Iowa Class vs Kirov Class

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

Lehman was a fighter.

Lehman (gag, spit, puke ) has NEVER been a fighter in his miserable life.

In fact, when he actually had a *chance* to fight for real, Lehman (gag, spit, puke ) used his family connections to gain admission to the Reserves (Air Force, then Navy) and avoid serving in Vietnam.

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

Thank you Mr Lehman for fighting for our Nimitz class carriers.

Trost was instrumental in getting Congress to authorize full funding in 1988 for USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) and USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75). Lehman (gag, spit, puke ) was NOT.

On the contrary, Lehman (gag, spit, puke ) actually announced his departure in February 1987 as the Navy's request for two more carriers was under fire in Congress and then launched his attack against Senator Nunn.

Just like Adm. Trost pointed out, "for a man to do that just before he leaves office is like tossing down the gauntlet and not sticking around for the fight.''

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

And who was elected for a second term?

Bill Clinton ?

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

The failure to take barrel wear into account is a MUCH MORE IMPORTANT factor than the wear itself.

Simple math dictates that if the barrels were worn on average to 42% then many of these barrels (on NJ and her sisiters) were in even worse shape given the high percentage of wear.

Wether you take the barrel wear into account or not you still have excesive wear and not only effects accuracy but also effects velocity and striking power.

New Jerseys guns were quite effective during her former commision for Vietnam and Muir's book is loaded with accounts of men (Marines etc) that were there and calling for support and boasted of said accuracy. If we check how many 16" shells were fired against the life of those liners then it is understandable as to the "why" her guns were not as accurate and her Vietnams deployment. If the liners were not replaced pending the wear then she went off to Lebannon with the very same worn liners that she finished her Vietnam tour with and who knows what testing took place between then and 1983 when she was off Lebannon. Accuracy explained from the mechanical side of things.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

They didn't fire this gun (center, turret #2) during NJ's deployment off Lebanon in 1983-84.

Dont matter 42% average wear is 42% average wear no matter which way you look at it. It matters not if Rifle #2 turret #2 was fired. The other rifles could have easily been more worn given the high percentage rate further explaining accuracy rate.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by fitz

Actually, the ones that seem to be failing are the ones they are trying to design in-house. And I find the Indian Navy hardly an example of anything. This is after all the service that was still building steam-powered Leander knock-off's into the 1990's!

Now then, different tools for different jobs is meaningless. The question is which would win in a one-on-one fight, an Iowa class battleship or a Russian Kirov class cruiser? Different roles has nothing to do with anything. This is a hypothetical question that cares not what those roles are.

Back in 1991 the USS Missouri was steaming through a narrow cleared lane in a Iraqi-laid minefield. The Iraqi's were covering that minefield with a hidden Silkworm battery. HMS Gloucester's first warning of the attack was apparently an ESM warning probably triggered by the sweep of a target indication radar at the Silkworm battery. The Iraqi's presumably fired their missiles down the bearing of the largest blip they got on that sweep (hence passing just astern of Missouri) but either in haste or due to inadequate range data the missile seekers did not switch on when they should have (note what I said earlier about the importance of good target data when firing anti-ship missiles). In other words, a nice setup by the Iraqi's but poorly executed. The missiles passed their probable intended target - the USS Missouri, a nearby frigate USS Jarrett bravely shot up a chaff cloud with Phalanx, some of those rounds hitting the Missouri, then HMS Gloucester took out one missile while the other apparently crashed into the sea, either through mechanical failure or deception by chaff. USS Missouri apparently only sighted the enemy missiles visually and did little, if anything in the way of countering the attack.

So the question is, if an Iowa class battleship doesn't even realize she is under attack by something as crude as Silkworm, how in the heck is an Iowa going to know if it is under attack by Granit? Remember, we are talking about a mano-a-mano duel to the death between 2 ships - the British are not around to save the battleship in our hypothetical scenario. And if the battleship can't detect inbound Silkworms how is she supposed to find, track and shoot at something like Kirov without being seen and attacked in kind?

As for what would happen to an Iowa class battleship if hit by Silkworm, that is outside the scope of our hypothetical duel but I am a bit less casual about the possible results than you. Silkworm, though far from ultra-modern is still a far more lethal projectile than say, FX-1400 yet we all know what that could do to a modern battleship.

* Really? I could fill almost an entire thread about such quality. Especially for their variation of the CLUB (U.S. Tomahawk) copy and many other failures.

You assume that nobody tracked the missle onboard the Missouri. We dont know that as truth the only ones that do are the ones that were there. So stating that nobody tracked it a moot point where you have no official log to put to the test so stating that as a fault is a farse.

*Stating that an Iowa cant track a Silkworm is a very bold statement. One that most guys here would never make. Why because given some of our backgrounds and resources we dont even know (and Im assured we have more experiernce then yourself with the Iowas). That is why we would never state such nonsense. I will come back to this next week.

