TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

A whole age of warfare sank with the Moskva

200 pointsby gpayanalmost 3 years ago

29 comments

exabrialalmost 3 years ago
&gt; And as the sinking of the Moskva showed, the signature maritime weapon hasn’t been a ship but an anti-ship missile: the Neptune.<p>Absolutely incorrect analysis. The signature marine weapon is the Poseidon P8. This is a heavily modified Boeing 737 NG configured for maritime intelligence and attack. This is what sank the Moskva.<p>If you read the analysis from intelligence reports, the Neptune is a rather unremarkable anti-surface missile with underwhelming capabilities. The Poseidon hovered hundreds of miles away and relayed the combat information to Ukraine commanders when the Moskva was weakened; and more than likely, when its short range defenses were down (likely due to Russian Incompetence). No doubt the Poseidon has watched every Russian Naval asset to figure out they were taking down defense radars and they devised a plan to sneak a relatively crappy Neptune missile in.<p>I think the defining age is intelligence, but then again, hasn&#x27;t it always been? It&#x27;s just taking on new forms. One of the most important and urgent projects the Air Force will undertaken is AWACs replacement with another 737 variant that has PESA, AESA, ELINT, AEW capabilities to this platform and provide the same level of battlefield intelligence on solid ground as we have that the P8 provides for maritime.
评论 #31480538 未加载
评论 #31480817 未加载
评论 #31481315 未加载
评论 #31482117 未加载
评论 #31482135 未加载
评论 #31481425 未加载
评论 #31480679 未加载
评论 #31480336 未加载
评论 #31480593 未加载
评论 #31484178 未加载
评论 #31484355 未加载
评论 #31484499 未加载
评论 #31484626 未加载
评论 #31483930 未加载
AnotherGoodNamealmost 3 years ago
I think the more interesting part to think about is drones which were involved in this sinking. This is a very rapidly evolving area of warfare.<p>Right now we&#x27;re using drones like we used early WW1 aircraft. As spotters for long range weapons and very occasionally as direct bombers. We haven&#x27;t yet developed drones that shoot down other drones cheaply. So we can spot enemy formations, ships, tanks etc. without any cost effective way to stop the small spotter drones.<p>I see this changing soon. We will soon have small cheap drones that will take down nearby spotter drones and the balance will change yet again.<p>So don&#x27;t throw away old tactics and equipment just yet. There&#x27;s a gap where we have no reasonable way to stop drones that will soon be addressed.
评论 #31480038 未加载
评论 #31480094 未加载
评论 #31480057 未加载
评论 #31480091 未加载
评论 #31479871 未加载
评论 #31479941 未加载
评论 #31484063 未加载
评论 #31481427 未加载
评论 #31480285 未加载
评论 #31479985 未加载
geriksonalmost 3 years ago
Twitter thread from Bret Devereaux with some critique of this piece.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;BretDevereaux&#x2F;status&#x2F;1528581923446181898?s=20" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;BretDevereaux&#x2F;status&#x2F;1528581923446181898...</a>
评论 #31479608 未加载
评论 #31480500 未加载
评论 #31479720 未加载
评论 #31479604 未加载
SilverBirchalmost 3 years ago
It seems almost bizarre that someone would try to take lessons on the US military from the Moskva. I mean.... you can but I think the lessons would be more along the lines of &quot;Make sure you have well maintained military equipment with well trained personnel&quot;.<p>All the reporting I&#x27;ve seen suggests that the Moskva was very old, wasn&#x27;t refurbished very well, and even with these big caveats something must have gone seriously wrong for it to be sunk in the way it was.<p>So taking that and drawing larger conclusions seems strange.
评论 #31480076 未加载
评论 #31480161 未加载
评论 #31480557 未加载
评论 #31483910 未加载
Steltekalmost 3 years ago
Sinking a ship via missile isn&#x27;t a new thing (1980&#x27;s, HMS Sheffield). One should be extremely careful drawing conclusions about military tech based on Russian performance. If I was an American captain, I wouldn&#x27;t be worried about a lucky pair of missiles. A swarm of dozens of missiles would be a different story, however.
