Iowa Class vs Kirov Class

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Just interested in your opinion.

I am of the same opinion as Gen. Colin Powell.

I am sure you've read these posts I made in another thread :

Fate of the USS Iowa discussion - Post #428

Fate of the USS Iowa discussion - Post #445

[fitz]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Please, allow me to pick this part.

1)First you stated that Kirov being faster can dictate range.

Read again, I never said any such thing. Sorry you had to waste all that time.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Where is it that Muir suggests that NJ's *barrel wear was at 42% (...) could very possibly account for her inaccuracy* ?

Since you started to quote Muir, would you mind telling the audience what the 2nd paragraph of page 31 says on the Iowas being such superior sea boats ?

It does not exactly state that this "wear" caused her inaccuracy.
I guess what it is i'm trying to say is that if in 1981 the battleships (not condusive to which but a generalization of all as he writes) had approximately 42% wear according to Muir, we know which dates New Jersey fired upon Lebannon (1983) and then stated that a rifle was changed in Long Beach in 1984 for the first time in years. Was any work done to her rifles or powder/projectile tests conducted between the years of 1981 and 1983? If nothing was done during refit but make the turrets operational as far as they go this "wear" could easily have factored into her accuracy.

If the rifle in 1984 that was removed suffered from flame wash its a tell tale sign of heavy wear on the liner do you not agree?

Actually at this time I am away from my library (but will post for all to see as I return home) It is well know that the ships (a majority of the battleships of all nations) were wet upfront and amid with the Iowas being no acception to the rule. They did however survive quite a few beatings weather wise registering some pretty extreme rolls in pretty foul weather during the war years. If not mistaken at one point taking 26 degrees (will check the actual figure). And did survive a few typhoons in which other ships were completely lost and some badly damaged.

If memory serves Muir also discussed how agile they were at speed in open water as opposed to the clumseyness of them at slow speeds in shallower waters.

[fitz]

*Before we go any further lets put some myths to bed shall we?

February 24th. Capt. Kaiss (Then CO of Missouri) spotted the missle inbound from astern. (Great Mk1 "eyeball" from the good captain as you noted) However it was not Missouri's job for inbound aquistion) She was ordered to the firing line (her primary mission). The Captain being alert spotted it with the "Mk 1 eyeball" as HMS Glouchester was already tracking for hits with sea darts.Which claimed the kill and further more did her intended job as part of that battlegroup.

You miss the point by a country mile. HMS Gloucester isn't present in our Iowa vs. Kirov scenario.

"They never went active"

*Then what you state is untrue unless you were in the CEC when Capt Bulkeley noted just how smoothly the CIWS operators brought up the weapons systems into full auto mode aquisiton and activated chaff decoy launches simultaniously. (As the missle was inbound).
So yes they were very active by the time the missle approached.

I was clearly talking about the missiles not going active, not the shipboard defenses. The HY-2's never went active, meaning their seekers never turned on before the one was intercepted by HMS Gloucester and the other malfunctioned and crashed.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by fitz

You miss the point by a country mile. HMS Gloucester isn't present in our Iowa vs. Kirov scenario.



I was clearly talking about the missiles not going active, not the shipboard defenses. The HY-2's never went active, meaning their seekers never turned on before the one was intercepted by HMS Gloucester and the other malfunctioned and crashed.

I think I mentioned earlier how when the USS Missouri was attacked by anti-ship missiles in 1991 she was not even aware until the missiles were flying past the ship (they never went active).

And what was stated is that Missouri's function was not watching over the group merely doing her intended job. HMS Glouchester (part of that group)was only metioned because she did track on the missle and did fire upon it.

"You miss the point by a country mile. HMS Gloucester isn't present in our Iowa vs. Kirov scenario."

If I missed, in that quote by a "country mile" then you completey missed the point by a planet!

Not once was it stated that HMS Glouchester was a part of this in any other way then explaining what happened to Missouri during the missle strike..

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

I am of the same opinion as Gen. Colin Powell.

I am sure you've read these posts I made in another thread :

Fate of the USS Iowa discussion - Post #428

Fate of the USS Iowa discussion - Post #445

I think I can agree with your statements and quotes from Powell. (Kind of wished he had run for the presidency) Do you think the fall out may have been different had we shot missles at them instead of using the BB? Not that anything probably could have changed their mind politically wise but do you believe they should have used a different tool altogether or should not have done anything at all?

[Dreadnought]

Where is it that Muir suggests that NJ's *barrel wear was at 42% (...) could very possibly account for her inaccuracy* ?

Well he does quote 36 barrels on the battleships

4 (ships) x 9 (barrels in three tripple turrets)= 36 barrels so he must be stating all of them collectively had average 42% wear. So how can New Jersey not be factored into this.

And if these rifles were used during Lebannon having an approximate 42% wear would that not factor into accuracy. I seems pretty clear to me that it would.

[fitz]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I think I mentioned earlier how when the USS Missouri was attacked by anti-ship missiles in 1991 she was not even aware until the missiles were flying past the ship (they never went active).

