal levels. Remember that the detection distance is not when the target comes over the horizon, it is when the target emerges from the dectector noise. Second, salt water is highly reflective in RF so there might be some effects from multipath that could confuse the software and therefore might make the aiming accuracy a little less accurate. Third, if there is a high sea state the salt spray from white caps may make the layer of air near the sea surface rather more opaque thus also shortening available response times. This might mean that the defensive missile may not have sufficient time to correct its course for an intercept. Anyway, just some thoughts. Someone with more experience with radar guidance might be able to provide better insight.

@LondonSteveLee

2 жыл бұрын

But with modern real time digital signal processing (ie RADAR return oversampling) random returns from sea spray, rain, waves etc. can be filtered out and constants picked out of the noise - exactly why the "stealth" fighter programme is as good as dead. painting a picture with RADAR returns used to be limited by clutter and noise - we can now increase gain on RADAR returns by a ridiculous amount (which would have once produced nothing but unintelligible white noise) and crunch the returns in real time through DSP chips to find tiny constant returns. This sort of processing would have taken a football field of computers a week to process in the 1970s - now a $10 chip can do it in real time.

@khv.repair4347

2 жыл бұрын

Do you think that "Moskva" was sunk... No, Russian scientists made her invisible, remember the "Philadelphia experiment" in 1943 with the destroyer "Eldridge". The Moskva cruiser is 3 miles from Washington on full alert, it is invisible, there is no need to supply weapons to Ukraine, when the point of no return is passed, America will be under attack, the Russians never fight civilians. The military infrastructure will be destroyed.

@donkeysunited

Жыл бұрын

@@LondonSteveLee I've often wondered (but assumed I was being naive) that if a stealth plane has the radar return of a small bird, doesn't this mean it is being detected okay and the radar computers just need to look for birds doing Mach 1. I figured the radar couldn't track the "bird" long enough to measure its speed.

@LondonSteveLee

Жыл бұрын

@@donkeysunited In the old days a bird-sized RADAR return would be lost in clutter and rejected, these days each return is digitally hot-spotted and if anything appears to be valid movement it is detected as a track, if a bird sized return is doing 400+ knots then the system knows it's not a bird and therefore it will not be filtered out as clutter. Think of an old analogue TV with the aerial disconnected - that's what RADAR returns look like electronically amplified many-fold - but imagine a constant pixel in all that noise that's always-on - and that hot pixel appears to be moving (ie has a flight path) otr is a constant in front of you - that's a valid return - this oversampling and hot-spotting of return data is how modern systems spot tiny, tiny RADAR returns. The RADAR itself doesn't have to be that amazingly powerful it's how the data is processed that counts. Blue Vixen on Sea Harrier FA2 was one of the first fighter-sized RADAR installations with such a real time digital signal processing system. Again ground clutter was rejected by ignoring returns that don't have increased-decreased gain, modern systems can actually process those returns in real time and map the ground and or structures. This also means modern RADARs cannot be notched as that old fashioned way of rejecting ground clutter is no longer employed (in western RADARs) in other words appearing static on a RADAR by flying equidistant to the source no longer works against modern systems.

Like the majority of ships hit by a modern ASM some if not all the defensive systems were never turned on. The ship captains believed there was no danger to their ships.

@zipz8423

2 жыл бұрын

Or didnt work as well as they had hoped.

@bekeneel

2 жыл бұрын

Don't think so, as this ship was tasked with defending the whole region, their fleet from aerial attacks.

@zipz8423

2 жыл бұрын

@@bekeneel they never thought there was an anti ship missile threat. The Moskva probably spent most of her time searching for overland targets.

The ship was so well defended that it sank itself before the Ukrainian missiles hit it, thus reduce the chance of it being sank by enemy missiles down to zero.

@justme5923

2 жыл бұрын

Hahaha

@user-id8sj9xd4z

2 жыл бұрын

it was nato antiship missile. ukranian neptun is old soviet missile x-35

@saladtx6928

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-id8sj9xd4z R-360 Neptune is a Ukrainian anti-ship cruise missile developed by the Luch Design Bureau. Neptune's design is based on the Soviet Kh-35 anti-ship missile, with substantially improved range and electronics. So basically it's just a old Soviet anti-ship missile that has been upgraded with better Electronics and fuel source

@robertslugg8361

2 жыл бұрын

I heard that it transformed itself into a submarine.

@agwhitaker

2 жыл бұрын

Sounds a bit like the Germans back in May 1941. " The Bismarck was scuttled by the ship's crew - two hours of shelling and torpedoes from the Royal Navy had nothing to do with the sinking."

As far as I can tell: Moskva had the following triple layer air defense: 1) S300F (Naval) with 64 90km Grumbles 2) 9K33 OSA-M with 20 missiles per launcher (but are they M1, M2 or M3? Only M2 and M3 can hit sea skimmers, minimum engagement altitudes for the 3 missile types are 50, 25 and 10m) 3) 6 * AK-630 CIWS, 2 port, 2 starboard and 2 bow mounted which can see a good 270° so max 4 can engage. These all require a bewildering number of radar sets to work. Like, a dozen easy. A and they have to be trained. Like, say, if they were all looking to port while you were distracted by a TB2 drones, starboard is unwatched. AK-630 does not look like it has much depression. _At all_ OSA-M is obsolete, it still uses a 2 rail trainable launcher, reload time is unknown although they do retract. S300F is good but you won't have much time. Refire time is 3-5 seconds. However, target acquisition times for all 3 weapons is very slow, I've read 12 seconds. At Mach 0.8 it takes ~109 seconds to go from radar horizon to impact. This can get a lot of S300 rounds off but I don't know how many missiles it can juggle. OSA-M probably just can't engage at all if Neptune comes in at, I dunno, 2 meters? And AK-630, I don't know it's minimum engagement altitude. If it can't depress it's useless. So yeah, this is like the Falklands, 70s tech built to get choppers and high altitude bombers and that sorry of thing. Not good!

@KJAkk

2 жыл бұрын

AK-630 elevation is from -12 / +88 degrees.

@MostlyPennyCat

2 жыл бұрын

@@KJAkk Yeah, we figured it out elsewhere. With a bit of trig we figure it can only hit sea level targets at 50m out. Once you hit that 50m, it can't hit a sea skimmer. Looks like OSA-M can't hit anything below 10m So it's only S300F that gives you any chance. Apparently Neptune is at 2m during it's terminal phase so yeah, Moskva was in real trouble once in range. 70s tech Vs 21st century missiles = Having a Bad Time

@timengineman2nd714

2 жыл бұрын

I remember that more than once in the early days of the Phalanx system where the thing ran out of ammo!!! It was too busy shooting at fragments of various drones that it already hit! It has been fixed!! However, if the Ukrainians fired off several Neptunes (current production and reasonably modern) Missiles then I can see the Russian CIWS running out of ammo!!! Especially when you include things like drones being used as decoys, the big waves (sea return will basically make your radar screen "white out") and the rain (once again lots of water giving you false returns) and the relatively small target of a Harpoon sized missiles coming at you head on..... Yeah, the Ukrainians did sink her!!!!!!!!!!

@thegenericguy8309

2 жыл бұрын

@@MostlyPennyCat This is the most bizarre logic. Do you think that 50m is the engagement range of an AK-630? If the missile's got within that range, it's going to hit regardless. The OSA-MA2 is the production model of naval OSA-Ms since the mid-80s, and has engagement capability down to 5m. The warhead has a lethal radius of 5m. The Neptune wouldn't be saved by flying at 2m. The Neptune isn't a 21st century missile, it's a 20th century missile slightly modernized with 21st century equipment. The Slava's tech is ranging between 80s and 90s. You're wrong from every angle, the sea state was the issue, not the tech levels.

@toasteroven6761

2 жыл бұрын

@@thegenericguy8309 Ah yes, The Generic Russian Wumao, my favorite...😑

Nice analysis and modeling. Keep up the good work!

In this century, everyone is a military expert at real time these days. Thanks for this video and thanks to DCS for such a fantastic simulation

The analysis I've seen (on twitter) is that a drone was used the distract from the missiles (and possibly to locate the Moskva). Apparently the phased array radar (on the hanger roof) which is good at low altitudes only has a 180° field of view - this was 'looking' at the drone while the missiles attacked from the other side. The 3d search radar (on the mast) has full 360° FOV but is no good against sea-skimmers (plus the storm and sea-clutter made things worse). Clever tactics by the Ukrainian forces!

@misteriain6209

2 жыл бұрын

Reports I've read in the Turkish press and defense journals say a Bayraktar drone distracted the ship, like running interference I suppose. Clever tactics, like you say. Nice analysis, Cap. Thoughtful and professional.

@alastair9446

2 жыл бұрын

Considering the Ukrainians built it they probably know every detail of it, strengths and weaknesses.

@bernardwills9674

2 жыл бұрын

I've heard elsewhere that Moskva does not have full 360 degree defensive capability. If THAT is true then presumably the blind side is covered by another ship. But in a storm they perhaps lost formation leaving Moskva exposed? I'd be curious to know.

