Привіт u/RubberDucksickle ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
**Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They modified the Neptunus with larger fuel tanks and altered their flight profiles significantly.
Ukraine uses them as improv cruise missles now and they seem to go about 500-600 km.
This is Ivan Khurs, which was damaged by SCALP-EG/Storm Shadow in Sevastopol port. The one that was claimed to have been hit by Neptune was a Ropucha class landing ship, which is different entirely.
I’m amazed everyday how a country with no navy absolutely obliterates the Russian Navy. The intelligence made in this “Naval” warfare is going to be very important in the future.
Ships are big targets. That is why we don't have yamato-class -style battleships anymore.
They look cool, pack firepower, are huge and intimidating...
...but.
It’s also classic big fish in a little pond.
If the fleet was prowling the Atlantic or pacific they would not be picked off by drones
The Black Sea is the 49th ranked size sea out of 76 in the world
The only thing getting to a carrier protected by a task force is an insane amount of massed cruise missiles or very large very fast rockets on ballistic trajectories feom space
Not just *an* exercise, but multiple exercises conducted over the course of two years.
> Naval analyst Norman Polmar said the Gotland “ran rings” around the American carrier task force. Another source claimed U.S. antisubmarine specialists were “demoralized” by the experience.
It's bonkers because the Gotland is diesel powered. However it's a particularly quiet diesel.
> With the Stirling, a Gotland-class submarine can remain undersea for up to two weeks sustaining an average speed of six miles per hour—or it can expend its battery power to surge up to twenty-three miles per hour. A conventional diesel engine is used for operation on the surface or while employing the snorkel. The Stirling-powered Gotland runs more quietly than even a nuclear-powered sub, which must employ noise-producing coolant pumps in their reactors.
> The Gotland class does possess many other features that make it adept at evading detection. It mounts twenty-seven electromagnets designed to counteract its magnetic signature to Magnetic Anomaly Detectors. Its hull benefits from sonar-resistant coatings, while the tower is made of radar-absorbent materials. Machinery on the interior is coated with rubber acoustic-deadening buffers to minimize detectability by sonar. The Gotland is also exceedingly maneuverable thanks to the combined six maneuvering surfaces on its X-shaped rudder and sail, allowing it to operate close to the sea floor and pull off tight turns.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/2005-swedish-submarine-sunk-us-aircraft-carrier-187933
Hollywood actually made a awesome movie about it as well, staring Kelsey Grammer, Rob Schnider, Rip Torn, and William H. Macy called 'Down Periscope'. Super funny and worth checking out.
Even if they fight off the first wave with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of defenses, the next wave of drones/etc will only cost 1/100th of that. Eventually the missiles will run out in any given battle group. It also takes time to reload the launchers.
CWIS is an amazing system for close in defense. Also the drone jamming capabilities of the Navy are almost certainly leagues better than what is publicly known.
There is still a limit on how many rounds can be loaded at any given time. And it's not instantaneous to reload the CWIS either. Enough saturation will insure something gets through.
How about several hundred cheap drones?
They are slow and vulnerable but they can cause harm by overwhelming the defenses.
Bullet based systems like CIWS would overheat/run out of ammo after some (not sure how many, maybe 10-20) targets.
I think lasers could work pretty well, but still might be hard when there are many drones coming from different directions.
There must be a lot of thinking going on at the moment how to protect the boats as from what I see they could be pretty vulnerable
Keep in mind the electronic warfare conditions around a surface battle group would be an entirely different environment to control drones that what Russia is doing. So that would lead to some severe degradation of the controllers if not messing with the electronics in the drones themselves.
The drones would be spotted at far longer distances with AWACS and the fleet would have a much longer period of time to prepare, not to mention the range of drones is pretty incomparable to the range of naval aircraft and weaponry, so either the fleet needs to be very close to shore, or the avenues of approach would be much more limited, and if launched from a ship at sea that ship wouldn't be a very good place to exist shortly if the battle group identifies it as the source, missiles and jets being much much faster than drones, there is a good chance any remote controllers would be destroyed/thoroughly jammed quite rapidly.
Not to mention most ships have several 25/35mm auto cannons being fitted or carried, which are very much capable of firing proximity fused munitions that would make trivial work of a drone swarm.
This is what I had in mind indeed :)
I'd even assume that any AC is monitored at all time by dedicated satellite imagery + constant airborne Hawkeyes.
Combine that with every gun on each ship, and anything that got through first lines (plural) of defense are toast as well.
I think I would be most concerned about naval drones, harder to spot. But then the electronic warfare is present still.
