Iowa Class vs Kirov Class

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

Training was revamped during the 80's. Sorry to burst your bubble, but a majority of schools are going away and aren't what they used to be.

Schools that are no longer relevant go away.

As for not being what they use to be. I take that with a grain of salt.
And I'm a former school instructor. I know the "They don't train them like when I went to school" before I became an artillery instructor. Then I went to the school and "We trained the best artillerymen ever". a few years after going back to the fleet I wondered "What the hell are they teaching those kids. Gone downhill from when I was there" Of course it wasn't true but it was a great way to relieve stress

Yes, although the Clinton administration spent a lot of money, where did it go? Certainly not for more ships. The old ways of wasteful spending came right back.

Well in the marine Corps, instead of getting big shiny expensive items, we got non sexy things like Modern cold weather gear, updated load carrying gear, modern tents to replace the WW2 era shelter halves, boots that you could wear without ripping your feet to pieces, PAC-4s, PVS-7s and other things. We also got the AV-8 night version and 8B+

And I know the Navy did the same thing. In addition to as a ship example getting 28 Burk class ships authorized. Nah the Navy didn't get any ships

As to the Burke's and Tico's, they were already out and about. The last spru can was built in 83. The spru cans soldiered on anyway and did just fine.

USS Burke commissioned 92. Burke had been authorized in 85. 2 more in 87.
The other 14 Fl 1s authorized by Bush Sr.

Side note, Philadelphia navy yard. It was an agenda of Cheney to close Philly and was announced in 91. It was 96 when the doors closed. Clinton was in office and could have helped stop the closure. Nothing was done. Bush Sr stood by and did nothing as well.

I guess BRAC justified its closing. We had too many bases. Some had to be closed. Philly was redundant, no more cold war, no need for the redundancy. She went, we saved money.

[SteaminDemon]

"Yes, although the Clinton administration spent a lot of money, where did it go? Certainly not for more ships. The old ways of wasteful spending came right back. The BOSS program was gone faster than you could say boo. Clinton did not do wonders for the military. Ships going over budget up to 100% of their original costs"

I quote myself. To clear things up. I meant not for more ships as in budgetary management sense. But I do see where I made the mistake in the sentence. But in the end sentence, it shows that I did not mean no ships at all were built during the Clinton years. I had to clear that one up before I left.

As far as schools. GT A-school was irrelevant? Hardly.


There is always a need for redundancy, as well as competition.

I may be back later.

SteaminDemon

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

You make it sound like the reserves don't mean anything.

The depth of your ignorance is simply unfathomable.

Read this :

Indeed, joining the reserves came to be seen during Vietnam as a way to avoid conscription, fulfill the citizenship responsibility of military service, and avoid going to war. The generation now leading most American social institutions remembers the Vietnam role of the reserves as nonwar fighters—rather than the pre-Korea role of major mobilization base—as the norm for American reservist policy.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

He was there for the fight, and did very well.

The depth of your ignorance is unfathomable.

Lehman (spit, puke, gag ) wasn't there for the fight because he left in April 1987.

Aka Lehman (spit, puke, gag ) tossed down the gauntlet, didn't stick around for the fight, dropped his pants, chickened out, etc, etc, etc... exactly when the request for CVN-74 & -75 came under fire in Congress.

Gotta catch the plane and will be gone for weeks. Enjoy the tranquility.

[Master Chief]

Seems like there are pro's and con's to each ship. Also one must take in to account the accuracy of the ASM and fire control at that time early 80's. I seen in a few post about the use of SA-N-9 missiles in surf. mode, well when this ship was put to sea it only carried the 20XSSM's. As for the AAW weapons it was just the SA-N-6 and the SA-N-4 missiles. ASW 2XSS-N-14 and two RBU-6000, Guns were 2X100mm (3.9in) and 8 X 30mm this is all according to Jane's. So the SA-N-9's were not used nor the Kastans, and there missiles. I think they are the
SA-N-11's.

I do have to agree if the Kirov was in the 25 to 30 mile range it would be dead. The only main advantage of the Kirov is the good AAW. Each ship has a good amount of ASM's to distroy each other, Just if the Iows had a better air defence they would have a better advantage. Stingers are not going to take down a ASM, and out side of the 20mm and the 5 in Dp guns thats it. It would be very luckly if one of the 5in mounts took out a shipwreck ASM at that speed. If I were a betting man I would put my money on the Iowa class. The armor is going to help with any impact of ASM and that is all the Kirov has to put out against the Iowa.And I don't think the Kirov would be able to adsorb all of the harpoon hits as well as the Iowa would.
__________________
"Peace through Power" Late Ronald Reagan

[SteaminDemon]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

The depth of your ignorance is unfathomable.

