Great Power contentions

[Montmorency]

How the Russians could have propagandized Moskva:



What they went with:

[Pannonian]

How the Russians could have propagandized Moskva:



What they went with:

The Russians will raise the Moskva for a space-faring mission.

[spmetla]

BTW, spmetla, do you buy now that a swarm of Iranian ASM could sink a carrier in the Strait of Hormuz?

It could of course, it is always possible. A US Carrier Task Force though does have a lot of defensive firepower though so it'd take a few factors to get through the missile defense and screening ships.
The USS Cole was almost sunk by a zodiac with a bomb aboard, no ships are invulnerable. The USS Missouri was almost hit in the Gulf War by Iraqi ASMs too, a Carrier could also be targeted though generally they'd be farther off shore (something the Persian Gulf naturally makes difficult). The UK Task Force in the Falklands lost several ships to ASMs too. They are a very capable threat but just like ATGMs are a threat to Tanks it doesn't make them obsolete either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDfDnZ7FiZg

The Moskva wasn't exactly a top-notch air defense platform though, despite the limited upgrades over time. It's employment also does make it seem as if the Russians didn't take a Ukrainian ASM threat seriously as its screens couldn't protect it.
This together with the Russian Navy not having really had modern threat exercises or any combat experience beyond shore bombardment/support probably means their tactics to defend against modern threats was sub-par.

Also, if the Russian Navy is anything like its army and air force then we can expect poorly trained crews with poor equipment and leadership attempting to do damage control and failing. Looking at the Russian coverup of the Kursk incident in peace-time I can't imagine we'll get any new light shed on this from the Russian side anytime soon.

Edit: Interesting video using the DCS game to try and see how it could be sunk in this flight sim as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxwh6MGLJNc

[Montmorency]

It is undeniable that any American fleet will have a much stronger defensive screen than a lone cruiser (for comparison, the Slava-class cruiser is equivalent in size to a WW2-era Brooklyn-class cruiser, of which the USS Phoenix/ARA General Belgrano was an example). But by the same token, the Slava-class experienced catastrophic secondary damage from just two missiles, of which the Ukrainian Neptune arsenal could potentially fire 72 near-simultaneously (18 launchers x 4 tubes each, carrying 330lb warheads). So the interesting exercise is to scale the offense to the defense and see how it hashes out, in theory.

Speaking of which, torpedo drone - that's a new one. Maybe we could procure some from Iran?

Another lesson of the war: China could never concentrate enough ground power in Taiwan to clear the eastern, mountainous, half of irregular resistance with even moderate foreign naval intervention to contend with.

[Pannonian]

It is undeniable that any American fleet will have a much stronger defensive screen than a lone cruiser (for comparison, the Slava-class cruiser is equivalent in size to a WW2-era Brooklyn-class cruiser, of which the USS Phoenix/ARA General Belgrano was an example). But by the same token, the Slava-class experienced catastrophic secondary damage from just two missiles, of which the Ukrainian Neptune arsenal could potentially fire 72 near-simultaneously (18 launchers x 4 tubes each, carrying 330lb warheads). So the interesting exercise is to scale the offense to the defense and see how it hashes out, in theory.

Speaking of which, torpedo drone - that's a new one. Maybe we could procure some from Iran?

Another lesson of the war: China could never concentrate enough ground power in Taiwan to clear the eastern, mountainous, half of irregular resistance with even moderate foreign naval intervention to contend with.

There's a gamer youtube channel called The Mighty Jingles, who used to serve in the Royal Navy. During the Gulf War, his ship, a relatively non-essential vessel, was used to provide defensive cover for a hospital ship. This took the form of interposing its broadside between the hospital ship and any possible incoming missiles, so the missiles would hit it and not the hospital ship.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

There's a gamer youtube channel called The Mighty Jingles, who used to serve in the Royal Navy. During the Gulf War, his ship, a relatively non-essential vessel, was used to provide defensive cover for a hospital ship. This took the form of interposing its broadside between the hospital ship and any possible incoming missiles, so the missiles would hit it and not the hospital ship.

