Antiship Missile Lessons from Sinking of the Moskva (Proceedings)

[eclair]

"I still would expect that a very small warhead (perhaps as small as 20 pounds), perfectly placed in the combat information center (CIC) or a weapons magazine, could do irrecoverable damage". I strongly believe that this maxim could be true not only to naval missile strike IRL, but also to PGM airstrike or other operations in CMO too.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... ing-moskva

[MaxDemian]

The author dismissed the "cube root rule of thumb" as a flawed model, but forgot in the process that the rule was derived from empirical data on attacks on warships in WW2, which had far more protection than modern warships.

The data on the effectiveness of anti-ship missiles against modern warships is far more sparse, but the general relationship appears to hold. A study published in the 80s called Cruise Missile Warfare established a relationship between ship length and the number of cruise missiles required to put a ship out of action: 1 missile for a ship up to 300 feet long, and an additional 1 missile per 100 feet of length. You can find the article on USNI.

However, one should not forget that the cube root is just a best fit: there is a lot of error/deviation in real data from the rule of thumb.

I wrote about this in more detail here: https://warpill.com/index.php/2022/04/2 ... er-moskva/

According to my experiments with CMO, against an alert Moskva, even 24 Neptune class anti-ship missiles were insufficient to sink the ship. Most of the time, I did not achieve a single hit. Having said that, I think the OODA loop for Moskva is a tad too optimistic. Even when set to Novice, the reaction time is just 10s. It's as if this is a highly computerised AEGIS style vessel set on full auto, which it obviously isn't.

[CommandPB]

Hi Guys

Please find attached pdf files from the Board of Investigation for the sinking of HMS Sheffield 1982 this report is heavily redacted.

Also added HMS Ardent, HMS Coventry and Atlantic Conveyor

BOI_Rpt_HMS_Sheffield_May82 (1).pdf

Board of Investigation HMS Sheffield 1982

(1.6 MiB) Downloaded 51 times

boi_hms_ardent.pdf

Board of Investigation HMS Ardent 1982

(1.14 MiB) Downloaded 22 times

boi_hms_coventry.pdf

Board of Investigation HMS Coventry 1982

(2.81 MiB) Downloaded 23 times

boi_atlanticconveyorpt1.pdf

Board of Investigation Atlantic Conveyor 1982

(2.25 MiB) Downloaded 19 times

[Rob322]

According to my experiments with CMO, against an alert Moskva, even 24 Neptune class anti-ship missiles were insufficient to sink the ship. Most of the time, I did not achieve a single hit. Having said that, I think the OODA loop for Moskva is a tad too optimistic. Even when set to Novice, the reaction time is just 10s. It's as if this is a highly computerised AEGIS style vessel set on full auto, which it obviously isn't.

Yeah, same. It's possible a few other factors are in play (the first two aren't specifically about Command but the genre):

1. We could be overestimating the ability of ship-based air defenses to successfully intercept SSM's. The real life experiences where this has been tried are quite few, not enough to really have a legit sample.

2. We could be overestimating the ability of radars to pick up targets or stay locked on. I'm not sure the game takes weather into account for instance and we know that can affect radar performance.

3. The game might not be fully reflecting issues around crew quality, maintenance (which often ties back to the crew) or other factors.

In my last test, it cost the Moskva 45 SA-N-4 & -6's to stop 16 SSM's, which seemed like a lot but they still managed to stop them without having to resort to the gatling guns.

So, it's been difficult to replicate this but, again, we have such a small sample of warships having to defend against SSM's that it's hard to say what's "normal." Even the reports I've seen, say, around the US ships defending against SSM's off of Yemen have often been confused and often involve estimations or hedges as to whether the SSM was intercepted or missed for some other reason.

[thewood1]

Its actually easy to replicate. The day after it happened I built multiple small scenarios. If radar on the ship is off and the Ukrainians use a drone, they can get 1-2 missiles to impact. If the ships radar is active, that's a different story.