评论 #31480191 未加载
评论 #31484086 未加载
评论 #31482696 未加载
paganelalmost 3 years ago
&gt; o far, in Ukraine, the signature land weapon hasn’t been a tank but an anti-tank missile: the Javelin. The signature air weapon hasn’t been an aircraft, but an anti-air missile: the Stinger.<p>The author (a veteran US Marine) is, obviously, well more versed in this than me, a computer programmer, but I&#x27;d say that he&#x27;s wrong here. The signature weapon of the war right now is artillery, on both sides, that&#x27;s why most recently it was artillery pieces that the US sent to Ukraine. Artillery has been a mainstay of the wars on the Ukrainian-Russian steppes ever since Napoleon.<p>What this war brought new to the table, a thing which might be the real revolutionary part of this war (at least when it comes to military doctrine), is the deadly artillery + cheap aerial drones combo, it has brought havoc to both sides. Those Russian convoys were not destroyed by javelines, but by targeted Ukrainian artillery strikes (with the help of said cheap drones).<p>Inside of the cities (Mariupol, mostly, from where most of the images have come when it comes to urban combat in this war) the tanks have still shown their worth, as in it was mostly with tanks (and, again, with artillery) that the Russians managed to destroy (and thus conquer) most of the city (they also used some aviation to drop bombs on Azovstal, but that was towards the end of the Mariupol battle). An interesting apparition was that of the BTR-82 [1]<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;old.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;CombatFootage&#x2F;comments&#x2F;twraun&#x2F;russian_soldiers_fall_back_while_being_covered_by&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;old.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;CombatFootage&#x2F;comments&#x2F;twraun&#x2F;russi...</a>
giantg2almost 3 years ago
&quot;So far, in Ukraine, the signature land weapon hasn’t been a tank but an anti-tank missile: the Javelin. The signature air weapon hasn’t been an aircraft, but an anti-air missile: the Stinger. And as the sinking of the Moskva showed, the signature maritime weapon hasn’t been a ship but an anti-ship missile: the Neptune.&quot;<p>If you look at it solely from the Ukrainian point of view - yes. The Russians are relying heavily on platforms, even if they are losing. That doesn&#x27;t mean that there isn&#x27;t value in those platforms, just that they are being misapplied. For example, a tank is much more valuable to use against another tank than to use against dispersed ground troops. We would likely see them being valued differently in a near-peer conflict that was more coordinated&#x2F;strategic (one of the biggest enemies of the Russians has been their leaders&#x27; own greed and lack of preparation, training, and coordination).<p>War is largely about economics. Of course using man-portable anti-platform weapons is ideal - you can destroy equipment that takes months or years to build at .1% of it&#x27;s cost. Just like using left over or homemade munitions for IEDs can generate a lot of damage (physical and economic), especially over the course of a decade or two.
评论 #31483894 未加载
fractallytealmost 3 years ago
From the article: <i>“When you look at what weapons are on top of the Ukrainians’ wish list,” Moulton told me, “it isn’t towed howitzers. Top of their list are armed drones, anti-tank missiles, and anti-ship missiles.”</i><p>Actually, <i>no!</i> Why is this still being rehashed?? Zelensky specifically requested: artillery, artillery shells, Multiple Launch Rocket Systems, armored vehicles, tanks, air defense systems, and military aircraft.<p>He said: <i>“When some leaders ask me what weapons I need, I need a moment to calm myself, because I already told them the week before. It’s Groundhog Day. I feel like Bill Murray.”</i> (Liberation Without Victory, The Atlantic, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;nz2Da" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;nz2Da</a>)<p>And while Javelins, and other missiles, have proven invaluable in taking out armored vehicles, the <i>more</i> effective weapon has been artillery (often targeted with the aid of drones).
