Analysis Sinking of the Moskva, Black Sea Flagship of the Russian Navy

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
5,532
Solutions
2
Reactions
119 25,102
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
A thread dedicated for discussion and analysis of the sinking incident, with indepth information and osint.

(Memes are to the memes thread :) )

Useful information, posts, official statements will be added as soon as possible.

Relevant posts from other threads will be quoted in here to keep the track.

This incident is tragic and course-changing for the ship operator (Russia), we should cover it solid and decently.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,813
Reactions
120 19,916
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Post I made on the subject, might be useful starting point for any further analysis.

Steel (strongest most commonplace metal around these days incl for ships) loses strength (and other useful material properties) with prolonged exposure/contact to high temperature.

Fires can provide just that (starting at around 300 deg C and ranging all the way up to 1600+ deg C depending on fuel and oxygen)

Steels also melt at around 1400+ deg C (complete loss of solid properties and full geometric collapse etc).

Even concerning just loss of strength alone, there are several weak points of any steel structure (attachment points, load bearing points etc) that are under various design loads intensity/concentration compared to the "average" of the design.

These will plastically deform first (causing quick or eventual failure of one type in the area or other areas given importance of geometric retention in the design).... or fail/rupture all together (causing the more pronounced "brittle" failure known to most).

Illustrative examples:

For even "fire resistant" steels (regd. the effect on plastic deformation initiation):

Fig264_1.jpg



Stiffness (resistance to elastic deformation):

figure12.jpg


@MisterLike @Anmdt et al.

It is very important to have mitigation (firewalls, bulkheads, immediate fire suppression etc) on warships and anything else vital that harness steel extensively in their design.

This is part of the shift in warships to better design philosophy of having all flammable systems (like missiles) well contained within the superstructure of a warship (i.e VLS etc) rather than what Moskva had with them arranged on the sides (in a more "easy" + "cheap" conversion of ship mass to firepower) and more easily penetrated and detonated.

The role of the ship was quite different (a cold war carrier hunter) like heavily loaded revolver with little up to date commensurate protection (past its AAW for the flotilla at large).

It (with support ships of flotilla) would ideally be already deployed in open sea and more "unknown" by NATO forces in cold war (continuation) with assets (continued) USSR would have (hypothetically) developed and deployed for this (unlike how its gone with Russia).

@Anmdt has brought up salient points on the modernisation efforts being inadequate, especially for the more static goalkeeping + CnC use it seems to have found in black sea for this campaign. It was well out of its depth (for its optimal use) literally...the raw power level was grossly misapplied ...but largely out of little choice.

@Joe Shearer @Paro et al.

@Baron Vladimir Harkonnen nice to see you scouting around for some "spice".
 

RogerRanger

Contributor
Messages
602
Reactions
444
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
COPE LITERALL COPE ARE YOU KIDDING WITH ME?
At this point no. I am not kidding. As more information comes out and the reports change I will change what I think may have happened. I am specifically talking about Russian report here, not western reports.

People are saying it was hit by two Ukrainian missiles, that it was damaged by a frog team or crew member damaged the ship on purpose. So I don't think any of those things are likely, otherwise how did the Russians get the crew off the ship safely. It may come out that dozens of crew members were killed and hurt though. So as of right now the Russians sunk it for the insurance, that's what I think. The Russians sunk a landing ship which the Ukrainians attacked and set on fire, so it wouldn't explode, that could be another reason for sinking it too. Only think I am sure about is that it wasn't a Ukrainian attack from the shore.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,813
Reactions
120 19,916
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Thank you to @era_shield , this might be of good use for this thread too:

Satellite Image Pinpoints Russian Cruiser Moskva As She Burned

Satellite image shows Moskva sinking
Analysis of radar satellite imagery has revealed the location of the Moskva soon after she was reportedly hit by 2 missiles. The Russian Navy cruiser was the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet and is a symbolic as well as naval loss for Russia.

(continues here)

Link:

 

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
220
Reactions
8 346
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Post I made on the subject, might be useful starting point for any further analysis.
Hi Nilgiri! There is a nasty rumor going around that the Moskva had at least 2 tactical nukes on board when it sank. I hope its not true. Can you confirm? :eek:!!
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,925
Reactions
7 18,875
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
At this point no. I am not kidding. As more information comes out and the reports change I will change what I think may have happened. I am specifically talking about Russian report here, not western reports.

