Iowa Class vs Kirov Class

[fitz]

My first thoughts over your comments I looked upon with open criticisms but when I read what was written about the Kirovs being able to supposedly take 4 Harpoons and be able to set the battle tone against the Iowas by speed or tracking measures then I knew I was dealing with someone that dont know the very first thing about a Harpoon missle strike nor what its intended purpose was. Kirov would take all but 1 missle from a calculated angle of approach of a Harpoon. And any certified Naval strategist could easily verify this as being "not theory".

Has it ever happened?

Then it is theory.

I hark back to 1991 when the USS Missouri was attacked by 2 HY-2 missiles (dramatically less of a worry I think you might agree than 20 Granit) and didn't even know it until men on the bridge spotted them with the Mk 1 eyeball. That doesn't give me a lot of hope.

Your making arguments from authority here - It is so because I say so and you'll just have to accept that. That's all fine and dandy, but not very convincing. I have my experts too, and they wouldn't necessarily agree with you.

I'm trying to put forward an argument that a ship designed for the specific purpose of not just attacking, but commanding attacks on carrier battlegroups at very long range while surviving attacks by said carriers air group will have an advantage on a WWII relic with a very austere modernization geared primarily towards land attack. Kirov is likely to get off the first shot, which an Iowa is not equipped to defend against. I think that's a viable argument and you haven't presented anything beyond because I say so to demonstrate otherwise.

As expected you sound just like many others.

That's not a theory, it's a fact. The Iowa's have taken on an almost mythical status for many, but when you look at them objectively it is hard to see why. The U.S. Navy at the time certainly regarded them as aberations, a special type, not be be repeated. They were a very expensive means of making a 33-knot South Dakota, which is fundamentally what they were, and nobody waxes on about the all-conquering South Dakota class. By the time they were completed they were already at least obsolescent. Other than the sex-appeal factor that goes with all battleships I just don't see the attraction.

[Shipwreck]

some choice YouTube video showing how they sunk a mighty battleship with a 5.1-inch gun!

LOL

[Dreadnought]

LOL

Long time Shipwreck, How is Hell treating you?:)

[Shipwreck]

Long time Shipwreck, How is Hell treating you?:)

Hell is like the Iowas : grossly overrated !!!

[Dreadnought]

Hell is like the Iowas : grossly overrated !!!

Believe it or not I missed you and good debate. Still on the West Coast?

[Shipwreck]

Believe it or not I missed you and good debate. Still on the West Coast?

Simply back in the Purgatory for a week or so.

[Dreadnought]

Your making arguments from authority here - It is so because I say so and you'll just have to accept that. That's all fine and dandy, but not very convincing. I have my experts too, and they wouldn't necessarily agree with you.

*I make no such arguement I merely state where a majority of the information comes from. Not books.

I'm trying to put forward an argument that a ship designed for the specific purpose of not just attacking, but commanding attacks on carrier battlegroups at very long range while surviving attacks by said carriers air group will have an advantage on a WWII relic with a very austere modernization geared primarily towards land attack. Kirov is likely to get off the first shot, which an Iowa is not equipped to defend against. I think that's a viable argument and you haven't presented anything beyond because I say so to demonstrate otherwise.

*The Kirov class was initailly designed for:
These ships play a special role in the armament system of the Navy and can constantly and continually maintain contact with enemy task forces and successfully fight them. They are intended for operations in remote regions of seas and oceans to destroy enemy nuclear missile submarines and surface ships, enhance combat capability of naval forces, escort convoys and landing ships during their transit to landing areas and their support at landing.


I'm trying to put forward an argument that a ship designed for the specific purpose of not just attacking, but commanding attacks on carrier battlegroups at very long range while surviving attacks by said carriers air group will have an advantage on a WWII relic with a very austere modernization geared primarily towards land attack. Kirov is likely to get off the first shot, which an Iowa is not equipped to defend against. I think that's a viable argument and you haven't presented anything beyond because I say so to demonstrate otherwise.

