Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "H I Sutton" channel.

I watched a simulation of the attack on the Moskva this morning from a group that ran a simulation of an attack by two Neptunes. The people running the simulation were shocked by the results (given below): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxwh6MGLJNc These are the results from their simulations: 1) Turns out that with a surface skimming missile like the Neptune, the Grumbles don't activate (the radars don't see below the horizon, or about 9 miles away from the ship). A Harpoon missile with trigger this anti-missile system because of the altitude it flies at. 2) The Geckos won't fire in moderate to heavy seas and rain, the same conditions that existed on the day the Moskva was hit. 3) The CIWS will likely hit at least one missile, but not both. So, you have gone from a triple-layered defense to a single layer, one that relies more or less on luck for hitting the incoming missile. I would say the Ukrainians probably fired the full battery of four missiles, and given the sea conditions, it is possible that up to two of the missiles might have hit the water.
9
@MostlyPennyCat Pretty much what I thought. I know the guys who did the sim were shocked by the results as well. Although how it measures the 10m above sea level is also an interesting question. If it takes only the wave tops into account, that leaves a LOT of room for a missile to use in heavy seas. I also started wondering after I posted my earlier comment whether the Ukrainians were aware of this deficiency and used it to their advantage. I would argue that they did, knowing full well how badly the Gecko system works in bad weather, and it would give them the best odds of getting a hit or two.
3
Considering the Canadians "sank" an American aircraft carrier using a Sea King helicopter during an exercise back in the 1980s, I'm not too surprised.
3
@riskinhos However, I can tell you that during an exercise some years ago, a Canadian Sea King helicopter got within range of a US task group and "sank" an aircraft carrier. I would also add that something that is supposed to work in all weather doesn't necessarily do so. I remember watching one episode of "Mayday" where the engineers swore up and down that if a thrust reverser deployed in flight the airplane would still fly. They even tested this. However, Nikki Lauda was not convinced, and ran the test himself. It turned out that if the thrust reverser deployed at 8,000 feet, the aircraft was fine, but if it deployed at 30,000 feet, the aircraft lost control and would crash. That is why I tend to believe the simulation, because it points to something that the engineers overlooked or didn't test for.
1
@johnstark4723 I did say "sink". In other words, the war game referee decided the carrier would have been too seriously damaged to continue flight operations. It would also depend on what was happening at the time the hits were made. If the aircraft were being refueled, it could start a serious fire. If rearming had taken place, you could end up with a situation like the USS Forrestal off Vietnam, or the USS Franklin and USS Bunker Hill during WW2. Remember, this was a sneak attack, so the usual fire prevention measures that would be taken if an attack was expected were not in place. By the way, we also repeated the same thing a few years later with our frigates, and one of our ships got clean away after "sinking" a carrier.
1
@theshadowoftruth7561 I doubt that. That would be a major design flaw. I think it more likely that the heavy seas interfered with the Gecko defense system identifying and locking onto the incoming missiles, as one simulation has suggested.
1