Lehman (spit, puke, gag ) wasn't there for the fight because he left in April 1987.

I know when he left. Lehman had fought plenty, more than you are aware of apparently.

Aka Lehman (spit, puke, gag ) tossed down the gauntlet, didn't stick around for the fight, dropped his pants, chickened out, etc, etc, etc... exactly when the request for CVN-74 & -75 came under fire in Congress.

They were going to get approved regardless. "Chickened out", more nonsense

Gotta catch the plane and will be gone for weeks. Enjoy the tranquility.

I will quote myself yet again, you are the one being ignorant

"If we would have left things the way the Carter administration was headed we would be building smaller non nuke CVV's instead of the Nimitz CVN's of which there were many critics. (first one commissioned by Ford). That was stopped by Reagan, Cap, and Lehman. Lehman played a major role in getting the money approved by congress for long lead items such as the carriers. 1979 was when it was implemented in the final defense bill. Carter was infuriated with the Nimitz Carriers and vetoed the entire defense bill to kill the aircraft carrier. John Lehman fought diligently to kill the CVV and replace it with more Nimitz carriers. He was successful and we can thank him and others like Senator Jackson and Senator Tower for the continuation of the Nimitz class carriers."

The man fought, and there is no way around it. Yeah, Lehman oh so "chickened out". You are simply ignoring all of the contributions the man made, and how he revolutionized the contracting policy of the Navy as well.
If it weren't for Lehman, the contracting woes 30 years prior to the 80's, and the ones we are currently facing would have still been around. Are you angry like the rest who were trying to rob from and get over on our Navy and were unable to thanks to Lehman? The ones who were out to deliberately rob from the Navy hated Lehman. The ridiculous claims against the Navy as already explained in an earlier post would have still been going on during that time if it was not for Lehman.

Have fun on your trip Shipwreck
Take it easy all,
SteaminDemon

[fitz]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

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.

We have anecdotal accounts from crewmen that this is so and absolutely ZERO evidence to the contrary, so....

*Stating that an Iowa cant track a Silkworm is a very bold statement.

I never said it can't, I said it didn't, which based on the available evidence is fact. It also misses the point since given our hypothetical scenario the weapons the Iowa would have to detect and track are much faster and higher flying.

*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?

Let's run with your examples.

Firstly, HMS Spartan was sunk by an HS293, not FX1400.

Secondly, you missed the point entirely, which was that using 1943 technology one could sink a battleship with a rather crude missile. This aura of battleship immunity that consistently appears in these discussions is bogus.

Roma's armor was badly overmatched by this weapon and the ship was devestated - with just 2 hits. IIRC the only thing that saved Warspite was that the bomb that hit passed all the way through the ship before exploding and the second missed. Even so the ship was never fully operational again (a point you conveniently left out).

So let us add that score again. 2 battleships attacked by 2 FX1400 each for 3 hits resulting in 1 battleship sunk, and a second battleship which never served as a battleship again, being relegated to bombardment work with reduced speed and armament. That's 50% sunk and 100% no longer useful as battleships.

Not a bad success rate for a crude 1943-vintage weapon.

And yet the prevailing feeling is the Iowa's are somehow special and immune to damage from modern weapons.

Something like Granit is rather considerably more lethal would you not agree? If FX1400 can overmatch battleship armor - and it certainly appears based on the evidence that it can - then Granit should have even better performance against similar targets, yes? And a Kirov has 20 chances, not just one or two. The odds of one or more Granit hits on an Iowa doing considerable, even catastrophic damage are quite good methinks.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by fitz

We have anecdotal accounts from crewmen that this is so and absolutely ZERO evidence to the contrary, so....

*Sir, When you can put one "anecdotal account" from even one gentlemen that was in the CIC that particular morning (Combat Information Center) not to be confused with CEC (Combat Engagement Center) which is where the internet accounts are from then you may post as a belief. Everything else is Lore and I believe that most here (USN or related) would agree with that based upon this premice.