*To say that Kirov would withstand a Harpoon strike not to mention the four you mention above would not necessarily constitute a argument. If Kirov is hit by one in its designated target area (will leave that one out) the chain reaction to not only her own armament but also to her nuclear powerplant would immediately constitute an emergency on their (Soviet) end. Now not only do you have to worry about the damage control (ship sinking.damaged systems) but also the crew itself is in peril. All this while you still have incoming missles. And you certailny wont limp away at 17 knots on her aux boilers unless you are very close to home in other words within 1,000 nm of port.

*Kirov is designed to give punishment not to withstand any especially by an anti ship missle such as Harpoon and the force it will strike with. She has not the armor to withstand such an attack either topside nor below decks and her comparmentization (3 for the powerplant and vitals) 1 for two nuclear reactors, 2 for ships turbines and aux boiler units. Provides little as far as damage control measures are concerned. The lack or armoring with exception to the minimum that Soviet designers give their reactors and compartments is certainly not to par with the layout, armoring or compartmentizion of any of the Iowas.


That's not a theory, it's a fact. The Iowa's have taken on an almost mythical status for many, but when you look at them objectively it is hard to see why. The U.S. Navy at the time certainly regarded them as aberations, a special type, not be be repeated. They were a very expensive means of making a 33-knot South Dakota, which is fundamentally what they were, and nobody waxes on about the all-conquering South Dakota class. By the time they were completed they were already at least obsolescent. Other than the sex-appeal factor that goes with all battleships I just don't see the attraction.

*The USN had plans for larger as in the Montana class. But since the Iowas worked out well and the war was coming to an end why build what you wouldnt need when we had not just the Iowas but several other classes as you mentioned South Dakota, North Carolinias etc as well as numerous heavy cruisers The main purpose of the Iowas was a long range, all weather rough sea, weapons platform (gun,missle etc.) that can support its own group and as well work independently of the carriers as well as with the carriers themselves.

Whatever sex appeal may be applied to these ships so be not my area of interest. The engineering parts of the ship and its redundancies are of the most intrest to myself.

Again as has been mentioned several times in this thread and others,
Two different ships with two different intended functions.

[fitz]

LOL

You know its inevitable.

[fitz]

The Iowa’s were designed to survive the threats of 1938. They are not designed to survive the threats of today. Nothing even remotely approaching Granit for example could possibly have even been contemplated when the Iowa’s were first drawn. If it had, they would not be protected the way they are, or more likely they would have suffered the fate of HMS Lion.

In modern terms, I give the Kirov’s far more chance of survival. Based on real-world experience your estimation of what Harpoon can do seems at best an overstatement. An Iowa has 16, they are small, much slower and much shorter legged than Kirov’s own armament and this is going to be one of those instances where he who shoots first has the leg up. Given the Kirov’s much superior detection and tracking capability it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the Kirov does not get off the first shots. If Kirov shoots first, the Iowa’s chances of survival are poor. SPS-49 may spot the Granit’s at a distance but will lose them as they close the ship. Mk 37 probably can’t even see Granit, let alone track it. Phalanx was built to attack subsonic sea-skimmers not Mach 3 zenith divers. It probably won’t see and can’t engage the inbounds either. Chaff might seduce some of the inbounds but the Iowa is still a big target (literally and in terms of signature) and the Granit’s have more than one form of guidance. And there’s only so much chaff ready to fire. Besides, that implies SLq-32 does its job, like it did so well in 1987. 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). This doesn’t give one much cause for hope. When (not if) the Iowa does get hit the battleships armor, designed for far more modest threats of a completely different nature, is unlikely to provide much protection from a 5 ton Mach 3 mass whose center is occupied by 1-ton of shaped charge and X-liters of unspent fuel. I’m thinking of the Roma here, only on a much larger scale.

OTOH if by some miracle Iowa shoots first, she only has 16 Harpoon to deal with a ship that has over 400 missiles and 7 gun systems designed to shoot them down combined with powerful long-range jammers and chaff of her own. That is the Kirov’s armor. Harpoon’s slow speed works against it here since for OTH shots she may need to have her seeker on long enough for the Russian’s to detect early and give plenty of time for countermeasures. Even if by some strange miracle every defensive gun and every missile misses we know that Harpoon can be spoofed. After all, the USS Wainwright successfully decoyed an attacking Harpoon in 1987 with chaff. That is one of 6 combat firings that I can account for of Harpoon from a surface ship. Of those, 2 were hits (2 Iraqi Osa FAC-M believed sunk) and 3 were misses with 1 decoyed by chaff, the others apparently just missing and 1 unknown but probably a miss. Those are slightly underwhelming statistics as well since the targets of the known misses were hardly capable of putting up a credible defense.