People are saying it was hit by two Ukrainian missiles, that it was damaged by a frog team or crew member damaged the ship on purpose. So I don't think any of those things are likely, otherwise how did the Russians get the crew off the ship safely. It may come out that dozens of crew members were killed and hurt though. So as of right now the Russians sunk it for the insurance, that's what I think. The Russians sunk a landing ship which the Ukrainians attacked and set on fire, so it wouldn't explode, that could be another reason for sinking it too. Only think I am sure about is that it wasn't a Ukrainian attack from the shore.

Russian Navy has always been seen as the top navies in the world.

Moskva sinking is nothing more than a blow to its prestige.

Russians had their fair of naval fck ups and the biggest debacle is the kursk submarine.

Russians dont deserve to be recognised as a Naval power as they always been recognised as a land power.

Russian navy is also new by todays standards as the official Russian navy began under Tsar Peter I.
 

Deliorman

Contributor
Messages
984
Reactions
11 3,992
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Bulgaria
Here is a small analysis of the Russian journalist of Ukrainian origin Arkadiy Babchenko about what the sinking of Moskva means. I used Google Translate and I try to change whatever I can so I can make the post easier to understand for you.


"To fully understand the scale of what happened.

The cruiser" Moscow "was created to destroy aircraft carriers. Its task is to approach the group of the aircraft carrier with maximum speed and to be able to produce a volley. The total power of a volley of nuclear warheads is 5.5 megatons, compared to 21 kilotons in Hiroshima.
The crew of the ship is 500 people. There are 64 S-300 missiles on board. This is equal to the power of 3 ground divisions. There are 16 more Vulcan missiles. It is equal to a land division with Iskanders if they are without nuclear warheads. With nuclear warheads - that's equal to 260 Hiroshima bombs. There are also 2 "Osa" equal to one platoon. Installations with caliber of 130 mm that is equal to two platoons.
One six-barrel cannon with a caliber of 30 mm that is equal to two more platoons with APCs.
5 torpedo tubes.
Jet bomber with 12 barrels.
Helicopter.
PLS station.
REB station.
This is a whole military airfield, and on top of that Moskva is the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet. A flagship is a ship carrying the commander of a fleet unit with a flagship command post equipped with controls.
In land equivalent - this is the headquarters of the front.
Moscow's displacement is 11.5 thousand tons. This is the amount of iron for 250 tanks.
Initial cost - 2 billion dollars.
Now let's bring this to land.
It is as if the following were destroyed in one fell swoop:
The personnel of a battalion tactical group, 3 S-300 divisions , a division of Iskanders, a Self propelled artilery platoon, a SAM platoon , two BTR platoons, a MLRS, a helicopter, a Krasuha -4, a radar station at the airport, the iron of 250 tanks, a whole bunch of fuel tanks and the HEADQUARTERS OF THE FRONT.
That would be a catastrophic defeat. This has not been seen in a whole war. It didn't happen. And it is unlikely to happen.
These are several fields littered with corpses and destroyed weapons.
And even that is not the main thing.
Moscow covered and secured the landing in Berdyansk. It was in charge of the air defense of the Black Sea Fleet. The air cover of ship blockades. Moscow had to command and secure the assault on Odessa, which for Putin was the second part of the "special operation". NONE OF THIS WILL HAPPEN NOW.
Large landing craft are now stationed in ports under the cover of land air defenses. Or each of them must be accompanied by protection. Ukraine's naval blockade is now in question. The Odessa operation is under even greater question. Drilling a corridor to Transnistria is also a big question.
The operational command of the front collapsed.
And all this - with ONE SHOT. TWO ROCKETS.
The loss of the cruiser "Moscow" changes Russia's position in the Black Sea.
With one shot, Ukraine changed the situation in the entire Black Sea region.
That's what happened. "
 
Last edited:

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,925
Reactions
7 18,875
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Here is a small analysis of the Russian journalist of Ukrainian origin Arkadiy Babchenko about what the sinking of Moskva means. I used Google Translate and I try to change whatever I can so I can make the post easier to understand for you.


"To fully understand the scale of what happened.