@Pollux95630

2 жыл бұрын

Some of the best ways to arm an ally in war is with strategic knowledge. I imagine some of the brightest military strategists are feeding Ukraine with a ton of tactical knowledge.

@jwstolk

2 жыл бұрын

They may have switched off the missile defense system, to prevent wasting very expensive missiles on a cheap drone.

Some people are saying they used a few drones to distract the crew. Rough weather, low training, and a credible distraction together could definitely be what went down.

@nopants3560

2 жыл бұрын

I’m pretty sure drones were used ahead of the missiles

@palacio802

2 жыл бұрын

in some russian telegram accounts they are saying that americans could help with electronic warfare to blind moskva's radars.

@tremedar

2 жыл бұрын

@@palacio802 Of course Americans can, we've had rain dance technology for a couple hundred years now, send over specialist rain-dancers to start a storm and voila, the radar on that ship was down to 20% its normal effectiveness.

@Bialy_1

2 жыл бұрын

They attacked Moscow radars with drones rockets and in the storm weather Moscow was not able to fight with the stealthy drone... with destroyed radars it was game over for the flag ship...

@palacio802

2 жыл бұрын

@@tremedar there are some ways radars can be blinded. Jamming and deception are the most basic ones. But of course, state of the art rain-dancers are game changers, as well. Vaya gilipollas.

Thanks for the date of the information

The Moskva's primary defensive radar was stowed when you look at the pictures of the Moskva when it was being towed. To an untrained eye this means the ship was not expecting an attack!

@zipz8423

2 жыл бұрын

What do you mean stowed. The OSAs were stowed they were still covered up but you cant stow the searchradars.

@paulroustan3643

2 жыл бұрын

It was in a stow position to limit a PR disaster of shooting down a civilian plane, but I guess Russia won't be taking this risk again

The missile coming at low altitude with huge waves quite close to it's flightpath makes me think about radar tracking and local reflection. When I ran radioorienteering, i had a very strong reflection off a river bank. big waves might act as local dishes thus disabling the tracking system. The ship knew they were coming but couldn't get the right height and distance, so couldn't launch.

@tom_curtis

2 жыл бұрын

That was my thought as well - particularly given the radar dishes are well above the flight level of the missiles, and would thus be looking down towards the sea surface. I also think rain would degrade radar performance, which would have exacerbated the effect.

@blahdy21

2 жыл бұрын

I have a question about this. At high/unstable sea states, wouldn't the sea skimming anti-ship missile's own radar seeker also have trouble acquiring and tracking the ship with all the high waves on its flight path? Thoughts?

@milosstojiljkovic5377

2 жыл бұрын

If you know your radar sucks in bad weather sail out of range of coastal batteries before the said bad weather comes. Weather forecasts are good enough for at least 24h in this day and age. I'm beginning to think that IQ

@victorfinberg8595

2 жыл бұрын

@@blahdy21 I don't think so. Generally, you just need to send your ASM to the approximate target location, and you can get that from satellites. Then the missile pops up and uses active terminal guidance.

@loganwolfram4216

2 жыл бұрын

@@milosstojiljkovic5377 Yeah, and if you know you're standing on the highly irradiated site of the worst nuclear accident in human history maybe don't start digging trenches and rolling around in the dirty like a dog, and yet...

I was an OS in the USN.. Weather like that would reduce the effective range of the radar and with the range reduced so is the reaction time of the crews. Stick someone on the radar who has been staring at the scope for an hour and I would bet they never even saw the missles coming. To react to that kind of threat in those conditions you have to have your best people in place at the right time or forget it. Given the lack of professionalism we have seen by the Russians so far? it isn't hard to see this out come and its sinking later because of damage? inexperienced crews all around.

@matrix2697

2 жыл бұрын

@@yt45204 i doubt it tbh, im more tempted to lean on untrained crew or faulty maintenance as i doubt the russians or even the soviet union made they're command and control cruiser uncapabable of defending itself

@rubiconoutdoors3492

2 жыл бұрын

Most of the russians made it out alive, it was no missle.

@additudeobx

2 жыл бұрын

Those systems are automated to detect and identify all incoming threats and to notify all designated personnel and defensive avoidance systems. The identified threat can be pre-validated by an operator(s), or the defensive system can be fully automated fire-at-will.

@Helmkat

2 жыл бұрын

@@additudeobx No vessel is a Robot-Humans have to verify and then Humans have to take action. Given the reported conditions, the age of the systems of the Moskva etc. I have little doubt they never say the missile coming or if they did it was way past the time to take effective action.

@Helmkat

2 жыл бұрын

@@yt45204 As missiles become more and more effective, the systems to detect and neutrailize them have to progress as well. Doppler radar is certainly better than older sweeping radars to find a target. If the weather conditions were reported correctly the range of older radars is greatly reduced. Sea swells actually return radar and thus older scopes look like a visual mess. I've been in the North Atlantic in the fall and skirted around a hurricane or two. Not fun and the effectiveness of man and machine is...well lets just say "not optimal".

Very nice work m8, great content concept and execution ty ty

The extent of my knowledge regarding ships is the difference between a ketch and a schooner. This was amazing. A learning experience unlike anything in my repertoire.

The Moskva is now undertaking special submerged operations.

@mrmacias4217

2 жыл бұрын

Unfunny joke made by Reddit neckbeards

@hieulengoc21531

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheBranchez Wait, I heard it's already sunk by storm during towing, right ?

@Rover200Power

2 жыл бұрын

@@hieulengoc21531 yes, even the Russians admitted that it has sunk.

@TheBranchez

2 жыл бұрын

@@Rover200Power ohh my bad I missed it. I just heard them say it was damaged and abandoned.

@christophero55

2 жыл бұрын

lol

The U.S. nearly lost a warship in the Gulf to an air launched anti-ship missile due to hesitation by the human crews on target ID. The thing about these DSC sims is that those ships get shot at all the time so that the programming is live-fire tested. Also, the AI performs target ID and threat assessment instantly and perfectly every time like a very experienced crew who is ready and expecting to get shot at. Modern navies and their crews almost never get shot at, so their procedures, training, and human response under direct fire adrenalin are never fully tested. These incidents are so rare that they occur against un-blooded troops. In the U.S. Navy incident, the missile was stopped in the nick of time by the point defenses of another ship. An error was made though, twice. The target fired off chaff to fool the incoming missile, but it also fooled the neighboring ship's seawiz into shooting into the target ship.

@peetky8645

2 жыл бұрын

senator john mccain nearly sank his own aircraft carrier during the vietnam war by allowing his missiles to launch on deck and blow up tow other aircraft. when your father is an admiral, you can get away with this. his senate career was similar.

@Recordman42

2 жыл бұрын

I was in the Persian Gulf war I in 91 the ship I was in was with USCC Saratoga, America and Kennedy in the area it was along with many others as mineisweepers from Germany , destroyers and frigates form other countries.. What you say has an absolute truth base to it and so it is. Teamwork and coordination in the fleet were the most important along with the crew position to perform.. A tired crew has disadvantages, a worn-out crew as well even more. AFAIK that Russian ship was already 4.5 months in Syria before it came up to the Black sea and adding to that, who knows if the crew had time to get in a port all this time and what was their daily program.

@jonny-b4954

2 жыл бұрын

That was the footage of the old battleship going to "brace brace brace" right? And it was a British frigate I believe that shot it down. But yeah, sprayed the Battleship with some PD due to the friendly chaff confusing it.

@hobblesofkarth3943

2 жыл бұрын

Sims also tend to massively underestimate failure rates and assume perfect equipment. As we have seen during this invasion: what russia says their stuff does on paper does not match the reality AT ALL. ERA blocks made of cardboard, helis getting merced by systems that shouldnt really be much of a threat, old equipment with no NVG or flir capability. Many people seem to forget that russian press releases are not trustworthy, russian test reports.. .are not trustworthy. One off demos with small numbers of people/equipment... are not trustworthy. Ihave never understood the commieboos and russiaboos, blindly saying soviet and then russian gear was the equal of the west. AT BEST, we cant say how effective their gear is because we have NO reliable data on the equipment.

@boostjunkie2320

2 жыл бұрын

agreed. the crew lost this ship. it was able to defend itself here

Great stuff! Really enjoyed.

Amazing animations! I really like how you demonstrated different scenarios.

It was not sunk by missiles! It courageously destroyed two missiles by sailing into them, and it's a complete coincidence the ship accidentally caught fire at the same moment, causing it to sink ;)

@carlabroderick5508

2 жыл бұрын

Are you for real?

@feliscorax

2 жыл бұрын

@@carlabroderick5508 Clearly being satirical. Learn to read.

@SecularFelinist

2 жыл бұрын

For it's bravery, it was promoted from Warship Moskva to Submarine Moskva.