These are not things shared in the open public and therefore cannot be considered factual because you,I or anybody else here (including the recently departed ShipWreck) cannot produce said information to stake your claim too. Even if we knew the exact factual truth it would not be posted on such a site as WAB. Therefore it cannot be counted on for accuracy. Wether it supports our discussion, your accusation or not. Savy?

I never said it can't, I said it didn't, which based on the available evidence is fact. It also misses the point since given our hypothetical scenario the weapons the Iowa would have to detect and track are much faster and higher flying.

*Sir, Please read the above statement.

Let's run with your examples.

Firstly, HMS Spartan was sunk by an HS293, not FX1400.

Secondly, you missed the point entirely, which was that using 1943 technology one could sink a battleship with a rather crude missile. This aura of battleship immunity that consistently appears in these discussions is bogus.

Roma's armor was badly overmatched by this weapon and the ship was devestated - with just 2 hits. IIRC the only thing that saved Warspite was that the bomb that hit passed all the way through the ship before exploding and the second missed. Even so the ship was never fully operational again (a point you conveniently left out).

So let us add that score again. 2 battleships attacked by 2 FX1400 each for 3 hits resulting in 1 battleship sunk, and a second battleship which never served as a battleship again, being relegated to bombardment work with reduced speed and armament. That's 50% sunk and 100% no longer useful as battleships.

Not a bad success rate for a crude 1943-vintage weapon.

*Sir, Your Glider bomb used the FX-1400 had a 30% chance of accuracy. Thats not such a good accuracy rate considering the fact it had to be released from an airplane that surely would have ventured to close. Even considering the fact the Germans switched to a very primitive fly by wire system in attemp to make them more accurate.

And yet the prevailing feeling is the Iowa's are somehow special and immune to damage from modern weapons.

*Sir the armoring scheme aboard the Iowas is much more impressive and believable in person. Many books do not give it its due. You are comparing two different types of armor from different concepts and manufactures. The U.S. along with Britan and Germany and France produced far better armor IMO then the Italians ever did. Good looking ships no doubt.

Something like Granit is rather considerably more lethal would you not agree? If FX1400 can overmatch battleship armor - and it certainly appears based on the evidence that it can - then Granit should have even better performance against similar targets, yes? And a Kirov has 20 chances, not just one or two. The odds of one or more Granit hits on an Iowa doing considerable, even catastrophic damage are quite good methinks.

Granite is an impressive missle grant you. However comparing the efects of Granite to those of a FX1400 Glider bomb is not on par. You explained above the effects upon two ships and they did not re enter service.

However the effects upon the two light cruisers (Savana & Philadelphia) I pointed out should have been a catastrophy since not only lighter in armor but also less compartmentized and hit in the same areas (turrets) then the battleships you mentioned above and yet returned to service one year later and went on after the war to serve other navy's for one of them the other retained. Hows that for hull integrity?

If you have ever noticed the side of the Iowas (just about bridge level) then you may see just how proficient they really are. (Hint also view N.J. CIWS cannons on the Starboard aft) Those slashes arent paint scratches. They are proficiency. Also note the DC and slashes, Crossed Anchors (Damage Control efficiency) C (Communications proficiency) and no that dont mean 1942 standards. The atomic symbol (Nuclear) Profficiency with Nuclear weapons and there are several more. Also of note the "E" on turret 2 and the "E" (engineering) on the stack. That is alot of experience Sir and alot of years of conflict and practice.

Any Navy man here knows just how hard it is to gain even one of those awards albeit NJ and her sisters numerous awards of battle distinction.
Granite is a leathal missle there is no doubt. But stating that all of those Granits will make the kill or even 16 of the 20 (as some mentioned) is doubtfull.

Stating that an Iowa couldn't defend hereself against a Kirov is a non-factual statement. Nor the possibility of her winning the engagmnent. My money would be on the Iowas. Because when this thread started is was noted as I mentioned numerous times Two different ships with two different functions and every single person here sighted missles, missles and more missles for Kirov's victory.

I will post certain pictures that I myself forsee as her weaknesses. You may comment.

Now just for a twist in this arguement let's rehash a few points. The two ships alone and without escort nor other means outside of their own communications sats. War is imminent. Somebody is sinking and swimming. The rule book is out.

The gloves are off its your move.

