The Moskva's last readiness report is a horror show. Basically nothing worked, the emergency equipment was locked away to stop the crew from stealing it, the engines were all but inoperable due to being run so long and the worst part despite all that the report was still signed off as "acceptable" by the Admiral. Russia is losing a naval war to a country that doesn't really have a navy.
they are questions whenever the report is real. Nevertheless, it would explain how such small attack would not just get through but sink it. If fire fighting equipment was missing or needed keys from the admiral, then no wonder they didn't fight to save the ship If the have either communications or radar, it is no wonder they didn't have they radar active. If the air defense systems are not working, then yeah a couple of Neptune's are enough.
Sure, dude, Ukr & NATO is fighting a naval war, not a LAND war, and sinking old rusty ship will put them a step closer to the Ultimate Victory.... In mid-time, 1/3 of Ukr is gone, Murica is throwing elensky under the bus, and probably next year will be no Ukr at all, considering how much ground they lose each day. But keep dreaming, listening to a dude who have nothing interestent to say, and instead upload a short clip about a war incident in a country of other side of the world, in a country he has no clue about, and using only Ukr & western presstitute corporate media as "sources"... But hey, is no rule to invent BS and upload to YT in order to keep ignorant muppets on subscriptions count...
Doesn't have a navy is a nonsense statement. They had one and destroyed it themselves. Then reconstituted it under a different format, drones, patrol boats etc. However, that's all irrelevant because of the size of the area, land based missiles can also attack ships. Who cares if there's a navy or not?
The only battles the Russians won in the Black Sea were when they had a Ukrainian-origin admiral, Nakhimov. Rus and later Ukraine, with its capital Kyiv, had had centuries-long sea battle experience against the Byzantine and Ottoman empires, especially as raiders, starting from the late VII century; the very same time Moscow Tsardom(later the Russian empire), centuries before the Ukraine occupation, was a landlocked country with natives to forest and swamps Moscowites(later Russians) who somehow learned about the sea in the XVIII century. Russians lost all other battles in this sea, either during Tsar or Red Russia, the Russia-Ottoman wars, WWI, or WWII.
The only lesson I really learnt from this incident is to not send a warship, that hasn't been properly cared for and cannot defend itself, into a warzone. I believe that the files of the ships evaluation report before it was sent out it is mentioned that most of her equipment weren't working including most of her defensive weapons and damage control, her engines were in dire need of replacing which also made her have to move slower, her radar had to be shut off, and numerous other issues including fire extinguishers having to be locked away due to theft and doors having to kept open. So it really does seem that with all these issues two Neptune missiles could destroy a large warship. It seems thag many of Russia's older ships, including destroyers, cruisers, and their aircraft carrier are really not cared for, the best ones are their new frigates, new corvettes, and sub fleet. Unlike the USSR, Russia currently doesn't have much of a reason to keep an ocean going fleet with large warships. So focus is placed on newer warships while the older ones are given leftovers based on necessity and mainly only exist for their looks not actual power. Though after Moskva they likely changed this a bit and are keeping them in better condition. It's sad, as I am a big fan of all Navy ships and to see these ships in such a state pains me, but I guess it's understandable. LazerPig's (despite his flaws and clear biases) video on the Moskva does have the evaluation reports including both translated and not translated versions so do check it out as I may have gotten a few things wrong.
Although it's probably part of the problem, BUT... You cannot rule out the training and the attitude of the crew and leadership. Even with a ship equipped with the most modern equipment in existence, if you're not acting like your in a danger zone, if your radars are not looking for threats, if the crew believes it is in a safe environment, it can also happen. And unless we get access to more details, there is no way to know what share is due to the equipment, the training, the attitude, the leadership.
@@fungames24 What a stupid comment. A tank (up to the most modern ones) have no self-protection system. A cruiser ship of this size is packed with self-defence, and even area defence systems.
@@fungames24 land warfare is very different than naval warfare. Also the tanks do have defenses to counter drones, and future tanks are being designed with ways to counter drones as well. You still can't compare the two. Moskva didn't have a chance so sending it out was pointless.
While this incident is significant, the more significant naval incident is how the New Zealand Navy managed to sink a good proportion of its fleet, recently, without any enemy combatant in the entire Pacific Ocean…
The sinking Moskva reminds me so much of the Strike on the Stark (FFG-31). Both cases, two combatants were operating in war zones where antiship missiles among other threats were operating. Stark was hit accidentally by two missiles without using the SM-1, 3inch 76mm gun or CIWS for various reasons. The ship also did not employ chaff rockets. One of the Exocet missiles failed to detonate, its turbojet ironically caused more casualties and damage.The Moskova was likewise operating in a combat zone, was hit by two similar ASMs and apparently failed to use the various sensors to detect, decoy or destroy the two missiles. The Stark enjoyed better training as far as damage control and in spite of the dangerous Aluminum Superstructure a more compartmentalized design, the crew was able to save the ship and attend to wounded shipmates. The Moskva apparently was not able to contain the explosions or fires and suffered from large open magazines of the S-300F launchers and other ordnance. As you pointed out, Moskva did not get the support Stark did. Very good report Aaron!
@@00calvinlee00 couldn't have said it better myself. The Starks Air Search Radar now EW's picked up the threat. If I remember correctly CIWS was in standby. Chaff/Torch was not deployed cuz the EW's didn't detect the missiles and it took a heroic effort from the ships damage control teams for the fire not to spread to the missile magazine. This is not similar to the USS Cole situation which was truly an asynchronous attack
@@gmikegainesStark was a really good wake up call for the Navy to mature it’s AAW capability. It’s insane how far the Aegis Block 3 has come.. I think Carney shot down something like 51 ASCMs, ballistic missiles, and drones. Granted those missiles aren’t exactly top of the line, but still a crazy feat.
@@gmikegaines Agreed. One of the other things that really was awful about the Cole was the fact it was sent there like the Sullivans to make Yemen "feel better" about being on the list of State Sponsors of Terror. IIRC Gen. Zinni put them on the list and then agreed to let the Navy refuel their. Both cases were awful. Ironically, there were four Destroyers at Penn's Landing that day. My Dad noticed something on the Bridge and "all visitors were requested to leave". The four DDGs all spooled up and rolled out. We found out about the Stark later that evening. Feel great my Niece who is now in Guam has SAMs and Aegis Ashore.
One notable difference between the Stark & Moskva: while the Gulf was certainly a warzone, at that moment the US wasn't one of the belligerents, so Stark wasn't an active combatant. The Iraqi Exocet attack was accidental, as you mention (pilot thought he was targeting a commercial tanker). Moskva, on the other hand, was both in a warzone AND obviously a participating combatant and thus a legitimate target. I make this distinction not to excuse Stark's posture and/or readiness state (obviously it should have been higher), but to highlight how even more egregious was Moskva's lack of such. I'm reminded of another parallel in Russian naval history: the 1904-05 Baltic Fleet voyage during the Russo-Japanese War, culminating in utter defeat at Tsushima. As it turns out, sending run-down ships with poor material condition, low crew morale, and inadequate training into a combat situation doesn't end well. A lesson which sadly needs to be re-learned from time to time.
