World War 3.... NBC news reporting tonight ..US Intelligence helped sink Russian ship

[link to naked-science.ru (secure)]

Competent opinion is never short lol



Why couldn't the Neptuns (as well as the Harpoons) hit a Russian ship?
The missile cruiser "Moscow" was a large ship of Soviet construction - 11,490 tons of displacement. From its technical peculiarities two conclusions follow at once. First: it did not make sense to keep it 150-200 km away from the Ukrainian coast. The second: to it neither Ukrainian, nor even the American-made anti-ship missiles could penetrate. Let us start with the first one.

The main armament of the Moskva is 16 huge, by the standards of anti-ship missiles, P-1000 Vulkan, each weighing more than seven tons. They have a large warhead with 500 kilograms of explosives. This is probably the most powerful non-nuclear missile for defeating ships in the world. It also has a version with a nuclear warhead, at 350 kilotons. Such a missile is designed for large - or very large, like aircraft carriers and their groups - targets. In accordance with its power, its range is also appropriate: one thousand kilometers. And it overcomes them at a speed of two and a half thousand kilometers per hour.


Anti-ship cruise missile homing head on the example of the Russian X-35 of the latest modifications. However, the new X-35 has a modification with a thermal imaging seeker / ©Wikimedia Commons
Let's take a look at the map: only 300 kilometers from Sevastopol, where the "Moscow" was stationed, to Odessa. That means that it was not necessary for the "Moscow" to approach Ukrainian shores to use its main caliber - it could do it from its home harbor. Or from Novorossiysk - in fact, from any point on the Russian Black Sea coast. At close range Russian cruiser could work only with 130-millimeter gun - frankly speaking, a relic of the 20th century. For half a century now almost all effective attacks on warships have been carried out not by naval guns, but by missiles of various types. The fact that the world fleets have no small-caliber artillery at all is as much a relic of the past as the ability to raise sails on the battleships of the Russo-Japanese War.

The second point: the armament and equipment of the "Moscow" was such that it could not be successfully attacked by the Ukrainian "Neptune", as it was announced in Kiev for some reason. "Moscow" had quite a powerful set of radars and means of electronic warfare, allowing it to detect and interfere with the guidance of cruise missiles. "Neptun" has only one version of the homing head - an active radar head. This means that in the final stretch, the missile's "head" searches for target ships with a small radar and cannot aim at them any other way.

Any anti-ship missile that turns on this homing head kind of says to the target ships: here I am. And it says it loudly: the radiation power there is decent, so you can't miss it. Immediately after that, the target ship turns on the electronic warfare equipment, which blinds the missile. For the first time such means (very primitive at first) were applied en masse against anti-ship missiles in the battle of Latakia, way back in 1973 - and even then none of the blinded missiles could not hit the target.

But that's not all. If the Moscow's (quite impressive) REB means would not work, it had air defense means. Starting with the ship version of the very good S-300 (S-300F) and ending with the Osa, whose anti-aircraft missiles shoot down targets at a distance of up to 15 kilometers. The total number of anti-aircraft missiles of these systems on the "Moscow" - 104. In addition, the cruiser had six 30-millimeter guns designed just to defeat cruise missiles and other air targets. Each of these guns had a rate of fire of one hundred rounds per second. All together they fired 0.3 tons of shells per second.


"Moscow" during the rescue operation / © Unknown participant in the rescue operation
The conclusion is simple: this pair of subsonic (there are no supersonic PKMs in the Western world like Russia's) anti-ship missiles could not have broken through. A couple of dozens, yes, probably (only then the hits would not only be to the Moskva). But a couple, no.

How, then, could a fire have occurred on a Russian cruiser? The most probable answer is simple: its radio-electronic and air defense systems either did not see the missile in stormy conditions at all, or noticed it too late when they had no time to do anything. This is nothing new: This is exactly what happened 40 years ago, in 1982, to the British destroyer Sheffield, which spotted a light Argentine missile just seconds before it hit and eventually sank.

A truly surprise attack on a Russian cruiser was possible only in one case: the missile was Norwegian.

