Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

That depends of what you call modern warship.
The design of the Slava class is from the 60's and the ship has laid down in 76, launched in 79 and commissioned in 82. Is an old warship, of a not particular good design, with apparently crappy security/damage-control measures.
Exactly, literally old enough to be hoping for grandchildren in a few years, if it had survived. 😂

In some related news:


Slavic way of warfare, e.g. get bribes, sell your gubrmint equipment, fuck off and don't care about the politicians, is still alive and well in Ukraine.
 
Neither of those even mention the Moskva. Again, it's not a replacement ship, it's just intended to replace it as the flagship. They still intended to keep the Moskva as a missile cruiser, which now they cannot do. This is a pretty big loss.
What makes you think that they would keep a ship built almost half a century ago that relies on missiles that are 40 years old in their current incarnation?
Especially since they are trying to upgrade their fleet from the ground up, with lighter(for the moment) ships that can carry much more modern ordnance?

Also, I didn't realize this, but the Bosporus is closed to warships. So with that, Russia can't get it's ships from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea, which could end up being pretty bad long term. I'd rate any chance of an amphibious invasion as pretty low to non-existent now.
One very old ship down, about 40 more vessels to go, plus coastal aviation and coastal missile defenses.
Also, the Black sea is currently closed to all warships, not just Russian ones, and Ukraine's navy got clobbered during the war.
So, yeah, the threat is pretty minimal.
 
What makes you think that they would keep a ship built almost half a century ago that relies on missiles that are 40 years old in their current incarnation?
Especially since they are trying to upgrade their fleet from the ground up, with lighter(for the moment) ships that can carry much more modern ordnance?
I mean... The fact that they did keep it right up until the Ukrainians and Neptune took it from them?
 
What makes you think that they would keep a ship built almost half a century ago that relies on missiles that are 40 years old in their current incarnation?
Especially since they are trying to upgrade their fleet from the ground up, with lighter(for the moment) ships that can carry much more modern ordnance?
Because the new ship doesn't even serve in the same role as the previous ship. Also, the age of the missile design doesn't matter too much. The Tomahawk and Patriot are still used despite being designed in the early 1980s.

So yeah, that wasn't a replacement ship.

One very old ship down, about 40 more vessels to go, plus coastal aviation and coastal missile defenses.
Also, the Black sea is currently closed to all warships, not just Russian ones, and Ukraine's navy got clobbered during the war.
So, yeah, the threat is pretty minimal.
A lot of those are stuck in the Mediterranean, so no, not 40. And on top of that, most of those ships don't even matter, only the ones that can threaten stuff on land from the sea (the amphibious landing ships might matter from a supply standpoint also, but they aren't making any opposed landings anytime soon).
 
Because the new ship doesn't even serve in the same role as the previous ship. Also, the age of the missile design doesn't matter too much. The Tomahawk and Patriot are still used despite being designed in the early 1980s.

So yeah, that wasn't a replacement ship.
If you take a look at all of the newer Russian ships you will notice that they can carry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks which is the successor to the P-500(P-1000) used on the Slava cruisers, and Zirkon and Kalibr.
The Kalibr and P-800s are also what the new Russian subs are getting.
To my knowledge Russia has not made any plans to put any of those on Slava-class cruisers.

And IMHO, that helicarrier, that can also carry stealth drones, can probably provide a great command ship for the latest Russian frigates and corvettes armed with all the weapons I listed, since the drones can be used explicitly as guidance for Zirkon IIRC.

A lot of those are stuck in the Mediterranean, so no, not 40. And on top of that, most of those ships don't even matter, only the ones that can threaten stuff on land from the sea (the amphibious landing ships might matter from a supply standpoint also, but they aren't making any opposed landings anytime soon).
Actually the Montreaux convention actually permits ships returning to their home port through the Bosporus.

So no.
 
In other words "Nuh, uh! They started it." theatre for the Russian public and history books.

Yeah it's a bit of an odd reaction from Russian commentators, media and pro-Russian social media accounts wanting to escalate this special military action into a war over the loss of an apparently sixty year old ship (as pointed out it was designed in the 60's) that was going to be replaced any day now by a ship with four times the tonnage and furthermore, as we can see from the reliable OSTINT account from below, was clearly damaged and sunk not by Ukrainian fires, but some sort of munitions accident.

Anyway, here is ArmchairWarlord's take on the whole situation, and I generally see it as superior to all the chicknehawk quacking going on here:


These above Truths make responses like these below truly mystifying.





This strong reaction or response, even if it doesn't lead to anything tangible, is very peculiar considering the Moskva was clearly an obsolete, easily replaceable and expendable flagship that was sunk as the result of a rare accident. 🤔

EDIT:

Oh looks like someone actually translated that Russian State Media segment.



Strong reactions and condemnation for the results of this Munitions Fire and Poor Weather that resulted in the ships sinking. Perhaps they mistook the Neptune Missiles for its actual divine namesake?
 
Ukrainian cruiser Ukraina - Wikipedia

motivation to capture a replacement: +100%
It is not finished and probably deteriorated after being left in dock for decades.
It is also a dated piece of junk, it will be a waste for Russia to waste time with it and they should focus more on the production of Goroshkov and Grigorovich-class corvettes, the new Ivan Rogov helicarriers and on the Leader-class project that was supposed to replace their other bigger missile-carrying ships.
 