Reminds me of the Sheffield in the Falklands (part of the advanced air defence screen but its main air search radar was shut down to allow satcom transmissions which I suspect were not critical - they never saw the Exocet until it was seconds away as a result)
Reminds me a lot of the Sheffield sinking too. That ship was hit by just a single Exocet missile, and if you look at the things the board of inquiry identified as factors in her sinking, ask yourself if you think the Russians may have had similar deficiencies in training and response time. Yeah.
Quibble: The Cole was an asymmetric attack but Moskva was not. It was a major national naval asset defeated by a major national coastal defense asset. Just because ammunition costs less than warships that does not mean it is asymmetrical.
The russian sailors were throwing infantry shovels at the incoming missiles. They manged to stop the leading one, but the back up missile hit. The ship was transporting emergency shovel supply to the front at the time.
@@Statueshop297 This was it, there was a report leaked from around 2 week prior to the invasion. Lazerpig goes over it in detail but it boils down to: 1 CIWS out of 6 was "operational" FCS radar interfeared with onboard communications so was usually disabled meaning the S300 system was INOP IF the FCS was enabled it supposedly struggled to lock onto sea skimming weapons which the neptune is of this class 130mm Gun was INOP due to hydraulics failures Of the DCS basically all of it was either INOP/Locked Down to a single key held by the admiral on board or alread stolen It was a ship that shouldnt have been out of dry dock let alone anywhere near the front lines
If as I understand it the Russian navy makes use of the same 1 year conscripts that the army uses, then a large portion of the crew would not have been properly trained to deal with such damage. It takes a minimum of a year on board a modern combat ship to understand all the systems involved. In western Navies new recruits would likely have spent a minimum of 3-4 months in shore base training before stepping on a ship & they would still need on average another year to be fully qualified. That means if most a crew only has a maximum of a year in the Navy they would be discharged right around the time they would become useful.
This empire-horde under different names, Moscow Tsardom(before 1721), Russian Empire, RSFSR(1917), USSR(1922), and Russian Federation(1991), pays most attention to the shire size of its army and, after XVIII century, fleet; there is nothing about efficiency or quality, all about the quantity that produces fear factor. Russian Navy epically failed all Russia-Ottoman wars, WWI, and WWII in the Black Sea; there were exceptions when Ukrainians were the sailor's core and Ukrainian-origin admirals served in the Russian imperial navy. Rus and later Ukraine, with the capital in Kyiv, had 1000+ years of sea battles experience against Byzantines and later Ottoman empires; at the same time, the centuries-long vassal to Turk nomads, Moscow Tsardom(and later Russia) before 1700 were fully landlocked with no navy tradition at all.
@@Spearhead45in theory.. stuff breaks while at sea , and electronics are challenge even for a real navy .. not a cut rate ex Soviet fleet where the toilets don’t work
@@Spearhead45 the exocet is subsonic and had success in the past against western frigates equipped with both SAMs and CIWS the effectiveness of these systems can be questioned, especially against the newer threats (supersonic-hypersonic missiles)
@@stephenrickstrew7237 I mean, you are right. The Russian surface fleet is not very up-to-date and leadership is bad but there submarine Fleet is very capable
The USS Cole is one counterpoint. USS Samuel B. Robert's survival after a Persian Gulf mine strike seems like another. Cole is a destroyer, Sammy B. was a smaller frigate, but she survived because her crew didn't quit fighting for her survival. U.S. naval history and tradition play a part: "Don't give up the ship."
3:20 There are other more fundamental mistakes: 1. The fire suppression gear was locked away because of rampant theft. 2. Moskva was not properly maintained. The very systems that should have protected him (it's Russian, so - him!) were offline. Had the Moskva been maintained the Neptunes never would have scored hits.
Like most USSR ships, Moskva was designed for suicide missions. The buoyancy was sacrificed to put as many weapons as possible. Moskva single damage control post was located at the center of the ship, between two engine rooms, the point where missiles would aim. That actually exactly where Moskava was hit. So, no damage control and no power. The huge single compartment accommodated 48 S-300, if flooded it would make impossible to right the ship. The 1/4 of upper desk houses 16 huge ASMs. The rumorse are that the S-300 radar was never fully operational and can be used for several hrs a day only before requiring maintains.. From the pictures, it is clear that all defense systems were never engaged.
The Moskva was a 40 year old ship when sunk that apparently was not updated. Its radars, the key to any missile engagement, were likely manually operated. A well trained crew can use such systems effectively like they were in the Moskva for only period of time before fatigue reduces efficiency. Ships like the Burke Class destroyers can operate in full automatic and remain high readiness 24/7. The Moskva was an old ship in the wrong place too long and paid the price.
I don't think the USS Cole is a good example to compare the damage control efforts. The Cole was in port and after the initial attack they could be reasonably sure the no further attacks would happen / or get through. The Moskwa on the other hand was still inside enemy attack range and a follow up attack was definitely a concern. Plenty of ships that could have been saved have been given up and scuttled due to concerns that trying to save them would just expose more units to enemy attack, e.g. the USS Hornet and HMAS Canberra during WW2.
The year was 1984, I was on watch in CIC operating my WLR-! ESM equipment. I picked up the Moskva's and it's escorts surface search radars. A while later my ships radar picked them up. Bottom line , I know the radars worked in 1984. We sailed within 50 miles of it. I would of enjoyed that Snoopy Detail if it happened.
That's pretty incredible - you saw her (with your equipment, but that counts, right?) at the start of her career, she was only commissioned on January 30th, 1983. 😮
@@nunyabeeswax9463 was it this Moskva? I know some of their ships’ names had changed with the collapse of the USSR. I thought there was a helicopter carrier (sort of) in the 1980s named Moskva.
I wouldn't so much compare the Moskva sinking to the Cole attack, as much as I would the attacks on the USSs Stark and Mason, and the ongoing actions of the USS Carney in the Red Sea. The Stark was hit by two AShMs. While severely damaged, determined and effective damage control kept it afloat and put out the fires. The Mason was attacked by Houthi Rebels in the Gulf of Aden, who launched two AShMs at the ship. The Mason, unlike the Moskva, deployed it's sensors, weapons, and countermeasures to defend itself, and the attack was defeated. The Carney has dealt with a number of attacks by the Houthis using various forms of aerial weaponry over a significant period of time, successfully defending itself, and friendly shipping in the area.
Rather than comparing to the Cole, a comparison with the Stark might be more revealing. I think many of the same conclusions might be reached, but the difference in ship and crew performance where indeed stark, no pun intended.
The Moskva was on it´s own, not in condition Z and if i compare it today with the interception rate of Russian air defence systems...she didn´t even see those missiles coming otherwise the FCR would have been turned to Port for interception.
Happy Halloween, Aaron. I hope you've gotten another fluffy friend but also where can a person get a large print or a high resolution file of that painting at 5:50? That's freaking awesome.
I think other factors - maintian your ships and your crews. Do damage control drills and fire fighting drills. Build your ships with compartmentalistion. Having lots of diffierent air defence systems can make it complex to activate the right ones at the right time rather than integrated sensor and weapons systems. I also understand that there may have been drones around so having fire directors that can only deal with a couple of targets at once in a certain direction may also have been a factor.
