Moskva
The Fog of War, Part 2: The sinking of the Moskva is an example of how difficult it is to determine actual events during a war. Also, some journalists are terrible (again).
The research for the first article in this series, Attack of the Super Drones, included reading quite a lot about the sinking of the Moskva and the rescue tug Spasatel Vasiliy Bekh. One interesting aspect of the available information is how little of it there is, and how hard it is to assess with certainty what actually happened.
The currently accepted version of events is straightforward: On 13 April the Moskva was hit by two Ukrainian-built Neptune missiles and sank the next day. Two months later, on 17 June, the Spasatel Vasiliy Bekh was struck by two American-built Harpoon missiles and sank shortly afterward.
The Russians have confirmed the sinking of both vessels, but not the missile hits on the Moskva, which they claim sank after a fire led to an ammunition explosion.
Москва (Moskva)
The Moskva (originally named the Slava) and was the first in a planned class of ten ships, of which only three were actually completed (their current names are Moskva, Marshal Ustinov, and Varyag). At about 12,500 tons fully loaded, their primary armament is 16 long range anti-ship missiles and 64 anti-aircraft missiles.
With another 40 short range surface to air missiles and six close in weapons systems for missile defense, a pair of 130 mm guns, plus anti-submarine weapons, these are well-armed ships. Although built 30 - 40 years ago, these ships are still some of the most valuable assets in the Russian Navy. Here’s a photo of the Moskva from roughly the same angle as the picture of the damaged ship above.
Everyone agrees the Moskva was damaged on 13 April and sank the next day. The Russians claim a fire on board led to ammunition blowing up, while the Ukrainians are claiming the initial damage was caused by two Neptune anti-ship missiles.
The flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, the Moskva missile cruiser, was badly damaged when ammunition on board blew up, Interfax news agency quoted the defense ministry as saying on Thursday.
Interfax said the crew had been evacuated. It blamed the blast on a fire and said the cause was being investigated.
A Ukrainian official earlier said the Moskva had been hit by two missiles but did not give any evidence. (gCaptain1)
In the image of the sinking ship, the hull number (121) is blocked by smoke and the ship’s name on the stern is below the waterline due to the list to port. But the ship shown in the leaked image is consistent with the Moskva, and no other ships in the Russian Navy look enough like this class to be mistaken for them.
This statement in a story from Military Times is representative of what’s appeared in multiple news reports:
Photographs of the burning ship reveal at least one hole in the port side to indicate a missile hit, but how many were fired remain unknown, along with how at least two could have penetrated Moskva’s considerable defenses. (Military Times2)
Let’s look at that statement about the indication of a missile hit. As far as I know there aren’t many photos of the damaged ship, and only the image reproduced at the top of this article has useful detail. Here’s an enhancement of the damaged area:
There appears to be a square hole in the side of the hull right above the water line, with smoke coming from the square hole. The square shape could be an image artifact caused by low resolution, but in this case it looks like a section of the hull has blown out the side of the ship. (The round portholes still look round, so the square hole probably isn’t an artifact of image enhancement.)
Taking the image of the undamaged ship and zooming in on the same spot, we can see the sides of the hull are made from large, square plates. These squares are visible on many images of the ship, and the plates are the same size as the hole in the image.
Engineering drawings of the internal layouts of Russian warships aren’t easy to find, but this one appears accurate:
The damage appears to be in or near one of the two engine rooms. The Moskva had two gas turbine engines, one for cruising (47, маршевые ГТД) and one for high speed (44, форсажные ГТД), in two separate compartments. The engines themselves are located slightly below the waterline, and there are fuel tanks (40, топливные цистерны) directly below them.
Since we can’t see below the water line we don’t know if the ship was struck with missiles lower on the hull. The square looking hole above the water line may be due to pressure from inside blowing out the whole panel. This could be from an explosion in the engine room due to a missile hit (that we possibly can’t see due to the list), or due to an explosion caused by a fire in the engine room.