@override367

2 жыл бұрын

The ship saw the missiles and ran into them with typical Russian bravery, proving that the sea belongs not to any stupid Ukranian missile, and now the ship is searching the sea floor for any more treacherous Ukranian technology

@paulharrison2325

2 жыл бұрын

Just like it’s land based cousins (T-72s) stopping the javelins and nlaws by blowing up, it gallantly stopped the Neptune missile in its tracks, causing the Neptune to blow up and stop flying.

Large swells and rain/ cloud cover absolutely effects radar accuracy, and with those missiles flying low like that just skimming the surface, I'm not surprised that the Russians lost their floating missile launch pad. Those Ukrainian boys knew what they were doing.

@rconley95

2 жыл бұрын

It was very well planned

@redbeard8913

2 жыл бұрын

Apparently it happened at night, 18 knot winds and rain...

For me was a real satisfaction watching an offensive naval force being humillated. 👍👏👍

@paulroustan3643

2 жыл бұрын

What would you say about the British loosing 7 warship in the Falklands war, but this war was considered a victory for the British navy.

Lesson learned: never underestimate an opponent who has built your ship, knowing its design flaws and limitations.

That was crazy, it's like short range defense missiles were losing their locks over and over due to the waves rendering launch impossible. We are learning a lot in this terrible war, and NATO too

@quinningtons

2 жыл бұрын

That’s the key, lessons are being learnt at the Russians expense

@sir0herrbatka

2 жыл бұрын

I mean, naval experts probably knew this for 40 years... but I am not a naval expert.

@martinhicks6020

2 жыл бұрын

Could it be that Ukrainian forces knew of the relative ineffectiveness of the ship's defences during storm conditions and patiently waited for the elements to oblige before launching their attack?

@haloguy628

2 жыл бұрын

@@martinhicks6020 Of course they knew. They were supremely trained by US trainers who were in Ukraine ever since the russians invaded Crimea.

@solarissv777

2 жыл бұрын

@@haloguy628 moreover, that ship was built in Ukraine (when it was a part of the USSR).

Awesome stuff guys! Coming from an 11 year active duty Sailor.

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

thx

Never use "Invincible" or "Unsinkable" for any ship. Here is another thing your simulator may not have taken into account, the fact that the Admirals and Generals of the Russian Federation have been stealing from their forces. It's the same reason The Russians who supposedly have 10,000 tanks only fielded 2,800 at the start of their invasion of the Ukraine. How many of those fancy systems are actually maintained properly and working well on a 40 year old ship? It also seems Russian upgrades are not as good as they bragged about. Russia has 5 times the population of Texas and their economy is smaller. Putin, his oligarchs and military leaders have weakened their nation to the point that they are a pathetic shell. Fewer Ukrainians with native and western equipment and western training are beating up on Putin's invasion force. The US does one thing very well - Make functioning weapons. Sometimes, as with the Bradley, it takes a little extra work but they tend to get things sorted out eventually. A 96% hit chance for the Javelins demonstrates this. Plus there is always the media in the US looking at military equipment and making it impossible for military procurement to hide blunders. Just one reporter finding something fishy or not working right and a congressional committee starts taking a look at a General's colon to look for malfeasance. When some dolt in the US Airforce wanted to dump the A-10 the media reported it and the feedback made them realized it was a very bad idea. Now the A-10s have a whole new upgrade package and even a drone version made by Raytheon. That machine may not be invincible but it is an extremely tough machine that can really ruin a Russian Tank battalion's day, if their boss is not careful. That is what the Russians should fear -- the fact that Western weapons are very effective and better maintained by well trained operators and not a bunch of conscripts.

@kevindevine5033

2 жыл бұрын

Indeed....

@ASSASSYN

2 жыл бұрын

I bet it is also a total lack of discipline by the Russian sailors resulting in poor combat performance and readiness.

@thatdude1435

2 жыл бұрын

Fun A10 fact: 85% of all armored kills were done using missles

@aXemRanger1

2 жыл бұрын

I can't argue with your first point that Russia's military capabilities are grossly over-exaggerated and obsolete. However, I disagree that corruption is primary reason for Russia's obsolete military. As for your second point about America's weaponry quality, I agree for the most part but would argue that the US only FIELDS functioning military weapons and it isn't due to media coverage or public opinion (otherwise 2/3s of our weapons programs wouldn't make it past R&D). Reason for both is the economic situation of both countries. The US economy can afford a massively expensive military budget that not only successfully maintains "legacy" equipment but also (more importantly) can invest incredible amounts of money into developing new weapons programs in every military branch. The media covers it and the public knows. The public and media have a much greater appetite for scrutinizing spending on other non-defense related issues that cost a fraction of a percent of our military spending. Our military budget is insanely high and naturally there are problems with some weapons programs (for example, the F-35 would have been cancelled a decade+ ago if the media/public opinion was so closely tied to procurement processes success/failure) but I think we all know deep down we don't want Russia or China calling the shots on the world stage so I'd say we tolerate massive military spending while occasionally complaining about it but that's about it in terms of earnest media/public/political efforts to curtail spending. The actual impactful role we play in influencing military programs' success is by maintaining a strong economy. Russia's corrupt oligarchs are scum and rob their country but they're robbing an already middling/dying economy that would hardly be any different if the oligarchs didn't exist. Russians also want a strong military (apparently for a different purpose but nevertheless) and would pay for it but they simply can't. The Russian economy is simply too weak. They can barely maintain the Soviet-era legacy equipment; they cannot fund the R&D for a superpower-level military.going forward. They're living on fumes but it's because of fundamental flaws in their economy, not primarily because of oligarchs robbing them (sure the oligarchs don't help but again, it's insignificant relative to the amount of military spending needed to be a military superpower). I can't believe I wrote that much. I could have just said it's the economy for both countries, not oligarchs and free-media/free-public. Oh well. Hopefully it makes some sense because I'm too tired to proof read it. This is why I shouldn't drink coffee after 8pm.

@thebogsdollocks9955

2 жыл бұрын

@@thatdude1435 yeah the A-10 is possibly one of the most overhyped military aircraft of all time

Really outstanding and timely analysis. Thank you.

I did firefighting as part of my training for the carriers when i was on harriers. They changed the fire procedures massively because of what happened in the Falklands. They found that fire flash was a big problem so they now have a thing called a ships protector where a hose with a disc spread spray either connected to hatch or door combing or when the door or hatch is opened the hose is quickly jammed in the orifice to cover the hole with a spray of water that covers the orifice. It stops the fire flashing through the door/hatch & as such protects the ship & crew from the flash. It’s probably been updated even more since i did it.

@TAVROC

2 жыл бұрын

The cruiser Moscow did not pass the completion of fire extinguishing, there was not enough money.

@Matelot123

2 жыл бұрын

What ship were you on?

@ShakemeisterS64

2 жыл бұрын

Waterwall, on! Firefighter, prove foam! Jolly japes with the Royal Navy! How we didn't get killed in training I don't know! Civilian firefighters would never attempt a re-entry from above.

@neallewis8628

2 жыл бұрын

Did it several times in early 90's with the royal navy ,old smoking proper fireboxes and solid brass turn nozzles, - no1 firefighter, no 2 - waterwall, no3 - command, no 4 hose tender - 4 man fire team. entry from side into several fires , then above into normal fire - instructor would throw diesel onto fire as no1 went through the waterwall sealing open hatch- nice little fireball, fun.....then side entry into oil fire having changed to foan f5bx nozzle for no1. i know the nozzles have hanged to a different type these days so have the suit no more thick wool but i bet they still have a waterwall nozzle.

@ping2dk

2 жыл бұрын

On US ships everyone is trained in firefighting not so in a russian. Only a few men trained for that. And this ship did not have waterproof shutters and can be closed to minimize flooding of compartments

Realize this, the Moskva is packed stem to stern with high powered, high explosive weaponry, this ship is a Roman candle just waiting for a light. I also wouldn't doubt that the ship was cruising around with out all it's water tight compartments and vent NOT closed, typical Russian ineptness. The Ukrainians totally distracted the ships bridge and defensive radars by flying a few drones high up in the air around the Moskva, they also has the local weather conditions going for them, all the stars lined up perfectly. Apparently the Moskva didn't even get to fire off it's in close anti missile defense guns, they didn't know what hit them until it was way too late.

@grumpynerd

2 жыл бұрын

If you look back a few years at evaluations of the Slava class cruisers, the difficulty of performing damage control due to the extensive use of flammable materials throughout the ship is frequently mentioned, along with the huge volume of ordnance carried by the ship. So those cruisers were always suspected of having a glass jaw, and if Russian sailors are as incompetent as Russian soldiers that makes things even worse. I suspect also that the Ukrainians used the Russian's own doctrine against them. The Slava class was intended to overwhelm US carrier strike group defenses with quantity. It's got 16 anti-ship missiles ready to fire. A Ukrainian Neptune battery is reportedly even larger; it's got 6 launcher erectors with 4 missiles each, for a total of 24 missiles. I'm sure they didn't just fire a single missile and hope their drone feint would have distracted the ship.