To be fair, these are the exact same problems the US had in the Stark Incident; they "weren't alert enough" and "never employed their countermeasures or counter-missile weapons" either.
In the naval / sea battlespace, half the time you're fighting the elements trying to smash, shake and rust your nice new steel ship to pieces, let alone actually fight. It's not a place for poor maintenance on critical systems (or the use of unsuitable systems), or it can very quickly become combat ineffective, and just a liability. I think complacency may have also played a part here, as they thought they were out of range of any significant Ukrainian threat.
It will never not be funny that the "second most powerful military in the world" lost naval dominance and the able to interdict shipping (and was forced to withdraw from naval bases) to a country without a navy.
They hold naval dominance, they do not hold coastal dominance though. Even in NATO wargames coastal/land based forces regularly pose a threat to surface ships operating close to the shores of a nation with no ability to oppose the opponent in open seas. Like, none of this is unexpected to anyone who knows anything about naval matters.
Okay first of all, when did russia lose naval power and how is ukraine having no navy a disadvantage for ukraine ? Like serieusly the russian navy is ment to figth other ships and submarines, most russian ships arent really build for airdefence and land attack. So ukraine has nk navy so wtf is the russian navy suppose to do ? Its more embarresing for ukraine i would say, they have recived hundreds of missles and the russian naval port is in their historicly close backyard and they still have only managed to hit 30% of the fleet. Seems to me that while ukraine has all the advantages and nothing to lose they still suck at anti shipping. They only managed to sink a 50yo cruiser that was only afloat by hopes and dreams
Russia is mostly a nuclear power, the biggest or second biggest on the world, they have a relatively big army (not second biggest but still big) but their navy was never that strong. On top of that the black sea fleet is only a portion of their fleet and the black sea. I mean, they have naval dominance in the black sea and they can intercept shipping, merchant ships have no defenses at all. Normal naval operations are done with long range missiles (kalibr) for land attack and the navy cannot do much more than that since the black sea is not even being contested (they don't have anything else to shoot at). The reason they moved back was because of strikes on the ports by sea drones and cruise missiles, their ships can still operate in the black sea but from a greater-safe distance. It doesn't make sense to have your ships operating that close to the enemy mainland to begin with, I'm not sure why they even used those ports for as long as they did. The loss of Moskva was due to them being careless and exposing that old-unprepared ship too much. The Moskva couldn't even fire the Kalibr missiles and was mostly useless, the main weapons carried are carrier killing missiles, they are useless in the Ukraine conflict. Moskva could basically only fire the 130mm guns she had. The modern Russian frigates and corvettes are the ships that fire the Kalibrs
lazerpig had a document indicating the internal coms system didnt work while the radar was activated. thats probably why the radar was up and locked and they couldnt defend themselves. they had it shut down so they could communicate
First and final lesson is - you study the official inquiries and reports first and then publish a video, not the other way around. Not a single of "blackened surfaces" or holes in your photos have edges rolled inside the hull and they all correspond to portholes of the ship, which means that they are blackened from the internal fires, not from rocket impact. By stating that "no damage control teams were sent to support the ship" you are simply lying, because the very picture you are showing was taken from one of 2 rescue tugboats sent from Sevastopol. Although the S-300Fort FCR is in default position, main radar complex MR800 Flag is traversed to the starboard, which means that the ship was actively scanning for air and other targets. The hatches of the S-300Fort are closed because they are opened prior to launching the missile, if the missile is not being launched why open them? Right now one of the most likely versions is the fire in S-300 magazine. But again, until an official report is published, everything is speculation. Very disappointed with such poorly made hype.
Also one thing to consider in the loss. How effective was the damage control party?? Were there enough trained personnel on board and did the rest of the crew have any training in fire fighting/damage control??
Interesting, the ruining ashore of the New Zealand Navy survey ship that lead to its sinking can be attributed toooooooo ,,, finish the sentence. At least the Moscow was in a war zone....
The ship was hit while it was raining, stormy, so the radar was not operating properly. They never knew what hit them. Ukrainian intel knew of this vulnerability and exploited it. Viva Ukraine.
When it first sank I heard everyone making excuses about being distracted by a drone but the first thought going through my mind was maintenance. Radar systems don't run perfectly forever and Russia does not seem to maintain anything else so why would their radars be any different?
The first lesson about russian navy that I learned from history is: Don't be on a russian ship during wartime. The other lesson I learned from history is: Don't be on a russian ship during peacetime.
Given how regularly the Russians demonstrate this level of negligence and incompetence, it is valid to question whether their nuclear deterrence is functional.
Lol these dumb western warhawks always want to play with fire. Even if 80% of their nuclear arsenal wasn't working, that 20% is enough to destroy the world. Don't be an idiot. Assume they work
Warfare of all kinds changes rapidly during major shooting conflicts. Navies have become vulnerable to air drones and surface sea drones and, as always, undersea drones. Moskva was an old ship and Russia came up with new strategies to beat Ukraine and NATO’s weapons and forces. At least those forces the US was willing to expose to battle, which were far less sophisticated than the United States possesses. The Ukraine war is a mystery to me as it must have been about whom owns Factories, energy production, and cropland, Western owners or the Russkies. Looks like the Russkies have successfully answered the question. I think, for the Russians, it was about keeping NATO away from the borders close to Russia, an existential threat to Russia. A foolish war that has literally taken Germany’s manufacturing prowess from near first in the world to far lower. Just amazing. Almost as if the US Deep state had planned it that way.
Why it sank - The Moskva was built without internal watertight bulkheads. After the sinking, Russian state media claimed the ship had a piece of the cross (yes the cross that Jesus died on) mounted on it to protect the ship. If true is anybody going down to recover that?
Wasn't a gun current and magazine of a 30mm auto gun targeted? Plus the decks were open configuration allowing the fire from the ammunition below deck to spread. It was also said one of the deck mounted missiles was hit and exploded. Was a while ago but the combination of this and conscripts and poor training was said to be the end of things. They targeted it in a squall using the waves as a shield 🛡️ and a drone as a decoy. Further , the ship WA built in Ukraine so they knew its weaknesses and where to hit it and how.
It only two holes in her side, I wonder if it would be possible to raise the Moskva. If the ship remained intact and didn't take too much damage when it hit the sea floor, it might by salvageable.