In the image of the damaged Moskva, blackening can also be seen in and around the portholes along the side of the hull, including alongside the large S-300 missile system aft of the engine rooms. The S-300 system contains 64 long range missiles in vertical launch tubes.
The blackening at the portholes is a very bad sign - warships have internal hatches and those hatches should have been closed, preventing fires from reaching this area. If the final cause of the ship’s loss was an ammunition fire, then it may have been the fuel or warheads on the S-300 system’s missiles.
Missiles from nowhere
Untangling the events around the sinking is made more difficult by the poor quality of some of the journalism. For example, an article3 in The Telegraph confirms that the Ukrainians claim hitting the cruiser with two of their new Neptune missiles, but then goes on to damage the author’s credibility with the included map:
Like journalists we’ve criticized in other articles, this one also can’t be bothered with simple details. The only land mass in the circled area of “suspected origin of missile” is Snake Island, a 40 acre rock that by 13 April was occupied by the Russians. So no Ukrainian missiles were launched from there. (It would also be a dumb place to base those missiles, see Part 1 of this series).
However, the location given for the Moskva on 13 April appears correct, and is well within range of shore based American Harpoon missiles or Ukrainian Neptune missiles. So it’s not unreasonable to believe the ship was struck by either of those. If the ship was being towed to Sevastopol when it sank then the 14 April location also makes sense.
Although the initial damage might have been from a missile hit, it’s also possible the damage was caused by a fire in the engine room (the ship wasn’t exactly new, and engine fires do happen on warships).
Some history on the Moskva
David Axe is a journalist who covers military hardware, and given the potential importance of the Moskva, back in January 2022 he wrote an article in Forbes about the ship. It was hit by a missile in 2008 but survived (and was repaired), then was overhauled starting in 2016:
Aging and reportedly vulnerable to fire, Moskva in 2016 sailed back to Sevastopol in Crimea for a three-year overhaul. She emerged with P-1000 anti-ship missiles in place of her older P-500s. The overhaul extends her service life by a decade or so. (Forbes4)
Axe isn’t the only one to mention the issue of vulnerability to fire. According to description given by globalsecurity.org for the whole class:
The design is said to be marred by large quantities of flammable material and poor damage-control capabilities. (globalsecurity.org5)
If this is accurate, then a fire leading to an ammunition explosion and loss of the ship is a strong possibility. Going back to the Forbes article, prior to the sinking not everyone was optimistic about the chances of the Ukrainians taking out the Moskva.
The only Ukrainian forces that might have any realistic shot at Moskva are the new Neptune anti-ship missile batteries. (Forbes)
And as we’ll see, no one knows how many Neptune missiles Ukraine has.
It’s not clear how many Neptunes it might take to punch through Moskva’s defenses. Nor is it clear how many Neptunes the Ukrainians possess. (Forbes)
Either way, it sounds like secondary explosions of munitions caused the final sinking, which doesn’t speak well for Russian damage control. Regardless of the actual cause, the loss of the Moskva is unexpected and embarrassing for the Russian Navy.
Neptune missiles
The Ukrainians claim to have struck the Moskva with two of their brand new Neptune anti-ship missiles. Development began shortly after Russia seized Crimea in 2014, resulting in the loss of Ukraine’s coastal defense missiles (also begging the question of why all the missiles were in Crimea). The new system was accepted by the Ukrainian military in early 2021.
Oleksiy Arestovych, adviser to the office of the president of Ukraine, claimed that it had been hit by a Ukrainian-made anti-ship guided missile called the Neptune. The Russians made no comment, but the missile in question, introduced to the Ukrainian armed forces little more than a year earlier, was about to take its own place in history. (Military Times)
The Neptune missile has a 150 kg (330 lb) warhead and was designed for use against vessels up to 5,000 tons - less than half the displacement of the Moskva. Per the official story the ship was hit by two of these missiles, but the Ukrainians haven’t specifically said how many they launched to get those two hits. It’s also not clear how they know how many hits were obtained - they could be claiming two based on the general belief that one Neptune would not be able to sink a ship the size of the Moskva.
