Precise reason remains unknown, but at least now there’s no doubt any more that the ship went down: even Moscow has officially confirmed this.
The way they confirmed that was nothing but curious. While it was certain, already yesterday early in the morning, that the ship went down, no, they continued insisting on all sorts of fantasies for nearly 20 hours. ‘Fire under control, crew evacuated’, ‘towed to the port’, even ‘reached port on own power’…..anything, just not ‘sunk’. Only once there could be no denial any more did they admit, ‘capsized in storm while under tow’…
Re. ‘why’…. sure, I’m skeptical about Ukrainian claims to have hit Moskva with two Neptune AShMs. For me it’s always, ‘evidence, or it didn’t happen’.
That said, few things were always beyond doubt:
With hindsight, one cannot escape the impression: she was really ‘paraded around’, probably with the mass of her systems in non-operational condition.
In my opinion, it was precisely the configuration of her weaponry that doomed the ship. Missile cruisers of the Slava/Moskva-class are ‘brimming with weapons’. They’re really full of them:
That’s lots of warheads, lots of shells, and even more missile propellant — all waiting for opportunity to convert even a minor accident into a catastrophe.
That’s no ‘built-in survivability’, though.
And yet, this was typical for designs of major Soviet warships in the 1970s: I still recall discussions about how ‘full of arms’ were Kinda, Kresta, and then the Slava-classes — especially in comparison to such US-designs like Spruance (guided missile destroyers) and Ticonderoga, (guided missile cruisers). That’s not to talk about nuclear-powered (and extremely expensive) California- and Virginia-classes of cruisers, which were approximately the same in size like Slava/Moskva-class, but as of the 1970s underway with only two 127mm guns and two-three missile launchers.
However, in turn, this ‘brimming with weapons’ resulted in a hull where ‘explosives were everywhere’ . This might appear ‘unimportant’ at the first look, but is even more so important considering that already the Soviet Navy of the mid-1980s was critically short on money to properly maintain its warships: the Russian Navy thus ‘just’ took over the same tradition. Moreover, there were always doubts about the Russian fire-fighting technologies and practices, and — something valid for the entire Russian armed forces — handling of ammunition.
Bottom line: perhaps Moskva was really hit by one or two of Ukrainian Neptune AShMs. Perhaps not. Perhaps she hit a mine. Perhaps there was really ‘just’ some sort of an accident. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter: the flagship of the Black Sea Navy blew up and sunk. And it’s no surprise she sunk.
Check out Helion & Company website for books featuring interesting stories written by The Aviation Geek Club contributor Tom Cooper.
Read more reviews of most important developments in Ukraine written by Tom Cooper HERE.
Photo credit: Reuters
The F4U Corsair The Vought F4U Corsair was a high-performance fighter aircraft, either carrier or… Read More
Stealth aircraft By the 1970s, new materials and techniques allowed engineers to design an aircraft… Read More
Turkish Kaan National Combat Aircraft maiden flight Filmed on Feb. 21, 2024 the video in… Read More
Operation Deliberate Force In reaction to the resulting 1992 air war between self-proclaimed Serbian Krajina… Read More
The EF-111A Raven EF-111A Ravens, known affectionately as "Fat Tails" and "Spark Varks," (the F-111… Read More
Belgian Air Force 'Dream Viper' F-16 Solo Display Team disbanded A big loss for the… Read More