@@colayco Warships are raised all the time. Check your history. The Japanese raised and recommissioned several of their own and some Russian battleships sunk during the Sino Russian war of 1905, and numerous warships in WWII that were sunk were raised and put back into service, some more than once. The U.S. and British did this too. The U.S. raised Battleships and repaired some that were considered beyond salvage after they were sunk in Pearl Harbor, and more recently, the 145 meter long, 6800 ton passenger ferry MV Sewol that sank in 2014 was raised intact in 2017 out of 45 meters of water. My question is based on the condition of the Moskva's hull when it sank and what state its in now. It's an honest question, I don't know. There are a lot of unknowns in this, but let's review what we do know. Fact: the missile strikes didn't split the ship in two or break the keel. The holes are close together and make up a small percentage of the hull form. Fact: the ship did not suffer a major ammunition cook-off. Fact: the ship sank slowly and the majority of the damage appears to be confined to the engine room. The operations room, Bridge and missile bays were not struck by the missiles and may still be intact, assuming the subsequent fire didn't destroy them, and if those compartments were sealed off from the fire, they could have survived. If the ship wasn't wrecked any further when it struck the sea bed, then it may be in decent enough shape to attempt to patch the holes, pump some air into it and raise the ship, a practice that is hundreds of years old and has been accomplished successfully countless times. FACT: The wreck of the Moskva is in relatively shallow water, only 50 meters (164 feet) down. A large section of the wreck of the 154 meter long, 22,000 ton Russian submarine Kursk was 108 meters down so raising the 186 meter, 11,000 ton Moskva at less than half that depth is not outside the realm of possibility. Moskva was not a commercial vessel. It's a warship and warships are built to be tough. Their hulls are also subdivided specifically to prevent sinking. If enough intact compartments can be sealed by divers and air forced into those voids, the wreck will regain its' buoyancy and ascend to the surface as was done with Kursk. I don't need a degree in Physics to know that, a 10 year old boy with a deflated beach ball, a long tube and a pair of lungs could figure that out. In short, I didn't say it can be done, I only asked IF it could be done. Again, an honest question. Switch to decaf.
remind me if US wargame where the navy perform as badly against land launch missiles. the reality is it is very hard to maintain a state of high readiness, u don't know when the attack will come after days of calm. when you start expecting "normal", you get caught with your pant down. fleet ship really shouldn't be use in littoral water, the risk is high and you risk exhausting the crew, it far better to have a few littoral ship take turn patrolling so the crew only have to maintain high readiness for a few hours... more ship, not bigger ship is better for littoral operation. i would think US understood that when they design the LCS, too bad it became pointless bloatware, I really feel the LCS concept can work, if you ditch all the highend stuff and design a new simple ship, it could work.
From what I have read, the open source guys picked up messages that a lot of the crew ended up in the water... cold water at night. Take that with a good dose of salt, I doubt we'll know exactly for some time.
6:40 small sample sizes yield more extreme results. One cannot and should not generalize from single incidents. Each incident offers lessons, but it is not generalize without a lot of supporting evidence. You'd have to show a lot of background context to make that leap. Also, now just nit picking -- "an intelligence failure" is not a lesson learned because it is not instructive in the alternate and specific course of action that were available and not taken. Its like saying "coaching failure" after a football game. That's not a lesson anyone can take away and make use of.
Well, let's see… if Russia was at war with anyone else but Ukraine at the time, they've been pretty quiet about it. So it was probably Ukraine? I mean, it _might_ have been South Korea, I guess…
If you're going to put enlisted on watch you need to give them the training to act appropriately and the authority to act. Modern warfare does not permit the traditional leisurely reporting of an event up a chain of command to an officer who passes their orders back down again. Shockingly few modern navies invest training into their enlisted preferring to rely on their officer corps to hand hold their enlisted through everything.
This is not only a problem in navies, but pretty much every branch of a military you can imagine if they haven't had a very recent conflict to contend with, which most have not. Everyone in officer positions wants to remain 'in control' even to the massive detriment of their own fighting forces. A hightened level of training and authority can only highten the readiness of a force, and if you do have enlisted people operating something, unless they are in constant comms with someone with authority to do something things tend to end badly
my brain still reads Sub Brief as Jive Turkey so I honestly expected a Sea Power mission went fubar vid ... huh, y'all think SP could be useful to illustrate real world scenarios for videos?
You need to check your sources. Sometimes stats in your presentation are outright ridiculous. Like the "64x6 = 256 cell S-300F". Not even the math is correct at this. (it does have 8x8 = 64 cells) Is this some kind of running gag I dont get?
"No, you have it all wrong. The Moskva has been converted to and reclassified as a submersible warship. It is currently undergoing sea trials with all hands on board. Everything is going according to plan." - Vladimir Putin
Lesson #1: Don't let water fill your ship. This is detrimental to the ship's ability to carry out its tasks and may void your warranty.
I bet Putin ignored those calls for the extended warranty, too.
no no, lesson 1 is never get involved in a land war in asia
Lesson #2: To successfully keep water outside of your ship (see lesson #1 for further clarification), you must MAINTAIN YOUR DAMN SHIP.
Not an approved TTP.
You're in good hands with Redstate.
The Moskva's last readiness report is a horror show. Basically nothing worked, the emergency equipment was locked away to stop the crew from stealing it, the engines were all but inoperable due to being run so long and the worst part despite all that the report was still signed off as "acceptable" by the Admiral. Russia is losing a naval war to a country that doesn't really have a navy.
they are questions whenever the report is real. Nevertheless, it would explain how such small attack would not just get through but sink it.
If fire fighting equipment was missing or needed keys from the admiral, then no wonder they didn't fight to save the ship
If the have either communications or radar, it is no wonder they didn't have they radar active.
If the air defense systems are not working, then yeah a couple of Neptune's are enough.
A repeat of the russian navy in 1905.
Sure, dude, Ukr & NATO is fighting a naval war, not a LAND war, and sinking old rusty ship will put them a step closer to the Ultimate Victory....
In mid-time, 1/3 of Ukr is gone, Murica is throwing elensky under the bus, and probably next year will be no Ukr at all, considering how much ground they lose each day. But keep dreaming, listening to a dude who have nothing interestent to say, and instead upload a short clip about a war incident in a country of other side of the world, in a country he has no clue about, and using only Ukr & western presstitute corporate media as "sources"...
But hey, is no rule to invent BS and upload to YT in order to keep ignorant muppets on subscriptions count...
Doesn't have a navy is a nonsense statement. They had one and destroyed it themselves. Then reconstituted it under a different format, drones, patrol boats etc. However, that's all irrelevant because of the size of the area, land based missiles can also attack ships. Who cares if there's a navy or not?
The only battles the Russians won in the Black Sea were when they had a Ukrainian-origin admiral, Nakhimov. Rus and later Ukraine, with its capital Kyiv, had had centuries-long sea battle experience against the Byzantine and Ottoman empires, especially as raiders, starting from the late VII century; the very same time Moscow Tsardom(later the Russian empire), centuries before the Ukraine occupation, was a landlocked country with natives to forest and swamps Moscowites(later Russians) who somehow learned about the sea in the XVIII century. Russians lost all other battles in this sea, either during Tsar or Red Russia, the Russia-Ottoman wars, WWI, or WWII.
The only lesson I really learnt from this incident is to not send a warship, that hasn't been properly cared for and cannot defend itself, into a warzone.
I believe that the files of the ships evaluation report before it was sent out it is mentioned that most of her equipment weren't working including most of her defensive weapons and damage control, her engines were in dire need of replacing which also made her have to move slower, her radar had to be shut off, and numerous other issues including fire extinguishers having to be locked away due to theft and doors having to kept open. So it really does seem that with all these issues two Neptune missiles could destroy a large warship.