So what if a Harpoon or two does hit a Kirov? Does this immediately imply the nuclear holocaust you predict? This seems unlikely. Kirov is a very big ship and Harpoon, unlike Granit is not designed to penetrate very far into a target before exploding. Harpoon does get its name from its original requirement after all – as a killer of surfaced submarines to be fired from P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft. Later it became a surface-launched Osa-killer. Neither task requires deep penetration. In fact, that would be counter-productive. And with a nuclear plant buried deep inside the hull, aft from the most likely point of missile impact (whose location isn’t hard to deduce), your scenario is unlikely to say the least. If I’m the Russian captain I’m going to turn into the attack anyway to present a smaller target and allow my chaff and jamming a better chance to work, placing those vitals even farther out of reach. One or even several Harpoon “sinking” a target the size of a Kirov is even less likely. You sink ships by letting in water. Harpoon is a lousy way to let in water. That explains why so many AM.39 hits during the Tanker War resulted in so few ships sunk, and why most warships hit by such weapons also survived. If a 3,200 ton frigate can survive 2 AM.39 hits and get to port under her own power it bodes well for a 20,000 ton Kirov and a few Harpoon.

Sure the Iowa and Kirov were designed for different missions. But that’s not the point. The question at hand is which one is more likely to come out on top in a one-on-one slugfest to the death. However unlikely that scenario may be, the question is what it is and begs an answer. When it comes to who is going to shoot first and which is more likely to survive: Iowa vs. 20 Granit or Kirov vs. 16 Harpoon the likely winner seems clear. Kirov has the big eye’s and the long reach and its chances of surviving an attack if it does not shoot first are higher.

[Dreadnought]

The Iowa’s were designed to survive the threats of 1938. They are not designed to survive the threats of today. Nothing even remotely approaching Granit for example could possibly have even been contemplated when the Iowa’s were first drawn. If it had, they would not be protected the way they are, or more likely they would have suffered the fate of HMS Lion.

In modern terms, I give the Kirov’s far more chance of survival. Based on real-world experience your estimation of what Harpoon can do seems at best an overstatement. An Iowa has 16, they are small, much slower and much shorter legged than Kirov’s own armament and this is going to be one of those instances where he who shoots first has the leg up. Given the Kirov’s much superior detection and tracking capability it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the Kirov does not get off the first shots. If Kirov shoots first, the Iowa’s chances of survival are poor. SPS-49 may spot the Granit’s at a distance but will lose them as they close the ship. Mk 37 probably can’t even see Granit, let alone track it. Phalanx was built to attack subsonic sea-skimmers not Mach 3 zenith divers. It probably won’t see and can’t engage the inbounds either. Chaff might seduce some of the inbounds but the Iowa is still a big target (literally and in terms of signature) and the Granit’s have more than one form of guidance. And there’s only so much chaff ready to fire. Besides, that implies SLq-32 does its job, like it did so well in 1987. 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). This doesn’t give one much cause for hope. When (not if) the Iowa does get hit the battleships armor, designed for far more modest threats of a completely different nature, is unlikely to provide much protection from a 5 ton Mach 3 mass whose center is occupied by 1-ton of shaped charge and X-liters of unspent fuel. I’m thinking of the Roma here, only on a much larger scale.

OTOH if by some miracle Iowa shoots first, she only has 16 Harpoon to deal with a ship that has over 400 missiles and 7 gun systems designed to shoot them down combined with powerful long-range jammers and chaff of her own. That is the Kirov’s armor. Harpoon’s slow speed works against it here since for OTH shots she may need to have her seeker on long enough for the Russian’s to detect early and give plenty of time for countermeasures. Even if by some strange miracle every defensive gun and every missile misses we know that Harpoon can be spoofed. After all, the USS Wainwright successfully decoyed an attacking Harpoon in 1987 with chaff. That is one of 6 combat firings that I can account for of Harpoon from a surface ship. Of those, 2 were hits (2 Iraqi Osa FAC-M believed sunk) and 3 were misses with 1 decoyed by chaff, the others apparently just missing and 1 unknown but probably a miss. Those are slightly underwhelming statistics as well since the targets of the known misses were hardly capable of putting up a credible defense.

