Russian Cruiser Sinks, Ukraine Claims
Victory in Potentially Greatest Naval
Battle in Decades

He's got a point. The Falklands War was exactly 40 yeas ago.

"...domestically produced" Neptune missiles. Sure.

Can anyone explain the exuberant celebration over an isolated wartime success by a corrupt dominion of the Biden Crime Family that was notorious as a bastion of anti-Semitism throughout the twentieth century? Do we naturally identify with Ukraine unquestioningly, or are we so programmed that we almost lack free choice?

The past tense of "sink" is "sank," not "sunk." Keelhaul the next landlubber who gets it wrong.

Remember it was less than a week ago the the foreign media claimed that the British were supplying the Ukrainians with land to sea missiles? This ship was sunk through incompetence by officers of the Russian Navy, as they should have had defensive missile capable frigates between the land and their missile cruiser to protect the cruiser from sea skimming land to sea missiles, as the Russians had to know that Ukraine had such missiles. In that respect, from what we have seen so far, it is probable that if the Russian Navy ever commenced fighting surface warfare against the combined NATO fleets on the high seas, that the Russian Naval fleets would be wiped out and sunk within a few days.

Looked like a Harpoon strike.

It at least seems plausible that these Neptune anti-ship missiles were used. If one does some online research on the Neptune missile system, they have been in development since the 2014-15 period, or earlier, and have had periodic flight tests, and public reports on their development over many years. The basic airframe design is from an older Soviet missile. Not a sudden magical development from nothing. I doubt that any of the US or Brit anti-ship missiles could have been shipped in, the users trained and systems deployed in the very few days since the announcements of those missiles "going to be provided", but perhaps this was done by British or US missiles. That seems less likely than the Neptune missiles that the Ukrainians claim were used. I worked with Ukrainian Yuzhnoye missile design agency on some non-military projects and found that many of their engineers were competent and capable. This Neptune development would not seem beyond their capabilities from what I saw of their ability to produce high tech electronics from their original design concepts. Yuzhnoye designed all the ICBMs for the Soviet Union. I've been through their pretty impressive rocket museum. I did a search on Yuzhnoye, and they are reporting that they have tested a new indigenous Taifun-1 missile model to work in the existing older Soviet Grad launcher systems, as of 2020. Ukraine was a technical center (Antonov transport aircraft company is Ukrainian) in the soviet times, this is not out of character.

#6 - exactly.

If the "Ukranian Navy" could do this, we had better beware of a conflict with China. One golden BB from a Chinese missile system and you lose the propaganda war. We have capability if we still have the skill and cunning to win.

Russian news sources state that "Russia says it has hit a plant making anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles outside the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv", so apparently Russia thinks that Ukraine has a capacity for the domestic production of anti-ship missiles. At least enough of a threat to warrant an attack against the plant. Unless the Russians are in on the Ukrainian "fake news" as well.

The U.S. (through an "official") has just confirmed that the flag ship was struck by two Ukrainian missiles per the NY Times.

It was the fires from all the unburned missile fuel that doomed this ship, not the explosive warheads. The warhead on the Neptune is only slightly larger than the Exocet, but it carries three times as much fuel. HMS Sheffield, the Atlantic Conveyor, HMS Glamorgan, and USS Stark all experienced Exocet hits. Once the fire starts, only magnificent damage control will save the ship, and sometimes even that isn't enough.

I guess we have a new definition of "naval battle". The missiles were apparently launched from land, not another vessel, and it appears the Russian vessel was not engaged with the enemy when this occurred. Whatever passes these days. This episode only underscores the second-rate level of military, including naval, competence one can expect from Russian forces and their equipment. They were second-rate forty years ago when one could see their broken-down equipment along the East German Autobahn. But they served a great purpose then, as they do now. The military-industrial complex needs a bogey man, and Russia is always a good one. NATO thanks their existence nightly in their prayers. So, now what? It won't take many more such defeats to put Putin on the ropes domestically, He may be mad, but he's also liable to the political winds that blow in Russia. It is a country that does not take well to losing and the associated embarrassment. Tell the citizenry they are invincible, and they don't expect to lose. Depose Putin and there will be domestic strife that could include a civil war and loose nuclear weapons. And then what?

All my life the entire world has been held hostage to russias nuclear arsenal. Even when we KNEW their armies and machinery were second rate we backed off because “nuclear war, “nuclear winter”, “nuclear holocaust” was the end result of holding them accountable for their evil behaviors. Now I’m wondering if the dam things will even fly or explode anywhere but in their rusted out old silos.

Re #12 - In WW2 Japan had a very good, extremely long range torpedo. It had no trail of exhaust bubbles like many designs, US included. This required a large high pressure bottle of oxygen plus a very high energy fuel for the combustion engine that drove the torpedo. Japan had 10-16 torpedoes in launchers amidships on all their warships, with 'reloads' (more torpedoes) stored near the deck level launchers. After a few battles where a US shell hit their own torpedoes, causing a huge oxygen boosted torpedo fuel fire, with torpedo warheads exploding, too, it became Japanese doctrine to fire all torpedoes early in any surface warfare engagement both because it was a good attack strategy, but also because the torpedoes on deck were recognized as a huge hazard to their own ships. My point is that this Russian cruiser had 8 large cruise missile launchers on each side of the ship. It seems likely that these were armed with their large anti-ship missiles (SS-N-12 "Sandbox), which have a very large 2200 lb warhead, and a large quantity of aviation fuel for the turbine engines. If all tubes were loaded, their own warheads on deck would amount to 16 x 2200 lbs = 352,000 lbs of high explosives (!!), plus many tons of flammable jet fuel for the missile engines. Even if only the missiles on one side (8) were involved, that is almost 200,000 lbs of explosives and tons of jet fuel to feed a fire. Even a small missile impact setting that off could result in a very large fire, spreading to more missile launchers, and explosions of many tons of her own warheads. Even a few of these 2200 lb warheads exploding would cause huge damage. Perhaps the Russian reports of "fires and exploding ammunition" are perfectly accurate....SS-N-12 missiles burning and exploding. Many Japanese ships in WW2 were grievously harmed by their own torpedoes burning and exploding on deck. I wonder if this is what was the ultimate cause of the Moskva sinking? And on-line military technical review of the ship design says that this class of guided missile cruisers is half the weight of their other class of missile cruisers, and "..with only minimal ASW capabilities for self-defense.". https://navyrecognition.com/index.php/naval-news/naval-news-archive/2022/april/11627-technical-review-about-the-sinked-russian-slava-class-cruiser-moskva.html?msclkid=be22bc26bce511ec9dbd19b62c6e9258

I was thinking the same thing as #15. In pictures of the ship the deck is covered with large missile launchers. Seems like a very poor design to me. I believe US ships store the missiles below deck and they only come up when being fired.

When I think of significant naval battles I think of the Battle of the Coral Sea. Nevertheless, sinking this one ship is a significant setback for Russia.

Russian cruiser promoted to submarine.