评论 #31483355 未加载
评论 #31483190 未加载
Quillbert182almost 3 years ago
I agree that missiles are the future, but unless the enemy is coming to you as is the case with Ukraine, then you are going to need a platform to deliver the missiles.
rapjr9almost 3 years ago
There seems to be an assumption here that the enemy will always have a platform-centric approach to war. What if both sides have an anti-platform-centric approach? Do they shoot at each others portable MANPAD&#x27;s? A hybrid approach seems necessary, tanks and ships and planes have specific uses when the opponent is not platform-centric and Stinger&#x27;s and Javelin&#x27;s and Neptune&#x27;s can be used against platforms. Something not mentioned in the article is that unmanned platforms are likely to take over. Why put a person inside any of these craft when they can be remotely controlled? Autonomous weapons (killer robots) don&#x27;t seem likely to be able to distinguish combatants from non-combatants for some time to come, so remote control seems more likely. Also, tanks, planes and ships can&#x27;t do a lot to win battles in urban terrain. At best they can obliterate infrastructure. Still, it is obvious that smart weapons are making a big difference in Ukraine. You would think that the major powers that invented smart weapons and have stockpiled them would not have been surprised when they turn out to make a difference.<p>I think the major surprise here is the sudden increased perception that a war between peer powers is not a thing of the past. I would guess that all the major powers are not ready today to fight each other in earnest for more than months or half a year in a non-nuclear war. China and Russia would not be able to get critical parts, and the USA would have to ramp up new manufacturing capability very quickly (it imports ingredients for high explosives from China?) Note that this would be extremely expensive for all countries, it would turn a large part of useful and beneficial production capacity into building an unproductive war economy. Citizens everywhere would suffer, even if none of the new weapons were ever used.
jcranmeralmost 3 years ago
It&#x27;s annoying when articles like this blindly repeat misinformation:<p>&gt; On March 9, 1862, the Union warship Monitor met its Confederate counterpart, Virginia. After a four-hour exchange of fire, the two fought to a draw. It was the first battle of ironclads. In one day, every wooden ship of the line of every naval power became immediately obsolete.<p>Ouch, false. The ironclad ships that the US built were what became known as &quot;[river] monitors&quot;--they were at best barely seaworthy, since they had no freeboard worth speaking of, so any sea that was mildly stalled would cause the ships to founder. In no way were they ships-of-the-line, or capable of threatening ships-of-the-line, and the first ironclad ship-of-the-line would have been HMS Warrior, built <i>before</i> the US ironclads.<p>&gt; On December 7, 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. If the battle of the ironclads settled once and for all the wood-versus-iron debate, Japanese carrier-based aircraft settled the battleship-versus-carrier debate by sinking the cream of America’s battleship fleet in a single morning.<p>Even worse than the previous paragraph. Aircraft carriers did not render battleships obsolete at Pearl Harbor, which involved a fleet of <i>old</i> battleships at a state of low readiness. If the Japanese thought battleships obsolete, why did they bring them to the Battle of Midway 6 months later?<p>One of the things that I think is poorly comprehended by much of the lay public is that military technology really is &quot;part of a complete package&quot;. There isn&#x27;t a single technology that beats everything else; instead, it tends to end up closer to a rock-paper-scissors scenario where it turns out you need <i>all</i> of the weapon systems to avoid being defeated by one of them. For example, in WW1-ish naval warfare, a large capital ship like a battleship is vulnerable to torpedoes, which means it needs a fleet screen of light units to avoid the torpedo threat, but those units are vulnerable to the powerful capabilities of battleships, which requires capital ships of their own to threaten.<p>What makes technology obsolete isn&#x27;t &quot;this can be countered by something else,&quot; it&#x27;s &quot;this capability can be provided by something better.&quot;
评论 #31481159 未加载
评论 #31481451 未加载
orwinalmost 3 years ago
Burg. Don&#x27;t talk about the Maginot if you don&#x27;t know shit about the second World War. I swear hoi4 players have more knowledge than the author.<p>I skimmed the comments and it seems the author was wrong about a lot. I thought the Atlantic was a better than average paper, the quality must have declined.
