A whole age of warfare sank with the Moskva

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/ukraine-russia-moskva-military-marine-corps/629930/

by gpayan • 4 years ago

200 401 4 years ago

theatlantic.com

gerikson2• 4 years ago

Twitter thread from Bret Devereaux with some critique of this piece.

https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1528581923446181898...

rapnie• 4 years ago

Guy has a blog. Rather sends 26 tweets for sake of convenience. Or is that for max exposure?

gerikson2• 4 years ago

Probably because his blog is for more planned essays.

Twitter is good for one-off observations.

I've personally started a "microblog" for that kind of stuff.

nomilk• 4 years ago

Personally, I'm new to twitter, and I much prefer these long chains of tweets rather than long form blog posts or articles. These long chains of tweets allow one to give support, comment on, disagree with, share or like a particular sentence or idea, rather than the entire collection, thus allowing more nuance.

Other advantages:

- Quickly understand which tweets/sentences matter by scanning the likes

- Debate can stem from any tweet, so discussion is immediately less conflated and more focussed on specific parts or ideas

fintechjock2• 4 years ago

I also thought of u/Sir_Budington's comment when this article was posted to r/CredibleDefense:

The thing is that things like anti tank and ship missiles are primarily defensive weapons, not offensive ones. Sure, a Javelin can wreck a tank, but it’s not going to break through a front line. Sure, a harpoon can sink a ship, but it’s not going to project power halfway across the world. A Patriot missile can shoot down a plane, but it’s not going to target moving targets 100 miles behind enemy lines, or provide CAS.
Does this mean that in recent years that the power balance has swung in favour of defenders? Maybe. But that doesn’t mean you get rid of offensive capabilities.

ckozlowski15• 4 years ago

Well said. To build on that, it also brings to mind a few of the more expert commentary on YouTube on "why the tank is not dead". Military History Visualized has a good video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPth_xqBXGY (There's others as well, and he references them)

My overall take away from the Atlantic piece is that they've fallen into the same trap as much of the rest of the internet. Large platforms have not been rendered obsolete because of the advent of these weapons, just as they weren't during the 70s with the first large battles involving Anti-tank and Anti-Ship missiles. (The former has a number of well-cited examples, but for the latter, I call attention to the Battle of Latakia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Latakia )

It's worth nothing as well that the Neptune AShM isn't really a revolutionary weapon, and is marginally improved over classes of AShMs developed in the 80s. It's notary comes from the fact that Ukraine essentially was able redevelop the capability of the old Kh-35, with modest improvements. It's not a next-gen missile such as a LRASM.

Similarly, the Javelin, while effective and having gone through incremental upgrades, is not a wildly new weapon. It's been around for decades, and as we're finding along with the Stinger, the U.S. needs to reactivate the manufacturing to build them from scratch which has been dormant for decades.

I draw attention to the fact that these are older weapons. Drones are giving troops in the field better ability to target than ever before, but the fundamentals haven't changed and the same difficulties apply. WaPo had an exclusive stating that it was U.S. Intelligence that gave the Ukrainians the necessary info to find and target the Moskava with their missiles. The weapons themselves are just one part in long chain of capabilities.

So that's where I think this piece misses much, because it's ignorant of some of the other elements of how all this comes together. The U.S. has been aware of China's long range precision fires for quite some time, and while they're worrysome, they're not terrified. To paraphrase a quote I heard, "a long kill chain provides plenty of opportunities to disrupt it along the way."

And that's where the Russians have failed. Not because they're being surprised for the first time by these weapons (they invented many of the earliest examples themselves!) but because they're not fighting effectively. As some commentators have noted, the supporting elements that would defend against these weapons are not in place, the systems designed to counter them are not active/maintained (which was probably the case of the Moskava), and the intelligence/reconnaissance that would have identified and monitored these threats are not in place. All of this contributes to failure.

The Russians are not getting wrecked by guided missiles because they're so high tech, they're getting wrecked because they're inept.

mhh__3• 4 years ago

This is also roughly Nicolas "The chieftain" Moran's argument for why the tank is still an important weapon.

dmurray• 4 years ago

Threadreader link: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1528581923446181898.html

dncornholio• 4 years ago

God I hate twitter. Why they still hang on to their silly limited functionality, I don't know. Is it fear of change? Threadreader is even worse, with all those ads!

Spooky232• 4 years ago

It’s pretty weak critique. For my entire time on earth, the threat of missiles like Exocet is a material threat that is only countered by marginally reliable SAMs and point defense. Missiles and drones only get smarter, and defense challenges get more challenging.

Even speedboats with rockets or explosives strapped to them are a threat to warships, who were mostly protected by obscurity - finding ships at sea is hard. Drones negate a lot of that.

People will wave away the obvious by saying “The Russians are idiots”, “The ship was old”, etc, but the reality is a defender only has to fuck up once. The Russians should have (and may have in other scenarios) shot down that drone, but obviously failed.

Even the mighty US Navy has trouble teaching sailors to steer ships. Operationally the US Navy is exponentially more capable than the Russians… but remember, you only need to screw up once. Fundamentally, the current operating model of big navies is on a path to irrelevance. Nerds can argue if the early ironclad battles were truly relevant, but the fact remains that whether that moment was key or not, the end result was the same.

DeathArrow2• 4 years ago

Large vessels, aircraft carriers are sitting ducks for rockets. Even with some anti rocket defense.

It costs large amounts of money to build big ships and it costs little to sink them.

ghaff• 4 years ago

Which is why aircraft carriers aren’t tooling around the ocean on their lonesome.

lumost2• 4 years ago

An aircraft carrier can operate 400-1000km from a target, while moving at 40 kph. Much more time to mount an adequate defense compared to the Moskva 50km distance from the coast while sitting idle.

caycep2• 4 years ago

the issue is - what is the D21 (and brethren) capability? I think the war gaming w/ the late USSR and now China as the opposing force worried re theater-capable ICBMs. It's not like the carrier can hide these days...

baq3• 4 years ago

khinzals are supposed to be carrier killers.

dariusj182• 4 years ago

This is the whole reason carriers move in groups. Plus in modern naval warfare, if you can see the enemy on the horizon, they are already too close.

MomoXenosaga2• 4 years ago

After WW2 European countries came to this conclusion that war between technologically advanced industrial nations no longer makes economic sense.

Obviously it all predicates on politicians making somewhat rational decisions.

Zigurd• 4 years ago

This is true-ish but the eleven US supercarriers and their accompanying carrier battle groups are vastly different from any other navy on the planet. Other nations do not have ships of a comparable size.

Two UK carriers come closest to the way the US Navy works, but are smaller. Russia's lone, damaged carrier is 25% smaller and may travel with a roughly comparable escort, if and when it becomes operational again.

Many other nations' carriers are one half to one fifth the size of a supercarrier. They exist to provide STOL/helicopter platforms.

ClumsyPilot6• 4 years ago

French carrier has proper catapult launch capability and seemingly so does the new chinese carrier. They sorties are smaller, but that's another matter

ckozlowski15• 4 years ago

Some of the costs are hidden. The Neptune missile was cheap. The hidden, often unaccounted for part of that system however are the ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) capabilities to find the target. Anti-Ship missiles (AShMs) like the Neptune and practically any others have a limited ability to see what's around them because of the altitude they fly at and the overall small frame for radar power. This means the operator has to identify where the ship is, where it's going, and then fire their missiles to intercept. There's practically no communication afterwards (certainly not in Neptune's case) so the further away the ship it, the greater the chances it will move in that time and the missiles will fail to acquire it. (Firing closer as you can imagine brings its own risks.)

So you need a system or system of systems to find your target, relay that information down to your launchers (securely, quietly, and timely!) so you can launch your relatively cheap weapon. That's where all of the investment in communications, radars, overhead platforms (drones, aircraft, satellites) comes into play. The GlobalHawk that had been flying over the Black Sea for weeks at 40,000 feet isn't cheap, but without one, one's firing missiles blind.

The further out you get, the more eyes and links you need to find and track your target, and that's where it gets expensive. It also becomes less of a sure bet.

jonnycomputer• 4 years ago

Movska was an old ship, and was under consideration for scuttle, and like lots of old things had things that didn't work. From what I've read, the Moskva didn't even have its anti-missile defense systems online. Probably never saw the attack coming.

https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael/status/1522608680595865606

https://twitter.com/GrangerE04117/status/1522643831736332288

https://news.usni.org/2022/05/05/warship-moskva-was-blind-to...