@override367

2 жыл бұрын

they waited for the stars to align to try this, the Ukranians are being so incredibly effective with their limited resources. Every helicopter, plane, and advanced rocket that Ukraine has is spent carefully. There will be courses taught in academies about Ukranian military strategy for decades

@greeniedrone2937

2 жыл бұрын

If Russia doesn't withdraw their warships from the black sea, more of them are going to sink! Mark my words!

@brianfreeman8290

2 жыл бұрын

Would drones operate in the appalling weather that was, apparently, happening?

@marcie1671

2 жыл бұрын

@@brianfreeman8290 Could be flying above the could ceiling.

Instant sub for starting the video with current time and date. That needs to be common practice among people discussing current event. Lots of people dont seem to understand that things stay online a long time.

I found this information very interesting. Thank you

Considering her anti-ship missiles were on the deck and easy to be hit, it's easy to see how something a small missile hit could take her out.

@23dunmc

2 жыл бұрын

There was no where else to put them 😅

@anthonyb5279

2 жыл бұрын

really stupid design

@NautilusSSN571

2 жыл бұрын

@@anthonyb5279 *BUT IT LOOKS COOL THO* -R*ssian logic

@ghansu

2 жыл бұрын

Missile wich was used aint small by any means.

@23dunmc

2 жыл бұрын

@@ghansu 12 meters long

the main thing here is dcs is based on the capability of hardware, not the maintenance required to keep it working based on the economic state of the ownership country. also, there were reports that drones were used to distract the ships radar. but, was the radar even maintained? are the missile systems maintained? are the missile tubes even filled?

@64blip

2 жыл бұрын

These questions are supported by the rest of the war. What happens to a military in a kleptocracy? It gets hollowed out while those and the top are fed whatever bullshit they demand to hear.

@GR46404

2 жыл бұрын

I think maintenance is a KEY point in this incident, Tim Allison. So is crew training. Also, the officers have to be ready to risk a "blue on blue" incident by actually firing the ship's weapons. That sounds silly, but to a navy just coming out of peacetime, it is a real factor. The US had a lot of trouble with it in the night surface battles around Guadacanal in WWII.

@GageEakins

2 жыл бұрын

It also utilizes Russia's claimed capabilities which are suspect to say the least.

@anthonyb5279

2 жыл бұрын

looks likely that they got hit by the missiles but it's still completely plausible that it sunk due to inability to deal with accidents. Russia really is that bad.

@override367

2 жыл бұрын

@@anthonyb5279 That doesn't make much sense, Ukraine claimed to have shot it before Russia acknowledged there was a problem, then Russia threatened massive retaliation, and this morning Russia launched a costly strike to hit seemingly every Ukranian city in retaliation. They wouldn't do that for an "Accident", the fact that Russia even screamed at Ukraine about their attack (before going back to the accident narrative) pretty much proves it

Personally, I think that these simulations make anti-air systems see a lot more effective than they are. Often times the skill and doctrine of the operator can make all the difference - just compare and contrast Iraq and Serbia in the 90s. One had an incredible anti-air system that was flattened in days, the other managed to utilise tactics that allowed them to survive and even shoot down a stealth jet. Maybe Moskva was just incompetent and the Ukrainians timed their attack well.

@th6029

2 жыл бұрын

You can add a similar note to every aspect of modern warfare. We get all caught up in the deadly, well armored, high-tech, fancy equipment but some forget that in almost all cases, it still relies partly or wholly on humans for at least part of the function. So training should join logistics (and IMHO ergonomics, as any tanker knows that fighting inside a cramped soviet/russian tank is exhausting and miserable compared to a lot of NATO/US vehicles) on the list of "don't forget these things"

@guntguardian3771

2 жыл бұрын

@@th6029 100%, however I think when it comes to the likes of fighter jets their weaknesses are far better modelled. Whereas when we look at these air defense systems, their ability to track and defeat aircraft is almost like they offer close to complete area denial for non-stealth aircraft. However, as we can see in Ukraine, both sides are able to operate in the sky - obviously not freely - but going by the function of the Moskva in game their airforces should be non-existent. Indeed, the Moskva should never have been hit by the Neptun missiles.

@josephmagana6235

2 жыл бұрын

​@@guntguardian3771 Air defenses in DCS are actually pretty ineffective compared to real life against aircraft players for just this reason, their AI is pretty poor with little capability to coordinate and employ tactics.

No. 1 rule. Never ever call a ship unsinkable. It will sink.

The question is was this an issue with Russia or all warships and missiles? China’s and Russia’s ability to fire missiles are much more significant than Ukraine’s. This incident along with the results of the Falkland Islands seems to confirm Navy planners are over estimating ship’s ability to defend themselves. It seems just like Battleship armor was over rated.

@MrGary10k

2 жыл бұрын

I don't think the Moskva was very heavily armored. Big and very powerful armaments, but not armored like the Iowas for example. Just big.

@milferdjones2573

2 жыл бұрын

Oh battleship armor was fine for pre aircraft threat the aircraft threat is what was underestimated by the Battleship side of Navies. And if they realized the aircraft threat more deck armor would have helped keep the Battleships out there. Plus moving battleships way harder to hit and kill than WWI Battleships at Pearl Harbor. Japanese being chicken till way to late with their surface ships also hurt Battleship reputation. Taking their large battleship force and blowing the hell out of Midway and taking the island with their transports should have been done US only had one Carrier left to use and it in actual battle only sunk one heavy cruser. Japanese Battleships if sent in force to Guadalcanal would have won that battle and again after engagement with Japanese carriers US carriers unavailable. Still Battle ships just help the carriers and were very helpful in all the invasions still not worth building after that although cruse missile battleships never fought and some future versions might be very hard to deal with with Super guns and missiles they even up the range advantage of carriers.

@matthewhuszarik4173

2 жыл бұрын

@@milferdjones2573 You forget one of the major threats to Battleships was torpedos. More deck armor would have just made Battleships even more top heavy and more prone to roll over then they already were. The US still had the Enterprise and the Hornet after Midway and the Saratoga arrived in Pearl Harbor on June 6th. After the loss of the Yorktown at Midway the Navy immediately recalled the Wasp and sent her to the Pacific as well. She arrived in San Diego on June 19th and participated in the Battle for Guadalcanal in August. So she also would have been available if Midway had continued into the end of June or July. Midway was also in range of B-17s from Hawaii. If the Japanese fleet had stayed around Midway without air cover they would have been picked off one by one.

@davidelliott5843

2 жыл бұрын

Slava cruisers carry the missiles in thin metal cans strapped on the side. Hit one of those and you’ll have the warhead and solid propellant to deal with. Along with those either side. Older battleships protected their ammunition (especially gun propellant) in thick steel cases deep in the ship. Diving shells would never get deep enough horizontal shells (and sea skimming missiles) have layers of thick armour to contend with. Slava class does not have those armoured citadels.

@tremedar

2 жыл бұрын

@@matthewhuszarik4173 Minor corrections: Lexington was lost at Coral Sea, Yorktown was lost at Midway(or more appropriately, after the battle)as it was being prepped for towing back to Pearl Harbor.

As was pointed out by those below who would definitely know, sea-state can limit target detection for a sea-skimmer. It was reported to be "A dark and stormy night" on the black sea. Credit the Ukrainians for using that fact to their advantage! Couple that with the issue of the ships watch-section probably having utter assurance that they were safe, ergo inattention on-watch, Ukraine having no ships with which to oppose them, and with a probable lack of training, and Mr. Neptune becomes "Dr. Benjamin Dover, MD, Proc." One also wonders how effective their damage control efforts were, and doubts it was effective. As soon as the news reports said that the crew had been removed, I knew the game was over, you do NOT abandon ship unless you have no hope of saving it. You can keep a ship afloat after major damage. As a snipe, DC was part of living and breathing aboard ship, (USN Ret.) but obviously not so much for them.

@cidshroom

2 жыл бұрын

From looking at the weather, it was overcast, maybe some drizzle, low winds. Not really stormy

@thetau4866

2 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately that evacuation was a lie, only 50 men escaped due to Turkish intervention

@carlwest859

2 жыл бұрын

-----> It vodka and movie night

@LoneWolf-vu6qy

2 жыл бұрын

I'm wondering if they even had any escort/screening ships flanking it. Or if it was alone.

@stepstv4466

2 жыл бұрын

Yes your description of the weather is quite a bit off and either way I doubt both missiles would have made it through. The whole story doesnt seem very likely to me especially because Neptune missiles or not cheap and shooting them at a slava class is not a safe bet

Interesting and instructing to see that the Osas don't fire when the altitude varies. Excellent analysis.

The weakness of the simulation is that it doesn't cover lack of maint or crew training issues.

@Utubesuperstar

Жыл бұрын

And that’s what killed her none of the weapons were functioning when she got hit

There are certain significant factors that this simulation ignores. Firstly, the Ukrainians used a Bayraktar drone to 'distract' the ship's crew. Secondly, the Moskva was sailing close to the Snake Island. If the size of the waves is enough to prevent deployment of the OSA guns, then the island can also mask the approach of the Ukrainian missiles. Thirdly, the Moskva was built in Nikolaev, Ukraine. It is a Soviet-era ship. Therefore the Ukrainians must be very, very familiar with that ship.

