Quote:
Originally Posted by fitz
Wow. So much to consider here.
What you are proposing to do is use a missile, the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear (TLAM-N or BGM109A Block 1 for short) that relies on Terrain Comparison for accurate guidance to attack a moving ship in the open ocean at ranges as great as 1,500nm, am I correct? How exactly does this particular weapon accomplish this task? It takes hours, if not days to program a flight and once launched, this missile can not change targets. All the while the Kirov is moving at whatever speed and in whichever direction she chooses. Once launched time of flight to maximum range is about 2 hours during which time of course the target will move further still.
Of course we are not looking for a direct hit, but you still need to get in the neighborhood to make your EMP scenario work - which presents other problems. For EMP you need a burst high in the atmosphere. Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear is a low-flyer. She has no ability to climb high into the atmosphere to detonate - unless of course this is the same capability secretly used to down TWA 800. Even if Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear could perform such a manuever, this will expose the weapon to detection and attack by the Kirov, which has the ability to detect and engage any high-flying target within approximately 100km.
But how does an Iowa even find a target 1,500nm away? You claim she has a radar capable of detecting surface ship targets up to 2,000 miles away! This seems a bit odd. Her biggest, most powerful, longest-ranged radar is SPS-49(V)1, a low-frequency long-range air-search set generally credited with an effective range of around 400km against a bomber. According to you however, this is not the radar in question.
So what other radar systems do we see on the Iowa's.
Looking at the photo in front of me I see SPS-67(V)1, basically the old SPS-10 surface-search/navigation/snorkel detection radar with new solid-state below-decks equipment. Unless you want to convince me a Knox class frigate can pick out surface ships an ocean away with this puppy I think we can move on.
SPQ-9 is a short-range, precision, TWS gunfire control radar. Really a non-starter for those kinds of ranges.
The ships navigation radar is certainly not a candidate, neither are the various gunfire control radars.
So what is this uber-secret magical miracle radar that makes SPY-1 look like a hot steaming pile of puke, and more importantly, where is it?
I know, it must be invisible. The first stealth radar. That is the only possible explanation.
Since you refuse to name this amazing technical device, either because you think your being cute with some special secret knowledge (like Mormon underwear) and it is not mentioned in any of the technical journals or the usual sources, we shall have to give this puppy a name.
I christen thee the Unicorn because this radar, like the mythical creature from which it gets its name, is about as real.
So we have a real missile employing imaginary capabilities relying for target detection on a mythical radar.
This is getting really interesting.
PS
SLQ-25A is a what type of decoy?
An acoustic decoy.
What type of guidance is used in the 53-65 surface ship torpedo (hint: its not "acoustic")
|
Fritz,
You can ramble, banter etc. The main goal of the last few posts is to reinforce nothing more then what I have said earlier about all the information thats out there. Grape, was quick to notice it was for war gaming and sensible enough to knock down almost every solution I have offered in this thread. I was waiting until you noticed it. I in all honesty dont know her full range of radar but I am atleast smart enough to know what is in print about the ships and what is fiction put to print. I could for all intense purposes conduct my own survey aboard and write down model, mark#, serial number etc and present it here for all intense purposes but to what end?
Could you do the very same for your Kirov and be so sure outside of what you read? I have limitied information on her and judging by the quality and time devoted to the information it would seem these gentlemen know more of her capability then anybody I have seen here yet in almost five years as being a member. We are not dealing with reality here as far as the ships confronting each other so why offer realistic solutions to unrealist battle scenarios. I dont know her full capability anymore then you or anybody else here knows the full capability of the Kirov class. So basically all these posts are nothing more then wishfull thinking. The opening of the thread alone should have told you that from the start. So your bantering and jeering and jawing is pretty much falling upon deaf ears with me. I think that so far I have offered intelligent information in alot of areas on the Iowas on numerous threads concerning them and have shared it with people that have worked upon them as well as others interested in them and have learned quite a bit from others here. Jeering over a hypothetical dont do much for me and its extremely surprising this thread has lasted this long.
If in fact you are so interested in seeing these two battle and compare then why not start a new thread with real time situations and share all of this in depth knowledge you seem to have about the Kirov's and their capabilities as well as service record. I along with others here would be interested as well.
I will even help you. These links are fairly descent to detail some things including picks about the Kirovs that are taken while under repairs.
1144 (.2) Kirov class | Russian Arms, Military Technology, Analysis of Russia's Military Forces
TYPE 1144 "KIROV" CLASS
The above are pretty good links and have many pics.
As far as what I know about the Iowas. I invite you to come visit me. One mod here (TH) will very shortly and his criticisms are judged pretty fair by most here that I know of. I'll show you more then any books ever will. Atleast you will know instead of reading what the books and websites have to offer.
Not that they are all bad or anything but you will know what is and what isint by the time we are through.