This is a thread that goes into setting up a scenario.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4&start=20

[FrancoisX5]

The Moskowa was giving anti-air protection to the whole area, threatening some deliveries in the Odessa area.
I think it was leaked that the position and disposition was cued by the allies, probably a P-8, and we still can see the "FORTE" flights (Predator) in the area.
They probably monitored for weeks, the ship was in the vicinity for almost two weeks. Monitoring patterns, looking for weaknesses in the vigilance and surveillance, added to some probable maintenance and radar down time, this is a very old ship.

[CV60]

...

According to my experiments with CMO, against an alert Moskva, even 24 Neptune class anti-ship missiles were insufficient to sink the ship. Most of the time, I did not achieve a single hit. Having said that, I think the OODA loop for Moskva is a tad too optimistic. Even when set to Novice, the reaction time is just 10s. It's as if this is a highly computerised AEGIS style vessel set on full auto, which it obviously isn't.

I don't think the Moskva was alerted to the threat. The photo of it sinking appears to show the fire control radars for the POP GROUP (SA-N-4) (arrow 3) and TOP DOME (SA-N-6) (arrow 1) in the "stowed" position. I don't think the Russians saw the ASCMs coming.

[AKar]

Speaking generally, most simulations tend to be of what I consider as 'spec sheet simulators' by nature. Most systems and platforms are simulated as per their specified (real or estimated) capabilities, not that much after their valid, real-life performance.

As it is evident, in any given event, the real-life performance of any system, platform, or indeed any military unit, or an army even, is highly susceptible to factors which would appear very much as randomness to a computer game or simulation. If one is into war history and stories, one cannot avoid noticing how often events of pure chance or luck - good or otherwise - have similar major effects on the individual outcomes that one can relate into in everyday life.

The complexities of human patterns, system limitations, issues with ergonomics, known idiosyncrasies ("features"), whatnot, are almost impossible to capture in their real-world, complex nature. Thus, we tend to favor, in simulations, systems that are powerful on paper but perhaps not that practicable... in practice.

These randomnesses are, if not reduced, at least controlled by factors such as ergonomics, training, or just by luck having some presence of mind at just the right moment, but are very difficult to simulate in a reasonable way, particularly in a strategic level simulation.

For instance, as I understand it, essentially a failure to reset/calibrate the north after maneuvering was essentially the factor that triggered the chain of events leading into misidentification and shoot-down of PS752 in Tehran back in 2020. How to simulate such a chance correctly, yet fairly, into a gaming simulator?

How to properly simulate blue-on-blues in general?

In CMO, we can order just about any aircraft to fly at full speed, at minimum height, in mountainous terrain, at night, and in weather. In reality, this would be a suicide, unless the aircraft and the crew were specifically equipped and qualified. How to simulate such factors like crashes, and equipment-related mission aborts?

How to simulate units under player command simply getting lost?




How to simulate a high-end Russian naval platform sleeping at the wheel with its defences?

[thewood1]

I'll also point out that if we simulated modern warships being ambushed and operating without radar in a threat zone, players would be screaming that the sim is broken. Crap happens in real life.

[AKar]

I'll also point out that if we simulated modern warships being ambushed and operating without radar in a threat zone, players would be screaming that the sim is broken. Crap happens in real life.

Indeed, what is surprising and also interesting from the simulation point-of-view is the percentage of individual AShM launches getting all the way through the defenses to impact in actual recorded combat, when comparing it against any whatsoever recorded cases of successful intercepts. This includes western platforms being hit as well, some sunk and some badly damaged.

From the defender's point-of-view (The Москва in this case), given their likely oversights into the situation, and being relatively old platform in things such as systems integration and all that good stuff... compare them to USS Stark in my thinking.

[thewood1]

"And US spies helped sink the ship by revealing the vessel's radar was down."

Noted this comment about the Moskva sinking in the Sun article about the Admiral Makarov attack.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/5278291/pu ... ke-island/

[AKar]

SIGINT at it's best, indeed, in what comes to direct effects. No doubts there, but lovingly deniable. All on FlightRadar24

[thewood1]

I'll also point out that if we simulated modern warships being ambushed and operating without radar in a threat zone, players would be screaming that the sim is broken. Crap happens in real life.

Indeed, what is surprising and also interesting from the simulation point-of-view is the percentage of individual AShM launches getting all the way through the defenses to impact in actual recorded combat, when comparing it against any whatsoever recorded cases of successful intercepts. This includes western platforms being hit as well, some sunk and some badly damaged.