The entire system, like many such, includes missiles, launchers, re-loaders, and a command and control system.
Along with the Neptune itself, Ukraine has produced six USPU-360 mobile launchers, each capable of carrying and firing four missiles. They are backed up by six TZM-360 and six TM-360 transport vehicles, each carrying four additional Neptunes. (Military Times)
This implies they had at least 48 Neptune missiles prior to firing a pair of them at the Moskva. But it’s not clear how many of the missiles have actually been delivered. According to the Kyiv Post, the production contract was part of the 2021 budget:
Nonetheless, the project faced constant delays due to bureaucratic hurdles in the government. Finally, amid enormous public pressure, the Ministry of Defense signed a contract to produce the weapon system as part of the country’s military acquisition program in 2021. (Kyiv Post6)
The initial six launchers and support vehicles are described as a “training missile division” by the Ukrainians. A lot of training is done without live-firing of missiles so it’s possible the launchers were delivered prior to the missiles. Or, if the launchers and re-loaders are all carrying missiles, the Ukrainians have at least 48 Neptune missiles (or 46, subtracting at least two they already claim to have used).
If Neptune missiles were used, this would be their first (and apparently only) use in combat - and less than a year after their introduction. Given the Russian control of the Black Sea and use of their navy in the war so far, it’s curious that the only known use of Neptune missiles was to sink the Moskva. There have been many other, valuable targets within range throughout the war, especially during the initial invasion.
Spasatel Vasiliy Bekh
Two months after the loss of the Moskva the Ukrainians sank a different ship in the same general area, this time using American Harpoon missiles. This was a Project 22870 rescue tug named the Spasatel Vasiliy Bekh (The project number is like a vessel class). Launched in 2016, this was a modern and well-equipped ship but carried no weapons.
The Project 22870 tugs are designed to tow damaged vessels, have firefighting equipment, can supply electricity and water to other ships, and have diving equipment for rescuing crew trapped underwater.
We’ll look into the sinking of this boat in more detail (I have a lot of questions), but for now what matters is the use of Harpoon missiles. At only 1,200 tons this ship is not difficult to sink with missiles like the Neptune or Harpoon.
It’s not clear exactly when the Ukrainians first had operational Harpoon missile batteries but it should have been early enough to use them to sink the Spasatel Vasiliy Bekh. They probably received one launcher from the U.S. and one from Denmark.
The U.S. doesn’t currently have a truck-borne coastal defense system based on the Harpoon but one is in development for sale to Taiwan (the deal is for 100 launchers). In the meantime, it sounds like a system was built from scratch:
The Harpoon missiles were removed from the ship by one of the US allies (which was not disclosed). Launchers were installed on the chassis of a truck. A power supply was placed on another truck. The launch and power source were connected by wires. (mil.in.ua7)
After the Americans were convinced that such a configuration would work, the system was delivered to Ukraine. The Ukrainian military held a training session at the end of May. (mil.in.ua)
“And the next week, two Russian ships were sunk with these Harpoons,” the Under Secretary of Defense of the United States said. (mil.in.ua)
This should be a different system from the one sent by Denmark, which was already a full, working system:
In May 2022, Denmark announced its intention to transfer the Harpoon AShM to Ukraine. The Royal Danish Navy was one of the few operators of the coastal version of the Harpoon missile anti-ship system. According to open data, the Danish fleet, as part of coastal artillery, had two batteries of this system. (mil.in.ua)
It seems likely Ukraine received two Harpoon coastal defense systems and at least eight missiles. But why use the Harpoon missiles to sink a tugboat? In fact, why have the Ukrainians been so anxious to obtain a few Harpoon missiles if they already have 48 (or 46?) Neptune missiles capable of sinking one of the most well-armed ships in the Russian Navy?
So what happened?
Currently, I’m a little incredulous of the Ukrainian version of events. There are a few reasonable possibilities for how the Moskva was sunk:
The ship was hit by Ukrainian Neptune missiles. A new design and only recently put in service, the missiles were effective in their first and only use in combat, sinking a ship that analysts expected to survive the attack.
