Iowa Class vs Kirov Class

[JA Boomer]

Thanks TopHatter, that's what I was thinking.

[SnowLeopard]

Originally Posted by zraver

Ever seen what the most powerful US H-bomb 1 mile away did to a WW2 era German heavy cruiser or US carrier let alone a battleship? Not much, if the ship didn't capsize the unexposed crew could be back in action in a matter of minutes, they might die in the long run from poisoning but that doesn't stop thier revenge. Even a direct hit probably wont breach the hull. Rather the blast will drop the ship into the vacume below it onto the sea floor.

Rather talking apples and oranges here. It depends on how the munitions are used, delivered, what they are designed for.

It's one thing in damage if the bomb explodes outside the ship; it's quite another thing if it explodes inside the ship.

If a Mk 48 torpedo exploding under a ship's keel will crack the ship in half, I would guess that a nuclear torpedo would pretty much do the same, only faster, bigger.
________________________________
("Oh, come off it, Commodore! I'm not going to shoot first, but if he fires one, I'll fire one!"--Captain Finlander
"Fire one, aye-aye, Sir."--Ensign Ralston, completing the sequence to drop a nuclear ASROC on a Soviet sub, (w,stte), "The Bedford Incident")

[IDonT]

Has anyone ever estimate the effects of unspent fuel from the shipwreck will have on the Iowa? Those suckers are hard to put out.

The main advantage of the Kirov is that it has a much better chance of shooting down the Harpoon and TASM than the Iowa has of shooting down the Shipwreck missiles.

[Firral]

Originally Posted by gunnut

You have to remember those battleships were built to withstand AP shells fired from their own guns. That was the benchmark for a true battleship.

Iowas were built to withstand 16" AP shells. Each of those weigh the same as a Shipwreck. Their terminal velocity is probably around mach 1.5 to mach 2.

The scenario is still a ship with a lot of armor but little long range firepower against a ship with virtually no armor but a lot of long range firepower.

Point blank, no contest. Iowa's 16" guns would destroy Kirov.

By the way, there are experimental rockets 3M-45 "Granit" ("Shipwreck") with the engine 4D-04, capable to accelerate momentum up to mach 4 (they have not gone to a series because of disorder of the USSR ). Probably they had a greater chance to strike Iowa.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by IDonT

Has anyone ever estimate the effects of unspent fuel from the shipwreck will have on the Iowa? Those suckers are hard to put out.

The main advantage of the Kirov is that it has a much better chance of shooting down the Harpoon and TASM than the Iowa has of shooting down the Shipwreck missiles.

For one the Shipwreck has to hit an Iowa for that to be of any concern.

And why would it have a much better chance of shooting down a Harpoon or TASM.?

The only thing the Soviets could do to an Iowa was to sail a tanker or freighter infront of her or cutting across the bow slowly. However when they would see a 5" mount or 16" turrent start turning in their direction they quickly moved out of the way. It has happened more times then just once. They dont screw with the Iowas and having had a chat with a very nice gentlemen from the Soviet navy it reinforces the point they dont screw with the Iowas for fear of retaliation on the Iowas part. If we wanted to kill a missle cruiser it wouldn't be just a set of missles from one approach and you can bet the Duma upon that.

[IDonT]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

For one the Shipwreck has to hit an Iowa for that to be of any concern.

And why would it have a much better chance of shooting down a Harpoon or TASM.?

The only thing the Soviets could do to an Iowa was to sail a tanker or freighter infront of her or cutting across the bow slowly. However when they would see a 5" mount or 16" turrent start turning in their direction they quickly moved out of the way. It has happened more times then just once. They dont screw with the Iowas and having had a chat with a very nice gentlemen from the Soviet navy it reinforces the point they dont screw with the Iowas for fear of retaliation on the Iowas part. If we wanted to kill a missle cruiser it wouldn't be just a set of missles from one approach and you can bet the Duma upon that.