So what if a Harpoon or two does hit a Kirov? Does this immediately imply the nuclear holocaust you predict? This seems unlikely. Kirov is a very big ship and Harpoon, unlike Granit is not designed to penetrate very far into a target before exploding. Harpoon does get its name from its original requirement after all – as a killer of surfaced submarines to be fired from P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft. Later it became a surface-launched Osa-killer. Neither task requires deep penetration. In fact, that would be counter-productive. And with a nuclear plant buried deep inside the hull, aft from the most likely point of missile impact (whose location isn’t hard to deduce), your scenario is unlikely to say the least. If I’m the Russian captain I’m going to turn into the attack anyway to present a smaller target and allow my chaff and jamming a better chance to work, placing those vitals even farther out of reach. One or even several Harpoon “sinking” a target the size of a Kirov is even less likely. You sink ships by letting in water. Harpoon is a lousy way to let in water. That explains why so many AM.39 hits during the Tanker War resulted in so few ships sunk, and why most warships hit by such weapons also survived. If a 3,200 ton frigate can survive 2 AM.39 hits and get to port under her own power it bodes well for a 20,000 ton Kirov and a few Harpoon.

Sure the Iowa and Kirov were designed for different missions. But that’s not the point. The question at hand is which one is more likely to come out on top in a one-on-one slugfest to the death. However unlikely that scenario may be, the question is what it is and begs an answer. When it comes to who is going to shoot first and which is more likely to survive: Iowa vs. 20 Granit or Kirov vs. 16 Harpoon the likely winner seems clear. Kirov has the big eye’s and the long reach and its chances of surviving an attack if it does not shoot first are higher.

Please, allow me to pick this part.
Since we will go with the thread stating an Iowa vs a Kirov even know we have already determined that they are strickly two different tools for two different jobs. We will humor this as best we can.

1)First you stated that Kirov being faster can dictate range. That is not a true statement. Kirov posts thirty two knots on her builders trials. Which is not stated in what condition she was in. More or less she was empty at this time namely no armament,helos, food or her total crew and gear outside of the officers aboard. Builders trials seldomly have much crew aboard outside of a skeleton crew,dock workers and observers for a few day excersion.

The Iowas on builders trials pretty much the same, skeleton crew,officers no armament, food etc etc. However heavily laiden with fuel, (approximately 2.5 million gallons of naval distiliate) if her tanks are topped.The Iowas have posted speeds of 33 knots (202 rpm) @212,000 shp. Given the fact that more can be pulled from those boilers and more can be pulled from Kirovs reactors we will give them a few knots more (likely 2-3). So more then likely topping out with ample sea conditions at 35 knots. Iowas statistics fully laiden state 33 knots at full load full power. There is 0 information available for Kirov stating what condition (loaded or unloaded) or sea conditions when her speed was posted. So stating that Kirov can dictate the range by speed in any case heavy seas or not is not a true statement in itself.

Compare in heavy seas a 26,190 (max displacement) ton Kirov class cruiser at 215 meters length (705.4 ft.) Beam 28.5 meters (93.5 ft.) and max draft 10.33 meters(33.89 ft) at full load.

Against

57,353 (max displacement for 1983) ton Iowa class battleship at 887'3" (270.4 meters) length. Beam 108'-3" (33.01 meters) and max draft 37'-2" (11.3 meters) at full load.

The difference stated above will effect the response of the ship in any kind of sea, especially in rolling seas.

Now let us take into mind ballasting for sea conditions.

The Iowas replace spent fuel with sea water as ballast. Pending how much fuel is spent will determine how much ballast is inlet into her tanks.
Holding 2.5 million gallons aboard and a little math you can work out the ballasting effect on the ship. Totals less av fuel.