The ship had an engine room fire. A combination of known issues with the ship combined with extremely poor damage control resulted in an ammunition explosion. For the Russians, this might be more embarrassing than a loss to missiles.
The ship was hit by American built Harpoon missiles. The Harpoon has a more powerful warhead (two Harpoon warheads weigh as much as three Neptune warheads) and are more likely to be effective against a ship this size.
Neptune missiles
If Neptune missiles were used, it begs the question of why those same missiles weren’t used a few weeks later to sink another ship operating just a few miles to the east where the Moskva was hit. But after this one use, they haven’t been used again despite the presence of other valuable targets - ones without the extensive air defense systems of the Moskva.
Although possible, The Ukrainian story seems very fortuitous. They recently received this new system and a handful of missiles, then successfully used those few missiles to sink the most valuable target in the Black Sea. But they haven’t used it since, opting instead to use the more expensive American built Harpoon missiles.
Engine room fire
Alternately, the ship could just be the victim of an engine room fire as the Russians claim. The main damage appears to be in one of the engine rooms, each of which contains lots of fuel - and is where one would expect an accidental fire to start
This is believable (it’s something that happens to warships) but it makes the Russian Navy look incompetent - if this is their most valuable asset, why isn’t it better maintained? Why is the crew not better trained?
Harpoon missiles
Finally, using American-built Harpoon missiles would mean the Ukrainians had these missiles prior to when we’re told they were delivered, but this wouldn’t be unusual in a war. Using a new weapon system before telling your enemy you have it makes sense.
In this option, it may be that the American trainers had some hand in targeting and firing the missiles, but the U.S. government doesn’t want this known. Since the Harpoon missiles weren’t formally online yet, it would have made sense to just have the Ukrainians claim it was their own, new missiles. Without parts of the missiles to analyze, no one would ever know.
Some closing thoughts
If the Russians stick to their version of events, and the Ukrainians stick to theirs, then what you think happened will come down to which side you think is more credible - we may never get definitive proof.
Right now, I’m leaning toward the Russian version of events. An engine room fire got out of control, leading to munition explosions that sank the ship.
The Ukrainian version sounds more like a post hoc explanation of events: they hit this particular ship with Neptunes (since officially Harpoons hadn’t yet arrived) but none of the other ships near Snake Island; they hit it with two missiles so sinking it with Neptunes is believable; the missiles got through because they used a TB2 drone to confuse the radar; etc.
Given the number of claims that turned out to be propaganda (remember the Ghost of Kiev?) I suspect they’re using the sinking to claim a military victory, knowing their claims can’t easily be challenged. Again, we won’t be getting verified, undeniable information any time soon.
But as a little mental exercise, assume I’m the Russians. If I’ve lost a ship to incompetence but the enemy thinks it’s due to their superior weapon system, I’m probably not going to try too hard to correct their misinterpretation. They will think their own system is more effective than it actually is, which may save another ship later.
If instead the ship was hit by anti-ship missiles, then confirming the number and location of the hits provides valuable feedback to the enemy on how their system performed.
Either way, it will be unsurprising if the Russians continue to say very little about the loss of the ship. They have nothing to gain by providing western media any more information than they already have. Unless and until someone can dive the wreck for evidence, both sides can make whatever claims they want.
https://gcaptain.com/ammo-blast-russian-navy-flagship/
https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/gearscout/2022/05/12/the-neptune-anti-ship-missile-the-weapon-that-may-have-sunk-the-russian-flagship-moskva/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/04/14/russian-warship-notorious-firing-snake-island-defenders-seriously/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/01/20/the-russian-cruiser-moskva-dominates-the-black-sea/?sh=2568944675e5
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/1164.htm
https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/ukraines-navy-acquires-first-neptune-cruise-missiles.html
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/pentagon-explained-harpoon-ashm-adjustment-for-ukraine-s-armed-forces-coastal-defense/