Don't have other sources handy, sorry.

kspacewalk2• 4 years ago

In fact Moskva was refurbished in 2021, played a critical role in protecting the entire Black Sea Fleet whenever it left port with its very much online S-300 SAM, and likely didn't see the attack coming because of operator error and being distracted by the Bayraktar drone, not because of any lack of equipment.

anovikov3• 4 years ago

It couldn't have it's main missile defence system engage these missiles because it only operates in 180 degree sector and the ship was turned into opposite direction because it was alerted by a decoy force of Bayraktar drones.

CIWS could fire though, and apparently they did fire, but missed.

_kbh_• 4 years ago

I find it hard to believe that a flag ship of a navy that was repaired in 2020 and was set to be in use until 2040, was meant to be scuttled in 2022.

https://tass.com/defense/1173927

frostburg• 4 years ago

The Moskva had been recently refitted (possibly this involved embezzling the pertintent funds, but still), "it was ready to be scuttled" is just propaganda aimed at understating the loss.

trasz4• 4 years ago

It was - for western standards. For Russian standards it was a flagship, and - as mentioned above - a critically important one.

MomoXenosaga2• 4 years ago

I don't understand the USMC. They were active in Afghanistan- a landlocked country with zero.zero beaches.

Reminds me of the German "paratroopers" who spend most of the war as overly qualified infantry.

formerly_proven• 4 years ago

Let's put it like this: The South China Sea isn't called Sea because it's landlocked.

ranger207• 4 years ago

The USMC has long been fighting for relevance. Fighting in Afghanistan was simply them doing literally anything just to do something

balletto• 4 years ago

The Marine Corps proposed to take over most of the fighting in Afghanistan: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/washington/11military.htm...

Agree that it was playing the game to justify its existence. Personally I think "the nation's ready response force" is a good and necessary mission.

rtkwe• 4 years ago

Part of the capabilities of the Marines is being able to move quickly and rapidly deploy anywhere which is useful in a shock or front line component to move in in front of slower sustainment forces like the Army.

Spooky232• 4 years ago

They are assault/shock troops.

The Army has a sprawling operation and mission, but the Marines focus around that shock infantry model. The entire organization is focused around that, which has good and bad attributes.

tra3• 4 years ago

“Generation kill”, the book and the miniseries, is about marines invading Iraq in 2003 in unarmored humvees. Didn’t make sense then either.

AnotherGoodName• 4 years ago

I think the more interesting part to think about is drones which were involved in this sinking. This is a very rapidly evolving area of warfare.

Right now we're using drones like we used early WW1 aircraft. As spotters for long range weapons and very occasionally as direct bombers. We haven't yet developed drones that shoot down other drones cheaply. So we can spot enemy formations, ships, tanks etc. without any cost effective way to stop the small spotter drones.

I see this changing soon. We will soon have small cheap drones that will take down nearby spotter drones and the balance will change yet again.

So don't throw away old tactics and equipment just yet. There's a gap where we have no reasonable way to stop drones that will soon be addressed.

ajross• 4 years ago

I see this changing soon. We will soon have small cheap drones that will take down nearby spotter drones and the balance will change yet again.

That's hard to imagine. You can do the spotting job with a $400 consumer device. No piece of autonomous weapons delivery hardware in the modern world exists with a price tag less than 100x that amount. Drones are simply too cheap.

If there's a reasonable countermeasure, look to ECM (though frankly modern broadband wifi is remarkably resistant there too, given all the "jamming" present in modern coffee establishments!) and not drone killers.

rr8083• 4 years ago

Right now they're shooting down small drones with $100k manpads. I'm not convinced drones are sensitive to ECM.

baq3• 4 years ago

for quadrocopters, you want a hunter-killer drone with some kind of a net or tape to jam the propeller.

for plane-like drones... guess something similar. gliders may be super hard to spot and will still be somewhat effective without a working propeller, so tough luck.

trashtester14• 4 years ago

What I've imagined for the past decade or so, are spotter drones that are about the same size as the drones they are design to shoot down. These spotter drones could be built much like WW1/WW2 aircraft, just much smaller, with top speeds between 50-200knots for the smaller versions.

As a weapon, they could carry weapons similar to submachineguns, shotguns or light marchine guns, depending on the size of the target. Add an AI of about the same level of sophistication as the "autopilots" in cars, and they should be able to identify and shoot down hostile drones relatively cost efficiently. Produced at scale, the smallest versions (designed to shoot down comercially available drones, for instance), would not have to cost all that much more than the drones they are designed to shoot down, if produced at scale.

I'm imagining at least 3-4 size categories, lets say. 1) Tiny, able to shoot down most quad copters. Top speed of 50-100knots. Price needs to be low enough to allow tens of thousands to be produced. Could potentially also double as anti-infantry weapons by strafing. 2) Small. Able to shoot down switchblade-sized drones. Top speed of maybe 200 knots. Can be produced in numbers of thousands. 3) Medium. Sutable to hunt small UAV's, such as Buyraktar. Top speed of several hundered knots, maybe just below Mach 1. Somewhat more expensive than the Buyraktar, but can also carry some of the same ordanance, like a tiny fighter-bomber. 4) Full-sized, possibly supersonic. Basically the same as the Loyal Wingman concept. Designed to counter other full-sized drones as well as manned aircraft.

Basically, the removal of a pilot, allows aircraft to span a wide range of sizes, and I would expect all sizes to be produced, as it is uneconomical to hunt quadcopters with full sized aircraft, while it is impossible to hunt supersonic aircraft with switchblade type aircraft.

In a way, this would be analogous to naval vessels, with different sizes serving different roles, from corvettes, MTB's and attacks subs, through frigates and cruisers, to WW2 style batlleships or carriers.

Now, for the AI researchers out there, imagine the careers that can be built around providing AI's for these vehicles. To see your own AI locked in a WW2 style dogfight with a similar drone from another country, in a real-time feed.....

cesarb• 4 years ago

No piece of autonomous weapons delivery hardware in the modern world exists with a price tag less than 100x that amount. Drones are simply too cheap.

I recently found a video at https://twitter.com/FortemTech/status/1526925732122968067 (source: https://twitter.com/TomReiner4/status/1528214932461846528) which shows an anti-drone drone. Unfortunately, I couldn't find its price tag, but looking at the images in the manufacturer's site, it doesn't look like it would be much more expensive to manufacture than an equivalent-sized DJI drone.

robotnikman• 4 years ago

A good old fashioned flak cannon would do the trick, except now with modern targeting systems

medo-bear• 4 years ago

what i think is concerning is that the drone will likely become the new ak47 and we will have a new era of guerilla warfare and terrorism on our hands

lm284692• 4 years ago

drone will

ISIS peeps have been dropping mortar rounds from DJI drones for a few years now, it's already a reality

trashtester14• 4 years ago

I would say the only defense againts small, cheap drones, are small cheap anti-drones. These would be able to shoot down the cheap drones at the cost of a few bullets and a gallon of fuel.

xeromal• 4 years ago

I remember reading a concern of the US Navy that one of the few means of successfully attacking a (carrier group?) would be a drone swarm. Something where they're overwhelmed with just the sheer number of drones attacking.

2OEH8eoCRo02• 4 years ago

We will soon have small cheap drones that will take down nearby spotter drones and the balance will change yet again.

Necessary? We already have lots of cheap tech that can destroy drones in a naval setting.

100011_100001• 4 years ago

I think the natural progression of war is going to be remote controlled systems. Drones are for flying.

Remote Controlled land and water units would also work.

There are multiple reasons why it's the future.

1. Cheap to make

2. Can be smaller since they don't have to have space for humans to sit in them, which might increase ability to carry things, longer range etc.

3. Because humans don't have to be inside of them they can also go a higher speeds, maneuver faster without human body limitations

4. If a drone goes down, the drone pilot can man another one. All that training and knowledge is retained. Human operated vehicles have a high probability of losing their occupants.

5. If 5,000 drones get destroyed, it's lost money. If 5,000 military personnel gets killed it appears much worse in terms of optics, value of life etc.

laputan_machine• 4 years ago

6. Killing someone by clicking a button and watching the explosion on a TV is much easier than pulling a trigger in the real-world

monkeybutton• 4 years ago

The era of remote control won't last too long though because of signal jamming. Autonomous systems that don't need constant control by a human operator is the next logical progression.

paulkrush• 4 years ago

And the natural progression of war will lead to the toner wars. The drones will become so small that they become next mesothelioma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age: "Nell's older brother, who plays an important role in the beginning as her protector; he obtains the Primer for his sister by mugging John Percival Hackworth. Harv is forced to leave Nell when she is accepted by the Neo-Victorians, and is later bedridden by asthma caused by the inhalation of dead nanomachines ("toner") in his childhood."

gigaflop4• 4 years ago

I can imagine a semi-disposable drone-like device being used for fast and cheap reconnaissance. If cost of something with a camera and rough lidar can be brought to $200, then why not turn it into a 'consumable' item that can be deployed from out of a briefcase?