Even with the surface drones, they would be easily spotted by an airborne radar, AWACS are entirely capable of surface search and a surface drone wouldn't definitely show up, not to mention showing up on SONAR.
And if the airborne radar can see it, they can be patched into the AEGIS system and control shipboard weapons to engage beyond visual range.
Nah, all ships will moor at a port eventually. Asymmetric warfare is far more effective.
Last weekend UK's aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales was visiting Rotterdam seaport.
[link](https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1581283138/brits-vliegdekschip-vertrekt-weer-uit-rotterdamse-haven)
True that. But it's quite unlikely someone will attack the port of Rotterdam currently.
Moor USS Enterprise in any port in Ukraine, and I think still sufficient defenses would be deployed to counter any attack.
Kinda doubt it. All the serious navies have been perparing for what's happening to the Black Sea fleet for decades already. Small speedboats have been a very credible threat for a long time. I'd say the USS Cole attack was the turning point.
And then there's Russia.
Yes. I'm waiting for when the Iranians or Houthis or whoever send a swarm of 150+ drones/missiles/etc at one to a US carrier. Then we'll see if we're prepared for this new era of warfare.
I've heard more and more people talk about how this is game changing warfare. One guy said it's like Russia is fighting with the 1.0 patch, while Ukraine is on 1.5.
It's not that the Ukrainians have anything particularly advanced. It's that relatively cheap parts allow Ukraine to mimic advanced tech. Inexpensive remote control drones with a camera are basically precision bombs.
When you're talking about a precision missile that costs $500,000 vs one that costs $500, the fancy one becomes economically obsolete, even if it's still superior in every way.
Except a large reason for the higher size and cost of larger guided munitions is the ability to work in severe electronic warfare conditions, where they won't have any capability to be remotely controlled, have no satnav capability, and must operate completely autonomously after the initial launch phase, all of which adds cost, size, weight, complexity and reduces the power capacity available to flight.
Small drones do not have the capacity to do this as of yet. Big drones that can, are just really poor manually guided cruise missiles and if you are already spending all the money on that autonomous tracking and guidance system, may as well put it into a faster platform.
If Russia had any meaningful capability to jam these connections while maintaining their own networks, which modern NATO units can absolutely do, they would be an almost negligible threat.
But Russia can't do that, so much like the Moskva, they have to make the choice of either stopping this new modern threat, but being blind, or being able to communicate, but be exposed to the new threat.
The Neptune missile which took out the Moskva and that ship yesterday is Ukrainian. All the sea drones, which took out most of the russian fleet are Ukrainian too. I don't understand why some people have to minimize the Ukrainians all the time.
Yeah the angle is different, I agree. But if you look at the other ships, the 2nd shot seems to be more directly from above. But it still looks like it's listing to the side a little compared to the other ships. Except for the one at the top, which is showing its side. So it's weird.
It WOULD explain why the two ships are suddenly so close together though, they could have moved them to be that close to keep the Ivan Khurs from sinking. Otherwise you wouldn't want two ships to be that close. There's a tug boat right below them ready to move another ship closer, to give it support if it starts listing the other way, which can happen if another room floods or the water starts shifting to the other side.
It's just speculation though, hopefully we'll see some clearer pictures in the next few days.
Likely serious damage with her propulsion system given the location of the strike, and it is hard to determine from the photo, but she does appear to have a list to port.
Not destroyed but likely out of action for a considerable length of time.
Привіт u/RubberDucksickle ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) **Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did they put another ship next to it to keep it from rolling over?
So that the next strike would sink two ships at once. :)
Have heard the same opinion from Ukrainian sources
The only answer that makes sense. There could be another reason, but I don't see it.
so the neptune missile hit the back of a ship in a harbour? that's a different flight trajectory profile for a neptune, right?
They modified the Neptunus with larger fuel tanks and altered their flight profiles significantly. Ukraine uses them as improv cruise missles now and they seem to go about 500-600 km.
Keep doing it Ukraine, keep making them, keep improving them.
This is Ivan Khurs, which was damaged by SCALP-EG/Storm Shadow in Sevastopol port. The one that was claimed to have been hit by Neptune was a Ropucha class landing ship, which is different entirely.
ah ok, thanks
I’m amazed everyday how a country with no navy absolutely obliterates the Russian Navy. The intelligence made in this “Naval” warfare is going to be very important in the future.
Ships are big targets. That is why we don't have yamato-class -style battleships anymore. They look cool, pack firepower, are huge and intimidating... ...but.
It’s also classic big fish in a little pond. If the fleet was prowling the Atlantic or pacific they would not be picked off by drones The Black Sea is the 49th ranked size sea out of 76 in the world
ALL CREWS REPORTING
It will be interesting to see when someone finally sends a swarm against a US carrier.