As for what would happen to an Iowa class battleship if hit by Silkworm, that is outside the scope of our hypothetical duel but I am a bit less casual about the possible results than you. Silkworm, though far from ultra-modern is still a far more lethal projectile than say, FX-1400 yet we all know what that could do to a modern battleship.[/QUOTE

*Ah, the FX-1400 sinker of Battleships you say?

Sinkings: (Off hand)
Battleship Roma
HMS Spartan - Anti aircraft cruiser
HMS NewFoundland - Hospital ship (of all things)
HMS Janus - Destroyer

Non Sinkings:

USS Philadelphia - CL (light cruiser)
USS Savana - CL (light cruiser)
HMS Uganada - (light cruiser)
HMS Warspite - QE Class BB

Starting to see that the FX-1400 wasnt a such a "battleship killer" yet? In only one case did the FX-1400 kill a battleship and that battleship belonged to Italy. How is it that you suppose 3 USN CL's and one RN Battleship survived such attacks? (You can see the damage for yourself in pics) Answer: Two to three times better damage control measures in effect in the USN and the RN and better ship design internally.

So now just how casual are you about it again?

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

The Iranian Frigate (British Vosper MkV Class) IS Sahand was hit with 3 Harpoon missiles, 4 AGM-123 Skipper ,a Walleye laser-guided bomb, and several 1,000 lb bombs. the 1,540 ton IS Sahand did not sink until fire reached its munitions magazine, causing it to explode.

I guess they weren't fired from a "Calculated angle of approach"

The USS Wainright, unmanned, as part of a SinkEx took 2 poons. She was sunk the next day with torpedos

The Oiler Ashtabula took 8 poons during her SinkEx.

You are stating that a floating targetship that has zero systems running, no fuel (green as we are ) no armament onboard nor other materials (remember we want to be green now ) flammable or not and no crew can mimick what would happen to a lightly armored (and I do stress LIGHTLY ARMORED) fully loaded atomic powered missle cruiser that is laiden with fuel,nuclear reactors and a shopping list of missles, crew and the like plus helo's and helo fuel is going to react in any way shape or form close to being such a target ship?

For shame Grape I know you are smarter then that.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

The Iranian Frigate (British Vosper MkV Class) IS Sahand was hit with 3 Harpoon missiles, 4 AGM-123 Skipper ,a Walleye laser-guided bomb, and several 1,000 lb bombs. the 1,540 ton IS Sahand did not sink until fire reached its munitions magazine, causing it to explode.

I guess they weren't fired from a "Calculated angle of approach"

The USS Wainright, unmanned, as part of a SinkEx took 2 poons. She was sunk the next day with torpedos

The Oiler Ashtabula took 8 poons during her SinkEx.

As for the Iranian frigate. Which block was used and how far has the technology come since then. Also at what range were they launched.

[Dreadnought]

Have some pictures to work on about our discussion but will be back soon.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Wether you take the barrel wear into account or not you still have excesive wear and not only effects accuracy but also effects velocity and striking power.

You missed the point completely, so I'll rephrase : the failure to account for barrel wear properly in the fire control solution is a MUCH MORE IMPORTANT factor than the wear itself.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

The other rifles could have easily been more worn given the high percentage rate further explaining accuracy rate.

What makes you think 42% is a high percentage ?

[Dreadnought]

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - Hezbollah denounced the deployment of U.S. warships off Lebanon and said Friday it won't be intimidated, while the U.S.-backed Lebanese government distanced itself from the military move.

"We did not request any warships from any party," U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said, hours after the U.S. military announced it was sending ships off Lebanon.

He insisted the U.S. ships would cruise off the coast, not in Lebanese territorial waters.

Saniora, who has been accused by the opposition of following U.S. policy, spoke in front of Arab diplomats at government headquarters in Beirut after his Hezbollah opponents called the U.S. deployment a threat to Lebanese sovereignty and independence.


The U.S. military said Thursday the Navy was sending at least three ships, including an amphibious assault ship, to the eastern Mediterranean Sea in a show of strength during a period of tensions with Syria and political uncertainty in Lebanon.

"We are facing an American threat against Lebanon," Hezbollah legislator Hassan Fadlallah said. "It is clear this threat and intimidation will not affect us," he said on local television.

Fadlallah also called on Saniora's government to reject the Navy deployment.

Hezbollah is leading the opposition seeking to topple the U.S.-backed government in Beirut. The group fought Israel in the 2006 war and is believed linked to Muslim militants who attacked U.S. forces and diplomats in Lebanon in 1983-84 during the Lebanese civil war, killing about 270.

Lebanon's long political crisis is increasingly viewed as taking on a regional scope: a proxy confrontation between the United States and some of its Arab allies against Iran and Syria - both staunch opponents of America's Mideast policies.

Neighboring Syria had yet to react on Friday, a weekend in that country.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters Thursday the deployment should not be viewed as threatening or in response to events in any single country in the volatile region.

But the decision appeared to be a not-too-subtle show of U.S. force as international frustration mounts over a long political deadlock in tiny, weak Lebanon. The United States blames Syria for the impasse, saying Syria has never given up its ambitions to control its smaller neighbor.