I feel like assuming that the device will be lost/destroyed can help optimize for short-term performance. Why not add a few grams of C4 to it, to make sure that it and its silicon are absolutely unrecoverable and in many pieces after its operational lifetime?

WalterBright12• 4 years ago

Volunteer armies have much lower death rates, because the commanders cannot afford to squander their lives.

Conscript armies get treated as cannon fodder.

unyttigfjelltol2• 4 years ago

The next issue to arise in this paradigm is that autonomous machines are most analogous to mercenaries, with no fixed allegiance to the nation they are fighting for. Thus this army of 5,000 drones could alarmingly be converted to an enemy force in a way a normal army could not.

nradov10• 4 years ago

Remote controlled drones only work reliably at short range. At longer ranges they stop working once the enemy knocks out your communications relays. Communications satellites are no longer survivable. In the future AI technology might solve the problem but outside of simple loitering munitions, AI can't do much today. In some scenarios we may see drones controlled by manned aircraft that are just a few miles behind and still within communications line of sight.

Maneuverability doesn't count for a whole lot in the real world. For manned aircraft the trend is to de-emphasize maneuverability in favor of signature reduction, ECM, and decoys. While it's theoretically possible to design a UCAV that could pull >9Gs, in practice it's totally pointless. That would make the airframe too heavy and expensive, and would adversely impact other more important qualities like endurance and magazine depth.

akelly• 4 years ago

Drones are vulnerable because they have to transmit a video feed over many miles for a remote operator to be able to control them. And the enemy can easily detect that, and then launch a missile that homes in on that signal. That's why there aren't any stealth drones. Drones shouldn't work against a first rate 21st century military, but Russia has proven in this war that they are not in that group.

One way to make a stealth drone is to make it operate autonomously, without sending back a video feed. But nobody is comfortable with that for obvious reasons.

The approach the French have proposed for their next gen fighter jet is to have a stealth jet surrounded by a swarm of stealth drones. The pilot commands all the drones, and so any radio links would be short range and therefore hard for an adversary to detect.

euroderf6• 4 years ago

This is also a way to think about the UFOs. If they are uncrewed, then it's quite possible it took them tens or hundreds of years to get here, and once here, to seek out US Navy maneuvers (cos that's where the most interesting electromagnetic spectrum is), and then toy with them to check our capabilities. And then report back. If the "UFO attack" on Washington DC in the early 50s was one series of contacts, then there's been decades for them pesky aliens to work up another wave of drones to come say hi and mess with naval aviators' heads.

chipsa7• 4 years ago

2. Can be smaller since they don't have to have space for humans to sit in them, which might increase ability to carry things, longer range etc.

To an extent, but the large the drone is (so it's more capable of range and payload capacity), the less the relative manned penalty is.

3. Because humans don't have to be inside of them they can also go a higher speeds, maneuver faster without human body limitations

Similar to above: the bigger the drone, the more they get constrained by other factors than the human body. A drone the size of a F-15 isn't going to be significantly more manueverable or faster than a F-15, simply because the G limit is in part due to the fact that plane can only be so strong, and the engines can only supply so much thrust.

ip26• 4 years ago

If a drone goes down, the drone pilot can man another one. All that training and knowledge is retained.

We have only to look to WWII to see the strategic value of sapping the enemy of their experienced pilots. Which, in turn, could mean that shooting down enemy drones is no longer a goal. Perhaps it becomes more like a carrier formation, with a drone formation defending the operators, and the aggressor looking to destroy the operators instead of the drones. Much like how a carrier is a far larger prize than a carrier fighter.

Steltek3• 4 years ago

I love the WW1 analogy!

I think anti-drone drones are going to quickly move to being autonomous. No one's going to worry too much about "accidentally" taking down a simple drone and the threat of just one kamikaze drone getting through is too high to chance a delayed human reaction. Plus jamming or other measures will make direct control more difficult. An army will likely have a few circling "CAP" drones overhead at all times.

trashtester14• 4 years ago

I agree, the anti-drone aspect needs to be low-latency. But I actually expect that soon, most drones will come with some anti-drones aspects, and some will will be multi-purpuse, capable of launcing some anti ground ordenance. For that part, they may come with a manual mode, for a while longer.

euroderf6• 4 years ago

Assume there will be IFF for drones. With crypto key rotation to keep it reliable.

johnrgrace• 4 years ago

I think you need to think about drone swarms or herds. Not all of the drones need AI or the same level of AI. Some drones will support the costs of a higher level AI and others will have lower AI capabilities and refocus resources on other capacities like attack. Simple drones in volume may be used to overwhelm defenses.

toss14• 4 years ago

Not sure why you're getting downvoted - this entire operation should cause a major rethink of military operations based on new technology.

The proximal goal of any weapons system or operation is to deliver live ordinance to the target, preferably at minimal risk to those doing the delivering.

From WWI to WWII, the progress seemed to be to deliver larger volumes of ordinance, with some increases in accuracy. Since then, it's been longer range and higher accuracy, to the point now that we often need only a pair of 'smart bombs' or JDAMs to take out a target that used to take multiple full bomber loads. With highly accurate targeting, we can even deliver non-explosive ordinance just to minimize collateral damage. Of course Javelins, Switchblades,etc. make it close to 1-shot-one-kill on tanks and other heavily armored vehicles that used to be tough to kill.

Following the trend further, drones and AI recognition technology seem likely to make this even more effective. I'm sure everyone has seen the Slaughterbots video [1], but much loser in technology is killing swarms of small bots specifically targeting enemy equipment, and the loitering switchblade is already here - just add some recognition, maybe it recognizes, operator confirms, and the drone tracks it for the optimal strike moment. Add the swarm then seeks and destroys other examples of the same vehicle.... Small self-contained flying ordinance delivery drones being disgorged from larger carrier drones or aircraft - already in design & testing stages. This IS all going to change and fast, and the smart militaries are taking a LOT of notes on this battle.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterbots

ethbr03• 4 years ago

Exactly. Drones only look powerful because they're a recent innovation (in terms of military procurement timelines).

They're being shot down with air defense missiles designed for helicopters, because that's the cheapest option we currently have.

Once RFPs, responses, and projects work their way to completion, everyone will have anti-drone air defense missiles that, while still expensive, will be better cost:capability calibrated.

The real difference that drone warfare seems to make is in persistence of ISR, which is why so much funding seems to be going into stealthy HALE platforms with stealthy networking and sensors (point to point and LPIR).

The correct lesson to take away from Ukraine seems to be that future battlefields will have key assets (tanks, ships, supply stores, HQs, etc) under threat to a greater depth behind front lines. And not because of a capability change (i.e. a drone can get there with a weapon), but because of a visibility change (a drone can loiter and identify the asset).

Creating a smoking hole in the ground at an arbitrary location is a capability most advanced militaries have had since the 1990s.

What's changed is the ability to find something valuable to place that hole on, at all times, anywhere, at a cost you can organically equip smaller units with.

datpuz• 4 years ago

Meanwhile, spotter drones are getting smaller and more stealthy. How do you detect, much less shoot down, a drone the size of a small bird or even an insect?

JKCalhoun• 4 years ago

I wonder about a future of warfare that condenses to strictly targeted assassinations.

jimbokun• 4 years ago

Sounds like it describes current USA warfare doctrine?

Seems like targeted drone strikes is our main method of engagement today.

throwaway0x7E66• 4 years ago

I suspect that kind of thing is prohibited by some secret convention among all more or less significant powers. otherwise, the opening act of this very war could've been a hundred cruise missiles wiping out the Kyiv's elites

there is some Ukrainian city where the Russians had attempted to kill the mayor. the missile had struck the exact part of the building where his office was located. the mayor had survived because he overslept

WalterBright12• 4 years ago

The fortunes of the front lines in WW1 varied directly with which side had air superiority at the moment. Not because the airplanes were effective at ground attack, but because of aerial reconnaissance. The defeat of Germany came because the Luftwaffe was defeated.

greedo12• 4 years ago

Air superiority during WW1 had an almost negligible effect on the outcome of the war. Can you name a single battle where aerial reconnaissance was decisive, or provided more value than artillery, machine guns or proto-tanks?

Even in WW2 where air power was far more powerful, it's still debated how much it contributed to success.

KineticLensman4• 4 years ago

The defeat of Germany came because the Luftwaffe was defeated.