It seems thag many of Russia's older ships, including destroyers, cruisers, and their aircraft carrier are really not cared for, the best ones are their new frigates, new corvettes, and sub fleet. Unlike the USSR, Russia currently doesn't have much of a reason to keep an ocean going fleet with large warships. So focus is placed on newer warships while the older ones are given leftovers based on necessity and mainly only exist for their looks not actual power. Though after Moskva they likely changed this a bit and are keeping them in better condition. It's sad, as I am a big fan of all Navy ships and to see these ships in such a state pains me, but I guess it's understandable.
LazerPig's (despite his flaws and clear biases) video on the Moskva does have the evaluation reports including both translated and not translated versions so do check it out as I may have gotten a few things wrong.
As usual I do enjoy the content.
Although it's probably part of the problem, BUT... You cannot rule out the training and the attitude of the crew and leadership. Even with a ship equipped with the most modern equipment in existence, if you're not acting like your in a danger zone, if your radars are not looking for threats, if the crew believes it is in a safe environment, it can also happen.
And unless we get access to more details, there is no way to know what share is due to the equipment, the training, the attitude, the leadership.
Why M1s sent in? They were not able to defend themselves either.
@@fungames24 What a stupid comment.
A tank (up to the most modern ones) have no self-protection system.
A cruiser ship of this size is packed with self-defence, and even area defence systems.
@@fungames24 land warfare is very different than naval warfare. Also the tanks do have defenses to counter drones, and future tanks are being designed with ways to counter drones as well. You still can't compare the two. Moskva didn't have a chance so sending it out was pointless.
While this incident is significant, the more significant naval incident is how the New Zealand Navy managed to sink a good proportion of its fleet, recently, without any enemy combatant in the entire Pacific Ocean…
Extremely professional concise analysis. Love this channel to bits.
The sinking Moskva reminds me so much of the Strike on the Stark (FFG-31). Both cases, two combatants were operating in war zones where antiship missiles among other threats were operating. Stark was hit accidentally by two missiles without using the SM-1, 3inch 76mm gun or CIWS for various reasons. The ship also did not employ chaff rockets. One of the Exocet missiles failed to detonate, its turbojet ironically caused more casualties and damage.The Moskova was likewise operating in a combat zone, was hit by two similar ASMs and apparently failed to use the various sensors to detect, decoy or destroy the two missiles. The Stark enjoyed better training as far as damage control and in spite of the dangerous Aluminum Superstructure a more compartmentalized design, the crew was able to save the ship and attend to wounded shipmates. The Moskva apparently was not able to contain the explosions or fires and suffered from large open magazines of the S-300F launchers and other ordnance. As you pointed out, Moskva did not get the support Stark did. Very good report Aaron!
@@00calvinlee00 couldn't have said it better myself. The Starks Air Search Radar now EW's picked up the threat. If I remember correctly CIWS was in standby. Chaff/Torch was not deployed cuz the EW's didn't detect the missiles and it took a heroic effort from the ships damage control teams for the fire not to spread to the missile magazine. This is not similar to the USS Cole situation which was truly an asynchronous attack
@@gmikegainesStark was a really good wake up call for the Navy to mature it’s AAW capability. It’s insane how far the Aegis Block 3 has come.. I think Carney shot down something like 51 ASCMs, ballistic missiles, and drones. Granted those missiles aren’t exactly top of the line, but still a crazy feat.
@@gmikegaines Agreed. One of the other things that really was awful about the Cole was the fact it was sent there like the Sullivans to make Yemen "feel better" about being on the list of State Sponsors of Terror. IIRC Gen. Zinni put them on the list and then agreed to let the Navy refuel their. Both cases were awful. Ironically, there were four Destroyers at Penn's Landing that day. My Dad noticed something on the Bridge and "all visitors were requested to leave". The four DDGs all spooled up and rolled out. We found out about the Stark later that evening. Feel great my Niece who is now in Guam has SAMs and Aegis Ashore.
The Moskva was also the only ship of the class to not have it's firefighting capabilities upgraded.
One notable difference between the Stark & Moskva: while the Gulf was certainly a warzone, at that moment the US wasn't one of the belligerents, so Stark wasn't an active combatant. The Iraqi Exocet attack was accidental, as you mention (pilot thought he was targeting a commercial tanker). Moskva, on the other hand, was both in a warzone AND obviously a participating combatant and thus a legitimate target. I make this distinction not to excuse Stark's posture and/or readiness state (obviously it should have been higher), but to highlight how even more egregious was Moskva's lack of such.
I'm reminded of another parallel in Russian naval history: the 1904-05 Baltic Fleet voyage during the Russo-Japanese War, culminating in utter defeat at Tsushima. As it turns out, sending run-down ships with poor material condition, low crew morale, and inadequate training into a combat situation doesn't end well. A lesson which sadly needs to be re-learned from time to time.
Or the Falklands. 1980's tech was probably the Moskva standard to be honest.
Reminds me of the Sheffield in the Falklands (part of the advanced air defence screen but its main air search radar was shut down to allow satcom transmissions which I suspect were not critical - they never saw the Exocet until it was seconds away as a result)
Reminds me a lot of the Sheffield sinking too. That ship was hit by just a single Exocet missile, and if you look at the things the board of inquiry identified as factors in her sinking, ask yourself if you think the Russians may have had similar deficiencies in training and response time. Yeah.
Quibble: The Cole was an asymmetric attack but Moskva was not. It was a major national naval asset defeated by a major national coastal defense asset. Just because ammunition costs less than warships that does not mean it is asymmetrical.
And how do you know what hit Moskva? and was she hit at all?
@histrion5390 The Moskva definitely sank. Are you saying she just sank all by herself? Isn’t that even worse?
I think they were trying to put out the fire by submerging the ship in water 😂
That part probably worked.
Perhaps another lesson is "don't attack a peaceful neighbour that actually built a lot of your naval vessels" ?
I think you should make a video series for this kind of events, maybe like the sinking of belgrano or other ships
Sounds to me they didn't have all water tight hatches and doors dogged down. "Set condition Zebra throughout the ship." USN 77-83
Hypohystericalhistory anyone? That video on modern missiles is the GOAT.
Yes that guy is amazing. Love his vids too
British intelligence reported that most of the air defence systems are not working in Moskva, and also poor training lead the sinking of it.
Doesn't make it true, though it also doesn't mean it isn't true.
I think it was the last maintenance report from the shipyard/navy that detailed all the problems
The russian sailors were throwing infantry shovels at the incoming missiles. They manged to stop the leading one, but the back up missile hit. The ship was transporting emergency shovel supply to the front at the time.
You are doubly correct. The air defense systems where not woking on the Moskva, and the air defense systems are not working in Moskva
@@Statueshop297 This was it, there was a report leaked from around 2 week prior to the invasion. Lazerpig goes over it in detail but it boils down to:
1 CIWS out of 6 was "operational"
FCS radar interfeared with onboard communications so was usually disabled meaning the S300 system was INOP
IF the FCS was enabled it supposedly struggled to lock onto sea skimming weapons which the neptune is of this class
130mm Gun was INOP due to hydraulics failures
Of the DCS basically all of it was either INOP/Locked Down to a single key held by the admiral on board or alread stolen
It was a ship that shouldnt have been out of dry dock let alone anywhere near the front lines
If as I understand it the Russian navy makes use of the same 1 year conscripts that the army uses, then a large portion of the crew would not have been properly trained to deal with such damage. It takes a minimum of a year on board a modern combat ship to understand all the systems involved. In western Navies new recruits would likely have spent a minimum of 3-4 months in shore base training before stepping on a ship & they would still need on average another year to be fully qualified. That means if most a crew only has a maximum of a year in the Navy they would be discharged right around the time they would become useful.