The presidential election in Lebanon has been delayed 15 times. Just this week the date was pushed back to March 11.

The opposition accuses the U.S. of scuttling any attempts to settle the political crisis over the president and government that has dragged on for the last 15 months. The majority has accused the opposition of doing the bidding of Syria and Iran.

Tensions in Lebanon have sharpened after the assassination in Syria of top Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyeh, who was wanted by the United States for a plane hijacking and was suspected of attacks against American targets in Lebanon as well as Israeli and Jewish interests abroad.

Hezbollah has accused Israel, promising retaliation, and Israel has put its forces along the Lebanese border on alert.

Sheik Afif Naboulsi, a Shiite cleric close to Hezbollah, scoffed at the U.S. Navy deployment.

"We say to the Americans: We will not be afraid of your threats, and we won't hand over the country to you to use it to pressure Syria," he said at a Friday sermon in southern Lebanon.

In 1983, at the height of U.S. intervention in Lebanon, about 17 ships - two aircraft carrier battle groups and two mammoth battleships - patrolled the Lebanese coastline with a Marine contingent deployed at Beirut airport.

A suicide bombing destroyed the Marine base in October 1983, killing 241 American service personnel, and a U.S. Embassy building was destroyed by another suicide bomber during that period. U.S. warships also were involved in shelling anti-government Muslim militia positions.

Lebanese territorial waters are now patrolled by Lebanon's navy and a United Nations Naval Task Force that is assisting Lebanese authorities under the U.N. resolution that halted the summer 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah.

The last time U.S. ships came to Lebanon was during the 34-day conflict in 2006, with warships taking part in the evacuation of Americans.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

In 1983, at the height of U.S. intervention in Lebanon, about 17 ships - two aircraft carrier battle groups and two mammoth battleships - patrolled the Lebanese coastline with a Marine contingent deployed at Beirut airport.

Two BBs off Lebanon in 1983 ? No kiddin'...

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Two BBs off Lebanon in 1983 ? No kiddin'...

Dont blame me I didnt write the article in question nor stand by its accuracy.

[TopHatter]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

So is it you Seasick?

His screenname is Shipwreck. Not Seasick.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

You are stating that a floating targetship that has zero systems running, no fuel (green as we are ) no armament onboard nor other materials (remember we want to be green now ) flammable or not and no crew can mimick what would happen to a lightly armored (and I do stress LIGHTLY ARMORED) fully loaded atomic powered missle cruiser that is laiden with fuel,nuclear reactors and a shopping list of missles, crew and the like plus helo's and helo fuel is going to react in any way shape or form close to being such a target ship?

For shame Grape I know you are smarter then that.

As for the Iranian frigate. Which block was used and how far has the technology come since then. Also at what range were they launched.

The point of my post was to demonstrate that the Harpoon isn't some big missile that does a lot of damage.

Wainright is about as heavily armored as Kirov. The missile doesn't cause massive amounts of damage. Wainright had no damage control, every WTD was dogged open. They wanted her to sink. Kirov won't be so easy.

A small lightly armored frigate loaded with fuel, ammo and missiles like you
want the Kirov to be required lots more ordinance that 3 harpoons.

How many of the 16 poons that an Iowa has do you expect to make it through to hit the Kirov?

I don't expect the Kirov to be laiden with Granits. They would have been launched long before the Kirov ever got into Harpoon range. 600km max range of Granit vs 145km range of surface launched Harpoons.

As for what make/model/ect of harpoon struck the frigate really doesn't matter. The warhead has never been changed. 433lbs of Destex

[SteaminDemon]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Lehman (gag, spit, puke ) has NEVER been a fighter in his miserable life.

In fact, when he actually had a *chance* to fight for real, Lehman (gag, spit, puke ) used his family connections to gain admission to the Reserves (Air Force, then Navy) and avoid serving in Vietnam.

Well, Lehman served, You make it sound like the reserves don't mean anything . The reserves don't fight for real? Those sailors and soldiers serve honorably. Sorry shipwreck, John Lehman made four reserve active duty tours to Vietnam. Do you not forget that he was offered a job working for Dick Allen on Kissinger's National Security Council staff prior to joining, but he still managed to serve.

"Trost was instrumental in getting Congress to authorize full funding in 1988 for USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) and USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75). Lehman (gag, spit, puke ) was NOT. "

You have simply ignored Lehman's diligence resulting in the retention and further construction of the Nimitz class Carriers.

"On the contrary, Lehman (gag, spit, puke ) actually announced his departure in February 1987 as the Navy's request for two more carriers was under fire in Congress and then launched his attack against Senator Nunn."

read my reply above

"Just like Adm. Trost pointed out, "for a man to do that just before he leaves office is like tossing down the gauntlet and not sticking around for the fight.'' "

He was there for the fight, and did very well. Proven record, and the budgets showed.



Bill Clinton ?

Yeah, Bill Clinton the draft dodger. Bill Clinton who completely got out of serving, the first deserter, and criminal to serve as president.