Posted on 04/14/2022 7:57:48 PM PDT by Zhang Fei
WHAT WAS ITS HISTORY?
The warship was launched as the Slava from a shipyard in Mykolaiv in what was then the Soviet republic of Ukraine in July 1979, according to open-source intelligence firm Janes. Commissioned in late December 1982, it was 611.5 feet (186 meters) long. It was designed to carry a crew of 476 with an additional 62 officers.
The Slava served as the flagship of the Soviet fleet in the Black Sea. It carried both surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, deck guns, torpedoes and mortars. It also had a helicopter deck.
During the Cold War, it also carried nuclear weapons. In 1989, under Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, U.S. and Soviet scientists took part in a joint test abroad the Slava in the Black Sea to measure the emission of neutrons and gamma rays from a nuclear warhead on a cruise missile.
In late 1989, the Slava was supposed to host a meeting off Malta between Gorbachev and then-President George H.W. Bush, but gale force winds prompted the Soviet-hosted side of the talks to be held instead on the docked cruiser Maxim Gorky.
FROM SLAVA TO MOSKVA
The Slava underwent repairs from 1990-1999. During that time, the Soviet Union collapsed, an independent Ukraine emerged and Russia’s economy foundered. Finally overhauled and rechristened the Moskva, the ship hosted both President Vladimir Putin and then-Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi during a 2003 visit to Sardinia.
“Thank God, our cruisers can still go on their own, our planes and missiles can fly,” Putin said at the time.
Putin’s later comments at the La Maddalena naval base show how much has changed. He described the Moskva’s presence as a sign that “the level of trust between Russia and the NATO countries is rising.” NATO’s eastward expansion and Russian security were among the reasons Putin cited
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Obviously Russia.
These are military training exercises.
Bye Bye Moscow, pride of the Russian fleet.
Right.
I was reffering to old weapons systems that can be ‘sacrificed’.
They have T-72s.
Biden has dusty nukes.
Its sunk, no?
Both sides say so, no?
Well then, what third side says otherwise?
Which side has been lying overtly about everything since day one?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Which day one? BTW before Russia started mil action Putin made a long speech describing everything in detail. I listened to it. and I think I have the transcript, should be able to find the video. Subtitles at the bottom, iirc.
What color was that blue pill when you shat it out?
/s
The undisputed facts are:
1) Ukraine has anti-ship missals;
2) The Moskva was operating within range of those missals;
3) A fire broke out aboard the Moskva and it subsequently sank as it was being towed to port.
You dismiss the Ukrainian claim that they struck the Moskva with two missals as propaganda. On what basis? It may be so but how can you assert that it is so unequivocally? How you can accept the Russian claim uncritically? Do not they also put out false claims as propaganda? All I ask is which scenario is more likely, the one claimed by Ukraine or the one claimed by Russia? How likely is it that fires have broken out spontaneously on two Russian ships operating in a war zone rather than that they were both struck with anti-ship missals?
True. Our Trident missiles are still pretty good. They are the newer D5 variant. Our boats are cold war era like the Moskva. However Russia has a new SLBM (Bulava) and newer ICBMs too. Very concerning.
The Ukes are throwing Catholic prayer books at the Russkies?? :-)
Just wait until they bring out the Roman Canon. :-)
What sort of pill makes one deny what all sides admit?
I have seen tons of those things. The old ones (missals) we can consider weapons of mass destruction.
Newer ones make up for reduced size by their vastly larger numbers. Do not discount their effectiveness.
I’m just getting to the thread again; has anyone said how the Neptune missiles are delivered? From the air, ground, or from ships? Since RU owns the sky there, and Uke lost its navy a while ago, I am wondering.
I was of the impression that Neptune’s were surface-to-surface.
Sailor's lore says it is bad luck to rename a ship.
I’d be very surprised to find out that there were no nuclear weapons aboard the Moskva. Even in peace time it would seem prudent to have a couple on board such a ship.
A ship afloat is a surface target, I suppose.
[FROM SLAVA TO MOSKVA
Sailor’s lore says it is bad luck to rename a ship.]
I do remember Intel Slava mentioning this ship fire I think a day or two ago, I’ll look for it. Do you know the actual date of the purported missile strikes (one or two purported IIRC)?
Found what I had seen yesterday. Posted April 14, Intel Slava posts at (our) night, so this was visible early yesterday morning. I don’t think I’ve seen any updates on this. If I do, I will post.
https://t.me/s/intelslava/25203
Russian Ministry of Defense:
The source of fire on the cruiser “Moskva” is localized. There is no open fire. Explosions of ammunition have been stopped.
Cruiser “Moskva” keeps buoyancy. The main missile armament was not damaged.
The crew was evacuated to the ships of the Black Sea Fleet in the area.Arrangements are being made to tow the cruiser to port.
The cause of the fire is under investigation.
https://t.me/s/intelslava/25214
Pentagon press secretary Kirby confirmed the fact that the Moskva cruiser is afloat and stressed that the exact causes of the fire are unknown.
https://t.me/s/intelslava/25217
The Moskva cruiser was able to get under its own power to Sevastopol for repairs, - Pentagon representative Kirby
Earlier, he said that the ship is afloat, and the exact causes of the fire are unknown.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.