That is actually part of the training for all escort vessels. At the last instance they are to interpose themselves between the protected ship(s) and low flying missiles or torpedoes if possible. Not the part of the job that goes into the recruiting videos.

[spmetla]

It is undeniable that any American fleet will have a much stronger defensive screen than a lone cruiser (for comparison, the Slava-class cruiser is equivalent in size to a WW2-era Brooklyn-class cruiser, of which the USS Phoenix/ARA General Belgrano was an example). But by the same token, the Slava-class experienced catastrophic secondary damage from just two missiles, of which the Ukrainian Neptune arsenal could potentially fire 72 near-simultaneously (18 launchers x 4 tubes each, carrying 330lb warheads). So the interesting exercise is to scale the offense to the defense and see how it hashes out, in theory.

A massive volume of missiles would certainly test the defenses of any surface group, looking at the Slava class itself that's exactly what it was designed to do as well, massive launch of super-sonic SSM to attack US Carrier Groups while providing a strong air-defense against those same carrier strike aircraft and missiles too.

The US Aegis system is designed exactly against such a threat, it's not perfect and missiles will always get through though, which is why battle damage control drills are so damn important. Consider how many US ships have actually sunk from enemy actions and accidents over the last few decades. Almost all have been recovered and put back into service. Crew drills, training, low-level initiative are absolutely important in the chaos of a successful enemy attack. Fleet drills in supporting other ships in duress and good salvage teams/fleet tug boats are all part of what make the USN so successful too and it can't be done on the cheap when projecting power away from your home ports.

That two missiles knocked it out, is in itself not too crazy, they are designed to take out ships. I'm more amazed that they got through the Moskva's air defenses, it has a lot and looking at the footage of it listing, the sea state and weather doesn't appear to have been an inital factor.

Interesting Twitter thread on looking at the eventual sinking:
https://twitter.com/johnkonrad/statu...37566356008961

So it's likely been fully abandoned. It's possible that some people remain down below but staying in the engine room without proper boundary cooling and topside assistance from trained shipboard firefighters would be suicidal.
By most accounts, this flagship ship was critical to these war efforts. My best assumption - again based on too little evidence - is because of
1) the importance of this ship to the war effort
2) because the Montreux convention prevents Russia from sending a replacement
3) the calm weather, reserve buoyancy, and the fact she still had power means she could possibly have been saved
4) the fact the helideck was smoke-free

For these reasons my best guess is the captain of the Moskva abandoned his ship too early.

Edit: Interesting videos on some discussion on what failures enabled the sinking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgM4tAvnlL4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snjfbj_EwW4 These guys aren't experts but are fairly knowledgeable.

Another lesson of the war: China could never concentrate enough ground power in Taiwan to clear the eastern, mountainous, half of irregular resistance with even moderate foreign naval intervention to contend with.

Absolutely, I think China is seeing that they need to absolutely be able to create a blockade to prevent any weapons making it in after any open war starts.
For the counter-insurgency, guerilla fight I imagine they saw the value that Ukrainian connectivity to the world was for rallying resistance and international support so somehow cutting Taiwan off completely from the internet/outside world would be key to allow for the authoritarian style crushing of resistance currently pursued by Russia.
Also, I think they've seen the value that a real leader like Zelensky can have on rallying people to the flag. A lesser man would have fled the country as we offered him and who knows what that would have meant to the Ukrainian war effort. A decapitation strike or some sort of initial civil unrest (perhaps contesting election results....) may be needed to ensure a lack of Taiwan unity against a PRC invasion.

As for the foreign naval intervention, I think China is seeing that the only thing keeping the West limited in its support to Ukraine is the nuclear threat. Banking on the West being soft and not wanting to suffer economic consequences is probably no longer viable (except perhaps Germany and Austria cough cough).
If nuclear force is threatened that may be the only thing that deters the US. However, I think the US would call the bluff and attempt to resupply Taiwan under US flagged ships thereby making any outright act of war a PRC action so that the US isn't seen as escalating it.