It was a lot more complex than that. Lots of factors were in play, including introduction of combined-arms warfare that included aircraft but more significantly the tank. More generally, see the Hundred Days Offensive [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive

_boffin_• 4 years ago

Actually... Anduril (Palmer's company) actually has one that's called the Anvil that does exactly what you're talking about: https://www.anduril.com/hardware/anvil/

anovikov3• 4 years ago

Moskva sinking stands as just one of the numerous Russian failures in Ukraine. Just look at Belohorivka disaster where whole battalion tactical group was wiped out in the most stupid of circumstances. It doesn't mean that surface ships are outdated or cannot resist anti-ship missiles.

U.S. Aegis-equipped destroyers faced multiple strikes of essentially, same missiles in the Gulf of Aden, launched by pro-Russian Howthi (both based on Soviet Kh-35), with no hits and no even close calls (as far known, CIWS was never activated).

ckozlowski15• 4 years ago

It was helped by the fact that they were more or less launching them blind. The Ukrainians had the help of intelligence telling them where the Moskava was and where it was going, and that's crucial information for an AShM strike. I doubt the Howthis had that sorta targeting.

anovikov3• 4 years ago

They had direct targeting from a ground-based radar (which was later bombed by a Navy plane).

Steltek3• 4 years ago

Sinking a ship via missile isn't a new thing (1980's, HMS Sheffield). One should be extremely careful drawing conclusions about military tech based on Russian performance. If I was an American captain, I wouldn't be worried about a lucky pair of missiles. A swarm of dozens of missiles would be a different story, however.

Ichthypresbyter• 4 years ago

Sinking a ship via missile isn't a new thing (1980's, HMS Sheffield).

Earlier than that- the Israelis lost the destroyer Eilat to Egyptian SS-N-2 Styx missiles in 1967.

In fact, the Germans had quite a lot of success with air-launched anti-ship missiles in WW2, although it's debatable whether those count- they were more like guided bombs.

Interestingly, though, this does seem to be the first case of a large warship being successfully sunk by a missile launched from dry land. Argentina hit HMS Glamorgan with a truck-launched Exocet in 1982, killing 14 of the crew, destroying the embarked helicopter, and achieving a successful mission kill, but it didn't sink. And Yugoslavia used an anti-tank missile to sink a small Croatian armed speedboat during the 1991 Siege of Dubrovnik. Every other sinking of a ship by a missile has involved one launched from the sea or air.

nradov10• 4 years ago

In fact a US warship did successfully defend against a similar attack in 2016.

https://news.usni.org/2016/10/11/uss-mason-fired-3-missiles-...

bell-cot2• 4 years ago

You might want to read up on how the Sheffield sank - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_(D80)#Board_of_i... . Some choice bits:

- Argentine forces carefully analyzed their target, studied, trained, practiced, and drilled for the attack. Over and over and over. Almost as if they believed there was a real war on, and actually wanted to hit an enemy with their weapons...

- British forces mostly couldn't be bothered to analyze their defenses for weaknesses. Let alone train, practice, or drill. Then they footgunned their best warning system, and didn't realize they were under attack until human-eyeball lookouts saw smoke from the rocket motors of the incoming missiles. Once warned, the bridge officers basically sat on their hands and gawked. (Vs., say, alerting the crew. Or trying to use some of the various anti-missile defense systems that the ship had.)

- The ~5,000 ton "warship" was designed so poorly that one modest hit knocked out both her electrical and fire-fighting systems. Even back in WWII, having redundant critical systems was a well-known and much-valued feature of all real warships.

- Hours into the crew's efforts to fight the fires (resulting from the missile hit), coordination and command of the fire-fighting efforts were somewhere between underwhelming and non-existent.

Blunt Summary: The aircraft, missile, and anti-missile technologies used (or available) during the attack on the HMS Sheffield were no more than costumes and props in a play. The real meat of the play was a human story that would fit quite comfortably into the Old Testament. On one side was a small group of skilled and determined warriors, intensely focused on winning. On the other side was a crowd of clueless noobs, wandering through the scenery and telling themselves that they were a real army.

rm445• 4 years ago

Can I ask, did you lose a relative on the Sheffield? It's quite rare to see the Falklands conflict through the human lens rather than the almost irresistible chance to see just how effective cold-war technologies were:

- naval area denial: even if the threat of the Exocet missile was overstated, it caused the British aircraft carrier to hang back. Conversely, having a nuclear-powered attack submarine in the area was highly effective for the British.

- Aerial combat: the carrier-borne Harriers were outnumbered and outclassed, but the Sidewinder missile was devastating.

The twin of your human factors story is the infantry engagements in the Falklands: a small force of professionals with good night-vision equipment was effective against unmotivated conscripts.

lettergram• 4 years ago

The military we have—an army built around tanks, a navy built around ships, and an air force built around planes, all of which are technologically advanced and astronomically expensive—is platform-centric.

The US has been transitioning off tanks for a while now

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2021...

I suspect, most systems will continue to move underwater for the navy. We will also likely couple it with autonomous drones and decoys

caycep2• 4 years ago

yeah, I remember that was the whole idea re the Stryker divisions of the army too.

reading that article, maybe that means there are longer range standoff weapons than Javelin/Stinger up the infantry's sleeve that we may not know about yet?

greedo12• 4 years ago

No, there's no magic bullets waiting to be unveiled for the infantry or Marines. Stinger is old, in some ways out of date, and a planned replacement was never given enough funding to proceed. Javelin? It's fine for the foreseeable future, until top-attack defenses get good enough to reduce its effectiveness. Things like Trophy APS might be the solution, but those aren't cheap.

Eventually, the AGM-179 will replace the TOW/Hellfire/Maverick missiles, but this isn't really something soldiers will be humping around on raids like in Ukraine. These are heavy missiles (not counting their launch hardware), that require vehicles or aircraft to employ.

jcranmer2• 4 years ago

The US hasn't been transitioning off tanks. One of the US's ground forces (the USMC) is getting rid of tanks, but the other ground forces (the actual US Army) is still retaining them. Indeed, one of the reasons that the USMC is getting rid of tanks is because it's arguing that the US Army can provide them when needed.

SilverBirch• 4 years ago

It seems almost bizarre that someone would try to take lessons on the US military from the Moskva. I mean.... you can but I think the lessons would be more along the lines of "Make sure you have well maintained military equipment with well trained personnel".

All the reporting I've seen suggests that the Moskva was very old, wasn't refurbished very well, and even with these big caveats something must have gone seriously wrong for it to be sunk in the way it was.

So taking that and drawing larger conclusions seems strange.

SamBam• 4 years ago

Yes, most of the consensus I've seen is that even if a modern ship somehow failed to intercept those missiles (which it probably wouldn't have), a modern and well-trained/motivated crew should have been able to immediately shut down the flooding and damaged caused by two comparatively small explosions, and prevented the ship from sinking. An entire ship sinking because of that level of damage is what was most mind-boggling, from what I understand.

Regardless, the point of the article is less about the specifics of the Moskva, so I think it's a fair hook.

Sharlin• 4 years ago

If the missiles managed to blow the Moskva's ammo, that would certainly be enough to explain the sinking. That would've been a lucky hit however.

nimbius• 4 years ago

navies in general are in a very pondersome position in the 21st century. Most missile technology has significantly outpaced their ability to operate uncontested in blue water. this has led to endless, aimless voyages, rattling the chains of kissingers soft power to evermore capable adversaries who simply arent as interested as they were 50 years ago.

These fleets are expensive to maintain. without a purpose like the cold war which afforded constant meaningful training, they become little more than a floating maritime exercise in cleaning and cooking. The accident rate of the US navy in the past decade serves as far more of a teachable resource than the Moskva.

XorNot5• 4 years ago

This would be a mistake: since the Millennium Challenge war games [1] its been apparent the US is making some very bold (read: dangerous) assumptions about the safety of their fleet operating in coastal areas, and a Moskva-like outcome was something which was essentially predicted by them.

Ukraine (with US support most likely) essentially pulled off this sort of operation in the exact sort of environment it was expected. The biggest distinction is the Ukranians have a very limited number of weapons in play to use on operations like this.

At the very least the US needs to assume that in limited scale regional wars like this, the presumption of ideal warfighting conditions won't exist and you might be dealing with someone overtly receiving a lot of state backing - i.e. the US can't reasonably sanction China.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

ericmay7• 4 years ago

about the safety of their fleet operating in coastal areas
i.e. the US can't reasonably sanction China.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you're linking these ideas together.

From a military standpoint, at least today, the US can use its blue water navy to patrol and shut down shipments of resources going in to China pretty well. You don't need to get near the Chinese coast to do that. The US also has no interest in any sort of land warfare in China, so ultimately the strategy is containment. That's why the US (and Biden announced this again today) would absolutely go to war with China over Taiwan, because for China to take Taiwan is to break out of this containment zone and basically eliminate most of the effectiveness of the US Navy in the Pacific as it would relate to China, and undoubtedly end the US as global hegemon.

