Hacker News Reader

Comment by topspin | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

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!

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.

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.

That's some praxis right there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com