This empire-horde under different names, Moscow Tsardom(before 1721), Russian Empire, RSFSR(1917), USSR(1922), and Russian Federation(1991), pays most attention to the shire size of its army and, after XVIII century, fleet; there is nothing about efficiency or quality, all about the quantity that produces fear factor. Russian Navy epically failed all Russia-Ottoman wars, WWI, and WWII in the Black Sea; there were exceptions when Ukrainians were the sailor's core and Ukrainian-origin admirals served in the Russian imperial navy. Rus and later Ukraine, with the capital in Kyiv, had 1000+ years of sea battles experience against Byzantines and later Ottoman empires; at the same time, the centuries-long vassal to Turk nomads, Moscow Tsardom(and later Russia) before 1700 were fully landlocked with no navy tradition at all.
Anti-ship missiles are no joke
it was a subsonic munition. Pretty easy to intercept if the ships defense were working at the time.
@@Spearhead45in theory.. stuff breaks while at sea , and electronics are challenge even for a real navy .. not a cut rate ex Soviet fleet where the toilets don’t work
@@Spearhead45 the exocet is subsonic and had success in the past against western frigates equipped with both SAMs and CIWS
the effectiveness of these systems can be questioned, especially against the newer threats (supersonic-hypersonic missiles)
@@stephenrickstrew7237 I mean, you are right. The Russian surface fleet is not very up-to-date and leadership is bad but there submarine Fleet is very capable
@@billwhoever2830 when were these tests taken place?
I’d say the Stark is a better comparison in this scenario than the Cole.
The USS Cole is one counterpoint. USS Samuel B. Robert's survival after a Persian Gulf mine strike seems like another. Cole is a destroyer, Sammy B. was a smaller frigate, but she survived because her crew didn't quit fighting for her survival. U.S. naval history and tradition play a part: "Don't give up the ship."
3:20 There are other more fundamental mistakes:
1. The fire suppression gear was locked away because of rampant theft.
2. Moskva was not properly maintained. The very systems that should have protected him (it's Russian, so - him!) were offline. Had the Moskva been maintained the Neptunes never would have scored hits.
Like most USSR ships, Moskva was designed for suicide missions. The buoyancy was sacrificed to put as many weapons as possible.
Moskva single damage control post was located at the center of the ship, between two engine rooms, the point where missiles would aim. That actually exactly where Moskava was hit. So, no damage control and no power.
The huge single compartment accommodated 48 S-300, if flooded it would make impossible to right the ship. The 1/4 of upper desk houses 16 huge ASMs.
The rumorse are that the S-300 radar was never fully operational and can be used for several hrs a day only before requiring maintains.. From the pictures, it is clear that all defense systems were never engaged.
The Moskva was a 40 year old ship when sunk that apparently was not updated. Its radars, the key to any missile engagement, were likely manually operated. A well trained crew can use such systems effectively like they were in the Moskva for only period of time before fatigue reduces efficiency. Ships like the Burke Class destroyers can operate in full automatic and remain high readiness 24/7. The Moskva was an old ship in the wrong place too long and paid the price.
To this day Russian trolls are still coping hard about losing the Moskva
I don't think the USS Cole is a good example to compare the damage control efforts. The Cole was in port and after the initial attack they could be reasonably sure the no further attacks would happen / or get through. The Moskwa on the other hand was still inside enemy attack range and a follow up attack was definitely a concern. Plenty of ships that could have been saved have been given up and scuttled due to concerns that trying to save them would just expose more units to enemy attack, e.g. the USS Hornet and HMAS Canberra during WW2.
Important to note that western nations have better damage control experience than Russia.
Thanks for this one .. these ships were carrier sailors nightmares .
The year was 1984, I was on watch in CIC operating my WLR-! ESM equipment. I picked up the Moskva's and it's escorts surface search radars. A while later my ships radar picked them up. Bottom line , I know the radars worked in 1984.
We sailed within 50 miles of it. I would of enjoyed that Snoopy Detail if it happened.
That's pretty incredible - you saw her (with your equipment, but that counts, right?) at the start of her career, she was only commissioned on January 30th, 1983. 😮
@@MeeesterBond17 She was navigating to the Black Sea after her commissioning. I was returning from the Artic Circle in February.
@@nunyabeeswax9463 was it this Moskva? I know some of their ships’ names had changed with the collapse of the USSR. I thought there was a helicopter carrier (sort of) in the 1980s named Moskva.
I wouldn't so much compare the Moskva sinking to the Cole attack, as much as I would the attacks on the USSs Stark and Mason, and the ongoing actions of the USS Carney in the Red Sea. The Stark was hit by two AShMs. While severely damaged, determined and effective damage control kept it afloat and put out the fires. The Mason was attacked by Houthi Rebels in the Gulf of Aden, who launched two AShMs at the ship. The Mason, unlike the Moskva, deployed it's sensors, weapons, and countermeasures to defend itself, and the attack was defeated. The Carney has dealt with a number of attacks by the Houthis using various forms of aerial weaponry over a significant period of time, successfully defending itself, and friendly shipping in the area.
Rather than comparing to the Cole, a comparison with the Stark might be more revealing. I think many of the same conclusions might be reached, but the difference in ship and crew performance where indeed stark, no pun intended.
The Moskva was on it´s own, not in condition Z and if i compare it today with the interception rate of Russian air defence systems...she didn´t even see those missiles coming otherwise the FCR would have been turned to Port for interception.
Happy Halloween, Aaron. I hope you've gotten another fluffy friend but also where can a person get a large print or a high resolution file of that painting at 5:50? That's freaking awesome.
Right!?
Apparently, Operation Weserübung (Drobak Narrows) is not mandatory reading at the Naval Academy in Russia.
I think other factors - maintian your ships and your crews. Do damage control drills and fire fighting drills. Build your ships with compartmentalistion. Having lots of diffierent air defence systems can make it complex to activate the right ones at the right time rather than integrated sensor and weapons systems. I also understand that there may have been drones around so having fire directors that can only deal with a couple of targets at once in a certain direction may also have been a factor.
Those land based Neptunes must be hell on wheels.
The amount of coping russian bots in this comment section is hilarious lmao
Great vid ❤
It’s impressive that the Russian Black Sea Fleet essentially conceded defeat against an adversary that has no seizable navy……
Is this Perun second channel? take it as a compliment that was a good watch
USS Cole was also 24 years ago now. I hope US Navy hasn’t relaxed its training standards in that time.
To be fair, these are the exact same problems the US had in the Stark Incident; they "weren't alert enough" and "never employed their countermeasures or counter-missile weapons" either.
You should check out Lazer pigs video on this he shows why they lost the ship even Russia's own report on the status of the ship was poor.
4:12
The HMS Coventry was sunk due to critical damage to her engineering spaces during the Falklands War. So potentially Moskva suffered similarly.
