Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anomalous propagation and the sinking of the Russian warship Moskva

journals.ametsoc.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: Anomalous propagation and the sinking of the Russian warship Moskva

#31

Post by hkpack »

anovikov wrote: post #20

It is well known and even footage of the actual battle has been released, that Moskva was detected using Bayraktar TB-2 drone. Which also acted as a decoy to make the ship pointing it's air defence system (which has 180 degree coverage) in it's direction to counteract any attempt of attack from it (the drone was beyond engagement range). Thus letting Ukrainians attack with missiles from the other direction, leaving s…

It is interesting that any rumor can become “well known” after person with big following talks about it.

People close to operation mentioned that having Byraktar nearby would have raised alertness of the crew, so it would not be beneficial. And the best luck was with a surprise attack. There was an interview with the commander of the unit and he mentions the atmospheric effect which allowed them to lock into the ship.

Re: Anomalous propagation and the sinking of the Russian warship Moskva

#32

Post by thrway63245 »

scotty79 wrote: post #30
dontlaugh wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, us Romanians have Ukrainian and Russian blood on our hands too.

Russian blood doesn't seem to matter much these days. Even to those to whom it should matter the most, namely the Russians themselves.

[dead]

Re: Anomalous propagation and the sinking of the Russian warship Moskva

#33

Post by zmgsabst »

contrarian1234 wrote: post #22
zmgsabst wrote: post #16

Or like carrots being good for eyesight, this is a convenient cover for other assets used. Eg, NATO observation craft or satellites. Per Wiki, we have a satellite image from shortly after it was struck: > An image from a satellite with cloud-penetrating synthetic aperture radar (SAR) revealed that at 18:52 local time (UTC+03:00) on 13 April 2022, Moskva was located at 45°10′43.39″N 30°55′30.54″E, about 80 nautical mi…

> 5. Neptune launchers and missiles in flight are fed data from TB2. This part is really hard to believe. I briefly worked with radar systems (though nothing classified) These systems are all ancient and janky don't just integrate like lego. You can't just take a radar feed from a drone and feed it into the control system of a cruise missile lol Even AEGIS systems can't really do that effectively - let alone systems…

There’s literally a quote from an admiral discussing doing just that.

I’m inclined to believe that a drone can relay targeting data as an admiral claimed over “freak radar returns” — as indirect fire is a standard event.

The missile performs its final homing under its own guidance anyways.

Re: Anomalous propagation and the sinking of the Russian warship Moskva

#34

Post by Already__Taken »

gridspy wrote: post #14

https://web.archive.org/web/20231117010516/https://journals.... Abstract On 13 April 2022, the Russian warship Moskva was hit by two Ukrainian Neptune anti-ship missiles in the Black Sea, leading to its demise. Before launching an anti-ship missile, a target must first be detected and positioned, for example by an accompanying radar system. However, when the missiles hit the Moskva she was well beyond the normal rada…

Can anyone that makes radar comment: does this just work or does that kit need to understand that this can happen to process it. Is an operator just using the thing and for a couple house is surprised at how much more shows up?

like a telescope operator would be like "huh that's new" where as my router will be like "hmm TCP just got bigger, stop working."

Re: Anomalous propagation and the sinking of the Russian warship Moskva

#35

Post by bell-cot »

fancazzista wrote: post #13

Or it was simply located by one of the many, many NATO spy planes circling around in the Romanian territorial waters.

It was a huge surface ship, at sea. It was probably spotted in a 20 or more different ways - from commercial satellite imagery to HUMINT to its own radar transmitters to Russian sailors' cell phone signals.

Every way of spotting a target suffers from uncertainty. Most suffer from delays (satellite photo is X hours old), security issues (keep your spies alive), and political considerations (Ukrainians might want to feel that they are fighting and winning, not just acting as push-button-when-told minions of foreign powers).

Waiting to attack it until that could reliably be done with all-Ukrainian assets, all of which the Russians already knew about - that maximizes the number of checked boxes, eh?