[fitz]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

[b]However the effects upon the two light cruisers (Savana & Philadelphia) I pointed out should have been a catastrophy since not only lighter in armor but also less compartmentized and hit in the same areas (turrets) then the battleships you mentioned above and yet returned to service one year later and went on after the war to serve other navy's for one of them the other retained. Hows that for hull integrity? [/B}

All that proves is that not every hit is the same. The survival of these ships certainly can't just be attributed to the fact they were Americun. USS Philadelphia for example suffered a near-mis, not a direct hit. How or why you regard that as similar to the hits on the Roma is a bit mind-boggling. USS Savannah was hit in #3 turret roof with the explosion passing all the way through the turret, through the magazine and out the bottom. It was the ingress of flooding seawater which extinguished the magazine fires and saved the ship. But I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion of the minutia of these incidents since that isn't the point anyway. The point is, a large missile can, with one or two hits, disable or even in the right circumstances destroy a battleship. And Granit is an uglier mother than FX-1400.

Granite is a leathal missle there is no doubt. But stating that all of those Granits will make the kill or even 16 of the 20 (as some mentioned) is doubtfull.

Why is that doubtful? What makes it so? You keep stating it is doubtful, but there is nothing concrete that makes this so. Even if we account for a 10% dud rate (technical failure of whatever kind) which is probably realistic, that leaves 18 potential hits. Let's say another 10% get decoyed or in the unlikely event intercepted that still leaves 16 inbound. Let us recall this is exactly the sort of threat that hundreds of billions of dollars were invested in Aegis for.

Stating that an Iowa couldn't defend hereself against a Kirov is a non-factual statement. Nor the possibility of her winning the engagmnent.

Again I ask, why is this so. Merely stating it is so over and over does not make it so. You keep going on about how different the ships are. You could not be more right. An Iowa, as configured in 1991 is not designed to defend against even conventional air attack, let alone against multiple inbound supersonic 5 ton missiles with HEAT warheads. The Iowa is not designed to seek out her own targets at long range. Other assets are supposed to be there to do that for her. But in our hypothetical the Iowa is alone and on her own, providing her own defense and her own target information, a job for which she is not equipped but a Kirov is.

[Dreadnought]

Why is that doubtful? What makes it so? You keep stating it is doubtful, but there is nothing concrete that makes this so. Even if we account for a 10% dud rate (technical failure of whatever kind) which is probably realistic, that leaves 18 potential hits. Let's say another 10% get decoyed or in the unlikely event intercepted that still leaves 16 inbound. Let us recall this is exactly the sort of threat that hundreds of billions of dollars were invested in Aegis for.

Have you ever read about the Dragons Llair theory? A recent very interesting naval battle war gaming theory China would utilize against the U.S. In other words detonating nuclear missles in the atmosphere and ionizing it. In other words firing Tac Toms (several which any Iowa could carry at any given time since it is listed in her load outs) with a 1500 mile range at the detection of your Kirov missle strike with your granits.This blinds Radar, Satellites, FCR and the like. Since the Granit missle is supposed to be able to replace one for the other guidance wise what do you think they will do in an ionized atmosphere in other words in the state of an EMP?

Stop and think for a moment what all would be lost electronic wise on your "Ruskie" as you put it. From modern armory all the way down to controlling the reactors aboard.

Remember my friend the object is to win. Not play by the rules. And for years scientists and strategist have pondered just such a wargaming theory about naval battles at long odds.

[fitz]

Talk about not playing by the rules.

How many nuclear TACTOM's were in the inventory in 1991?

The answer would be ZERO (0).

The Land Attack Tomahawk of 1991 certainly wasn't able to get within a country mile (or 100) of a moving ship. And an Iowa, operating by herself has no way of detecting a Kirov at more than a small fraction of 1,500 miles.

Granit OTOH does have a nuclear warhead option...

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Have you ever read about the Dragons Llair theory? A recent very interesting naval battle war gaming theory China would utilize against the U.S. In other words detonating nuclear missles in the atmosphere and ionizing it. In other words firing Tac Toms (several which any Iowa could carry at any given time since it is listed in her load outs) with a 1500 mile range at the detection of your Kirov missle strike with your granits.This blinds Radar, Satellites, FCR and the like. Since the Granit missle is supposed to be able to replace one for the other guidance wise what do you think they will do in an ionized atmosphere in other words in the state of an EMP?

First it isn't TacTom that you are thinking of. Its TLAM-N. Tac Land Attack Missile Nuc.

It wouldn't work as you detail above. Has to be a high altitude burst.

Even if it did you would have no idea when(Iowas cannot detect that far) or what direction to pull this stunt off, and you blind yourself.