Why was a missile from a small northern nation able to do something that other Western ICBMs would not have been able to do?
In the Western world, the main light-class anti-ship missiles are the American Harpoon and the Norwegian NSM. The former, if you take the non-airplane-launched variants, has the same "radar" homing as the Neptune. The second does not, and this makes it much more dangerous.


The NSM, created by the Norwegian company Kongsberg, flies without "radar in the head. First it enters the primary target coordinates obtained, for example, from a reconnaissance drone (up to the RQ-4 and its "cousins" that have quite far-seeing radars). The missile then goes to the area of those coordinates, guided by a combination of inertial guidance (a very simplified version of the gyrocompass) and GPS navigation. But at the final stretch, the most important point to hit, the Norwegian missile activates an infrared homing head. The missile compares the images seen on the horizon with its memory library and selects the most important target (if there is more than one).


The launcher for a pair of NSM coastal missiles is extremely compact, so it is mobile and easily camouflaged / ©Wikimedia Commons
The infrared matrix of the Norwegian missile emits virtually no radiation in any range. Therefore, its activation does not alert an enemy ship to an attack. To make this advantage even worse, Kongsberg had his brainchild made of composite materials that do not reflect radio waves, and the NSM is shaped accordingly. The missile is also very small, which makes it even harder to detect. However, for the small size had to pay range - about 185 kilometers.

All this distinguishes it from the Neptuns and Harpoons. Its approximate analogue is the Russian X-35 "Uran" version with a thermal seeker head (there is such a head as well). The Uranus is much larger as it has a range of 260 kilometers and a more powerful warhead.

As a result, the NSM is currently the least detectable anti-ship missile available to Russia's enemies. It only takes a drone strike to give the missile its initial target coordinates. (Fortunately it can see a large ship from a distance noticeably greater than a large ship can see it.) The Norwegian missile will guide itself at the target - without attracting the attention of the enemy.


But the launcher of the Ukrainian Neptun (photo) is designed for four larger missiles, so this launcher is much more visible, which makes it difficult to use against an enemy with an air force. By the way, the fake statement about launching a pair of Neptuns was poorly thought out by its authors. No one would launch only two missiles from the four available in the launcher against such a target as the Moscow. The NSM was launched in pairs only because there are really two rockets in its launcher / ©Wikimedia Commons
Under normal weather conditions, this would not have been a verdict for the Moskva. Its air defense systems also have optical channels: the NSM would simply have been seen with optics and then shot down.

However, to all appearances, the Ukrainian side calculated everything correctly: the strike was carried out in stormy weather, when the efficiency of the optical channels of registration of anti-ship missiles is minimal. It is trivial to see them against the background of storm waves and splashing.

The only advantage of the Norwegian missile, from the point of view of the Russian Navy, is that it has a very small warhead, weighing only 125 kilograms. So, if the cruiser was hit by it, the number of casualties among the Moscow crew should be moderate. If only one NSM missile out of two was hit (and in a storm it is quite realistic, it can sometimes interfere even with a cruise missile), then the number of casualties is not high at all.

And what about the "Meduza" version that the "Moscow" simply was not equipped with radars to see the NSM?
Perhaps, the authors of "Meduza" did not understand this question well enough. They wrote in their article: Moscow <...> was not equipped with new radars, capable of effectively detecting low-flying targets like the Neptun anti-ship missile.

What can we say here? Basically one thing: don't write about topics you don't understand well. Airborne anti-ship missiles like the Neptune or Harpoon give themselves away to all warships equipped with even the most ancient threat detection systems. Simply because they include a radar guidance head. "The Moscow, of course, had radars to spot the rather large and all-metal Neptunes (as did the Harpoons, though). And, unlike the Sheffield in 1982, her radars had no large dead zones.

What about Medusa's reference to the words "the modernization did not get new radars capable of effectively detecting low-flying targets like the Neptune anti-ship missile"? No way. The Medusa link leads to material that says nothing about the Moscow radars being unsuitable for detecting low-flying anti-ship missiles. "Meduza simply "backed up" its words with a link that does not back up its words in any way.