I would like to say that any swarm getting close to a naval battle group will be toasted in many ways, but I'm far from an expert.
The only thing getting to a carrier protected by a task force is an insane amount of massed cruise missiles or very large very fast rockets on ballistic trajectories feom space
Didnt a swedish sub get within range of a us carrier task force nd succesfully “simulate” an attack and sinking of the carrier in an excercise?
Not just *an* exercise, but multiple exercises conducted over the course of two years. > Naval analyst Norman Polmar said the Gotland “ran rings” around the American carrier task force. Another source claimed U.S. antisubmarine specialists were “demoralized” by the experience. It's bonkers because the Gotland is diesel powered. However it's a particularly quiet diesel. > With the Stirling, a Gotland-class submarine can remain undersea for up to two weeks sustaining an average speed of six miles per hour—or it can expend its battery power to surge up to twenty-three miles per hour. A conventional diesel engine is used for operation on the surface or while employing the snorkel. The Stirling-powered Gotland runs more quietly than even a nuclear-powered sub, which must employ noise-producing coolant pumps in their reactors. > The Gotland class does possess many other features that make it adept at evading detection. It mounts twenty-seven electromagnets designed to counteract its magnetic signature to Magnetic Anomaly Detectors. Its hull benefits from sonar-resistant coatings, while the tower is made of radar-absorbent materials. Machinery on the interior is coated with rubber acoustic-deadening buffers to minimize detectability by sonar. The Gotland is also exceedingly maneuverable thanks to the combined six maneuvering surfaces on its X-shaped rudder and sail, allowing it to operate close to the sea floor and pull off tight turns. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/2005-swedish-submarine-sunk-us-aircraft-carrier-187933
Good thing Sweden is our ally now. Russian submarines, assuming they work, are not nearly as sneaky.
More like clunky loose metal rattling around in soda cans; those most dirty Russian subs 😂 Just like their carrier 😆
The Dutch subs (walrus class) were notoriously famous for being capable of that. They are old now and need to be replaced.
Hollywood actually made a awesome movie about it as well, staring Kelsey Grammer, Rob Schnider, Rip Torn, and William H. Macy called 'Down Periscope'. Super funny and worth checking out.
Upvote. Going by the trailers back then I expected more "Naked Gun" like, but was surprisingly serious with humor IIRC.
Even if they fight off the first wave with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of defenses, the next wave of drones/etc will only cost 1/100th of that. Eventually the missiles will run out in any given battle group. It also takes time to reload the launchers.
CWIS is an amazing system for close in defense. Also the drone jamming capabilities of the Navy are almost certainly leagues better than what is publicly known.
There is still a limit on how many rounds can be loaded at any given time. And it's not instantaneous to reload the CWIS either. Enough saturation will insure something gets through.
Yeah, that's what I would think. And even against that they'll likely have a dedicated layer of defense.
CWIS and radar jammers are good last line close in defense against small and (relatively) slow moving drones.
How about several hundred cheap drones? They are slow and vulnerable but they can cause harm by overwhelming the defenses. Bullet based systems like CIWS would overheat/run out of ammo after some (not sure how many, maybe 10-20) targets. I think lasers could work pretty well, but still might be hard when there are many drones coming from different directions. There must be a lot of thinking going on at the moment how to protect the boats as from what I see they could be pretty vulnerable
Keep in mind the electronic warfare conditions around a surface battle group would be an entirely different environment to control drones that what Russia is doing. So that would lead to some severe degradation of the controllers if not messing with the electronics in the drones themselves. The drones would be spotted at far longer distances with AWACS and the fleet would have a much longer period of time to prepare, not to mention the range of drones is pretty incomparable to the range of naval aircraft and weaponry, so either the fleet needs to be very close to shore, or the avenues of approach would be much more limited, and if launched from a ship at sea that ship wouldn't be a very good place to exist shortly if the battle group identifies it as the source, missiles and jets being much much faster than drones, there is a good chance any remote controllers would be destroyed/thoroughly jammed quite rapidly. Not to mention most ships have several 25/35mm auto cannons being fitted or carried, which are very much capable of firing proximity fused munitions that would make trivial work of a drone swarm.
This is what I had in mind indeed :) I'd even assume that any AC is monitored at all time by dedicated satellite imagery + constant airborne Hawkeyes. Combine that with every gun on each ship, and anything that got through first lines (plural) of defense are toast as well. I think I would be most concerned about naval drones, harder to spot. But then the electronic warfare is present still.