To me though, this only underscores the absolute necessity of some sort of 'trip-wire' force in Taiwan to ensure that no number of weak-knees and spinelessness cause the US to back out of supporting Taiwan. Doing so would force any future union between the PRC and ROC to be done mutually and diplomatically, perhaps in a future in which the PRC has somehow liberalized or the ROC populace has bought into authoritarian-mercantilist-communism. Either way, a peaceful unification or divergence down their own paths should be the goal.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The time frame of the sinking does lead me to think it was a damage control issue. That said, it only took one missile to bring about HNS Sheffield's demise -- as you note, they are designed to break ships.

[Montmorency]

I've now seen at least two videos of BMPs with 30mm autocannons conflagrating or seriously damaging a Russian MBT (T-72/80). The extreme effectiveness of artillery against armor in this war was already something else, but a 30mm gun killing an MBT is brain-breaking. I'm far from a military buff, but I've had to throw out much of what I thought I knew about military hardware, and strategy. Even in WW2 the universal 37mm AT guns at the outset of the war were almost immediately obsolete against common tank types.

So does this mean a Sherman tank could knock out an Abrams without an unreasonable amount of luck?

A massive volume of missiles would certainly test the defenses of any surface group, looking at the Slava class itself that's exactly what it was designed to do as well, massive launch of super-sonic SSM to attack US Carrier Groups while providing a strong air-defense against those same carrier strike aircraft and missiles too.

The US Aegis system is designed exactly against such a threat, it's not perfect and missiles will always get through though, which is why battle damage control drills are so damn important. Consider how many US ships have actually sunk from enemy actions and accidents over the last few decades. Almost all have been recovered and put back into service. Crew drills, training, low-level initiative are absolutely important in the chaos of a successful enemy attack. Fleet drills in supporting other ships in duress and good salvage teams/fleet tug boats are all part of what make the USN so successful too and it can't be done on the cheap when projecting power away from your home ports.

That two missiles knocked it out, is in itself not too crazy, they are designed to take out ships. I'm more amazed that they got through the Moskva's air defenses, it has a lot and looking at the footage of it listing, the sea state and weather doesn't appear to have been an inital factor.

Interesting Twitter thread on looking at the eventual sinking:
https://twitter.com/johnkonrad/statu...37566356008961

Edit: Interesting videos on some discussion on what failures enabled the sinking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgM4tAvnlL4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snjfbj_EwW4 These guys aren't experts but are fairly knowledgeable.


Absolutely, I think China is seeing that they need to absolutely be able to create a blockade to prevent any weapons making it in after any open war starts.
For the counter-insurgency, guerilla fight I imagine they saw the value that Ukrainian connectivity to the world was for rallying resistance and international support so somehow cutting Taiwan off completely from the internet/outside world would be key to allow for the authoritarian style crushing of resistance currently pursued by Russia.
Also, I think they've seen the value that a real leader like Zelensky can have on rallying people to the flag. A lesser man would have fled the country as we offered him and who knows what that would have meant to the Ukrainian war effort. A decapitation strike or some sort of initial civil unrest (perhaps contesting election results....) may be needed to ensure a lack of Taiwan unity against a PRC invasion.

As for the foreign naval intervention, I think China is seeing that the only thing keeping the West limited in its support to Ukraine is the nuclear threat. Banking on the West being soft and not wanting to suffer economic consequences is probably no longer viable (except perhaps Germany and Austria cough cough).
If nuclear force is threatened that may be the only thing that deters the US. However, I think the US would call the bluff and attempt to resupply Taiwan under US flagged ships thereby making any outright act of war a PRC action so that the US isn't seen as escalating it.

To me though, this only underscores the absolute necessity of some sort of 'trip-wire' force in Taiwan to ensure that no number of weak-knees and spinelessness cause the US to back out of supporting Taiwan. Doing so would force any future union between the PRC and ROC to be done mutually and diplomatically, perhaps in a future in which the PRC has somehow liberalized or the ROC populace has bought into authoritarian-mercantilist-communism. Either way, a peaceful unification or divergence down their own paths should be the goal.