I think people assume that the US Navy has to be close to China in order to do damage and therefore naval ships are screwed because China will launch missles. While I do think the US Navy would conduct operations and quickly learn what exact capabilities the Chinese have, I don't think their effectiveness is limited to near-shore operations. Frankly, the US can shut down all maritime trade for China and now all of a sudden the Chinese are trying to ship in food and goods and energy products (oil and coal) via road, which I don't think is currently feasible.

But I also don't think China is foolish enough to actually try and invade Taiwan, because that would be like Ukraine, except with the US actively fighting. Some suggest China may try and launch a limited nuclear strike on a location like Guam, but I think that's very dangerous because the US would no doubt retaliate on mainland Chinese military assets and it either ends right then and there with both sides calling a truce (and China not invading Taiwan) or it would continue to escalate into a limited nuclear exchange, which would be catastrophic. China doesn't and won't have the military strength to take over Taiwan unless it's willing to take insane losses, like Russia is now (but worse) in Ukraine.

* I also have a pet conspiracy theory that the war in Iraq was launched to warm up the US military and give it practice with combined arms tactics against an enemy that can fight back, but not too hard.

chipsa7• 4 years ago

MC2002 isn't a good data point for the vulnerability of the USN fleet, because the war game definition basically just plopped the fleet into being next to the coast, with no actual prep work being done. Followed by the Red team commander cheating (using missiles on boats that would be awash over the gunwales if they tried to carry that much weight, motorcycle couriers that did not actually have time delay for their reports, etc.), which was possible because the Red team didn't actually have physical presence for this.

mhh__3• 4 years ago

This war is like crack cocaine for the twitter contrarian mob.

They'll complain other people are just following the current thing, but they absolutely love it too.

kderbyma• 4 years ago

Atlantic is the war mongers journal of choice after the economist lol

indymike3• 4 years ago

The sooner we fully adopt loitering munitions (like the switchblade), drones, and divest of easy targets for drones, missiles and loitering munitions (which are really suicide drones) the better.

trashtester14• 4 years ago

I'm guessing the B52's will outlive the switchblades by a factor of 10.

Switchblades are a bit like 1914 "bombers". Useless by 1916.

monocasa2• 4 years ago

Agreed. In fact, you know what a B-52 can hold a whole lot of? Little drones that can loiter for an hour or so looking for whatever their ML aglos think is 'enemy' before devolving down to essentially cluster munitions when their battery is about to die.

indymike3• 4 years ago

Yes, switchblades themselves are probably not the long term answer, but the point is that missiles and loitering munitions really obsolete lumbering, large vehicles.

exabrial5• 4 years ago

And as the sinking of the Moskva showed, the signature maritime weapon hasn’t been a ship but an anti-ship missile: the Neptune.

Absolutely incorrect analysis. The signature marine weapon is the Poseidon P8. This is a heavily modified Boeing 737 NG configured for maritime intelligence and attack. This is what sank the Moskva.

If you read the analysis from intelligence reports, the Neptune is a rather unremarkable anti-surface missile with underwhelming capabilities. The Poseidon hovered hundreds of miles away and relayed the combat information to Ukraine commanders when the Moskva was weakened; and more than likely, when its short range defenses were down (likely due to Russian Incompetence). No doubt the Poseidon has watched every Russian Naval asset to figure out they were taking down defense radars and they devised a plan to sneak a relatively crappy Neptune missile in.

I think the defining age is intelligence, but then again, hasn't it always been? It's just taking on new forms. One of the most important and urgent projects the Air Force will undertaken is AWACs replacement with another 737 variant that has PESA, AESA, ELINT, AEW capabilities to this platform and provide the same level of battlefield intelligence on solid ground as we have that the P8 provides for maritime.

avar• 4 years ago

Poseidon P8. This is a heavily modified Boeing 737 Max[...]

It's a variant of the 737-NG, not the 737-MAX.

exabrial5• 4 years ago

ah yes, you are correct

dredmorbius13• 4 years ago

The fact that Ukraine seems to have had, or had access to, uncannily accurate intelligence does seem to be the signature fact of this war.

Arms without targeting are at best areal suppression weapons. Russia's impressive-looking mobile rocket-launcher batteries appear formidable, but their effect seems largely to be producing a few seconds of terror over a few hectares of land.

Ukraine's ability to target individual generals with precision, to distract and destroy naval flagships, to down helicoptors, to drop munitions on or through tank hatches, to land artillery and rockets with precision on massed troops and materiel ... has been tremendously effective. The shot:kill ratios seem to be extremely high.

At the same time, the US has telegraphed Russian moves, plans, and force structures with precision as well.

What the state and source of this intelligence is varies. Part clearly comes from near-theatre sources such as the Poseidon, other AWACS assets, and probably other capabilities in Nato Europe, Turkey (itself both part of Europe and Nato, though notable for its position on the Black Sea and control of the Bosperous). Much all but certainly from satellite observations. And I'd suspect a considerable degree is based on signals intelligence.

Russia does not control those domains, and has been unable to establish clear control within them. This is unlike, say, any major US campaign of the past 30 years, whatever other concerns might have as to their legitimacy, with the exclusion of satellite capabilities. To date, Russia has not felt it has the ability to move against those intelligence assets. It certainly has the ability to do so should it choose, and a more general conflict might result in that. But for now, it is pinned down in a fishbowl.

Effect here though seems to be a combination of intelligence as to enemy position and operations, the ability to deliver force to specific points of need, invulnerability of observation posts, and a general popular support within the theatre of operations. As well as remarkable material support from outside entities.

This will be (and all but certainly is being) studied in war colleges and curricula for generations.

XorNot5• 4 years ago

A very good reason Russia won't touch satellite assets is that most of the early warning systems are based on those: if your early warning system goes down, then you're exceptionally vulnerable to a first strike.

corrral• 4 years ago

The intel sharing arrangements (I wonder who's actually calling the shots—literally—for fire control purposes... every link in the chain slows things down, and they seem to be working very effectively, which implies few links indeed) seem to me to be clearly the most interesting and effective facet of this war. Pity we may never get the story of what's actually going on, because it seems to be a really remarkable effort.

throwaway0x7E66• 4 years ago

This is unlike, say, any major US campaign of the past 30 years

because the US did not face a formidable adversary in the past 75 years

in a war somewhat comparable with this one in terms of manpower and tech - the Korean War, the US had suffered heavy casualties and had only narrowly escaped a complete defeat

elorant• 4 years ago

Just a few weeks ago there was a US aircraft carrier in northern Aegean, just a few miles off the port of Alexandroupolis where there is a US naval base. It seemed odd that for such a low significance base the US would bring an aircraft carrier in the area, but my guess is that it was involved in some kind of operations in the Black Sea region.

rjsw2• 4 years ago

to drop munitions on or through tank hatches

I don't think this is down to intelligence, it is just how the NATO anti-tank missiles are designed to work.

hedora4• 4 years ago

This is unlike, say, any major US campaign of the past 30 years

This seems exactly like both Iraq wars, except that Sadam's troops might have had working encrypted radios.

In the first war, massively undergunned (in terms of number of rounds of ammunition) US tanks would enter a battle, and 66% of them would immediately get stuck in a boot loop, or otherwise break down.

The remaining ones would rapidly fire a dozen rounds or so a few miles in a dozen different directions, anihilating enemy equipment well before it had any hope of striking back.

Then, logistics people would go out and fix the stranded tanks.

It's pretty obvious that the targeting systems and supply lines were what held everything together during those campaigns.

Ukraine has been dominating in those two dimensions as well (using US equipment and intelligence, in many cases).

kmonsen5• 4 years ago

What I have wondered: let's say the US gives some predator drones to Ukraine, and then "trains" their military to use them. What is to stop the US from actually piloting these drones from Tampa or whatever, perhaps through a cable from Ukraine to Poland? Would be very hard to prove who were actually piloting them at any given time.

Rapzid• 4 years ago

USA flaunting its intelligence from before the invasion to now has got to be the biggest flex of the past 30+ years on the world stage.

sudosysgen6• 4 years ago

Well, not really. The defining thing here is grey-zone warfare.

The Moskva (and ships in general) aren't really made for a war where you can't shoot down AWACS. Because they can't be.

Generally the assumption is that the AWACS is going to be shot down, very fast. It's a pretty solid one to make, too.

But of course there was also a lot of incompetence, and the sheer age and obsolescence of the Moskva didn't help either.