@dandelobo9284

2 жыл бұрын

Bairaktar is not any serious problem for the ship. It is easy to destroy. And the ship defence is ready to handle a simultaneous attack of several missiles. Obviously a Bairaktar is much less dangerous object compared to an anti-ship missile: it is slow, it is well visible and it has nothing special in it. The only explanation were an explosion on board or a wrong level of alertness in which the systems were put in. If Ukrainians did the strike, then it is strange that the video is missing, because usually they film every meaningful action an use it in propaganda videos.

@os360

2 жыл бұрын

@@dandelobo9284 I am following Ukrainian telegram groups and after the Moskva was lost, the number of daily air raids targeting Ukraine has gone up dramatically.

@ajuc005

2 жыл бұрын

> Thirdly, the Moskva was built in Nikolaev, Ukraine. It is a Soviet-era ship. Therefore the Ukrainians must be very, very familiar with that ship. In fact Ukrainians were upgrading and repairing Moskva in Nikolaev a few years back, Russians refused to pay, so Ukrainians removed some systems they installed and returned the ship :) ​ @Dan Delobo Moskva had just one good long-range radar and it can only scan 180 degree at once. If Bayraktar drone was on the one side and Naptun missiles went very low over the sea from the other side - it's possible they were detected too late to react.

@dandelobo9284

2 жыл бұрын

@@os360 They already announced the increase of attack before this happened. And even if you wouldn't take this fact into account, whatever caused the lose of such a ship the number of attacks would be go up in every case. Therefore to see it as a "revenge" would be absolutely wrong. The fact of lose of the ship as such is absolutely enough for to be a reason to intensify the fire.

@dandelobo9284

2 жыл бұрын

@@ajuc005 It doesn't mean that they know how to disable the defence. If it were the missiles, than the only good explanation were the wrong level of alertness set. There are different levels and they affect how fast systems of the ship and the crew are able to react to a danger. Rain and storm -- it is surely was taken into account by the developing the defence. It is strange to hear something like this in this video. We would hear it otherwise immediately from many experts and officials in US and elsewhere: "storm was a reason why Moskva couldn't intercept the missiles". But we didn't.

Very difficult to hit a missile flying at wave height in rough weather. Radar suffers from returns from the sea. Hitting a missile in flight is very difficult. Israel achieved it over land.

@c00lkid16

2 жыл бұрын

Thats very true

@douglassmith1215

2 жыл бұрын

Russian statement on the (surviving) crew of the Moskva: "'Officers, midshipmen and contract personnel will continue service in the Navy. Conscript sailors on the Moskva will be relieved of their duties in the near future." So there were apparently conscripts on-board, in a complex war zone. I can imagine who on duty at 1am and who was in their bunks.

@rachdarastrix5251

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for fixing my mistake, I thought that rough weather would make things harder for the missile. Won't happen again.

@appa609

2 жыл бұрын

very dufficult to fly a missile at wave height in rough weather without running it into the ocean.

@myke5696

2 жыл бұрын

Good points. It does seem that crew training and officer conduct was likely at fault with either missile counters or damage control, seems that overall moskva should have been able to survive that attack

There are some interesting factors here regarding the Moskva. She is the lead ship for the class (Slava). She is old having been launched in 1979 commissioned in 1982. Her surface to air weapons are also very dated as are the supporting electronics. She had the AGM630 CIWS. When the ship was designed they used what the had available at the time vice inventing a new primary weapon for. The SS-N-12 is also carried on the Kiev CVHG, Mod Echo II SSGN and some Juliet SSG's. So practically every system on this class had already been installed on another. She is a COGOG propulsion system COGOG stands for COmbination Gas Or Gas - meaning that she had a set of Gas turbines for cruising at slow speeds and could switch to a larger set to operate at faster speeds. She could not use both systems at the same time. That would be called COGAG with the A meaning And. So she has a lot of jet fuel on board for propulsion. So if we consider the that since the war started the Russian Navy really has not played a significant role, but patrolling a coast line gets very boring very quickly. Her crew in CIC was likely not keenly focused on their jobs when the attach occurred. There are some discrepancies in how the weather was actually. In pictures after the explosion the seas appear calm which goes against the Russian version. Further one has to wonder if they actually updated the threat detection systems for Russian Anti-Ship missiles of not. In 2021 the Mineral-U search/attack radar was introduced which would also be part of the Neptune system. Finally Ukrainian Military decision to wait until a valuable target was available the shoot the Neptune's at it.

I've read somewhere that a Bayraktar drone was also present around Moskva and that it distracted the crew (on purpose, of course). Seeing how little time it takes from when the missile becomes visible above the horizon to when it strikes, it looks like a smart tactics to maximize the probability of achieving a hit.

I heard the main radar had a 180 deg arc and they flew a drone into the arc of the radar and shot from opposite direction

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

Correct BUT it has multiple Fire Control radars which can point at different angles. We studied this ship last year.

@harryparatestes

2 жыл бұрын

@@grimreapers would that be then a crew ability/readiness issue? Inability for the humans to deal with multiple threats?

@hbomatt

2 жыл бұрын

@@grimreapers the higher frequency fire control radars have trouble with rain.

@keithkrick234

2 жыл бұрын

@@harryparatestes This would be my bet.

@hardy2051

2 жыл бұрын

@@grimreapers that is if what the Russian states was true. As is the case in this Ukraine war, it seems Russia is massively overstating their technology and weaponry. Capitalizing on their success of few products like AK rifle to create a myth of invincible weapon producer.

The swells pose a computational problem both for DCS and the actual fire control systems on the ship. As the size of the swells increase the required processing power increases exponentially as the range for each variable increases. At some point you overwhelm the fire control system with more data than it can calculate.

@rubiconnn

2 жыл бұрын

I don't think the radar for anything except the premium aircraft are fully modeled with ray tracing. They use a simple algorithm using percentages of distance, cross sections, altitude, weather, etc and a dice roll to determine if something is detected. Actual playable aircraft like the F5, Viggen, F18, etc use a raytracing like method that actually calculates every significant surface that is visible from the aircraft. You can tell because your frame rate drops like crazy when you have the ground scanning radar on but you can drop a bunch of AI controlled radars without the same loss of performance.

@listerdave1240

2 жыл бұрын

Particularly so if you are relying on the very best leading edge technology of the 90's.

@slip6699

2 жыл бұрын

sorta, it's about the noise threshold, you need your target to have a large enough radar return to exceed the clutter/noise threshold. At the start, it's an analog/microwave signal that is returned to the radar. The return signal is amplified but the baseline has to be established for what is a true return vrs unwanted noise/clutter. The system has processors for different weather effects/interference.

This is fucking amazing!!! Thank you for this video first time here!

Great simulation. Good possible explanation.

Radar clutter, as other people already mentioned here. I was an RF engineer for a long time and I learned that clutter is a real issue trying to track low flying objects.

@williamzk9083

2 жыл бұрын

Modern Doppler radar can deal with radar clutter. The Moskva just wasn't modern, it was 20 years out of date. You can tell by its mechanically rotating radar.

@hansrosenberg3115

2 жыл бұрын

@@williamzk9083 indeed. All modern vessels have a phased array radar, but can that deal with all clutter? Will that detect a low flying missile over a choppy sea?

@williamzk9083

2 жыл бұрын

@@hansrosenberg3115 With Coherent Pulse Doppler radar you can detect movement. The radar maintains an extremely accurate local oscillator reference, the radar pulse is sent out in phase with this. When the echo returns its phase is measured and stored. When the next pulse comes back its phase is also stored. If the target has moved the phase will change. The Germans even had in WW2 a system called Wurzlaus on their Wurzburg radars to overcome windows clutter. They didn't have digital memory but used acoustic delay lines. It's of course more complicated in that there are multiple pulse sequences on different frequencies that are dithered to avoid jamming. The Moskva just looks a little old and not so good at filtering out clutter. The mechanical scanning radars means maybe 5-10 seconds is lost between rotations cutting into warning times. The Russians could probably do better but they didn't and got sunk.

@hansrosenberg3115

2 жыл бұрын

@@williamzk9083 clear answer. Sounds very logical technically. Which makes you wonder:why the hell did the put their flagship in such a dumb position knowing the Ukraine has weapons like that. Really dumb tactics.......

@williamzk9083

2 жыл бұрын

@@hansrosenberg3115 I think arrogance, they underestimated the Ukrainian will & resolve. I actually agree with the sea clutter theory. The Russian radar just wasn't good enough or modern enough. Cruise missiles have a very small radar signature. I would imagine an effort is put into making them stealthy.