TLAM-Ns were pulled from Navy ships(if they were ever carried) in 1989.

In the above, you wish to start WW3 so you can win this little 1 v 1?
Don't think NCA will give you the codes for that launch.

*Sir, When you can put one "anecdotal account" from even one gentlemen that was in the CIC that particular morning (Combat Information Center) not to be confused with CEC (Combat Engagement Center) which is where the internet accounts are from then you may post as a belief. Everything else is Lore and I believe that most here (USN or related) would agree with that based upon this premice.

These are not things shared in the open public and therefore cannot be considered factual because you,I or anybody else here (including the recently departed ShipWreck) cannot produce said information to stake your claim too. Even if we knew the exact factual truth it would not be posted on such a site as WAB. Therefore it cannot be counted on for accuracy. Wether it supports our discussion, your accusation or not. Savy?

Or you can read the navy lessons learned/AARs/Ships logs and official histories if you so desire.

These are not state secrets. Nor are the capabilities of her radar systems. Don't try to make them seem so.

They are proficiency. Also note the DC and slashes, Crossed Anchors (Damage Control efficiency) C (Communications proficiency) and no that dont mean 1942 standards. The atomic symbol (Nuclear) Profficiency with Nuclear weapons and there are several more. Also of note the "E" on turret 2 and the "E" (engineering) on the stack. That is alot of experience Sir and alot of years of conflict and practice.

Any Navy man here knows just how hard it is to gain even one of those awards albeit NJ and her sisters numerous awards of battle distinction.
Granite is a leathal missle there is no doubt. But stating that all of those Granits will make the kill or even 16 of the 20 (as some mentioned) is doubtfull.

The Efficiency "E"s are departmental awards in Comm, DC, ect. An example of what it takes to get one for Eng DC

5105. Engineering/Survivability Excellence Award

a. The objective of the Engineering/Survivability Excellence Award is to recognize sustained superior performance in shipboard evolutions relating to main propulsion and damage control. Engineering performance while deployed or during conduct of major exercises/operations shall be a significant factor in this award.

b. Failure to obtain/maintain the following minimum criteria will preclude a ship from consideration for this award:

(1) Engineering Certification must be completed in accordance with criteria outlined in CINCLANTFLT/CINCPACFLTINST 3540.2.

(2) In addition, no more than one safety program (Electrical Safety, Tag Out, Hearing Conservation or Heat Stress) may be assessed as "not effective" in LOA, by end of TSTA 2 or in MCA.

Its like other services passing an IG/CG inspection. Its the Big E that is harder. The one on the ribbon rack. Have to get at least 3 of the little ones to qual for the big one. I see the jersey had 2 in her career. Not bad but not great either. Thats the one that tells of you have a consistently well trained crew vice getting it right 1 year. Check out the rack on the Blue Ridge for an example of steady quality crew. Or look for a ship with a Gold "E"

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by fitz

Talk about not playing by the rules.

How many nuclear TACTOM's were in the inventory in 1991?

The answer would be ZERO (0).

The Land Attack Tomahawk of 1991 certainly wasn't able to get within a country mile (or 100) of a moving ship. And an Iowa, operating by herself has no way of detecting a Kirov at more than a small fraction of 1,500 miles.

Granit OTOH does have a nuclear warhead option...

*The rules were explained at the beginning of the thread. You wanted to talk missles, missles, missles, Well hows that one for missles?

The Land Attack Tomahawk of 1991 certainly wasn't able to get within a country mile (or 100) of a moving ship. And an Iowa, operating by herself has no way of detecting a Kirov at more than a small fraction of 1,500 miles.

*Think again

SYSTEMS OF NOTE:
LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS: The battleships have sufficient Food, water, fuel and amenities to support up to 1500 people for up to 6 months. In an emergency the battleship can support up to 3000 people at one time, though living conditions onboard will get extremely cramped at that point.
LONG-RANGE LASER/SATELLITE RELAY COMMUNICATIONS: The impressive communications array of the battleship can communicate with up to 500 craft simultaneously at ranges of up to 900 miles (1,440 km). This range can be boosted indefinitely by using satellites or other spacecraft as to relay communications.
LONG-RANGE RADAR: The radar array of the battleship is equally as impressive as the communication system, and can track and identify up to 500 craft simultaneously. The radar system has a 2,000 mile/3,200 km range.
DECOYS: SLQ-25A Nixie towed torpedo decoy.