The 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe helped set Russia on the path to downsizing its military severalfold (even if Russia would trend in that direction anyway with ). The last great Cold War arms control treaty IIRC. That the Russian military at its peak can only be a feeble shadow of the Soviet one at any point in the Cold War is one of those latent decisive factors in the present war. Meanwhile, the Chinese government has reportedly signalled its intent to reach 1000 nuclear warheads by the end of the decade (on top of its unprecedented peacetime militarization).

I don't think the US government has moved quite fast enough in its volume and caliber of assistance to Ukraine, but assuming a Russian TKO by the end of the year, we have a truly historic opportunity to pursue mutually-deescalatory arms control agreements between all three nuclear great powers. Everyone has been engaging in nuclear rearmament over the past 5-10 years, and a Russian defeat would probably be the very last opportunity to reverse course within the existing global order. That's in everyone's interest, as is less-overheated conventional production.

Obviously, abruptly pushing troops into Taiwan kills any chance at diplomacy and puts us in a bad light internationally (one of the most important geopolitical aspects of the Ukraine war is that Russia is so self-evidently the aggressor and instigator of conflict). I don't have anything against our administration privately intimating that such an option is on the table depending on the course of negotiations however. Parallel to the effects of arms control treaties, it's also noteworthy that moderate Western sanctions played a significant role in limiting Russia's capacity to rearm even when Putin made it a priority. A lot in the realm of economic integration has come on the table with China, which is another bargaining chip for the US either way.

Next consider that one of the causes of the Ukraine war was the dramatic lack of understanding of either side on the other. Most of the West interpreted Putin as a pragmatic bluffer; Putin saw the West as on the verge of decay and collapse (well, more so than it really is). Putin probably was bluffing to an extent during the winter - very very few world leaders beyond the age of warlords prefer the waging of war to successful coercion - but as his unhinged maximalist, yet indirect, demands left no room but for NATO to easily rebuke them, he painted himself into a corner where delusions of a low-risk gamble were his only alternative to capitulation. Imagine if world leaders were so up front as to drop the rhetoric of "grave disappointment" and "severe consequences" and just say what they meant - if Putin told us up front that Ukraine could not in his worldview be allowed to drift away from the Russian sphere as a matter of national identity, or if NATO offered a unified ultimatum against Putin describing all the military and economic support it would deliver Ukraine in the event of war. Actually forcing everyone to be realistic instead of pretending that what they were seeing was what they wanted to see.

The foreign policies of both the USSR and USA during the Cold War were a notorious cavalcade of stupid, blindly-stumbling bullshit by hawks who had no idea what they were doing and didn't understand the first thing about their adversaries. But even in the 21st century, lack of communication and understanding continues to beset great power politics. It's quite likely that Russian, Chinese, and American foreign policy elites persist in holding stereotypical, poorly-supported worldviews regarding each other. If we have an opportunity for radical transparency and engagement, at least behind closed doors, it's far preferable to once again filling in the blanks toward mutually-assured (conventional) destruction.

It's time to retire the idea that geopolitical facts are merely, reciprocally, obvious to all actors as a matter of higher knowledge or impulse. We keep finding out that organizations and countries are led by humans, not by esoteric poli-sci algorithms.

(A vigorous good-faith effort on our part is also useful in sussing out Xi's intent regardless of outcome; the State Department could probably gain a lot of information out of the process.)

The US Aegis system is designed exactly against such a threat, it's not perfect and missiles will always get through though, which is why battle damage control drills are so damn important. Consider how many US ships have actually sunk from enemy actions and accidents over the last few decades. Almost all have been recovered and put back into service. Crew drills, training, low-level initiative are absolutely important in the chaos of a successful enemy attack. Fleet drills in supporting other ships in duress and good salvage teams/fleet tug boats are all part of what make the USN so successful too and it can't be done on the cheap when projecting power away from your home ports.

Do the publicized series of USN snafus over past few years point to a slippage of discipline and standards though? There was that government brief last year condemning failures of leadership and training in the USN.


Side note: Unlike Russia, China is absolute bottom-tier in the field of anti-American propaganda.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

By analogy, imagine using this music video as anti-Russian propaganda.