The cruiser" Moscow "was created to destroy aircraft carriers. Its task is to approach the group of the aircraft carrier with maximum speed and to be able to produce a volley. The total power of a volley of nuclear warheads is 5.5 megatons, compared to 21 kilotons in Hiroshima.
The crew of the ship is 500 people. There are 64 S-300 missiles on board. This is equal to the power of 3 ground divisions. There are 16 more Vulcan missiles. It is equal to a land division with Iskanders if they are without nuclear warheads. With nuclear warheads - that's equal to 260 Hiroshima bombs. There are also 2 "Osa" equal to one platoon. Installations with caliber of 130 mm that is equal to two platoons.
One six-barrel cannon with a caliber of 30 mm that is equal to two more platoons with APCs.
5 torpedo tubes.
Jet bomber with 12 barrels.
Helicopter.
PLS station.
REB station.
This is a whole military airfield, and on top of that Moskva is the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet. A flagship is a ship carrying the commander of a fleet unit with a flagship command post equipped with controls.
In land equivalent - this is the headquarters of the front.
Moscow's displacement is 11.5 thousand tons. This is the amount of iron for 250 tanks.
Initial cost - 2 billion dollars.
Now let's bring this to land.
It is as if the following were destroyed in one fell swoop:
The personnel of a battalion tactical group, 3 S-300 divisions , a division of Iskanders, a Self propelled artilery platoon, a SAM platoon , two BTR platoons, a MLRS, a helicopter, a Krasuha -4, a radar station at the airport, the iron of 250 tanks, a whole bunch of fuel tank and the HEADQUARTERS OF THE FRONT.
That would be a catastrophic defeat. This has not been seen in a whole war. It didn't happen. And it is unlikely to happen.
These are several fields littered with corpses and destroyed weapons.
And even that is not the main thing.
Moscow covered and secured the landing in Berdyansk. It was in charge of the air defense of the Black Sea Fleet. The air cover of ship blockades. Moscow had to command and secure the assault on Odessa, which for Putin was the second part of the "special operation". NONE OF THIS WILL HAPPEN NOW.
Large landing craft are now stationed in ports under the cover of land air defenses. Or each of them must be accompanied by protection. Ukraine's naval blockade is now in question. The Odessa operation is under even greater question. Drilling a corridor to Transnistria is also a big question.
The operational command of the front collapsed.
And all this - with ONE SHOT. TWO ROCKETS.
The loss of the cruiser "Moscow" changes Russia's position in the Black Sea.
With one shot, Ukraine changed the situation in the entire Black Sea region.
That's what happened. "

It seems the Moskva ship was to spear head the naval landing and attack on Odesaa now it seems this is becoming more less likely as Russia copped a blow in naval warfare in this war.

Ukraine's non existent navy still sank a Russian ship.

I think now the Ukrainian neptune anti ship missiles will now have some buyers. Neptune with one strike has now proven to be combat worthy.

Also rumours that Ukraine striked them with prototypes as the neptune missile has just gone into production or may have gone into production but the Ukrainians had small amounts of them.
 

Quasar

Contributor
The Post Deleter
Messages
735
Reactions
51 3,281
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
MR-800 Voshkod long-range air search radar

MR-700 Fregat air/surface search radar

Argon 1164 missile tracking radar for SS-N12 antiship missile

3P41 Volna radar which is for S 300 F which does not have 360 coverage for insatance Project 1144 cruisers seems to have two 3P41 Volna which allows it to repel attacks from several directions at the same time

MR 184 fire control radar for AK 130 main gun

eventhough it has S-300F it only has OSA MA for self defence

according to open sources upgraded Osa-MA2 is able to engage sea skimming targets as low as 5 m above sea level but moskva seems to had OSA MA which was adopted in 1979 not MA2???

naval_sam_osa-m_p09.jpg


and 6 x AK 630 CIWS with MR-123-02 Fire Control Radar System and SP-521 Electrical-Optical Tracker has effective firing range of 4 km. MR-123-02 Fire Control Radar controls two guns and it seems all of them are at the front section.
Untitled.png


therefore the argument that it's single 3P41 Volna was disracted by Bayraktar can be a very valid one. and obviously it had not a very effective short range deffence capability.


Moskva_sistemler.jpg
 
Last edited:

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,813
Reactions
120 19,916
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Hi Nilgiri! There is a nasty rumor going around that the Moskva had at least 2 tactical nukes on board when it sank. I hope its not true. Can you confirm? :eek:!!

If its broken arrow situation, Russia was acting extremely foolish given the ship's tasking for this war.

It is a rumour though, let us see.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,813
Reactions
120 19,916
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
There's a couple pictures now floating around (excuse the pun) of supposedly the Moskva after getting hit:

FQlCx-cXoAkmGR3


FQlGSMDXwAg1706


==================

Assuming they are legit photos, there are a few observations:

1) The life raft canisters are missing, indicating that she has been abandoned;

2) The hangar doors are open, which suggests that her helicopter was flown off and the air department left with it (or very shortly thereafter)

3) There are several roughly circular areas of discoloration which appear to correspond with the location of portholes on the main deck, probably from smoke escaping from those portholes. There is another area of discoloration at the end of the forecastle deck abeam the hangar, indicating that smoke escaped from the main deck there too

4) The main fire is obviously in the vicinity of the stacks and the bridge. There is what may be evidence of a missile hit near the waterline in this area. Note that there are no portholes that correspond with the discoloration on the hull here, suggesting internal fires and/or missile damage. This is about where one would expect a radar-homing anti-ship missile to impact - near the center of the target, where the superstructure creates the biggest radar picture.