Plus

*The missile achieved initial operational capability in 1982 for TASM in surface ships, 1983 for TASM in submarines, 1984 for TLAM in surface ships, and 1987 for TLAM-N. On September 27, 1991, President Bush announced that all tactical nuclear weapons would be removed from US Navy surface ships and attack submarines. The order included all TLAM-Ns, which were placed in storage.

The 1,000th Tomahawk was delivered to the Navy by McDonnell Douglas on July 10, 1991. The missile is deployed on US Navy submarines, cruisers, and destroyers. Hughes became sole-source producer in 1994.

BB62 New Jersey retired in 1991. The Navy had Toms long before that.


During Desert Storm, 264 BGM-109Cs (unitary war head) and 27 BGM-109Ds (cluster bombs) were launched from the battle ships Missouri and Wisconsin, several cruisers and destroyers, and at least two submarines, mostly in the early days of the war.

An analysis of Tomahawk results suggested that 85% of the 242 target aim points were hit. The United States suggested that two missiles may have been shot down.

[Dreadnought]

It wouldn't work as you detail above. Has to be a high altitude burst.

*Grape, a 1500 mile range on a Tom nuclear isint sufficient?

Do I need to hait a hard target before detonating?

Even if it did you would have no idea when(Iowas cannot detect that far) or what direction to pull this stunt off, and you blind yourself.

LONG-RANGE LASER/SATELLITE RELAY COMMUNICATIONS: The impressive communications array of the battleship can communicate with up to 500 craft simultaneously at ranges of up to 900 miles (1,440 km). This range can be boosted indefinitely by using satellites or other spacecraft as to relay communications.
LONG-RANGE RADAR: The radar array of the battleship is equally as impressive as the communication system, and can track and identify up to 500 craft simultaneously. The radar system has a 2,000 mile/3,200 km range.

RPG stats by NATHAN GRIER & MARC FLETCHER
Edited by DANIEL HENWOOD (dhenwood@hotmail.com)
Background info provided by the Navy Fact File & FAS Website & Navy Technology

TLAM-Ns were pulled from Navy ships(if they were ever carried) in 1989.

Grape,They were not pulled until the same year that New Jersey retired 1991.

In the above, you wish to start WW3 so you can win this little 1 v 1?
Don't think NCA will give you the codes for that launch.

Grape this has all been theory,stats.capabilities,luck,wargaming and entertainment. We know for fact the two would never face off. We know for fact the two never met or crossed one another at sea in their lifetimes.

[fitz]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

*The rules were explained at the beginning of the thread. You wanted to talk missles, missles, missles, Well hows that one for missles?

Great. You described a missile (Tactical Tomahawk) that didn't exist when the last Iowa class battleship was in commission, in a version (nuclear) that does not exist to this day and give it capabilities (high-altitude air-burst) that it does not have.

Why stop there? Whey not just give the Iowa's phaser cannons and photon torpedo's?

LONG-RANGE LASER/SATELLITE RELAY COMMUNICATIONS[/b]: The impressive communications array of the battleship can communicate with up to 500 craft simultaneously at ranges of up to 900 miles (1,440 km). This range can be boosted indefinitely by using satellites or other spacecraft as to relay communications.

I thought we were not allowing outside help? Indeed, I believe you were the one who said it, just a few posts back.

LONG-RANGE RADAR[/b]: The radar array of the battleship is equally as impressive as the communication system, and can track and identify up to 500 craft simultaneously. The radar system has a 2,000 mile/3,200 km range.

This is fascinating. Most open-sources give SPS-49 an effective range of 400km against large air targets. It is an air search radar after all.

[quote]DECOYS: SLQ-25A Nixie towed torpedo decoy. [/qote]

A torpedo decoy that would be ineffective against the fish carried by Kirov which employ wake-homing terminal guidance in anti-ship mode.

*The missile achieved initial operational capability in 1982 for TASM in surface ships, 1983 for TASM in submarines, 1984 for TLAM in surface ships, and 1987 for TLAM-N. On September 27, 1991, President Bush announced that all tactical nuclear weapons would be removed from US Navy surface ships and attack submarines. The order included all TLAM-Ns, which were placed in storage.

TLAM is not TACTOM. You said TACTOM. The original TLAM can not do what you described in your earlier post. TACTOM could do the navigation bit, but not the high altitude air burst. Nuff said.