Re: Anomalous propagation and the sinking of the Russian warship Moskva

#36

Post by bell-cot »

Already__Taken wrote: post #34
gridspy wrote: post #14

https://web.archive.org/web/20231117010516/https://journals.... Abstract On 13 April 2022, the Russian warship Moskva was hit by two Ukrainian Neptune anti-ship missiles in the Black Sea, leading to its demise. Before launching an anti-ship missile, a target must first be detected and positioned, for example by an accompanying radar system. However, when the missiles hit the Moskva she was well beyond the normal rada…

Can anyone that makes radar comment: does this just work or does that kit need to understand that this can happen to process it. Is an operator just using the thing and for a couple house is surprised at how much more shows up? like a telescope operator would be like "huh that's new" where as my router will be like "hmm TCP just got bigger, stop working."

Not an expert, but - the echo-return delay (speed of light, out & back, for a more-distant target) will be longer than normal during such anomalies. Useful military radar needs all sorts of "filters" - to ignore spurious signals & stuff you don't care about & enemy jamming & the old microwave in the break room. So, bare minimum, the radar's filters would need to be designed with an awareness that (at times) it could spot real surface targets at much longer ranges than normally possible.

Re: Anomalous propagation and the sinking of the Russian warship Moskva

#37

Post by ethbr1 »

bell-cot wrote: post #35
fancazzista wrote: post #13

Or it was simply located by one of the many, many NATO spy planes circling around in the Romanian territorial waters.

It was a huge surface ship, at sea. It was probably spotted in a 20 or more different ways - from commercial satellite imagery to HUMINT to its own radar transmitters to Russian sailors' cell phone signals. Every way of spotting a target suffers from uncertainty. Most suffer from delays (satellite photo is X hours old), security issues (keep your spies alive), and political considerations (Ukrainians might want to fe…

The initial reporting after was that:

   - Ukraine performed the initial radar detection
   - Ukraine asked the US to confirm it was the Moskva (the US did)
   - Ukraine attacked with their own targeting data
(Then news articles clammed up about the US confirmation, and the Pentagon put out some carefully worded statements that tried to establish distance)

Which sounds reasonable. Warships like the Moskva are strategic assets.

That lowers the bar for acceptable amount of help from the US before Russia escalates.

Re: Anomalous propagation and the sinking of the Russian warship Moskva

#38

Post by ethbr1 »

scotty79 wrote: post #30
dontlaugh wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, us Romanians have Ukrainian and Russian blood on our hands too.

Russian blood doesn't seem to matter much these days. Even to those to whom it should matter the most, namely the Russians themselves.

Russian blood doesn't matter to Russian military command.

One could go so far as to say that "using Russian blood" has historically been and currently is their military doctrine.

Re: Anomalous propagation and the sinking of the Russian warship Moskva

#39

Post by ethbr1 »

hurryer wrote: post #25
contrarian1234 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 5. Neptune launchers and missiles in flight are fed data from TB2. This part is really hard to believe. I briefly worked with radar systems (though nothing classified) These systems are all ancient and janky don't just integrate like lego. You can't just take a radar feed from a drone and feed it into the control system of a cruise missile lol Even AEGIS systems can't really do that effectively - let alone systems…

It's a single high value target. You can input the coordinate by hand.

This sounds more reasonable.

They may have been coming from the TB2, but they're being input by hand.

   - Shore radar + TB2 work up track on Moskva (heading, speed)
   - Missile launched to calculated intercept point
   - If Neptunes have midcourse correction (?), point updated if Moskva changes course

Re: Anomalous propagation and the sinking of the Russian warship Moskva

#40

Post by andruby »

throwaway290 wrote: post #21
zmgsabst wrote: post #16

Or like carrots being good for eyesight, this is a convenient cover for other assets used. Eg, NATO observation craft or satellites. Per Wiki, we have a satellite image from shortly after it was struck: > An image from a satellite with cloud-penetrating synthetic aperture radar (SAR) revealed that at 18:52 local time (UTC+03:00) on 13 April 2022, Moskva was located at 45°10′43.39″N 30°55′30.54″E, about 80 nautical mi…

If you are told "there's a sniper in that window" it's critical info but you still need to aim your gun precisely with your eyes since "that window" is big enough that you can shoot all your ammo before you hit. Radar is the eyes of anti-ship missiles

The missile most certainly has a terminal radar to re-acquire the target after cruising close enough.

In your analogy, you're firing a bullet in the right direction that can look and steer itself to the sniper.

Post reply on HN