Hacker News Reader

Comment by optimalsolver | Hacker News Reader

It's actually the largest warship sunk in combat since WWII.

It was slightly larger than the Belgrano.

According to the article it definitely will be a very significant event if it turns out to be the result of a Ukrainian missile attack which has not been confirmed.

I'm not sure how it could be confirmed that Ukrainian actions cause the ship to sink. Hardly likely that Russia will say so even if it is true.

Maybe someone with expertise in these matters could shed light on the question. Certainly there are more than a few people around the globe who are highly invested in knowing the answer to that one.

> not sure how it could be confirmed

The Ukrainians were reportedly flying a Bayraktar TB2 drone nearby at the time (used as a spotter/distraction for their 2 Neptun anti-ship cruise missiles), and might have video footage. Whether they would want to release it is another story.

There could plausibly be intercepted audio of radio conversations among the Russian military.

Aside: The current Ukrainian gov’t response is pretty snarky: “Oleksiy Arestovych, aide to Zelensky administration chief of staff Yermak, likens fire at Russia’s flagship cruiser Moskva to blast at Belgorod fuel depot, says both happen to appear as some bad luck.” https://twitter.com/myroslavapetsa/status/151440038235680358...

Thank you, good points. Though IIRC the drone was reported to have been shot down but it could have transmitted footage before that happened. If Ukraine has audio recordings that would be very interesting, but as you say they might be reluctant to share it.

That was a different ship and different drone:

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1514401183900831756

> I'm not sure how it could be confirmed that Ukrainian actions cause the ship to sink.

One way to dispel doubt is to sink more ships with more missiles.

That's some praxis right there.

Ship trackers have noted that the remainder of the Russian black sea fleet has since moved further South [1]. If true, that's a fairly interesting indicator.

[1] https://news.yahoo.com/russian-ships-heading-south-russian-1...

To be fair the Moskva was the most capable radar/AA platform for the fleet. Without it they are also more vulnerable to manned/unmanned aircraft.

Thing is that although this attack was from a shore battery (assuming the Ukrainian account is true,) the Neptune missile is actually an air launch design. So unless the Russian navy moves out of range of an SU-27 or whatnot they're still vulnerable.

Iraq hit the US navy with missiles launched from a business jet. Given what we've seen to date the Ukrainians are at least as resourceful.

Bad time to be on a Russian warship in the Black Sea.

Not that I’m any expert, but it sounds pretty much like you are incorrect?

When deployed, a Neptune coastal defence system comprises a USPU-360 truck-based mobile launcher, four missiles, a TZM-360 transport/reload vehicle, a RCP-360 command and control vehicle, and a special cargo vehicle. The system is designed to operate up to 25 kilometres (16 mi) inland of the coastline*

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-360_Neptune

You'll note in the link you cite that the missile used in this system is a derivative of the Kh-35 anti-ship cruise missile, which Russia can launch from most of their combat jets and various helicopters, several of which are also operated by Ukraine. The missile is fundamentally an air launch design. When launched from a ship, shore battery or helicopter a booster is used to accelerate the missile to cruise speed. A booster is unnecessary when launched from a high speed aircraft.

Now, I don't know whether Ukraine has retained air launch capability in the derivative, but that is plausible. I do know that war motivates tremendous initiative, so if not you can bet they're working on it.

Ahh I see. Still, seems like it still isn’t that correct to call the Neptune an air launch? Like, we don’t know, but clearly from the available info, the Ukrainians have engineered it to be a ground launch. I mean, it requires 3 other vehicles besides the launcher to even launch it. Or so Wikipedia says, which I’ll admit is putting a lot of faith in Wikipedia

It's a heavily modified derivative. It does not have an air-launch capability.

Would you provide a reference?

I know your reply is being downvoted, but this part is important: <<Iraq hit the US navy with missiles launched from a business jet.>>

As I understand, this is true. Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident

  However, later reporting has asserted that the attacking aircraft was a Dassault Falcon 50 business jet which had been modified with a radar and missile hardpoints to carry two AM-39 Exocet missiles for anti-shipping operations.

What a brilliant guerilla-style strategy! I am surprised that Ukraine has not considered the same... but maybe they do not have anything like the Exocet in their arsenal.

This isn't true. They're launched from vehicle-borne platforms:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlQ5Hs5OOGU

Got to move away from those onboard fires!

Pretty sure Ukraine would love to make that happen. If they did that Ukraine probably wouldn't care if people thought sinking other Russian ships didn't constitute proof Ukrainians sank this one.

Ukraine may not have more Neptun missiles. They were accepted into military use just weeks before the war started. Only 1 launching unit has been produced, and only a few missiles could be assembled from parts because the manufacturing facility was destroyed by Russia's cruise missiles in the first days of the war.

The scarcity may explain why Ukraine waited for 50 days to hit the cruiser. It was an "all or nothing" moment.

Also, there were reports that Ukrainian navy used 1 Neptun missile to hit a smaller ship, frigate "Essen", with less success.

It would honestly be pretty significant also if they accidentally blew up their own flagship.

> which has not been confirmed

Who do you expect to confirm it? Ukraine? They did it. Russia? They will never ever admit it. The US? They might not have technical means for that despite lots of flying surveillance assets in that area.

The question is also why?

Ukraine got what it wanted from the news. There's no point rubbing it in Russia's face any more, enraging the russians even more.

The same for US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com