Well I was with the impression of a one on one scenario. In a full SAG vs SAG fight its a different story.

In a 1 vs 1 case, Kirov has a better chance of finding the IOWA and evading detecting from the IOWA. Its Helo can stand out of range of the IOWA 4 CIWIs and provide excellent fire control solution for the 20 shipwrecks that are going to come.

In the case of the IOWA, its Helos are going to have tough time surviving (that is the key) long enough to provide the IOWA with a clear firing solution for its TASM and Harpoons againsts the Kirov 90+ sams.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by IDonT

Well I was with the impression of a one on one scenario. In a full SAG vs SAG fight its a different story.

In a 1 vs 1 case, Kirov has a better chance of finding the IOWA and evading detecting from the IOWA. Its Helo can stand out of range of the IOWA 4 CIWIs and provide excellent fire control solution for the 20 shipwrecks that are going to come.

In the case of the IOWA, its Helos are going to have tough time surviving (that is the key) long enough to provide the IOWA with a clear firing solution for its TASM and Harpoons againsts the Kirov 90+ sams.

In a 1 on 1 case the Kirov does not have a better chance at finding the Iowa then Iowa does the Kirov. It strongly depends on Radar, IDFF, and various other networks including "eyes" and the USN has that covered extremely well. The Seasprite Helo that operates from the Iowas is not used in her firing solutions. The Helo is basically used for spot changes in target aquisition for the Harpoon missles. (Mid course correction pending target importance if you would and can change the missle guidance to a new target within moments). but not used in primary guidance measures. Otherwise used for homing torpedoes if equiped or mail/supply delivery but not used at all in gunnery calculations. That vanished long ago with the Korean era. It also has nothing to do with Tomahawk launches. The guidance equipment was heavily updated as of her last time out at sea in order to ship the Tomahawk missle itself.

There lies a major difference. The helo is not used for missle guidance unless a target aquisition/importance has changed since launch otherwise like the Tomahawk they are fire and forget missles. They will find their target even if the target has moved. They have a very good kill ratio otherwise they would never have been put aboard any of the Iowas if they were not reliable.

What is also not known nor usually put into print was that they also carried the Zuni rocket and the shoulder launched Stinger missles on various occasions and different mixes of rockets. The CIWS or Vulcan Phalynx is not designed for helos at stand off range. They are used as a last ditch missle defense for the ship herself or perhaps small suicide boats or torp boats.

As you say the 90 sams coming at Iowa speaks nothing about the 16 Harpoons or 32 Tomahawks on their way to the Kirov as soon as a launch is detected. Only one needs to strike the Kirov and its game over, the same cannot be said about the Iowas. We wouldnt waste our missles in that fashion and the Kirov's couldnt stand up to one of the Harpoons with all of those missle hiding under the decks.

If you want to waste your Kirov and millions perhaps billions of dollars in missles then by all means please do. But also remember that 4 of the Iowas still exist and are servicable 3 of which are very well maintained. The very same cannot be said for the Kirovs and the Soviet fleet has nothing on the surface that can stand up to an Iowa outside of sub and we have them too.

[Dutchman]

I have done ballistic testing inthe past with conventional armor. The warheads on all of soviet missles did their damage based on blast I believe or use a shaped charge. The problem for these types of warhead is the Iowas were not a single layer of protection. The main armor belt was internal at an angle. The outer hull (and upper decks) were Class two (non-hardened armor steel) 2 inches thick which would have detonated either type of warhead before the main belt. The angle of the belt would deflect the blast up and away from the ship's vitals. In the case of a shaped charge, the distance from the outer hull to the armor belt would have dissipated the energy stream so it would never have cut through the inner main belt. The same applies to the vertical attack. the Iowas were actually designed to withstand and survive direct hits from their own guns, including plunging fire through the decks. The Iowa heavy shells were 2700 pounds, but designed to penetrate armor before exploding. It is also forgotten that battleships were DESIGNED to be pounded and still fight. That was their purpose. Most of the outer ship was expendible and there lies the most crucial difference with modern naval design.