The Moskva was quite capable of detecting low-flying anti-ship missiles of the usual types: large, made of metal, and with active homing radar. But this was not enough against the NSM in a storm / ©Wikimedia Commons
On a separate note: in reality radars began to learn to detect low-flying anti-ship missiles back in Soviet times, and the Soviet Navy saw them as the enemy's primary anti-ship weapon. Moreover, the radars of the Moskva were at a considerable height, which also makes it easier to detect low-flying targets.

Another thing is that all available radars of all navies of the world are not effective enough to detect in a storm a composite low-flying missile without active radar homing. Water at the top of the waves still absorbs radio waves, and polymers are pretty good at transmitting them - and these basic physical facts are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

If someone used NSM in the same weather against American ships, the effect would be similar. There's a reason the states started buying the Norwegian missile, even though it costs $2.2 million apiece. The American Harpoon is one and a half times cheaper, but it is not capable of attacking an enemy ship as suddenly and therefore as effectively.

What does this mean for war at sea?
The naval part of the military campaign is practically unaffected by the presence of the NSM in Ukraine. There are many Russian ships in the Black Sea, and after the loss of the Moskva their ability to reliably block either the Ukrainian ports or, if desired, the Black Sea straits has not particularly changed.

The Black Sea is small, the range of Russian missiles is great. Even a small missile ship with the displacement of a Russo-Japanese War destroyer carries several Kalibers capable of a supersonic attack on sea targets at ranges of up to 500 kilometers.


A small Russian missile ship with a displacement of less than 1,000 tons carries eight Kalibr missiles, enabling it to bombard the waters of both Odessa and Istanbul directly from Sevastopol / ©Wikimedia Commons
In other words, their reach is many times greater than that of the NSM. The small missile ships are an order of magnitude smaller than the Moskva, but they can block the Ukrainian coast almost as effectively. And thanks to the range of their missiles - from the same Sevastopol Bay if desired. It is enough to have a Russian air patrol near the Ukrainian coast to notify the Russian ships that there are targets there.

However, the "Moscow" also needed such air guidance: one ship alone could not track hundreds of kilometers of coastline. And what is the point, if air reconnaissance is more effective, because from above it is banal to see further?

What follows from this
The Russian armed forces are probably already looking for NSM launchers. But it is far from certain that all the small mobile launchers for a couple of 407-kilogram rockets will be detected and destroyed in time. The AFU, as seen in the videos they post, steadily uses civilian vehicles and even ambulances for transportation. The Russian Air Force does not destroy all vehicles still moving through Ukraine.

This means that there is only one thing guaranteed to keep the Russian fleet safe from NSM attacks: avoiding approaching the Ukrainian coast for 200 kilometers or less. Especially in stormy weather. The Neptuns and Harpoons have a longer range, but, as noted, they are noticeably less dangerous than the Norwegian design due to their active homing and large size.

Upd.: The Defense Ministry has published data on casualties among the crew of the Moskva. One dead and 27 missing essentially means 28 dead. This may indicate that the cruiser was hit by two NSM cruise missiles rather than one.

Best ship in the swimming pool called the black sea fleet

Their pacific and Atlantic fleets are far more capable

The black sea is a minor fleet

Some interesting info from the Pentagon on this. They claim that while they helped Ukraine identify what ship it was, they did not have any foreknowledge that Ukraine would strike the ship.

There are some big problems with this claim.

Firstly, the U.S KNEW that Ukraine was in a full-scale shooting war with the Russians at the time they helped them identify the ship, so the claim of not having any foreknowledge that they would strike it is invalid.

Secondly, if this intel was not shared and Ukraine's operations in the Black Sea were not being actively supported by the U.S, the Moskva would have likely remained unscathed. The Russians are likely to pin the blame on the sinking of the Moskva squarely on the U.S.

Just like they did the sinking of Russia's previous flagship, the Kursk submarine (in which 119 Russian sailors died), 1 year, 1 month and 1 day from 9/11, when an explosion tore through the U.S Office of Naval Intelligence at the Pentagon.

Putin doesn't let these things go unanswered.

USA wants to commit suicide

Russian MEDIA:

The Pentagon denied reports that the United States provided Ukraine with "specific information to target the Moskva cruiser. Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said this at a briefing. He also noted that Ukraine itself decided what to do with this information.

Earlier, CNN, citing sources, reported that the Ukrainian military received intelligence information from the Americans about the location of the Russian Navy cruiser Moskva.

