Russian Navy’s Black Sea flagship RTS Moskva (121) has sunk while being towed toward Sevastopol, Crimea, after sustaining major damage in a fire Wednesday, Russian state media said on Thursday.
“During the towing of the Moskva cruiser to the port of destination, the ship lost its stability due to damage to the hull received during the fire from the detonation of ammunition. In the conditions of stormy seas, the ship sank,” the Russian ministry of defense told the TASS newswire.
I suppose it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the ship caught fire due to human stupidity. The simplest explanation is that the Ukranians are correct when they claim to have struck the Moskva with two missiles. Supposedly, the Moskva has three layers of of air defense systems which, if working, could have shot down the missiles. One has to wonder if the Russian navy is any better at performing preventative maintenance than is their army.
Pointing to the cause being damage from missile hits is this line from the above-quoted story:
Other Russian Black Sea ships have moved south in light of the damage to Moskva, the [American] defense official said.
There is little reason to move one's ships out of range of shore-fired missiles if the cause of the sinking was an accident. So I'll chalk this up for the Ukrainians.
And, chances are that a senior Russian navy officer is going to suffer an onset of heart trouble.
Don't the Russians have a drug for that. maybe a little plutonium?
ReplyDeleteI was Air Force, not Navy, but my understanding of warship design included putting the magazines below the water line so they could be flooded immediately in the case of a fire to prevent explosions.
ReplyDeleteBiggest warship loss since a British submarine sank Argentina's cruiser the General Belgrano (ex-USS Phoenix) in the Falklands war. I'm betting Russian navy damage control parties are not world class either. I was doubting a short range ad hoc cruise missile with only a 330 lbs warhead could sink a big ship like a cruiser. I'm guessing it hit a Russian ready missile on the deck, be hard to miss the way they are absolutely bristling and stuffed with exposed ordnance screaming strike me please.
ReplyDeleteCue a replay of the Russo-Japanese war. Mmmm-mmmm good.
ReplyDeleteConsidering how many FUBARs our navy has with a lot better personnel, training and funding, I'd be surprised if the Russians don't end up looking like Keystone Kops when faced with serious challenge. In a missile exchange, you're quick or you're dead. And the Ukes, no fools, did misdirection with drones...and got them with their pants down from the other directions.
And then there's the bubble effect of Glorious Mother Russia: we have the strength of ten because whatever....until you come up against mad dog last ditch ferocity...and all that nifty Death Ray stuff you paraded at the last Victory Day parade...takes a dive like the boxer with a glass jaw. Seems like *this* Victory Day 5/9/22 won't be so glorious
https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/russia-s-next-victory-day-parade-may-be-the-last-for-some-of-russia-s-elite-56151
Conquest isn't running on schedule, and Moltke's adage about battle plans chalks up another one.
Bryan, yes, but the Moskva had some very large missiles on deck in those tube launchers. That's not terribly unusual; our Navy ships that had ASROC box launchers had their reloads above deck. At least one destroyer was lost during WW2 when her hedgehog magazine exploded.
ReplyDeleteInteresting reports that a drone was being used to “distract” the Russian defenses at the time of the strike. Plus the bonus that the Moskva was apparently positioned to allow its S-300 anti-aircraft system to cover much of southern Ukraine…so the ability of the Russians to deter Ukrainian air strikes is reduced.
ReplyDeleteIt was sunk when it was hit. Ukraine has at least one S-300 system from Slovakia. It's up to the West for re-supply now.
ReplyDeleteI think each of those 8 per side rockets has a 1,000 kg warhead.
ReplyDeleteThat is comparable to the IJN cruiser at Samar lost to deck torpedo detonations.
Some OSINT tonight that most of the crew was lost.
ReplyDeleteThe primary mission of that cruiser class was attacking carriers. There was nothing in the Black Sea worth shooting at, and never has been.
So Comrade Misfit, the Russians have a Potemkin Navy at least in the Black Sea.
ReplyDeleteI'll take the long view. Net win for Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteIt matters not how the ship became a casualty. The
claim by Ukraine is a win. The Russians now have a
smaller Navy. The Russians cannot by propaganda make
it less. That left a visible mark.
What does matter is that Ukrainian forces have one less
combatant that can harass them. They can concentrate on
the next.
The Russian Navel forces moving south suggests many things.
I cannot speculate as to what they might do next.
Eck!
I guess we should thank all the Russian oligarchs for siphoning off all the money for their super yachts, luxe planes, supercars, and trophy wives, that could have been used for the Russian armed forces.
ReplyDeleteRdale, there is some truth in that.
ReplyDeleteBorepatch said:
ReplyDelete“ With all the rust on our ships and the repeated collisions with container ships, I wonder if our navy would do any better.
“Weird, I didn't use to wonder.”
I fat-fingered the button and accidentally deleted his comment. My apologies.
He made a valid point. Rummy’s obsession with “minimal manning” has done irreparable damage to our fleet.
I saw some articles that claimed Putin said, more or less,
ReplyDelete'That ship sank because of an accident and now we have cause to respond to Ukraine's act of war in sinking our ship.'
Not sure how to follow that up, though.