Tossrock• 4 years ago

Why would that be a solid assumption? If Russia were actually engaging US forces and was "allowed" to shoot the AWACS, then they would also be engaging the USAF - by far the most effective air force in the world - who would deny such attempts.

wcarss• 4 years ago

For anyone else thinking (especially later in this thread) "what is AWACS?":

AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) is the name of the specific system installed in the E-3 and Japanese Boeing E-767 AEW&C airframes, but is often used as a general synonym for AEW&C.
An airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) system is an airborne radar system designed to detect aircraft, ships, vehicles, missiles, and other incoming projectiles at long ranges and perform command and control

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_early_warning_and_con...

ilamont• 4 years ago

Shortly after the sinking, reports emerged that a U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon was in the area before the attack, suggesting that the U.S. may have provided detailed targeting information to the Ukrainians to target the ship.

Carlson said while the U.S. could give Ukrainian forces a general idea of where the ship was, it could not provide necessary tracking information to the Neptunes because P-8s datalinks were incompatible.

https://news.usni.org/2022/05/05/warship-moskva-was-blind-to...

exabrial5• 4 years ago

Targeting information no, but that's a distraction in the news to downplay the significance.

* Boat moving slowly? Check.

* Boat oriented in correct direction for broadside attack at the waterline? Check.

* Short range defense radars down? Check.

* Other defense assets out of the area? Check.

"Ok bring up your targeting radars and fire"

ckozlowski15• 4 years ago

That's probably where the reported TB2 came into play. The U.S. gives them general information, but it's more than enough for the Ukrainians to vector in one of their drones, which they likely do have those links for, and feed that to the missile battery.

WalterBright12• 4 years ago

Many people think that radar won WW2. The US used radar-guided anti-aircraft guns, which doubled their accuracy (in essence doubling the number of guns). Flak guns used radar proximity fuses in the shells. Ship big guns used radar targeting. And, of course, radar made for long range detection of where the enemy was.

In the Gulf War, when the enemy fired a shell, radar was used to calculate where it was fired from, and that location got a radar-directed shell directly onto it.

Incredibly effective.

AtlasBarfed2• 4 years ago

Cryptonomicon (a fictional book) basically argues cryptography won the war.

jdkee• 4 years ago

Proximity fuses vastly increased the effectiveness of anti-aircraft fire and the story of their development is fascinating.

See https://www.historynet.com/proximity-fuze/

kens• 4 years ago

I keep a mental list of things that are claimed to have won WW2. Some of them are radar, cryptography, oil, the atomic bomb, industrial production, economic power, Colossus, the Eastern front, hydroelectric power, air power, and rubber. (I'm sure I'm forgetting lots.) My conclusion is that you can pick just about anything and explain how it won the war.

kmonsen5• 4 years ago

Counter artillery is incredible effective. When I was in the army they told us to never be close to artillery firing as it was expected that the location would be determined by radar from the shell and you would expect an answer very quickly.

Note that Ukraine now has gotten new artillery from France that has longer range than apparently anything the Russians have.

AtlasBarfed2• 4 years ago

I get into arguments with pro-Navy people about the laughable waste of Naval surface ships.

As you state, antiship missiles are unremarkable, I believe 1980s pop and drop from above are undefendable. I got argued down about antiship ICBM/IRBMs, but I still think they will work. And drone subs will make any nearshore unnavigable to capital ships, if the cost of your carrier is 10x the cost of a fleet of 100 drone subs whose only job is basically fire a couple torpedos.

Drones/infantry portable weapons are being tested in real time by the pentagon with the Ukraine war, against a reasonable facsimile of a peer war.

The only thing lacking is high altitude anti air, but I think this war will result in the true air superiority denial weapon: the cheap air drone. Hell, it could be a solar balloon-drone hybrid: stay up as long as you want, relocate with "acceptable" flexibility, fire missiles at aircraft.

That will push more emphasis to Space superiority I predict.

The other aspect of force multiplication of drones hasn't been properly explored or used yet in this war: drones are currently used as CENTRALLY coordinated weapons. But if you also have combined arms drones coordinated by boots-on-ground infantry, that means your ten man squad can direct (with low casualty risk) ten faster, better armed, more capable drones in helicopter, grenade shelling, scouting, and direct fire. And if you can give basic AI orders to a drone once you get it place and then direct other drones into position, then a 10 man squad may be able to direct 20-30 ones. And they can have reserves to deploy if their controlled drones get damaged. And they are probably more durable to fire.

Truly effective infantry forces have sergeants and officers with ability to adapt tactical battle plans on the fly. Current drone organization doesn't strongly support this, but then again we are in the stone age of drones.

KineticLensman4• 4 years ago

But if you also have combined arms drones coordinated by boots-on-ground infantry,

Brings back memories of Network-Centric Warfare [0], with self-synchronising edge-based forces operating on the cusp of tactical anarchy, IIRC.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network-centric_warfare

chipsa7• 4 years ago

Why would "pop and drop" be undefendable? It's not as if the ship won't be able to see the ASCM the entire time it's doing that maneuver. The Harpoon does it because of it's origin: it was supposed to hit surfaced Soviet submarines, and it needs to do it in order to actually hit the target. But that target class disappeared before it really reached service.

ASBMs have a similar issue in that there's no way for them to get out of the radar view of the target (or a ship near the target). And we've got missiles designed to take them out as part of the target set (SM-3 and SM-6 are quite capable, depending on range).

Drone subs are just mobile minefields. The idea of a mobile minefield isn't new, and you have all the problems of a minefield (including, but not limited to: sinking ships you didn't intend to), along with new challenges like: how do you communicate with your drone subs?

Your cheap anti-air drone is just a missile carrier? You're thinking weapons, not systems here. How do you target with them? And how do you keep them from getting targeted? Even being 20kft up (and improving the range that way), an equivalent AAM from a fighter will have longer range, simply because it's able to be launched from Mach 0.85, instead of 30kts. Sure, the drone might be cheap, but the missile won't be.

Animats• 4 years ago

The Neptune is a rather unremarkable anti-surface missile with underwhelming capabilities.

It had enough range to reach the target from shore, enough precision to hit it, and enough warhead to kill it. That's good enough.

The lesson from this is that warships can no longer operate with impunity near a hostile shore against a reasonably equipped opponent. "Near" is at least 100km. A truck-mounted system can now take out a major combatant vessel.

Finding large ships isn't that difficult any more. They show up on everything from civilian satellite imagery to drone cameras.

exabrial5• 4 years ago

It's far more complicated than you think to sink a modern combat ship with a missile. The Neptune would qualify as "minimally capable" and if it weren't for Russian incompetence and target intelligence, or it wouldn't have succeeded.

First, you have the sea. It's flat, it's quiet, and it's pretty much void of surface and aerial radar contacts. Missile stealth is really hard in this environment because of the quiet background, and the Neptune is not stealthy. The ship-based radars are really only limited to the curvature of the earth... so for the Moskva, that's probably 9miles in bad conditions, 18miles in best conditions. The cold background even allows IRST to work quite effectively (not sure if the Moskva has that capability). The target ship is going to know you're coming, especially the Moskva, as in the absolute worst conditions, that's about 30s-45s of warning time, or 10m-15m if you have an AEW radar.

Second, radar blindness is a two way street. You can fire a missile, but it will be blind to its target until it's pretty close and can activate some sort of terminal phase guidance. Navies _always_ keep their ships moving to avoid attacks. Basically, for a sub-sonic missile, you can fire it at where the target is now, but by the time it gets to where it thinks the target is, it may not be there anymore. There's a couple of ways to handle this. For Navy's very modern LRASM, that's a passive link receiving mid-course updates, with fallback to GPS/Inertial guidance. For the Neptune, it's just inertial guidance. Just _moving_ the target ship around randomly is enough to protect it from a Neptune strike and Russia did not do this.

Third, your missile needs to broadside. Ships are designed to cut through the water, so a head-on attack will just cause the missile to skip off the bow. Your missile needs to have enough spare fuel to turn about and detect the orientation of the ship. Again, you can defeat this by randomly turning your ship a bunch of times. There's a case in the Falklands war where an Exocet was coming in hard for a kill, but the ship's commander had enough time to orient the ship towards the missile with full rudder, and the Exocet bounced, then exploded on the deck rather than penetrating. There was damage, but ship stayed in combat. The Neptune doesn't have great loiter time. And its rudimentary radar terminal guidance it's probably easily attacked electronically anyway.

Finally you have point defenses. Russia actually has quite sophisticated CIWS systems, both missile and rotary cannon. It's speculated that the only really guaranteed way to defeat these systems is a saturation attack, which was not the case, or a supersonic terminal phase, which the Neptune is not capable of. Russia pretty much had all its defenses down.

So no, the Neptune is really not that sophisticated. This attack was successful purely based on knowing the limitations of the weapon system and timely intelligence.