And what was stated is that Missouri's function was not watching over the group merely doing her intended job. HMS Glouchester (part of that group)was only metioned because she did track on the missle and did fire upon it.

"You miss the point by a country mile. HMS Gloucester isn't present in our Iowa vs. Kirov scenario."

If I missed, in that quote by a "country mile" then you completey missed the point by a planet!

Not once was it stated that HMS Glouchester was a part of this in any other way then explaining what happened to Missouri during the missle strike..

Your not getting this on a fundamental level. You think you are, but your not.

If I understand the above correctly what your saying is, because USS Missouri was being escorted by a pre-ADIMP Type 42 destroyer and an FFG7 she had no cause to worry, sent the lookouts to their bunks, turned off Phalanx, SPS-67, SPQ-9 and SLQ-32 and just left things to fate?

Because she was being escorted Missouri had no responsibility for her own protection while sailing through a minefield within range of hostile enemy coastal weapons????

I'm not talking about watching over the group here, I'm talking about basic self-protection. Silkworm is hardly a sophisticated weapon system. It's big. It flies high. It's not especially fast. If Missouri couldn't see these coming because her radar and ESM didn't detect them then how exactly is she expected to deal with inbound Granit's?

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by fitz

Your not getting this on a fundamental level. You think you are, but your not.

If I understand the above correctly what your saying is, because USS Missouri was being escorted by a pre-ADIMP Type 42 destroyer and an FFG7 she had no cause to worry, sent the lookouts to their bunks, turned off Phalanx, SPS-67, SPQ-9 and SLQ-32 and just left things to fate?

Because she was being escorted Missouri had no responsibility for her own protection while sailing through a minefield within range of hostile enemy coastal weapons????

I'm not talking about watching over the group here, I'm talking about basic self-protection. Silkworm is hardly a sophisticated weapon system. It's big. It flies high. It's not especially fast. If Missouri couldn't see these coming because her radar and ESM didn't detect them then how exactly is she expected to deal with inbound Granit's?

That is not what is stated. I doubt very much that her lookouts were back in berthing, the Phaylanx turned off etc etc. That certainly is not procedure. Each and every ship is assigned their duties and every man assigned has a watch. That is not saying they shut the sytems down and roll up the carpets and call it a night. The idea of having escorts (as she did) is to bring all the tools a battlegroup requires to do its intended job.

You need not go indepth about Silkworms I am familiar with them. And according to reports minesweepers were already through the area and cleared a lane through the Iraqi defenses in search of mines.

How much damage do you believe a Silkworm would do to that ship if struck?

1)Mission kill
2)Sunk
3)minimal

IMO outside the human factor, minimal.

If Missouri couldn't see these coming because her radar and ESM didn't detect them then how exactly is she expected to deal with inbound Granit's?

Its not a question "if" Missouri could see it coming. What prompted the Iraqis to fire them (unknown range)(unpainted) was the pounding that Missouri was giving the Kuwati shoreline in a feint effort to fake an amphibious landing on the morning of the 23rd Feb.
If they knew what they were firing at then why shoot a missle that did not go active. Instead of hitting your target you just gave away your position for the next available ship to focus upon.

As far as her detection goes that is not a question for me to answer. That would be the battlegroups commander's job to answer.There could be a reason for this but the only men to know would probably be her CO or the XO.

If you remember correctly when this post started we stressed two different tools two different jobs.

[Dreadnought]

You seem to put an awful lot of faith in Russian missle technology. Dam shame they have yet to convince the Indian Navy of this since they brought quite a few of the latest and greatest missles and they failed miserably.

Just ask the Indian Navy what they think the quality of Russian missle technology is these days.

[Silent Hunter]

The "Kirov" class is nuclear-powered. That affects its range.

[Tin Man]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

It's got nothing to do with opinions.

Your armchair admirals, *with 30 years in, between them*, simply don't have a clue.

Nope, certainly not armchair Admirals, they added "poor designs" as well. If they have an Axe to grind about the Soviet Navy well that is something else entirely. I`ll take their word for now thanks. Enjoy the rest of the discussion

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Tin Man

Nope, certainly not armchair Admirals, they added "poor designs" as well. If they have an Axe to grind about the Soviet Navy well that is something else entirely. I`ll take their word for now thanks. Enjoy the rest of the discussion

Take off that tinfoil hat and stop listening to your imaginary friends.

The video below, showing a Sovremenny-class destroyer (from 00:44 onwards : Admiral Ushakov, ex-Besstrashny, pennant number 434) during a September 2004 deployment in the Barents Sea, clearly illustrates the benefits of a broad waterplane hull in heavy weather.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

If the rifle in 1984 that was removed suffered from flame wash its a tell tale sign of heavy wear on the liner do you not agree?

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

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

And if these rifles were used during Lebannon having an approximate 42% wear would that not factor into accuracy. I seems pretty clear to me that it would.

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