1, allocate your frequencies.
2, don't forge readiness checks.
In the naval / sea battlespace, half the time you're fighting the elements trying to smash, shake and rust your nice new steel ship to pieces, let alone actually fight. It's not a place for poor maintenance on critical systems (or the use of unsuitable systems), or it can very quickly become combat ineffective, and just a liability.
I think complacency may have also played a part here, as they thought they were out of range of any significant Ukrainian threat.
It will never not be funny that the "second most powerful military in the world" lost naval dominance and the able to interdict shipping (and was forced to withdraw from naval bases) to a country without a navy.
“It will never not be funny”
They hold naval dominance, they do not hold coastal dominance though. Even in NATO wargames coastal/land based forces regularly pose a threat to surface ships operating close to the shores of a nation with no ability to oppose the opponent in open seas. Like, none of this is unexpected to anyone who knows anything about naval matters.
Okay first of all, when did russia lose naval power and how is ukraine having no navy a disadvantage for ukraine ? Like serieusly the russian navy is ment to figth other ships and submarines, most russian ships arent really build for airdefence and land attack. So ukraine has nk navy so wtf is the russian navy suppose to do ? Its more embarresing for ukraine i would say, they have recived hundreds of missles and the russian naval port is in their historicly close backyard and they still have only managed to hit 30% of the fleet. Seems to me that while ukraine has all the advantages and nothing to lose they still suck at anti shipping. They only managed to sink a 50yo cruiser that was only afloat by hopes and dreams
Russia is mostly a nuclear power, the biggest or second biggest on the world, they have a relatively big army (not second biggest but still big) but their navy was never that strong. On top of that the black sea fleet is only a portion of their fleet and the black sea.
I mean, they have naval dominance in the black sea and they can intercept shipping, merchant ships have no defenses at all.
Normal naval operations are done with long range missiles (kalibr) for land attack and the navy cannot do much more than that since the black sea is not even being contested (they don't have anything else to shoot at).
The reason they moved back was because of strikes on the ports by sea drones and cruise missiles, their ships can still operate in the black sea but from a greater-safe distance. It doesn't make sense to have your ships operating that close to the enemy mainland to begin with, I'm not sure why they even used those ports for as long as they did.
The loss of Moskva was due to them being careless and exposing that old-unprepared ship too much. The Moskva couldn't even fire the Kalibr missiles and was mostly useless, the main weapons carried are carrier killing missiles, they are useless in the Ukraine conflict. Moskva could basically only fire the 130mm guns she had. The modern Russian frigates and corvettes are the ships that fire the Kalibrs
@@kuunoooo7293I’ve read this posted somewhere else twice today.
it was 42 yrs old ship. i bet russians were surprised she was still afloat, in the first place.
hi,can you tell me how much the explosive charge in each warhead weighed? AND do we know what type of fire fighting equipment these was on board?
lazerpig had a document indicating the internal coms system didnt work while the radar was activated. thats probably why the radar was up and locked and they couldnt defend themselves. they had it shut down so they could communicate
First and final lesson is - you study the official inquiries and reports first and then publish a video, not the other way around. Not a single of "blackened surfaces" or holes in your photos have edges rolled inside the hull and they all correspond to portholes of the ship, which means that they are blackened from the internal fires, not from rocket impact. By stating that "no damage control teams were sent to support the ship" you are simply lying, because the very picture you are showing was taken from one of 2 rescue tugboats sent from Sevastopol. Although the S-300Fort FCR is in default position, main radar complex MR800 Flag is traversed to the starboard, which means that the ship was actively scanning for air and other targets. The hatches of the S-300Fort are closed because they are opened prior to launching the missile, if the missile is not being launched why open them? Right now one of the most likely versions is the fire in S-300 magazine. But again, until an official report is published, everything is speculation. Very disappointed with such poorly made hype.
Ships in general are going to be ruled obsolete by the growing use of drones and hypersonics, not to mention submarines.
I can't actually believe how little we know about what really happened.
Also one thing to consider in the loss. How effective was the damage control party?? Were there enough trained personnel on board and did the rest of the crew have any training in fire fighting/damage control??
Wanna hear a joke? Moskva.
Interesting, the ruining ashore of the New Zealand Navy survey ship that lead to its sinking can be attributed toooooooo ,,, finish the sentence. At least the Moscow was in a war zone....
bad surveying
Looking for clams?
I seen a report where they supposed to have elevated 4. 3 of the 4 have failed.
An All Blacks game being played?😉
A better comparison would be the USS _Stark_ , that took two Exocets while operating under combat conditions in the Persian Gulf.
Russian Navy has a centuries long tradition to maintain and in that, they have maintained it admirably. 🙃
power point presentation...i see you are a former participant of an nco leadership class...gg
The ship was hit while it was raining, stormy, so the radar was not operating properly. They never knew what hit them. Ukrainian intel knew of this vulnerability and exploited it. Viva Ukraine.
When it first sank I heard everyone making excuses about being distracted by a drone but the first thought going through my mind was maintenance. Radar systems don't run perfectly forever and Russia does not seem to maintain anything else so why would their radars be any different?
The first lesson about russian navy that I learned from history is: Don't be on a russian ship during wartime.
The other lesson I learned from history is: Don't be on a russian ship during peacetime.
Now I want a Sub Brief and Perun PowerPoint.
I'm just happy they didn't move her out of range.
Perun wants his format back
Given how regularly the Russians demonstrate this level of negligence and incompetence, it is valid to question whether their nuclear deterrence is functional.
Well if you assume it’s not then the danger of nuclear war INCREASES 😮
Lol these dumb western warhawks always want to play with fire.
Even if 80% of their nuclear arsenal wasn't working, that 20% is enough to destroy the world.
Don't be an idiot. Assume they work
What does Russia have that works well?
Warfare of all kinds changes rapidly during major shooting conflicts. Navies have become vulnerable to air drones and surface sea drones and, as always, undersea drones. Moskva was an old ship and Russia came up with new strategies to beat Ukraine and NATO’s weapons and forces. At least those forces the US was willing to expose to battle, which were far less sophisticated than the United States possesses. The Ukraine war is a mystery to me as it must have been about whom owns Factories, energy production, and cropland, Western owners or the Russkies. Looks like the Russkies have successfully answered the question. I think, for the Russians, it was about keeping NATO away from the borders close to Russia, an existential threat to Russia. A foolish war that has literally taken Germany’s manufacturing prowess from near first in the world to far lower. Just amazing. Almost as if the US Deep state had planned it that way.
Lesson: cruisers are not submarines!
Why it sank - The Moskva was built without internal watertight bulkheads.
After the sinking, Russian state media claimed the ship had a piece of the cross (yes the cross that Jesus died on) mounted on it to protect the ship. If true is anybody going down to recover that?
@@MidnightVisions - why recover it? It obviously didn’t protect anything.
can't expect much when there air force is seen on the ground there turrets are seen playing air force all while there ships are playing submarines.
How many vital components were in a pawn shop somewhere in Russia?
Sold to someone in N Korea?
Russian Admiral. We have the world's worst navy,,,but we aren't as bad as our army.