Imagine a super-advanced Digital Combat Simulator running on a supercomputer in Arlington, VA, using all the data gleaned from years of observing the Slava class cruisers during naval exercises around the world. Imagine being able to precisely model the physics of how microwaves reflect off waves and rain, taking into account temperature and even the salinity of the water. Imagine being able to plug in the precise parameters of the R-360 "Neptun" missile, including its radar cross section. Too bad Ukraine didn't have access to such technical resources. Or maybe, just maybe, they did...

@qfinck

2 жыл бұрын

If anything they would have used Harpoon V or its competitor whose name escapes me at the moment. which is a dedicated Naval Warfare simulator that goes has a lineage that goes all the way back to the late 80s. Clancy used it to wargame Red Storm Rising and naval academies and think tanks use it to simulate scenarios all the time. Harpoon V was release I want to say in 2020 so its dataset should be fairly relevant.

@ratsuel8152

2 жыл бұрын

very new here, but why are people so confident DCS has it correct?

@richardphilpott1225

2 жыл бұрын

i got a good imagination

@shadetreemech290

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I wonder if it wasn't former Navy personnel (acting say as CIA) firing those missals.

@prinzya.4538

2 жыл бұрын

@@ratsuel8152 It's the closest we could get with accurate radar simulation since this (Flight) sim has all that modeled.

The greatest threat to this ship was the on offswitch on its defensive radar.

@Liguehunters

Жыл бұрын

Aswell as corruption and poor/no maintenance

@delta5-126

10 ай бұрын

@@LiguehuntersI read that as porno

nice vid!

Is it possible, and I know this is really going out on a limb, that a country (let's keep it general here not to hurt anybody's feelings) might overstate their technological capabilities to appear more dangerous than they really are? i was watching a documentary the other day discussing some confiscated "advanced" technology from Russia, and it was really just off the shelf, Chinese made gear of dubious quality. There's a very good chance that Russia's strength is largely just smoke and mirrors...

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

Very possible.

@ClockworkAnomaly

2 жыл бұрын

The Orlan uses a bolted-in Canon DSLR camera from the store..

@PieterBreda

2 жыл бұрын

Well. Judging from how they are doing in Ukraine, this seems to be the case.

@PieterBreda

2 жыл бұрын

@@ClockworkAnomaly a cheap one

@MelleLaCruze

2 жыл бұрын

​@@ClockworkAnomaly While I generally agree with the sentiment of Russian/Soviet terrible hardware quality, I don't think using a Canon camera in a recon drone is part of them. For its purpose, that particular camera is perfectly adequate and are both cheap and abundant (in the market pre-war) enough to be economical. Russia doesn't really need to produce their own custom military spec camera that will drive up the cost even more, in fact I don't think Russia is industrially capable of producing their own high fidelity camera + lenses either. And as a comparison many other superpowers did similar thing before as well.

Aside from the possible (or even actual) weather issues, I also wondered a lot about the effect of complacency combined with poor morale and training. If the crew believed that they were not in danger ("We're too far offshore, and besides the Ukrainians have nothing that can hit us!"), the realization that there was incoming fire may have delayed activating the response. I will admit to being shocked that what should have been survivable hits ended up sinking the ship, which does point to bad damage control training. But we'll never get the answer from the Russians.

@walterblanc9708

2 жыл бұрын

The Moskova would have needed to be beyond Sevastopol to be out of range of the Neptune missile. I am sure the Russian Navy was aware of the risk. I think the Ukrainians just played their hand very well , I bet they did not expect it to be sunk.

@johnnyloco970

2 жыл бұрын

@@walterblanc9708 Russian military planning having just reset could also play into the outcome. Since Russian forces redeployment to the east it leaves the corridor from the west side open. The Ukrainian army probably has 10x the number of trident missiles since the day of sinking. I would expect Mariupol to be In Ukrainian hands in a month.

@angelarch5352

2 жыл бұрын

With 16 gigantic easy to hit missile tubes stuck outside on the deck of the Moskva, I am surprised that ANY explosion near it would not detonate those missile tubes and doom the ship. The giant missiles look really cool out there, but this seems like a very bad Soviet style design.

@peterbruno657

2 жыл бұрын

I don't think 2 missiles exploding would sink it. I would bet that the one or both of them hit the ships missiles causing them to explode like dominos.

@gregb1599

2 жыл бұрын

The ship was built in the 50s so would of been a very comprised design vs todays wepones

That was Awesome lads from a sim

DCS is just astounding. I had no idea it had a naval component as strong as it's air-combat one. I bought a damn HOTAS controller to play Elite Dangerous and eventually DCS, I think I need to get my arse moving on the second one!

Thanks to the generously of the Ukraine military, the Moskva has being promoted to a submarine

@IlIlIlIlIlIlIIlIlIlIlIlIlIIIII

2 жыл бұрын

Special Underwater Operation

@mrmacias4217

2 жыл бұрын

That’s unfunny and a joke Reddit trolls made to make themselves feel better about Ukraine get shit on lmao

@mrmacias4217

2 жыл бұрын

@@IlIlIlIlIlIlIIlIlIlIlIlIlIIIII cornball

@KondorDCS

2 жыл бұрын

More like underwater fish refuge.

@joeclaridy

2 жыл бұрын

@@IlIlIlIlIlIlIIlIlIlIlIlIlIIIII UDT at its finest

When you are involved in a wartime situation, the best defense is to take nothing for granted and be prepared for any and all things. It is apparent that the ship has no, or very little, damage control or fire-fighting capability. I will also speculate that the electronic systems are not well maintained. Also, 80% of that ship is above water (top heavy) combined with a 21 ft. draft, it would not be a very stable platform and would probably capsize and sink in heavy weather.

@Exile1a

2 жыл бұрын

Part of that issue is that you can't have the crew on the razor's edge the whole time and by this time it would be well over a month. Perhaps a well trained crew but as we've gathered so far, the training in the Russian Military isn't that good overall.

@edmiller3786

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Dave, we appreciate your expert opinion 👍

@martinross4276

2 жыл бұрын

All warships appear to be top heavy but that does not make them unstable since the centre of buoyancy moves when they heel. This creates a righting moment.

@barryrammer7906

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for your knowledge. Dirt navy here.

@flintcoat2596

2 жыл бұрын

Heavy weather in the oceans! Wave period in Baltic and Black Seas is significant shorter

That is such a cool simulation!!!!

Background: I was a work center supervisor for Phalanx Close-in Weapons System (CIWS) and also a Harpoon Missile System operator. I am not an expert on Soviet/Russian weapons systems. One reader who was an OS (Operations Specialist, nickname "Scope Dope") commented on possible fatigue of an operator staring at a scope for too long and maybe missing a target. The whole point of a radar-guided weapon system is that it does not depend on someone like an OS looking at a scope and reacting, the way an OS may do with a navigational radar. Weapons systems automatically engage a target based on certain threat criteria. Let me throw something else into the mix. USS Stark, 17 May 1987. Hit by an Iraqi Exocet anti-ship missile, even though the Stark carried Phalanx CIWS, which was specifically designed to defend against anti-ship missiles like the Exocet. What happened then? Well, the Stark's CIWS was not in a mode where it could engage anything! To oversimplify the situation, CIWS was not "turned on". If their CIWS was loaded with live ammo (we usually just kept dummy rounds in the system), was in "Auto" mode, and the missile was not in the system's blind spot - then CIWS would have engaged and destroyed the missile. Period. I mention blind spot because a Perry-class frigate like the Stark had its CIWS mounted at the rear of the ship. It would have been able to engage a missile coming in from port, starboard or aft of the ship, but would be blind to a strike coming from the front of the ship. The ship would have to maneuver the ship for CIWS to engage in that scenario. In the case of the Stark, the missiles struck on the port side, so they may not have been in the CIWS' blind spot. We were always told that Stark did not have their CIWS "turned on". Maybe the Russian ship did not have their weapons systems in a state which would have allowed them to automatically engage, perceiving no threats in the area at that time. We know there are maintenance problems with their ships (U.S. Navy ships have their maintenance challenges lately also). Maybe their systems were not 100% combat ready due to maintenance problems. These ships look impressive, but are we incorrectly assuming their weapons systems were working, and if so, that they were in a mode to engage targets?

@NorthForkFisherman

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly. What's their sortie rate versus alongside time. You've got to have both good training and maintenance done before you intentionally wade into the crucible. It seems like there were a of company-grades signing off readiness reports and higher levels just taking their words for it. If there isn't a purge of those officers, then Ukraine has a war that they can lose by their choice. The Russians may have firepower, but it's not coordinated in any serious fashion it seems.

From what I understand, the attack was undertaken at night and in bad weather which may have reduced the Moskva's defensive abilities. Also, Ukraine are claiming 2 missile hits but how many did they actually fire? Maybe they fired 20 missiles and only 2 got through? We likely won't have those details until later. In any event, nothing is invincible and as much as the Russians would like us to think so, it has become apparent over the last 50 days that their military is nowhere near as good as we thought it was and Ukraines military is far better than anyone gave it credit for. Keep up the good work, Cap! Fun fact: the Moskva (formerly Slava) was built in Mylolaiv, one of the cities which has suffered greatly during the recent war. There's a whiff of poetic justice about this.