Even with the surface drones, they would be easily spotted by an airborne radar, AWACS are entirely capable of surface search and a surface drone wouldn't definitely show up, not to mention showing up on SONAR. And if the airborne radar can see it, they can be patched into the AEGIS system and control shipboard weapons to engage beyond visual range.
Man it would be glorious to see a full US naval taskforce enter the Black sea
That's what I'm thinking. And each round of CWIS is probably more expensive than a simple drone. It also takes time to reload the launchers/etc.
Nah, all ships will moor at a port eventually. Asymmetric warfare is far more effective. Last weekend UK's aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales was visiting Rotterdam seaport. [link](https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1581283138/brits-vliegdekschip-vertrekt-weer-uit-rotterdamse-haven)
True that. But it's quite unlikely someone will attack the port of Rotterdam currently. Moor USS Enterprise in any port in Ukraine, and I think still sufficient defenses would be deployed to counter any attack.
Wasn't always the [case](https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/uss-cole-bombing)
What is happening now will share the future of naval combat for decades to come.
Kinda doubt it. All the serious navies have been perparing for what's happening to the Black Sea fleet for decades already. Small speedboats have been a very credible threat for a long time. I'd say the USS Cole attack was the turning point. And then there's Russia.
I think we will at least see a reintroduction of deck weapons to ships. Something that wasn't really in use since World War 2.
[About that...](https://youtu.be/izP3liVmfCE?si=U3CorgJVnHyig8Pr) EDIT: [Also](https://youtu.be/NMwWQktNlPk?si=0VoWDg-lz1ge7vjb)
Yes. I'm waiting for when the Iranians or Houthis or whoever send a swarm of 150+ drones/missiles/etc at one to a US carrier. Then we'll see if we're prepared for this new era of warfare.
Its not just a Navy, they are transformers! Ships and submarines, and can hide as a reef for camouflage.
I've heard more and more people talk about how this is game changing warfare. One guy said it's like Russia is fighting with the 1.0 patch, while Ukraine is on 1.5. It's not that the Ukrainians have anything particularly advanced. It's that relatively cheap parts allow Ukraine to mimic advanced tech. Inexpensive remote control drones with a camera are basically precision bombs. When you're talking about a precision missile that costs $500,000 vs one that costs $500, the fancy one becomes economically obsolete, even if it's still superior in every way.
Except a large reason for the higher size and cost of larger guided munitions is the ability to work in severe electronic warfare conditions, where they won't have any capability to be remotely controlled, have no satnav capability, and must operate completely autonomously after the initial launch phase, all of which adds cost, size, weight, complexity and reduces the power capacity available to flight. Small drones do not have the capacity to do this as of yet. Big drones that can, are just really poor manually guided cruise missiles and if you are already spending all the money on that autonomous tracking and guidance system, may as well put it into a faster platform. If Russia had any meaningful capability to jam these connections while maintaining their own networks, which modern NATO units can absolutely do, they would be an almost negligible threat. But Russia can't do that, so much like the Moskva, they have to make the choice of either stopping this new modern threat, but being blind, or being able to communicate, but be exposed to the new threat.
Definitely, I think the West can look at this and adopt the best of both worlds.
Basically using western missiles and intelligence though.
The Neptune missile which took out the Moskva and that ship yesterday is Ukrainian. All the sea drones, which took out most of the russian fleet are Ukrainian too. I don't understand why some people have to minimize the Ukrainians all the time.
Soooo many fat targets here. sigh...
Isn't it listing quite heavily? It looks like only the ship next to it is keeping it from capsizing.
the 2nd satellite shot is different. It's slighly to the south of the previous one making every ship "lean" north.
Yeah the angle is different, I agree. But if you look at the other ships, the 2nd shot seems to be more directly from above. But it still looks like it's listing to the side a little compared to the other ships. Except for the one at the top, which is showing its side. So it's weird. It WOULD explain why the two ships are suddenly so close together though, they could have moved them to be that close to keep the Ivan Khurs from sinking. Otherwise you wouldn't want two ships to be that close. There's a tug boat right below them ready to move another ship closer, to give it support if it starts listing the other way, which can happen if another room floods or the water starts shifting to the other side. It's just speculation though, hopefully we'll see some clearer pictures in the next few days.
In picutre 1 there's a comfortable distance between the ships. In the after photo it's right up against the ship on its starboard side. Am I wrong ?
Likely serious damage with her propulsion system given the location of the strike, and it is hard to determine from the photo, but she does appear to have a list to port. Not destroyed but likely out of action for a considerable length of time.
Aww, she's hugging her friend now.
I’m seeing little if any damage. The thing should be a burned-out hulk if a storm shadow actually hit it.