Wasn't a gun current and magazine of a 30mm auto gun targeted? Plus the decks were open configuration allowing the fire from the ammunition below deck to spread. It was also said one of the deck mounted missiles was hit and exploded. Was a while ago but the combination of this and conscripts and poor training was said to be the end of things. They targeted it in a squall using the waves as a shield 🛡️ and a drone as a decoy. Further , the ship WA built in Ukraine so they knew its weaknesses and where to hit it and how.
It only two holes in her side, I wonder if it would be possible to raise the Moskva. If the ship remained intact and didn't take too much damage when it hit the sea floor, it might by salvageable.
@@MarchHare59 You uh, failed, skipped, or slept through Physics, didn’t you?
@@colayco Warships are raised all the time. Check your history. The Japanese raised and recommissioned several of their own and some Russian battleships sunk during the Sino Russian war of 1905, and numerous warships in WWII that were sunk were raised and put back into service, some more than once. The U.S. and British did this too. The U.S. raised Battleships and repaired some that were considered beyond salvage after they were sunk in Pearl Harbor, and more recently, the 145 meter long, 6800 ton passenger ferry MV Sewol that sank in 2014 was raised intact in 2017 out of 45 meters of water. My question is based on the condition of the Moskva's hull when it sank and what state its in now. It's an honest question, I don't know. There are a lot of unknowns in this, but let's review what we do know. Fact: the missile strikes didn't split the ship in two or break the keel. The holes are close together and make up a small percentage of the hull form. Fact: the ship did not suffer a major ammunition cook-off. Fact: the ship sank slowly and the majority of the damage appears to be confined to the engine room. The operations room, Bridge and missile bays were not struck by the missiles and may still be intact, assuming the subsequent fire didn't destroy them, and if those compartments were sealed off from the fire, they could have survived. If the ship wasn't wrecked any further when it struck the sea bed, then it may be in decent enough shape to attempt to patch the holes, pump some air into it and raise the ship, a practice that is hundreds of years old and has been accomplished successfully countless times. FACT: The wreck of the Moskva is in relatively shallow water, only 50 meters (164 feet) down. A large section of the wreck of the 154 meter long, 22,000 ton Russian submarine Kursk was 108 meters down so raising the 186 meter, 11,000 ton Moskva at less than half that depth is not outside the realm of possibility. Moskva was not a commercial vessel. It's a warship and warships are built to be tough. Their hulls are also subdivided specifically to prevent sinking. If enough intact compartments can be sealed by divers and air forced into those voids, the wreck will regain its' buoyancy and ascend to the surface as was done with Kursk. I don't need a degree in Physics to know that, a 10 year old boy with a deflated beach ball, a long tube and a pair of lungs could figure that out. In short, I didn't say it can be done, I only asked IF it could be done. Again, an honest question. Switch to decaf.
remind me if US wargame where the navy perform as badly against land launch missiles. the reality is it is very hard to maintain a state of high readiness, u don't know when the attack will come after days of calm. when you start expecting "normal", you get caught with your pant down. fleet ship really shouldn't be use in littoral water, the risk is high and you risk exhausting the crew, it far better to have a few littoral ship take turn patrolling so the crew only have to maintain high readiness for a few hours... more ship, not bigger ship is better for littoral operation. i would think US understood that when they design the LCS, too bad it became pointless bloatware, I really feel the LCS concept can work, if you ditch all the highend stuff and design a new simple ship, it could work.
Lazerpig has a great story on this topic
Always funny when the author stated anti ship missile could not sink the ship lol… anti ship missiles deliver mail correct? Any takes?
my friend you over estimated the naval capabilitys of russia.
Do they know how most of the crew died? Was it from the strike, or fire and smoke, or from the ship sinking?
From what I have read, the open source guys picked up messages that a lot of the crew ended up in the water... cold water at night. Take that with a good dose of salt, I doubt we'll know exactly for some time.
No radar picket ships inside of Moskva either.
I guess we can't blame all incompetence on DEI. XD
The Moskva didn't sink. It was a Special Military Artificial Reef Creation Operation. SMARCO.
Who knew those Russians were such big environmentalists?
4:44 i see what you did there
6:40 small sample sizes yield more extreme results. One cannot and should not generalize from single incidents. Each incident offers lessons, but it is not generalize without a lot of supporting evidence. You'd have to show a lot of background context to make that leap.
Also, now just nit picking -- "an intelligence failure" is not a lesson learned because it is not instructive in the alternate and specific course of action that were available and not taken. Its like saying "coaching failure" after a football game. That's not a lesson anyone can take away and make use of.
So was this like the situation that Israel had with the hit of their sa’ar 6 corvette?
Are you sure who it was that sunk that ship?
Well, let's see… if Russia was at war with anyone else but Ukraine at the time, they've been pretty quiet about it. So it was probably Ukraine? I mean, it _might_ have been South Korea, I guess…
@@akizeta It was a smoking accident.
If you're going to put enlisted on watch you need to give them the training to act appropriately and the authority to act.
Modern warfare does not permit the traditional leisurely reporting of an event up a chain of command to an officer who passes their orders back down again.
Shockingly few modern navies invest training into their enlisted preferring to rely on their officer corps to hand hold their enlisted through everything.
This is not only a problem in navies, but pretty much every branch of a military you can imagine if they haven't had a very recent conflict to contend with, which most have not. Everyone in officer positions wants to remain 'in control' even to the massive detriment of their own fighting forces. A hightened level of training and authority can only highten the readiness of a force, and if you do have enlisted people operating something, unless they are in constant comms with someone with authority to do something things tend to end badly
1:30 what is this nonsense? Ship != Land. Please provide a citation where this sounds even remotely plausible.
other rates “our job is important!”
What would happen to the ship without FC/ET/CT mfs:
If this was so impactful why so little information on the subject matter
Probably because Russia is still mad they lost their flag ship.
Don’t send old broken warships into war zones? Is that the lesson?
It's a reef now.
my brain still reads Sub Brief as Jive Turkey
so I honestly expected a Sea Power mission went fubar vid ...
huh, y'all think SP could be useful to illustrate real world scenarios for videos?
Lessons from the Falklands war??? 😮
Coventry
Sheffield
Atlantic Conveyor
Etc etc
RIP 🪦
You need to check your sources. Sometimes stats in your presentation are outright ridiculous. Like the "64x6 = 256 cell S-300F". Not even the math is correct at this. (it does have 8x8 = 64 cells)
Is this some kind of running gag I dont get?
Have they learnt anything?
A lot of assumptions going on in this.
i cant find any consistent #'s on the crew lost. almost every search yields a different #, mostly around 19.
@@niagarawarrior9623 same, makes me think the ship was working with half crew wich could explain other problems
Tell me your reading an Ai script with out reading a ai script
Lesson #0.0 Never invade Ukraine.
anyone that supports this conflict is a terrible person or severely misinformed.
^ useful idiot
"No, you have it all wrong. The Moskva has been converted to and reclassified as a submersible warship. It is currently undergoing sea trials with all hands on board. Everything is going according to plan." - Vladimir Putin
Equipment not working. Equipment turned off. Crew not trained. Poor leadership. DC equipment unavailable? S