5) The list is probably due at least in part to firefighting water collecting inside the ship. This is a common occurrence in shipboard fires and may have contributed to the ultimate loss of the ship, perhaps via the free surface effect. The missiles may have caused some flooding, particularly if they struck near the waterline, but firefighting efforts concentrated on the port side likely caused water to collect on that side.
There are more portholes on the second deck aft below the knuckle in the ship's side, some of which are barely visible and are awash due to the list. Water entering through these portholes could contribute to the list, she does not appear to have any appreciable trim by the stern.


Possible course of events from these observations:

A) The missile or missiles hit Moskva between the forward superstructure and the stacks, just abaft the forward missile batteries. These hits ignited a major fire in the vicinity of the uptakes that forced her main machinery to shut down, leaving her reliant on emergency diesel generators for power.

B) Firefighting efforts by her crew and other ships caused her to take on a list to port. With much of the upper portion of the ship filled with smoke, no propulsion, and fires threatening the missile magazines, she was abandoned.

C) The fires were eventually brought under control and the ship was taken in tow, but firefighting water accumulating on the port side pulled the holes made by the missiles and the lower row of portholes below the waterline, leading to additional flooding high in the ship, exacerbating the list and reducing her margin of stability.

D) Eventually she sank either due to progressive flooding or perhaps free surface effect causing a sudden loss of stability and capsizing.


Comments, corrections, analysis and counter-analysis welcome (assuming these pictures are legitimate).

@Anmdt @MisterLike et al.
 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
5,532
Solutions
2
Reactions
119 25,102
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
There's a couple pictures now floating around (excuse the pun) of supposedly the Moskva after getting hit:

FQlCx-cXoAkmGR3


FQlGSMDXwAg1706


==================

Assuming they are legit photos, there are a few observations:

1) The life raft canisters are missing, indicating that she has been abandoned;

2) The hangar doors are open, which suggests that her helicopter was flown off and the air department left with it (or very shortly thereafter)

3) There are several roughly circular areas of discoloration which appear to correspond with the location of portholes on the main deck, probably from smoke escaping from those portholes. There is another area of discoloration at the end of the forecastle deck abeam the hangar, indicating that smoke escaped from the main deck there too

4) The main fire is obviously in the vicinity of the stacks and the bridge. There is what may be evidence of a missile hit near the waterline in this area. Note that there are no portholes that correspond with the discoloration on the hull here, suggesting internal fires and/or missile damage. This is about where one would expect a radar-homing anti-ship missile to impact - near the center of the target, where the superstructure creates the biggest radar picture.

5) The list is probably due at least in part to firefighting water collecting inside the ship. This is a common occurrence in shipboard fires and may have contributed to the ultimate loss of the ship, perhaps via the free surface effect. The missiles may have caused some flooding, particularly if they struck near the waterline, but firefighting efforts concentrated on the port side likely caused water to collect on that side.
There are more portholes on the second deck aft below the knuckle in the ship's side, some of which are barely visible and are awash due to the list. Water entering through these portholes could contribute to the list, she does not appear to have any appreciable trim by the stern.


Possible course of events from these observations:

A) The missile or missiles hit Moskva between the forward superstructure and the stacks, just abaft the forward missile batteries. These hits ignited a major fire in the vicinity of the uptakes that forced her main machinery to shut down, leaving her reliant on emergency diesel generators for power.

B) Firefighting efforts by her crew and other ships caused her to take on a list to port. With much of the upper portion of the ship filled with smoke, no propulsion, and fires threatening the missile magazines, she was abandoned.

C) The fires were eventually brought under control and the ship was taken in tow, but firefighting water accumulating on the port side pulled the holes made by the missiles and the lower row of portholes below the waterline, leading to additional flooding high in the ship, exacerbating the list and reducing her margin of stability.

D) Eventually she sank either due to progressive flooding or perhaps free surface effect causing a sudden loss of stability and capsizing.


Comments, corrections, analysis and counter-analysis welcome (assuming these pictures are legitimate).

@Anmdt @MisterLike et al.
1650258594572.png


The image should remain here too to get a better glimpse of the plan.

