[Goose]

A couple thoughts:


While a 200 pound warhead may not sink a ship, may not punching a hole in the side be sufficient to put it in dry dock for months of repairs, essentially removing it from the conflict?

While it is possible such damage would be done, it is improbable. The explosion would be at or near the waterline and probably have occurred outside the ship. It may flood a compartment, but since the ship is double-hulled (ships don't have torpedo bulges any more as a rule) probably not even that. Bilge pumps will just have to run all the time. It might mean there is a fuel tank or water tank you can't use or something like that. Worst case, trim the ship to roll it away from the hull breach, weld a plate over it, and you are good to go. If the USV breached the hull and then the explosion went of, the damage could be worse. However, in both cases if the ship needed to sustain operations it undoubtedly could. It is more like a "fender bender".

Secondly, my impression has always been that the damage often comes less from the warhead and more from the fires caused by said warhead. Case in point, it only took 2 330 pound Neptune warheads to sink the Moskva, likely due to damage caused by the subsequent fires.

Indeed that is the case with cruise missiles. However, it is apples and oranges. The missile hits the ship traveling 400 knots or more. It is well inside the ship before it explodes. Consider the Exocet hit on Sheffield:

"The Exocet that struck Sheffield hit her on the starboard side at deck level 2, travelling through the junior ratings' scullery and breaching the Forward Auxiliary Machinery Room/Forward Engine Room bulkhead 2.4 metres (7.9 ft) above the waterline, creating a hole in the hull roughly 1.2 metres (3.9 ft) by 3 metres (9.8 ft). Contemporary accounts suggested that the missile failed to explode, despite disabling the ship's electrical distribution systems and breaching the pressurised sea water fire main. The damage to the fire system severely hampered any firefighting response and eventually doomed the ship to be consumed by the fire."

It went through two compartments before it stopped, and it never did explode as such. Just residual fuel burning. Plenty of things to burn inside the ship. Not so much in the water outside it. The missile had tremendous kinetic energy due to its speed, which a USV doesn't have. Torpedoes can start fires inside the ship if they cause fuel lines to break or the like, but to do that they have to get well inside before they explode and/or have a BIG warhead (IJN type 93) The USV isn't going to do that.

I also tend to agree that if the ships involved got off with light or no damage, the Russians would be posting video/photo evidence to proclaim the Ukranians ineffective.

Could be. However, we also don't see pictures of the opposite, like we did with Moskva. Not sure what that means. Let's see if somebody posts a picture of the Frigate.

[Goose]

A couple thoughts:


While a 200 pound warhead may not sink a ship, may not punching a hole in the side be sufficient to put it in dry dock for months of repairs, essentially removing it from the conflict?

While it is possible such damage would be done, it is improbable. The explosion would be at or near the waterline and probably have occurred outside the ship. It may flood a compartment, but since the ship is double-hulled (ships don't have torpedo bulges any more as a rule) probably not even that. Bilge pumps will just have to run all the time. It might mean there is a fuel tank or water tank you can't use or something like that. Worst case, trim the ship to roll it away from the hull breach, weld a plate over it, and you are good to go. If the USV breached the hull and then the explosion went of, the damage could be worse. However, in both cases if the ship needed to sustain operations it undoubtedly could. It is more like a "fender bender".

Secondly, my impression has always been that the damage often comes less from the warhead and more from the fires caused by said warhead. Case in point, it only took 2 330 pound Neptune warheads to sink the Moskva, likely due to damage caused by the subsequent fires.

Indeed that is the case with cruise missiles. However, it is apples and oranges. The missile hits the ship traveling 400 knots or more. It is well inside the ship before it explodes. Consider the Exocet hit on Sheffield:

"The Exocet that struck Sheffield hit her on the starboard side at deck level 2, travelling through the junior ratings' scullery and breaching the Forward Auxiliary Machinery Room/Forward Engine Room bulkhead 2.4 metres (7.9 ft) above the waterline, creating a hole in the hull roughly 1.2 metres (3.9 ft) by 3 metres (9.8 ft). Contemporary accounts suggested that the missile failed to explode, despite disabling the ship's electrical distribution systems and breaching the pressurised sea water fire main. The damage to the fire system severely hampered any firefighting response and eventually doomed the ship to be consumed by the fire."

It went through two compartments before it stopped, and it never did explode as such. Just residual fuel burning. Plenty of things to burn inside the ship. Not so much in the water outside it. The missile had tremendous kinetic energy due to its speed, which a USV doesn't have. Torpedoes can start fires inside the ship if they cause fuel lines to break or the like, but to do that they have to get well inside before they explode and/or have a BIG warhead (IJN type 93) The USV isn't going to do that.

I also tend to agree that if the ships involved got off with light or no damage, the Russians would be posting video/photo evidence to proclaim the Ukranians ineffective.

Could be. However, we also don't see pictures of the opposite, like we did with Moskva. Not sure what that means. Let's see if somebody posts a picture of the Frigate.