@Uf1r

2 жыл бұрын

We dont have 20 neptun launchers. Hell, we dont even have 20 Neptun missiles :)

@metatechnologist

2 жыл бұрын

So a single launcher can do 4 missiles per truck. I kind of find it hard to believe they would hold back and not blow the whole truck i.e. 4 missiles if they really thought they had a chance to sink the thing. If for no other reason to try and overwhelm the defense systems!

@gaoldias

2 жыл бұрын

@@Uf1r There is some talk that a Bayraktar TB2 was used as a decoy. Not sure if it's true or not.

@EdGee89

2 жыл бұрын

Apparently, they sent Bayraktar TB-2 drone to distract the engagement radar because said radar only could engage one target, at only one direction. So when Moskva trained their radar towards the drone, and add to the choppy seas rendering all sensors ineffective, those missiles could only be detected by Mark One Eyeballs. And it'll be too late.

@Ola4family

2 жыл бұрын

Ehhh Ukraine is buying most of their stuff from already developed countries, America being a big part. 2.1 billion in aid. It’s not as if Ukraine built all of their stuff prior to this. Which none of it is.

There's something to be said about not having massive missiles stowed on the weather decks.

@martinpalmer6203

2 жыл бұрын

Very unlikely that would be a problem even if hit, the rotary AAM launchers on the other hand would probably cause the sort of damage which could cripple and sink such a ship... wonder where the Galley is on that boat, that would be another likely source of shipboard fire. The Ukranian claims are both varying too much as well as lacking evidence to be considered as genuine.. so an ammunition misfire or magazine fire seems more likely, especially those big AAMs amidships, a catastrophic fire in those space would cause all kinds of problems and could split the ship in 2...

@larryzigler6812

2 жыл бұрын

@@martinpalmer6203 WRONG !!!!

@cornbreadstew7957

2 жыл бұрын

@@larryzigler6812 Go ahead and correct him with facts then... instead of just saying WRONG, like you did something to disprove his observation/experience. That's a simpleton move and ignorant at most.

@larryzigler6812

2 жыл бұрын

@@cornbreadstew7957 The facts are being broadcast throughout the free world. Pay attention, goober.

@khoatan9354

2 жыл бұрын

@@martinpalmer6203 if it is true then russian navy really lacks professionalism, especially this is the biggest girl of the black sea

The trouble with the British destroyers was the aluminium uppers. Aluminium melts at a relatively low temperature and fires were next to impossible to put out as the fire party's were basically falling straight through the decks etc as well as the structure just collapsing from the heat. I was in the RAN just after this and it was a 'Big Thing' that they wanted to impress upon us during Fire training.

Lazerpig did a video about the Moskva sinking on september 11th 2022. and he used a Maintenance document that is about a maintenance session a few weeks before the sinking. It basically really shows that the Moskva was not ready to defend itself

We are assuming, of course, that proper maintenance and training was done of the various systems. Or that the defensive missiles were not past their shelf life.

I remember when I lived in Hull ,there was a memorial to 2 fisherman killed by the tsars imperial navy on the way to fight the Japanese navy in 1905 .The Russian's navy is still incompetent.

@milferdjones2573

2 жыл бұрын

That a fun thing to look up as the Russian Admiral threw binocular after binocular into the Ocean when frustrated. The level of incompetence was insane. The mistaking of British Fishing Fleet for Japanese torpedo boats almost caused a war except the Russians missing them when firing on them. British Intercepted after that incident with home fleet and Admiral in charge considering what he was up against told the Russians I'm only going to use five of my Battleships considering the Russians performance later that would have sunk the whole Russian Fleet but it got worked out and British Admiral called off before it went down. Consider the Russians could not hit a fishing boat and the British accuracy in WWI the British would have crushed the Russians probably without being hit.

@joshuabessire9169

2 жыл бұрын

There's two good Russian sailors. One was a revolutionary who didn't let a little thing like his ship sinking stop him. The other was actually Lithuanian and entirely fictional. Both spoke with a Scottish accent.

“Accidental shipboard fires” don’t burn out of control in a combat zone in broad daylight with a full compliment of Sailors on board.

I highly recommend watching LazerPigs video on the sinking, in particular the maintenance report he found from just before the war started which highlighted some real issues lol.

This may mean that Their battle cruiser, the Kirov may be just as vulnerable like their Slava class cruisers…

@bammeke76

2 жыл бұрын

I think the kirov and the nakhimov ( beeing modernised) are better defended they have 8 30mm gatlinglike guns (slava had 6) and 6 kortik (gun combined missle ) systems and espacially the nakhimov had way better Electronic and waningsystems, btw ukraine says 2 missles hit,but how many did they fire? Its possible the cruiser took a few down

@ebenitez2011

2 жыл бұрын

@@bammeke76 But the Kirov class Battlecruiser and Slava class cruiser Share not only similar weapons/communications/EW/radar systems but also similar mission profiles, primarily anti-air and anti-surface vessel warfare, Although the Kirov type vessel would likely have improved defensive capabilities, in similar circumstances I would argue a similar outcome could be probable based on the current performance of the Russian Navy during this war

@bammeke76

2 жыл бұрын

@@ebenitez2011 the kirov has indeed pretty much the same systems ( but more and the kortik system is better then the 30 mm guns) the nakhimov is a different story ,all the systems are replaced with modern day systems ,its nearing completion and basicaly the only thing it has in commen with the peter the great is it's hull

@christianvanderstap6257

2 жыл бұрын

@@bammeke76 as soon as nakhimov is back the kirov will also get it's overdue overhaul

@bammeke76

2 жыл бұрын

@@christianvanderstap6257 indeed I've seen an episode from " combat aproved" about the topic ( you van see them on KZread) and the loss of the slava cruiser is a blow but the main russian seapower are its subs and they focus on smaller ships ( up to frigates) with hypersonic and cruisemissles. In my opinion they keep the kirov's slava's and ships like the udaloys to have a blue water navy and force other navys to invest in big ships to ( same and only reason they want to keep the kusnetsov )

From what I've been reading, the Neptune missile cruises at about 10-15m and goes to about 4m above sea level on terminal flight. Both missile systems struggle to acquire anything below 15-20m so it's possible the missile radar just didn't pick up the incoming. As you say in the video, if the guns hit at all is somewhat random. Add bad seastate probably making radar contact with the missiles intermittent, apparent drone use to distract the AA systems and low visibility and the invincible becomes very vincible.

@olegkosygin2993

2 жыл бұрын

Moskva was never meant for independent operation. It was always a "first strike" ship of a MUCH larger navy, meant to engage enemy carrier groups with a barrage of huge missiles including 2 tactical nuclear missiles, while covering its own support group with its strong anti-aircraft defense. Anti-aircraft meaning anti-helicopter and anti-airplane. The smaller screening ships around Slava would be handling enemy missiles. It has several radars, but the outdated fire control system meant that only one target per radar could be engaged at a time. In Soviet times in Soviet doctrine, the risk was thought to be affordable compared to the danger Moskva posed to CAGs. You're right about the drones, they were indeed meant to distract the AA so that Osa SAMs wouldn't have a chance to react to incoming ASMs. And perhaps to paint the target, too.

@zipz8423

2 жыл бұрын

Only over calm seas.

@khv.repair4347

2 жыл бұрын

Do you think that "Moskva" was sunk... No, Russian scientists made her invisible, remember the "Philadelphia experiment" in 1943 with the destroyer "Eldridge". The Moskva cruiser is 3 miles from Washington on full alert, it is invisible, there is no need to supply weapons to Ukraine, when the point of no return is passed, America will be under attack, the Russians never fight civilians. The military infrastructure will be destroyed.

Finally. Our DCS knowledge has a real world usecase.

According to some reports that I've come across, the Captain of the ship was preoccupied with reports of a drone that was being reported in the area at the time the missiles reportedly hit the "Moskva"("Moscow"). If that's the case, that's another contributing factor why the Neptune Missiles got through the ship's defenses. They weren't paying attention to the "Bigger Picture." In military terms, it's called "a distraction."

@zipz8423

2 жыл бұрын

Should still have picked up those missiles at some point.

@isidzukuri

2 жыл бұрын

@@zipz8423 that missile is designed to sink especially russian ships. Moskva built in Ukraine city by Ukraine ppl. And Russian WarShip not picking shit lower then 10m of sea surface. Neptune can do 4m, go guess. It went, where it was sent.

@zipz8423

2 жыл бұрын

@@isidzukuri depends on clutter, at sea state 1 less of an issue. Then of course the stage of the ship’s equipment and crew.

When your battleship is sunk on the first attack of its life by only two fired missiles with a 100% hit rate then you really have a problem as a navy.

@MrZlocktar

2 жыл бұрын

Have any footage?

@tedarcher9120

2 жыл бұрын

I doubt they only fired two missiles. They could have fired 8-16 in one salvo and only 1-2 went through

@pbp6741

2 жыл бұрын

Or your five-year old is just very lucky.