TheRealDunkirk• 4 years ago

> The Neptune is a rather unremarkable anti-surface missile with underwhelming capabilities.
It had enough range to reach the target from shore, enough precision to hit it, and enough warhead to kill it. That's good enough.

When you put it like that, it's kind of scary to think what GP's definition of whelming capabilities would be.

ClumsyPilot6• 4 years ago

No doubt the Poseidon has watched every Russian Naval asset to figure out they were taking down defense radars and they devised a plan to sneak a relatively crappy Neptune missile in.

Is it just me, or does this comment appear arrogant?

You you are taking all the credit and belittling the folks that did all the fighting, based on nothing but your own speculation?

tpmx• 4 years ago

Yeah, this over the top jingoism even for HN. I'm surprised.

exabrial5• 4 years ago

To dispel any doubt: no.

occamrazor• 4 years ago

By the way, Poseidon occupied in the Greek Pantheon a role very similar to the Roman Neptune.

Navy weapon-namegivers lack imagination.

stefan_• 4 years ago

This is just LARPing. A TB2 could spot that ship just as well and neither it nor the P8 can guide the anti-ship missile that was used.

hbarka• 4 years ago

I read that the opportunity wasn’t due to defense radars being down. It was due to a diversion tactic (annoyance drone) created to fool the radar operators into focusing on a false flag.

dathinab• 4 years ago

Intelligence is one of the most important aspects.

Through also we had been at a point where a lot of trope movements are always under watch by satellites and now supplemented by various kinds of drones (some call it the unblinking eye) before.

We also have a lot of ways to take advantage of it (long range artillery, big drones, Javelins, small suicide drones, etc.).

What changed is not the general capabilities we have nothing I listed (except maybe the small suicide drones) is new.

What is new is how we can and in case of Ukrain do combine this weaponry and information systems.

So I don't thing any of the tech involved is the defining factor, it's the combination of them in the right strategy.

2OEH8eoCRo02• 4 years ago

Link to intel report?

There have also been regular AWACS circular flights over Romania near the Black Sea and Global Hawk flights in the Black Sea.

flyinglizard• 4 years ago

Anti-platform weapons have met their match with countermeasures like the Israeli Trophy system against ATGMs which brought tanks back into warfare in full force. Anti drone weapons are everywhere. Aircraft have stealth and DIRCMs.

The problem with Moskva was tactical - it was a sitting duck without adequate protection. I wouldn’t read too much into it.

nazavo• 4 years ago

A cool thing about Neptune is the technology wasn't property tested for the prime time before and is relatively fresh technology! Ukrainian forces had used them successfully and have proven the high precision weapon know-how is still going strong in the country.

cpursley2• 4 years ago

Neptune is just an upgraded Russian antiship missile tech from the late 80s. But clearly still pretty effective with the right targeting.

jcranmer2• 4 years ago

It's annoying when articles like this blindly repeat misinformation:

On March 9, 1862, the Union warship Monitor met its Confederate counterpart, Virginia. After a four-hour exchange of fire, the two fought to a draw. It was the first battle of ironclads. In one day, every wooden ship of the line of every naval power became immediately obsolete.

Ouch, false. The ironclad ships that the US built were what became known as "[river] monitors"--they were at best barely seaworthy, since they had no freeboard worth speaking of, so any sea that was mildly stalled would cause the ships to founder. In no way were they ships-of-the-line, or capable of threatening ships-of-the-line, and the first ironclad ship-of-the-line would have been HMS Warrior, built before the US ironclads.

On December 7, 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. If the battle of the ironclads settled once and for all the wood-versus-iron debate, Japanese carrier-based aircraft settled the battleship-versus-carrier debate by sinking the cream of America’s battleship fleet in a single morning.

Even worse than the previous paragraph. Aircraft carriers did not render battleships obsolete at Pearl Harbor, which involved a fleet of old battleships at a state of low readiness. If the Japanese thought battleships obsolete, why did they bring them to the Battle of Midway 6 months later?

One of the things that I think is poorly comprehended by much of the lay public is that military technology really is "part of a complete package". There isn't a single technology that beats everything else; instead, it tends to end up closer to a rock-paper-scissors scenario where it turns out you need all of the weapon systems to avoid being defeated by one of them. For example, in WW1-ish naval warfare, a large capital ship like a battleship is vulnerable to torpedoes, which means it needs a fleet screen of light units to avoid the torpedo threat, but those units are vulnerable to the powerful capabilities of battleships, which requires capital ships of their own to threaten.

What makes technology obsolete isn't "this can be countered by something else," it's "this capability can be provided by something better."

Hayvok2• 4 years ago

The seaworthiness of Monitor or Merrimac was immaterial to the contemporary discussion around ironclads. It was a transformative moment. There were plenty of sea-worthy ironclads already in European fleets but there had not been a battle yet between two ironclads. As usual with militaries, there had been lots of debate around how effective the new weapons system would be.

Merrimac sailed into Hampton Roads (near Chesapeake Bay) and wasted two pretty good wooden Union frigates. The Union then sent in the Monitor. The two ships spent four hours pounding away at each other at point blank range, and still managed to steam away under their own power. The cannonballs just bounced off the armor. Two ships that, as you said, were barely sea worthy. (Some contemporary writers said the same - not a fair test!)

"News of the action at Hampton Roads took the British public, press, and Parliament by storm. Large wooden steamers were clearly helpless against smaller armour-plated foes. Ironclads were fighting ironclads. Perhaps most significantly, the Americans had produced them in far less time and expense than either England or France." [1]

Lord Lyons (British ambassador the U.S.) wrote to Lord Russel (Foreign Secretary), "This is, I suppose, the severest test to which the system of coating vessels in iron armour has yet been exposed."

Admiral Milne, head of the British North Atlantic Squadron was "agog" at the results. Commander Hewett of HMS Rinaldo actually watched the battle and had the same reaction.

What was proved was that the weapons system of wooden ships-of-the-line was obsolete. Ironclads were now conclusively the future.

[1] "Seagoing purposes indispensable to the defence of this country:" Policy Pitfalls of Great Britain's Early Ironclads

Hayvok2• 4 years ago

Even worse than the previous paragraph. Aircraft carriers did not render battleships obsolete at Pearl Harbor, which involved a fleet of old battleships at a state of low readiness. If the Japanese thought battleships obsolete, why did they bring them to the Battle of Midway 6 months later?

Look at the Battle of Taranto in 1940. The British sent a bunch of old, WW1 biplanes against the Italian fleet in port. Three battleships, a heavy cruiser, and two destroyers were disabled. The British lost two planes.

Three days after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese hit two of the most powerful battleships in the Royal Navy (Prince of Wales & Repulse). Both battleships sunk, at a loss of six Japanese planes. Those ships were sailing and fighting back - they didn't fair any better than the ships at Pearl Harbor or Taranto.

Battleships were now obviously sitting ducks without accompanying airpower. They were obsolete in that they were no longer the ship around which the rest of the fleet was organized. The aircraft carrier was the now the most important ship in the fleet.

outworlder• 4 years ago

There's also the sinking of the Bismarck. Largest battleship created by the Germans. It's fate was sealed when the rudder was disabled by biplane torpedo bombers launched from British aircraft carrier Ark Royal.

It did get sunk by battleships but only after it couldn't run anymore.

ttul• 4 years ago

“So far, in Ukraine, the signature land weapon hasn’t been a tank but an anti-tank missile: the Javelin. The signature air weapon hasn’t been an aircraft, but an anti-air missile: the Stinger.”

Weren’t these the signature weapons because Ukraine doesn’t have much of an air force? It’s true that the Javelin and Stingers (etc.) have been remarkably effective; however, it’s not like the US ought to ditch its expensive aircraft in favor of shoulder-launched weapons.

spywaregorilla• 4 years ago

Weren’t these the signature weapons because Ukraine doesn’t have much of an air force?

It's because they're cheap, easy to deploy, and effective. And Russian planes need to fly low because of other anti air weapons and a general lack of precision munitions.

Quillbert182• 4 years ago

I agree that missiles are the future, but unless the enemy is coming to you as is the case with Ukraine, then you are going to need a platform to deliver the missiles.

imwillofficial• 4 years ago

It didn’t sink, it literally pulled into port 4 days later. This is disinformation posing as analysis.

m3kw9• 4 years ago

When you bet on your current ship defences to intercept new hypersonic missiles, you are taking too big of a bet.

itslennysfault• 4 years ago

Huh? Neptune isn't hypersonic. In fact, it is subsonic.

flyinghamster• 4 years ago

There was a harbinger of this in the Falklands/Malvinas conflict, when Argentine forces sunk HMS Sheffield with Exocet missiles. Also, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 2020 was showing the effectiveness of drones, and I'm sure Ukraine was taking notes.

orwin• 4 years ago

Burg. Don't talk about the Maginot if you don't know shit about the second World War. I swear hoi4 players have more knowledge than the author.