flyinghamsteralmost 3 years ago
There was a harbinger of this in the Falklands&#x2F;Malvinas conflict, when Argentine forces sunk HMS <i>Sheffield</i> with Exocet missiles. Also, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 2020 was showing the effectiveness of drones, and I&#x27;m sure Ukraine was taking notes.
lettergramalmost 3 years ago
&gt; The military we have—an army built around tanks, a navy built around ships, and an air force built around planes, all of which are technologically advanced and astronomically expensive—is platform-centric.<p>The US has been transitioning off tanks for a while now<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.marinecorpstimes.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;your-marine-corps&#x2F;2021&#x2F;03&#x2F;22&#x2F;goodbye-tanks-how-the-marine-corps-will-change-and-what-it-will-lose-by-ditching-its-armor&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.marinecorpstimes.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;your-marine-corps&#x2F;2021...</a><p>I suspect, most systems will continue to move underwater for the navy. We will also likely couple it with autonomous drones and decoys
评论 #31480023 未加载
评论 #31479974 未加载
wrpalmost 3 years ago
&quot;Flagship&quot; needs some clarification. If you follow naval affairs, this may seem too obvious to mention, but the term &quot;flagship&quot; does not indicate anything about the technical capabilities of a vessel. It just means the ship where the commander of a fleet has his office. The <i>Moskva</i>, despite being antiquated, was probably chosen as flagship just because it had the most room.<p>Also, a plea to everyone posting technical details. Please provide links to sources. It has been extremely hard finding solid data on this war.
MomoXenosagaalmost 3 years ago
I don&#x27;t understand the USMC. They were active in Afghanistan- a landlocked country with zero.zero beaches.<p>Reminds me of the German &quot;paratroopers&quot; who spend most of the war as overly qualified infantry.
评论 #31479856 未加载
评论 #31480376 未加载
评论 #31479728 未加载
评论 #31480421 未加载
评论 #31479813 未加载
jacquesmalmost 3 years ago
One thing I noticed about this war is that in the beginning a lot of planes were downed, this slowed to a trickle and then almost entirely stopped once the Western front disappeared and only the Eastern remained. I&#x27;m not quite clear on whether that is because they are no longer flying sorties because they&#x27;re too afraid of surface-to-air defenses, whether they are out of planes or some other reason (such as the defenders no longer being able to down enemy planes).
评论 #31483900 未加载
ttulalmost 3 years ago
“So far, in Ukraine, the signature land weapon hasn’t been a tank but an anti-tank missile: the Javelin. The signature air weapon hasn’t been an aircraft, but an anti-air missile: the Stinger.”<p>Weren’t these the signature weapons because Ukraine doesn’t have much of an air force? It’s true that the Javelin and Stingers (etc.) have been remarkably effective; however, it’s not like the US ought to ditch its expensive aircraft in favor of shoulder-launched weapons.
评论 #31482079 未加载
flyinglizardalmost 3 years ago
Anti-platform weapons have met their match with countermeasures like the Israeli Trophy system against ATGMs which brought tanks back into warfare in full force. Anti drone weapons are everywhere. Aircraft have stealth and DIRCMs.<p>The problem with Moskva was tactical - it was a sitting duck without adequate protection. I wouldn’t read too much into it.
nazavoalmost 3 years ago
A cool thing about Neptune is the technology wasn&#x27;t property tested for the prime time before and is relatively fresh technology! Ukrainian forces had used them successfully and have proven the high precision weapon know-how is still going strong in the country.