Yeah it's a bit of an odd reaction from Russian commentators, media and pro-Russian social media accounts wanting to escalate this special military action into a war over the loss of an apparently sixty year old ship (as pointed out it was designed in the 60's) that was going to be replaced any day now by a ship with four times the tonnage and furthermore, as we can see from the reliable OSTINT account from below, was clearly damaged and sunk not by Ukrainian fires, but some sort of munitions accident.

It was going to be replaced as the fleet flagship, not retired from service entirely. Old as he was, the Slava/Moskva class remains the second most powerful missile cruiser in Russian service, especially with only one operationally active Kirov class cruiser.
 
Last edited:
It was going to be replaced as the fleet flagship, not retired from service entirely. Old as he was, the Slava/Moskva class remains the second most powerful missile cruiser in Russian service, especially with only one operationally active Kirov class cruiser.
Yeah, sure, and are the tubes and fire control even compatible with actually modern missiles?
 
d7791de28df5311501c0d7148c8edfe7906d2a741f36b3313403c15d5ed721f3.png


Sorry, can't resist.
 
I just love how everyone is obsessing over a ~50 year old ship when the Invasion we are supposedly discussing is conducted primarily on land and the other party no longer has any naval assets.
Losing a fleet's flagship while conducting primarily land operation whereas the other party no longer has any naval assets is...
Remarkable.

In the end, it's just another (but highly visible) sign how badly Putin and his generals have miscalculated. This invasion turns out to be a classic case of "small victorious war".
Putin wanted to demonstrate strength to NATO, shore up support at home and strengthen his hand in Ukraine. Instead his military is getting humiliated. If Ukraine can effectively resist conventional Russian invasion, what hope does Russia have against NATO? And what was a decade of heavy military spending for? And the longer the operation drags on, the weaker Putin looks at home. And there is basically no chance of installing pro-Russian regime in Kiev unless at least partial mobilization is declared.

Again - invading Ukraine, a larger and more populated country than Iraq, using merely 100.000 soldiers was a decision without a precedent in modern history. Ukrainian military heavily outnumbers Russian forces in the region, while Russia holds advantage in firepower. Ukrainian military can afford to take losses: they have already declared mobilization and they have nothing to lose at this point. Russian forces are too few as it is, losing those few is problematic to say the least. Which is why Russian military isn't getting anywhere compared to the first weeks. Some progress in the south was bought by abandoning all gains in the north.

The only way for Russia to break current stalemate is to mobilize the reserves - to have warm bodies to control the rear and to plug secondary directions. Of course, partial mobilization will be another humiliating demonstration of weakness. If Putin needs to mobilize to beat Ukraine, then his demands of NATO become laughable. And the enthusiasm for the war, already not that high, will plummet once regular folks start get notices from the local commissar about state-sponsored tank tours to Ukraine. Previously Putin has attempted to pretend there are no conscripts in Ukraine precisely for that reason.

Tell people someone is getting bombed far away because state reasons and people will swallow it. Tell people they have to actually participate and... well, there are some very uncomfortable precedents in modern Russian history.
 
Last edited:
Some people have ignored a net positive of the sinking of the Moskva, which is that it could become a niche tourist destination for divers years to come!



FQaVBexWUAI6hed


FQRucrEWUAQe3Ue


FQZx75nXsAApmQd


A replacement for the Moskva, something smaller and far more modern and capable, has been seized by the Black Seas Fleet in Mariupol. Thank you Ukraine.



It also has a life preserver so that ninety percent of the crew won't go down with the ship or whatever (I really hope that's not the case).
 
Yeah, sure, and are the tubes and fire control even compatible with actually modern missiles?

You're kidding, right? Moskva was upgraded to P-1000 Vulkan missiles for her offensive batteries the same as Varyag, and the S-300F system remains the most advanced naval SAM system in the entire Russian bloc's inventory, and the second most advanced SAM system of any sort, behind only the S-400 system.

The only upgrade you could possibly make to his air defense, and that of the larger Kirov class (which has the *same* air defense missiles) would be a naval version of the S-400, which doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
You're kidding, right? Moskva was upgraded to P-1000 Vulkan missiles for her offensive batteries the same as Varyag, and the S-300F system remains the most advanced naval SAM system in the entire Russian bloc's inventory, and the second most advanced SAM system of any sort, behind only the S-400 system.

The only upgrade you could possibly make to his air defense, and that of the larger Kirov class (which has the *same* air defense missiles) would be a naval version of the S-400, which doesn't exist.
And, P-1000 is an upgrade of P-500, P-1000 is over 30 years out of date, initially deployed in 83 iirc.

Moreover, newer corvettes and frigates and subs, both AIP and and nuclear, built from the start with stealth capabilities make sense than older, larger ships that are 50 years out of date.

Moreover, those work fine for defense in Russia's near abroad and coastal waters and keeping dated Slava cruisers on life support when more Admiral Goroshkov and Gregorevich class ships make more sense.
They can carry stuff that can kill carriers just as well as the Slava can, and if you are dealing with carrier groups two or three platforms are better than one IMO.
 
And, P-1000 is an upgrade of P-500, P-1000 is over 30 years out of date, initially deployed in 83 iirc.

Moreover, newer corvettes and frigates and subs, both AIP and and nuclear, built from the start with stealth capabilities make sense than older, larger ships that are 50 years out of date.

Moreover, those work fine for defense in Russia's near abroad and coastal waters and keeping dated Slava cruisers on life support when more Admiral Goroshkov and Gregorevich class ships make more sense.
They can carry stuff that can kill carriers just as well as the Slava can, and if you are dealing with carrier groups two or three platforms are better than one IMO.
How many if these ships are built, and are home port in the black sea
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top