I skimmed the comments and it seems the author was wrong about a lot. I thought the Atlantic was a better than average paper, the quality must have declined.

fractallyte• 4 years ago

From the article: “When you look at what weapons are on top of the Ukrainians’ wish list,” Moulton told me, “it isn’t towed howitzers. Top of their list are armed drones, anti-tank missiles, and anti-ship missiles.”

Actually, no! Why is this still being rehashed?? Zelensky specifically requested: artillery, artillery shells, Multiple Launch Rocket Systems, armored vehicles, tanks, air defense systems, and military aircraft.

He said: “When some leaders ask me what weapons I need, I need a moment to calm myself, because I already told them the week before. It’s Groundhog Day. I feel like Bill Murray.” (Liberation Without Victory, The Atlantic, https://archive.ph/nz2Da)

And while Javelins, and other missiles, have proven invaluable in taking out armored vehicles, the more effective weapon has been artillery (often targeted with the aid of drones).

greedo12• 4 years ago

Artillery just isn't sexy enough to capture the media's attention. The King Of Battle has knocked out far more vehicles in Ukraine than any ATGMs.

paganel6• 4 years ago

Thank you for this comment, I had to scroll all the way down to read some good-sense (I had made a comment basically identical to yours when it comes to artillery+drones a little earlier).

I think it all comes down to the "educated" Western audiences only following this conflict through the eyes of the Western media, which Western media has its own incentives (about which this is not the place to write at length), suffice is to say that their reports don't accurately reflect the situation on the battleground.

What does reflect the situation on the battleground is the videos coming from both side (Ukrainian and Russian) which clearly show that artillery (plus cheap commercial drones used as spotters) is bringing in most of the losses. The greatest military Russian defeat [1] in this war until now was the result of artillery and drones, not of javelins, not of any fancy and expensive Western-provided weapons.

Later edit: This [2] is good, old artillery in use (in this case by the Russians). There's no javelins nor drones all by themselves that can take those artillery pieces out.

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/uqbam9/new_drone_f...

[2] https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1528738177741201410

paganel6• 4 years ago

o far, in Ukraine, the signature land weapon hasn’t been a tank but an anti-tank missile: the Javelin. The signature air weapon hasn’t been an aircraft, but an anti-air missile: the Stinger.

The author (a veteran US Marine) is, obviously, well more versed in this than me, a computer programmer, but I'd say that he's wrong here. The signature weapon of the war right now is artillery, on both sides, that's why most recently it was artillery pieces that the US sent to Ukraine. Artillery has been a mainstay of the wars on the Ukrainian-Russian steppes ever since Napoleon.

What this war brought new to the table, a thing which might be the real revolutionary part of this war (at least when it comes to military doctrine), is the deadly artillery + cheap aerial drones combo, it has brought havoc to both sides. Those Russian convoys were not destroyed by javelines, but by targeted Ukrainian artillery strikes (with the help of said cheap drones).

Inside of the cities (Mariupol, mostly, from where most of the images have come when it comes to urban combat in this war) the tanks have still shown their worth, as in it was mostly with tanks (and, again, with artillery) that the Russians managed to destroy (and thus conquer) most of the city (they also used some aviation to drop bombs on Azovstal, but that was towards the end of the Mariupol battle). An interesting apparition was that of the BTR-82 [1]

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/twraun/russi...

jacquesm2• 4 years ago

One thing I noticed about this war is that in the beginning a lot of planes were downed, this slowed to a trickle and then almost entirely stopped once the Western front disappeared and only the Eastern remained. I'm not quite clear on whether that is because they are no longer flying sorties because they're too afraid of surface-to-air defenses, whether they are out of planes or some other reason (such as the defenders no longer being able to down enemy planes).

mhh__3• 4 years ago

I think there's still a trickle of SU-25s being shot down.

giantg22• 4 years ago

"So far, in Ukraine, the signature land weapon hasn’t been a tank but an anti-tank missile: the Javelin. The signature air weapon hasn’t been an aircraft, but an anti-air missile: the Stinger. And as the sinking of the Moskva showed, the signature maritime weapon hasn’t been a ship but an anti-ship missile: the Neptune."

If you look at it solely from the Ukrainian point of view - yes. The Russians are relying heavily on platforms, even if they are losing. That doesn't mean that there isn't value in those platforms, just that they are being misapplied. For example, a tank is much more valuable to use against another tank than to use against dispersed ground troops. We would likely see them being valued differently in a near-peer conflict that was more coordinated/strategic (one of the biggest enemies of the Russians has been their leaders' own greed and lack of preparation, training, and coordination).

War is largely about economics. Of course using man-portable anti-platform weapons is ideal - you can destroy equipment that takes months or years to build at .1% of it's cost. Just like using left over or homemade munitions for IEDs can generate a lot of damage (physical and economic), especially over the course of a decade or two.

lnsru• 4 years ago

Where are any economics in Ukraine war? Russian loses are comparable to whole army of a small country.

giantg22• 4 years ago

I'm not sure what you're asking. The west is helping Ukraine economically, especially with the delivery of weapons on a scale that they would not be able to normally pay for. The west is also implementing sanctions to hurt Russia economically (there are even some articles coming out that it is affecting daily life in Russia now). And the losses sustained by Russia in the war will take years or even decades to recover from since they can't build or finance equipment as fast as they are losing it (not even getting into the personnel side of things). It's unsustainable.

alaricus• 4 years ago

Wasn't the Turkish Bayraktar drone also involved in the sinking of Moskva?

Not to rain on the "feel-good" parade, but Moskva was laid down in 1976 and launched in 1979. It was older than most people on HackerNews. Don't treat it as bleeding edge technology.

dotopotoro• 4 years ago

Also, It was decommissioned then reinstated. However it was still a flagship.

tlear• 4 years ago

Absolute garbage of an article. It is S300 an ancient AA platform that denied Russia Air supremacy, it is combination of Artillery and drones not Javelin that been most lethal and it most definitely not a completely unimpressive Neptune that is equivalent of a missiles that went into device half a century ago.. wait Russia still easily blockades Odessa

In Donbas now war resembles most the WW2 with mass of artillery being exchanged for drone directed artillery. Not Javelin, not any other man portable anything can dislodge Russian or Ukranians for that matter. Massed drone directed artillery and rocket artillery is the current go to.

Those ideas of infiltrating marines to Chinese islands are so idiotic as to defy all belief.. I hope whoever came up with that is on the first boat there

Last but not least perhaps journalist writing for Atlantic can read some book about WW1? Like something basic that covers eastern front? Offense did not go anywhere and no Somme was not a bayonet charge ffs

wrp2• 4 years ago

"Flagship" needs some clarification. If you follow naval affairs, this may seem too obvious to mention, but the term "flagship" does not indicate anything about the technical capabilities of a vessel. It just means the ship where the commander of a fleet has his office. The Moskva, despite being antiquated, was probably chosen as flagship just because it had the most room.

Also, a plea to everyone posting technical details. Please provide links to sources. It has been extremely hard finding solid data on this war.

rapjr9• 4 years ago

There seems to be an assumption here that the enemy will always have a platform-centric approach to war. What if both sides have an anti-platform-centric approach? Do they shoot at each others portable MANPAD's? A hybrid approach seems necessary, tanks and ships and planes have specific uses when the opponent is not platform-centric and Stinger's and Javelin's and Neptune's can be used against platforms. Something not mentioned in the article is that unmanned platforms are likely to take over. Why put a person inside any of these craft when they can be remotely controlled? Autonomous weapons (killer robots) don't seem likely to be able to distinguish combatants from non-combatants for some time to come, so remote control seems more likely. Also, tanks, planes and ships can't do a lot to win battles in urban terrain. At best they can obliterate infrastructure. Still, it is obvious that smart weapons are making a big difference in Ukraine. You would think that the major powers that invented smart weapons and have stockpiled them would not have been surprised when they turn out to make a difference.

I think the major surprise here is the sudden increased perception that a war between peer powers is not a thing of the past. I would guess that all the major powers are not ready today to fight each other in earnest for more than months or half a year in a non-nuclear war. China and Russia would not be able to get critical parts, and the USA would have to ramp up new manufacturing capability very quickly (it imports ingredients for high explosives from China?) Note that this would be extremely expensive for all countries, it would turn a large part of useful and beneficial production capacity into building an unproductive war economy. Citizens everywhere would suffer, even if none of the new weapons were ever used.

A whole age of warfare sank with the Moskva

Related Stories