Kirov vs Iowa would have been no contest if the Iowa could close up. Since the Iowa was a lot faster than the Kirov, it is fair to say the Iowa would have been the hunter. I remember tactics being discussed in the 80's about this and one of the intentions was to send the Iowa forward to engage the Russian fleet. I believe the Russians developed the Kursk anti-ship submarines because they felt the Iowas would be able to bottle up their surface fleet at the narrows of the North Atlantic and keep them away from the Navy and the merchant ship convoys. Their existing anti-ship subs would not have survived without the support of their fleet.

[TopHatter]

Originally Posted by Dutchman

Since the Iowa was a lot faster than the Kirov, it is fair to say the Iowa would have been the hunter.

You lost me there...an Iowa was a lot faster than a Kirov?

By all accounts, they were both 30-33 knot ships

[ArmchairGeneral]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

And why would it have a much better chance of shooting down a Harpoon or TASM.?

Um, because the Iowas have virtually no air defence capability. 4 Phalanx+6x2 5"/38s, vs 12x8 SA-N-6+192 SA-N-9+44 SA-N-4+2 100 mm or 130 mm+8 30 mm CIWS.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Originally Posted by Dutchman

Most of the outer ship was expendible and there lies the most crucial difference with modern naval design.

Outer ship includes sensors. Sensors not expendable. Blind ship=dead ship.

[TopHatter]

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Um, because the Iowas have virtually no air defence capability.

And the Harpoon and TASM aren't/weren't known for their blinding speed like the Shipwreck is.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Originally Posted by TopHatter

And the Harpoon and TASM aren't/weren't known for their blinding speed like the Shipwreck is.

That too, although, to their credit, those two (especially the Harpoon) were known for being sneaky, agile, and relatively hard to detect- attributes a Shipwreck screaming in from the stratosphere would be particularly short on.

[tphuang]

remember, the S-300s all have an additional anti-ship mode. They don't have the warhead of shipwreck, but they sure had more kinetic energy. Same with the 192 Gauntlets. That's a total of 288 missiles outside of the 20 shipwreck. You could damage a lot of the sensors on board Iowa and achieve at minimum a mission kill. As for point blank, you really think an Iowa class can catch up to a nuclear powered Kirov cruiser?

As you say the 90 sams coming at Iowa speaks nothing about the 16 Harpoons or 32 Tomahawks on their way to the Kirov as soon as a launch is detected. Only one needs to strike the Kirov and its game over, the same cannot be said about the Iowas. We wouldnt waste our missles in that fashion and the Kirov's couldnt stand up to one of the Harpoons with all of those missle hiding under the decks.

If you want to waste your Kirov and millions perhaps billions of dollars in missles then by all means please do. But also remember that 4 of the Iowas still exist and are servicable 3 of which are very well maintained. The very same cannot be said for the Kirovs and the Soviet fleet has nothing on the surface that can stand up to an Iowa outside of sub and we have them too

huh? You think a harpoon can offer the same damage as a shipwreck or even a S-300 missile? You have to get past 8 Kashtan. You will probably need a concentrated attack to get past that.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Originally Posted by tphuang

remember, the S-300s all have an additional anti-ship mode. They don't have the warhead of shipwreck, but they sure had more kinetic energy. Enough of them, you could damage a lot of the sensors on board Iowa and achieve a mission kill.

A good point. That's a whole lot more coverage than 20 missiles can provide.

As for point blank, you really think an Iowa class can catch up to a nuclear powered Kirov cruiser?

Remember, the Kirovs are a hybrid design. They've got unlimited endurance at about 25 knots, but above that they have to use the auxiliaries, which are going to have to push hard to get that last 5 or so knots. I don't know what their endurance at top speed is, but their range on auxiliaries alone is 1000 miles, so I doubt it's much more than that.