评论 #31482339 未加载
评论 #31482335 未加载
alaricusalmost 3 years ago
Wasn&#x27;t the Turkish Bayraktar drone also involved in the sinking of Moskva?<p>Not to rain on the &quot;feel-good&quot; parade, but Moskva was laid down in 1976 and launched in 1979. It was older than most people on HackerNews. Don&#x27;t treat it as bleeding edge technology.
评论 #31485307 未加载
tlearalmost 3 years ago
Absolute garbage of an article. It is S300 an ancient AA platform that denied Russia Air supremacy, it is combination of Artillery and drones not Javelin that been most lethal and it most definitely not a completely unimpressive Neptune that is equivalent of a missiles that went into device half a century ago.. wait Russia still easily blockades Odessa<p>In Donbas now war resembles most the WW2 with mass of artillery being exchanged for drone directed artillery. Not Javelin, not any other man portable anything can dislodge Russian or Ukranians for that matter. Massed drone directed artillery and rocket artillery is the current go to.<p>Those ideas of infiltrating marines to Chinese islands are so idiotic as to defy all belief.. I hope whoever came up with that is on the first boat there<p>Last but not least perhaps journalist writing for Atlantic can read some book about WW1? Like something basic that covers eastern front? Offense did not go anywhere and no Somme was not a bayonet charge ffs
indymikealmost 3 years ago
The sooner we fully adopt loitering munitions (like the switchblade), drones, and divest of easy targets for drones, missiles and loitering munitions (which are really suicide drones) the better.
评论 #31481359 未加载
DeathArrowalmost 3 years ago
Large vessels, aircraft carriers are sitting ducks for rockets. Even with some anti rocket defense.<p>It costs large amounts of money to build big ships and it costs little to sink them.
评论 #31479709 未加载
评论 #31479852 未加载
评论 #31479706 未加载
评论 #31480618 未加载
评论 #31480228 未加载
评论 #31479705 未加载
anovikovalmost 3 years ago
Moskva sinking stands as just one of the numerous Russian failures in Ukraine. Just look at Belohorivka disaster where whole battalion tactical group was wiped out in the most stupid of circumstances. It doesn&#x27;t mean that surface ships are outdated or cannot resist anti-ship missiles.<p>U.S. Aegis-equipped destroyers faced multiple strikes of essentially, same missiles in the Gulf of Aden, launched by pro-Russian Howthi (both based on Soviet Kh-35), with no hits and no even close calls (as far known, CIWS was never activated).
评论 #31480923 未加载
m3kw9almost 3 years ago
When you bet on your current ship defences to intercept new hypersonic missiles, you are taking too big of a bet.
评论 #31481967 未加载
imwillofficialalmost 3 years ago
It didn’t sink, it literally pulled into port 4 days later. This is disinformation posing as analysis.
kderbymaalmost 3 years ago
Atlantic is the war mongers journal of choice after the economist lol
jonnycomputeralmost 3 years ago
Movska was an old ship, and was under consideration for scuttle, and like lots of old things had things that didn&#x27;t work. From what I&#x27;ve read, the Moskva didn&#x27;t even have its anti-missile defense systems online. Probably never saw the attack coming.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;KofmanMichael&#x2F;status&#x2F;1522608680595865606" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;KofmanMichael&#x2F;status&#x2F;1522608680595865606</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;GrangerE04117&#x2F;status&#x2F;1522643831736332288" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;GrangerE04117&#x2F;status&#x2F;1522643831736332288</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.usni.org&#x2F;2022&#x2F;05&#x2F;05&#x2F;warship-moskva-was-blind-to-ukrainian-missile-attack-analysis-shows" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.usni.org&#x2F;2022&#x2F;05&#x2F;05&#x2F;warship-moskva-was-blind-to...</a><p>Don&#x27;t have other sources handy, sorry.
评论 #31479797 未加载
评论 #31479883 未加载
评论 #31479834 未加载
评论 #31479916 未加载
评论 #31480236 未加载