Those two holes, close to the waterline and seems (and rumored) to be anti-ship missile impact locations are just potholes, also clearly shown in the plan. anti-ship missile will not go though a tiny hole as wide as itself, it will leave a bigger damage after first while penetrating and then causing an explosion inside the hull.

No trim by stern is quite interesting to me, that also shows the crew hasn't taken sufficient measures (or didn't have time to do) to isolate the flooding sections. We also see the watertight bulkheads in the plan that could have been sealed, there are several of them around the burning area. The plan shows only lateral bulkheads but given the size of the ship, there also exists a mid-bulkhead along the center-line and several watertight decks.

Impact or explosion marks are clear around the CIWS area but that also could be aftermath of on-going fire from lower decks.

Most likely candidates to me;
Last row of the cruise missiles were affected or received a direct hit and , or
Fore-port-machinery room has sustained a damage + explosion, fuel fire.

The latter one better explains the fire spreading through whole deck level and causing a flooding (closer to the waterline.

The illumination radar seems to be in neutral position, thus it wasn't tracking / illuminating a TB2 as claimed by western / Ukrainian sources. ( I don't know if the radars have a default orientation to be aligned in case of emergency? )

One more thing to note, there seems to be none of the towing action as claimed by Russian officials. The ship was targeted at midnight, the images are from morning when SAR was nearly completed.

Turkish authorities have clearer images, videos possibly. I am curious to see whether those will be published or somehow leak like these images.

First comments on the incident:
I think they have had a decent intelligent report on capabilities of the ship beforehand (from US and NATO sources, note TR also keeps an eye on the Black Sea via SIGINT / ELINT instruments and MPAs to search for the mines recently).

2 TB2s in the air have acquired position of the vessel, tracked it, saw the pattern and heading.

Missiles are directed right on the sweet weak spots you have marked, the ship is huge had nothing but merely CIWS to respond. Likely she was cruising in slow speed or still at water. No maneuverability since the engines were not ready to heat up and provide excess amount of power and the ship is literally huge to conduct such a maneuver.

What is more strange;
She was equipped with S300 missile systems and search radars, wasn't able to detect TB2s
Or, since she lacks an integrated instruments and CMS she couldn't multi-task on detecting & tracking and reacting to the missiles while holding a track on the TB2s and trying to jam or engage on them (which seems like they have failed to do)
But definitely her crew was lacking battle readiness, or readiness in overall.
Now they are trying to collect survivors with tugboats, again Russian Navy as its best.


Something about the weather at 13 to 14 April night time. The weather has got calmer by the morning:
View attachment 42512

Meanwhile, the incident took place in a weather making SAR nearly impossible.

Don't be fooled by WW3 wave model that gives small wave height close to the shores (which some sources share in social media), this model is incapable of modelling close to the shore areas, an example of difference between SWAN and WW3 wave models on Black Sea coast of Turkey:
View attachment 42516
View attachment 42514

So don't expect accurate readings from WW3 model for the spot between Romanian coast to Crimean peninsula, that area is possibly doomed.
Any location in northern Black Sea is stormy right now.

Last notes;
- It is unclear whether ship has reacted to the incoming missiles via CIWS & EW, failed to intercept or detect.
- Firefighting and flood management was not really thorough, the captain (or whomever was alive in the command order) has decided to abandon the ship as soon as possible.
- Whether both of the missiles have made its way to the ship or it was only a single missile, whether they have reached to a single spot or were set apart from each other by some distance to impact different locations.
- Correct me if i am wrong, but the captain and bridge personnel were not seen alive, if they were injured or killed by fire or explosion or gone missing, it is also possible for one missile to impact machinery room while another one at the CIWS or missile canister position.

Edit:

A leaked video shows that there was a tugboat on stern side of the Moskva in pulling orientation. Unclear whether it was collecting survivors or pulling the Moskva;
The heel angle of Moskva is easily about 10 degrees to the portside.
1650270913804.png
 
Last edited:

joedhie2k

Committed member
Messages
151
Reactions
196
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
there is a line that looks like crack near porthole below rear superstructure..
interesting point if the ship is already fatigued due to old age and minimal maintenance.. other old sovyet era ships can have the same issue
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,684
Reactions
55 4,804
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
MOCKBA: my ammunition burned
Neptune: sorry, i didn't know you had ammos there.

IMG_20220418_111055_077.jpg


Outrageous 2xAK630 CIWS.
Right onto the CIWS.
Ammunition of two CIWS caused fire.

First video before sunk



 
Last edited:

Follow us on social media

Latest posts

Top Bottom