@jonny-b4954

2 жыл бұрын

@@tedarcher9120 I would actually doubt they'd waste that many missiles. They almost certainly only fired 2-4. You wouldn't waste 8-16 missiles. I may be wrong though.

@tedarcher9120

2 жыл бұрын

@@jonny-b4954 it's not wasting missiles - it's using them. It's much better to spend and extra 1-2 mil dollars to destroy a billion dollar cruiser

A few extra thoughts : 1. I remember many years back (I THINK USS Stark hit by 2 missiles) part of the failure was the CIWS system didn't take down two incoming missiles. They were the same distance and the system couldn't decide which one to hit first, so it did nothing. 2) According to another post the UKR also had a Bayraktar in the area. On top of the weather issues mentioned, I suspect when the Neptunes were close, the Bayraktar launched 4 missiles which "distracted" the CWIS. 3) AK-630 shoots 5,000 rounds per minute, but only holds 2000 of ammo (based on wikipedia) so that 24 seconds of firing. So the drone missiles go in first and drain the cwis of ammo AND have the guns facing a few degrees the wrong way. Then the Neptunes come in behind, and the CWIS isn't able to shoot then down as they are out of ammo and/or engaging the drone's missiles. So combining 1+2+3 make an interesting strategy. Not a weapon expert but seems (at least in part) a plausible strategy.

@chaitanyasingh3258

2 жыл бұрын

In the USS Stark incident the CIWS didn't fire because it was not set on auto-engage. It was tracking the target and had a firing solution but did not receive authorization to fire from the human crew member not because it was confused which missile to target lol

@MrZlocktar

2 жыл бұрын

Are you seriously considering that drone was able to encounter ship without being destroyed on a fly path? And where are the footages of it? Why this is the first time Ukrainians don't have footages. Not even from land. I know for sure, that Neptune doesn't exist. I know it from intel, and because there are are a lot of evidences that there were no such missiles strikes recorded from space at time of incident. You can't hide a missile launch from a military satellite. Had this happen, it would be exposed and destroyed soon after. But that didn't happened. So to me it's clear, they are playing information warfare once again. The best proof is intel and lack of footages. Complete lack. For the first time. The factory where Neptune's were supposed to be produced back in 2021 is destroyed now. Turned into dust just to be sure. But there is still no intel or confirmation that it exist. No one ever saw one outside of vague pictures in internet. Not even Ukrainian military.

@chaoticworldnews2771

2 жыл бұрын

@@chaitanyasingh3258 Thanks. :)

@chaoticworldnews2771

2 жыл бұрын

​@@MrZlocktar I think you missed my point a bit. Assuming this video is accurate, then the "Moscov anti-air missiles will not fire", and only the AK-630 will. The UKR drone (and it's missiles) are meant to go first and waste the CWIS ammo. (yes the drone and drone's missiles will be destroyed)... and THAT is the point. As right behind them are the Neptune missiles, the crew will not have enough time to reload the ak-630 so it will not fire. As for footage : Why does UKR OWE you (or anyone) footage? Let's assume they really DID hit the Moscov... do you think they are that dumb to release footage to show how they did it? So that RUS will know how to better protect themselves? THEY are the only ones who need to be convinced it worked. What you or I think is NOT relevant. Footage 2: IF it was an explosion from a fire& explosin from inside then were is THAT footage? A pic / vid will clearly show the hull was ruptured from the inside. Also where are the 500 crew saved? Arn't lives more important than a ship? Shouldn't Russia be happy that 500 of their sailors were saved? Neptune : You make no sense. You claim the factory is destroyed now BUT also claim it didn't exist in the first place. How can it be destroyed if it didn't exist? Honestly PRE-RUS was I don't think anyone really cared... so if nobody cares AND they are careful it's not like many would know. Also UKR could be lying and used some other weapon instead (i.e. Harpoon?) Although the US "just" announced sending Harpoons, it's totally plausible these were already sent a few weeks ago. Again the US / UKR don't OWE us anything so they absolutely have the right to send some weapons first and tell us later. Do Neptunes exist? I think so but it doesn't really matter... what is more important is the UKR capability to hit ships.

@billr3654

2 жыл бұрын

@@chaitanyasingh3258 Your reply is pretty good. CIWS will never do nothing in the case of multiple missiles that meet threat criteria. If CIWS is not set to "Auto", it will obviously need another button pushed to fire. In that case, "Command" failed, not CIWS itself. I'm not even sure the Starks' CIWS was loaded, or even in a mode to track a target, let alone engage it. As a former U.S. Navy CIWS supervisor, we were always told the Stark did not have their CIWS "on", whatever that means. Maybe not even loaded with live rounds (we normally have dummy rounds loaded), or not set to "Auto", as Singh suggests.

Have the same feeling as the author, shocked. Always seen this vessel as something exceptional

I saw the Moskva in 1988 in Norfolk. It was a beauty. Probably not so much now. It was called the Slava back then.

Thankyou Reapers. Great little docco. Informative (Truly enlightening really) and entertaining. For those of us with a very basic understanding of naval hardware, you have brought reality to us in language we can readily digest. 10 out of 10.

Yes! I literally went to your channel to ask whether you will produce something about Moskva defeat and here it is!

@grimreapers

2 жыл бұрын

We aim to please.

Just a comment on correct naval terminology. "Fire Control" refers to controlling the firing of, and basically aiming a ships weapons. "Damage Control" is the crews efforts to put out fires and prevent a ship from sinking after it has taken hits or there has been an accident on board. I may be slpitting hairs but the distinction is important to maintain your credability among sailors and former sailors. I was a firecontrolman. That was my rate in the navy. I was also the Damage Control Petty Officer in my division meaning that I was in charge of maintaining fire hoses, marking pipes and being sure that watertight doors and hatches were actually watertight.

Cool bit of kit the sim soft.

You forget that the UA's used a drone to distract or disable the RU's radar. That was critical to the mission.

@DickCheneyXX

2 жыл бұрын

That is only a claim. Maybe they just swarmed it with enough missiles. The search radar should still be searching regardless of what weapon radars are doing.

@tedarcher9120

2 жыл бұрын

They didn't. Bayraktar has only 150km control range and 7-8km missile range. It would have been shot down by 130mm dual purpose guns before getting in range

@williamzk9083

2 жыл бұрын

I suspect the drone was not only used to 'distract' the Moskva but to locate and track the vessel. The Neptune missiles has a command link to update the targets position and so this would have allowed an optimal attack approach. The missiles active search radar would only have been turned on at the last moment. Ukrainina officers served on the Moskva and knew its systems. I suspect some effort at noise jamming to degrade the Moskva's radar and reduce range. They should have had 30-40 seconds warning with the missile picked up at 10km or more. I blame the AK-630 so called CIWS and its radar for this failure. The Phalanx has its search and target tracking radar mounted above and beneath the gun. The tracking radar will track the target and the rounds from the same antenna. The deviation of round and target on same antenna thus eliminates any alignment issue.

Just noticed, despite having most AA missiles at the stern of the ship, there's no close quarters guns there, its a big blind spot, but not surprising for a ship clearly designed to smash straight into an enemy fleet. Well the results were very interesting, but I do believe that crew training was an issue.

@michaelbmaxwell1640

2 жыл бұрын

You're probably speaking of crew training to defend from an incoming, but there's another aspect of training: damage control. Other ships have been hit by cruise missiles, some went down (notably some smaller UK ships in the Falklands war), others didn't (the USS Stark, a much smaller ship hit by two cruise missiles). It might be that with better damage control training, the crew of the Moskva could have saved her. Otoh, it's possible that the incoming hits were lucky, and caused one of Moskva's own missiles to explode. If that happened, it would probably have been on the other side of the ship, since the launchers on the port side seem intact. The fact that it's listing to port makes that unlikely, but it is possible that the incoming passed cruise missile passed entirely through the starboard side of the Moskva and exploded just inside the port side, causing more damage at the waterline there, while still igniting one of the starboard side missiles.

@JoaoSoares-rs6ec

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaelbmaxwell1640 I was referring to training in general, but damage control would be an issue,

@JoaoSoares-rs6ec

2 жыл бұрын

@@jack99889988 mi opinion irrelevant, but Russian navy definitely didn't expect that.

@zipz8423

2 жыл бұрын

Some Navies place gun type CIWS amidships, because thats where the majority of Exocet / Harpoon type weapons of that generation aim for and you generally wont have to deal with a crossing target. USN Navy differs in this regard and places them fore and aft.

@JoaoSoares-rs6ec

2 жыл бұрын

@@zipz8423 but it still leaves the stern unguarded a severe flaw

I worked on radar for the A-6E TRAM and the EA- 6B in the Marines. Rain is incredibly difficult 'see through' with a radar. Water attenuates all electromagnetic energy. Rain is worse than chaff for the fire control deal with! The Slava is looking for a small, high speed target coming in head on, which the radar can't lock due to loss of Doppler ranging. The ship was experiencing the same effects of a electronic jamming aircraft attack!