From the defender's point-of-view (The Москва in this case), given their likely oversights into the situation, and being relatively old platform in things such as systems integration and all that good stuff... compare them to USS Stark in my thinking.

There have been several successful SAM intercepts of AShMs in real life. We hear a lot more about the ones that failed. In the failures, almost all had issues with readiness or RoEs.

https://news.usni.org/2016/10/11/uss-ma ... les-attack

And of course there is the Israeli boats applying ECM to defeat Syrian AShMs in 1973.

[AKar]

There have been several successful SAM intercepts of AShMs in real life. We hear a lot more about the ones that failed. In the failures, almost all had issues with readiness or RoEs.

This kind of comes around to my very point.

A potent opponent tends just to spot (or to hear from the intel heresay) when to pull one or two off to smack a good one. I would not be surprised if the Москва's crew indeed was in their routines, being alive on all the necessary comms as usual but having their guard down for whatever momentary reason. In all likeliness, as expected, perhaps due to those very comms the moment was picked.

These we do not get simulated.

[Gunner98]

I'll also point out that if we simulated modern warships being ambushed and operating without radar in a threat zone, players would be screaming that the sim is broken. Crap happens in real life.

Very true. I organize simulated exercise for a living - the ever ringing call is: The simulation has to be realistic (subtext - and do everything I want it too) - the problem is that life is sometimes not realistic...or at least to our expectations of what realistic is.

[Blast33]

This is a leaked report on the readiness status of Moskva as of February 10, 2022.

This was posted on VK but was immediately taken down.
See this thread on https://twitter.com/GrangerE04117/statu ... 1736332288

Highlights are:

1. Fort has issues with keeping illumination to the target and keeping the missiles painted to the target in one of the electronic (non-firing) exercises
2. The FCRs for the Osa-MA has issues with being not active or has issues when active.
3. MR-123s for the AK-630s have issues with their opto-electronic systems and no indicators of system being on active scan.

Overall, the ship was barely in fighting condition 14 days before the war and with its defensive systems in worse conditions.
Another thing that was notable was interference between the MR-800 Flag primary air search radar and the SATCOM systems.

Turning the radar to active scan mode (Ch. 3) would make the SATCOM system unstable and unusable.

Please read the original report on the link

[thewood1]

"MR-800 Flag primary air search radar and the SATCOM systems"

IIRC, the Sheffield had the exact same issue and was one of the reasons its SAM FCR was not on.

[Rob322]

I'll also point out that if we simulated modern warships being ambushed and operating without radar in a threat zone, players would be screaming that the sim is broken. Crap happens in real life.

Very true. I organize simulated exercise for a living - the ever ringing call is: The simulation has to be realistic (subtext - and do everything I want it too) - the problem is that life is sometimes not realistic...or at least to our expectations of what realistic is.

No one wants to believe that things can just go wrong. Equipment breaks at the wrong time. Commanders make poor decisions because they're incompetent or because they don't have a good picture of what's going on or because their opponent's efforts to deceive them actually works. The French reserves covering Sedan are moved because the Germans aren't coming through the Ardennes anyhow. Ships run aground sometimes. Artillery fires or prep aerial bombardments fall short sometimes (sorry Lesley McNair). This happens to good troops, it happens to poor troops. And sometimes, luck and skill is on the other side as well.

[thewood1]

Outside adjustable proficiency in CMO, CMO assumes the equipment generally works as it should. Its completely up to the scenario designer to use the tools that the devs have provided. You can make any unit a a bunch of super soldiers to complete dunces. But the designer has to do that. Its not inherent to any scenario. And it probably shouldn't be.

[Rob322]

Outside adjustable proficiency in CMO, CMO assumes the equipment generally works as it should. Its completely up to the scenario designer to use the tools that the devs have provided. You can make any unit a a bunch of super soldiers to complete dunces. But the designer has to do that. Its not inherent to any scenario. And it probably shouldn't be.

I don't know. I kind of like a feature (optional perhaps) that might randomly have something break. Particularly on longer scenarios. I know scenario designers can work all that in but allowing the chaos of Murphy's to jump in every once in awhile might add to it.