The Ukrainians, having spotted a Russian ship in the Black Sea, contacted their American counterparts to confirm that it was indeed the Moskva cruiser. The U.S. confirmed this and provided intelligence about the location of the cruiser, the TV channel notes. However, there was no information on whether the US knew that Ukraine would strike the ship. According to the sources, Washington was not involved in this decision.

According to the Ukrainian side, the cruiser was hit by Neptun missiles.

The Russian Defense Ministry reported a fire on the Moskva cruiser as a result of a munition detonation on the night of April 14. The crew was evacuated and taken to Sevastopol. One serviceman was killed in the accident and 27 servicemen were missing. The ship sank during the storm.

I remember the sinking of the Andrea Doria when I was a small kid. Beautiful luxury ocean liner, the pride of Italy, from a collision with another ship on the US East Coast.

I later wondered... was it really an "accident"?

[link to www.history.com (secure)]

Interesting... for the same reason that yesterday's news about U.S. intelligence and Russian generals was interesting -- they (U.S.) are still trying to pass it all as "I didn't do it! It was Ukrainians!"

Cue in another one of my predictions from before the invasion:


[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

These people are so predictable it hurts the brain.

Speaking of interesting...

I did find much more interesting, more than this (fake) "coming out" of the U.S. intelligence, the flightradar24 info from the other day about 4 MIGs flying in formation over... Arizona, was it?

The only reasonable explanation in that case being... U.S. pilots training to fly MIGs before being shipped off to... Romania.

Remember the information about "Ukrainian" planes using Romanian airports to conduct strikes on Russian targets in Ukraine?

Well... if we're to believe flightradar24... all of those "Ukrainian" planes are actually being flown by U'S. pilots.

If that isn't the very definition of (one-sided, since Russians aren't striking back), undeclared by still direct, U.S. war against Russia, then I honestly don't know what is.

Do we really have to see U.S. nukes obliterating Moscow to start calling it a U.S. war against Russia?

That would be incredibly dumb.

Oh, like the pot calling the kettle black? Iraq was a super power right? Or the loss in Vietnam, those jugganauts...wtf are you exactly talking about? Since when has the US not bullied an undermanned, under equipt country?

Draft the hippies

it's a pathocracy of narcissists and psychopaths (practically no difference) with sociopaths as their dogs (law enforcement).

the way these pricks play is intimidation and bluffing.

the issue here is, russia's both got the nuts hand and would open themselves to indefinite buttfucking if they folded.

guess what's gonna happen.

Why not? There is no possibility of retaliation... Putin can't retaliate against something he told his people didn't happen... Which ever one is telling the truth, fact still remains that Russians say it wasn't attacked and was just a ship board fire... True or not it can be put out as a low risk propaganda.

The Kremlings know this. That is why an increasing number of public figures in Russia are agitating in favor of nuking USA and Britain. And those are also military officers, MPs, journalists and TV-personalities.

US tracked, monitored, gave cooridinates, supplied weapons, supplied advisors, shared satelite photographs. Then used proxy uke to push button.

Draft the Wokes.

^^^^^
There is a possibility here.

Poker it is and we know who is bluffing.

The COVID, Russia Ukraine War Occur Because You Guys Do Not Recognize Me The Real Messiah Buddha
Full article:
[link to infosavior.wordpress.com (secure)]
[link to infosavior.aimoo.com]

Are the Russians really so incompetent that they keep sailing within range of Ukrainian Neptune missiles?

The MSM sure loves stirring the pot to get us in a war to detract from Biden failure as a President !
If a a nuke is launched you can bet it will be "Trump's Fault"...….

Behind closed doors, I think Biden and Putin are very worried that this conflict has taken on an inertia that is too strong to stop, and that they can no longer contain it.

B/c they are so gd honest.

You may not be far off on that. Obama is trying to re-create the world in his likeness.

The Russians must bow down to the Anal God and the sodomites.

Cover for France no doubt.

This Just In at the WGON Newsroom:

[imgur] [link to imgur.com (secure)] :cage: :jay: :hestonlol2:
[link to imgur.com (secure)]

bug chasers are now nuke chasers