Kirov holds enough fuel (1,120 tons)for her auxilliary boilers to run 14/17 knots for a total of 1,000 n.m. Guessing that she has 2 auxilliary boilers on her (If it was 4 then they are probably the most inefficient thing boiler wise ever seen) And her coolant water for the four nuclear reactors aboard. (Could use some help from a few WAB members here familiar with a "guessing" closed loop system.) Totals less av fuel.

And taking into mind the hull shape itself. Which do you think handles the sea better in rough or smooth conditions. So who do you think can determine stand off range easier in any sea conditions?

Give you a hint all things being it wont be Kirov.

This being said I will post further refute as time allows but for now other matters call.

[Dreadnought]

"In modern terms, I give the Kirov’s far more chance of survival. Based on real-world experience your estimation of what Harpoon can do seems at best an overstatement. An Iowa has 16, they are small, much slower and much shorter legged than Kirov’s own armament and this is going to be one of those instances where he who shoots first has the leg up. Given the Kirov’s much superior detection and tracking capability it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the Kirov does not get off the first shots."

* Ok lets discuss modern times and real world experiences.

The Iowas have served almost every major conflict the U.S. military has engaged in where seapower was deployed and called upon. They have been updated with the means to carry out each mission assigned to them.

1) WWII and the South Pacific campaigns.(All four of the class)
2) Korean conflicts (Again all four of the class)
3) Vietnam (1 of the class)
4) Lebannon (1 of the class)
5) ODS(Operation Dessert Shield) Middle East (Two of the class heading for port and decom.) Two of the class heading for the Middle East and in direct support of Operation Desert Storm).

*If you can show me one, just one instance that any of the Kirov class has engaged in direct fire support of anything in "real world experience" that has supported its (Soviets) military where she actually used her weaponry it would be one hell of a "slight of hand" trick.

Experience is worth its weight in gold as opposed to sitting tied up in some backwater port. And going out and drilling from time to time.

So in closing that article "real world experience" wise Kirov couldn't carry the Iowas jock strap.

*Harpoon wise. If you dont know what a Harpoon strike is designed to do nor can do then it certainly would be a false statement to say an overstatement where as damage to any surface combatant is concerned. Kirov is not armormed anywhere close enough to withstand the impact of a Harpoon in its designated strike zone. There is alot more thought behind a Harpoon strike then just pushing a button and striking another ship. The "where" it strikes that ship will be of top concern to her CO I assure you and it is very doubtfull she will continue to fight full bore from that point on. She will be more concerned with damage control and the safety of her crew and returning to port or another soviet allied port at best possible speed. That is not to say she could not continue to fire her missles but if a second Harpoon was to strike again then that "nuclear holocust" you describe could become a very much reality to those unfortunate enough to be aboard her.

Superior Detection. You seem to think the Iowas operate upon outdated technology when they leave for sea and that Kirov is massively superior in detection.

You can sit there and write all of which you read upon the internet and cook books about the Iowas detection capability, sensors etc when in fact you dont know what her capability really is. There is but very very few men that have even been inside the CIC of an Iowa class since their last upgrades (not going to be advertised) and given that fact nobody in their right mind should comment nor speculate upon what is there without actually knowing what is there would pretty much determine what they actually know about the ships. Savy? I will give you another hint..They are sealed and zero repeat zero access is permitted no matter the state (museum or other) of the ship. When the ships were decommed half of their wares were removed for safe keeping and testing.

Did you know that the Iowas track among many other things the space station at all times? We will leave it at that but "superior detection" does not exactly belong to the Kirovs. So first one to shoot may not necessarily belong to Kirov. Bet you wont read that in any book either. Is that so diffacult to imagine?

[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). This doesn’t give one much cause for hope. When (not if) the Iowa does get hit the battleships armor, designed for far more modest threats of a completely different nature, is unlikely to provide much protection from a 5 ton Mach 3 mass whose center is occupied by 1-ton of shaped charge and X-liters of unspent fuel. I’m thinking of the Roma here, only on a much larger scale."

*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.

"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.

"This doesnt give one much cause for hope"

The cause for hope in this instance is that Missouri did not open fire because if she had she definatley would have injured members (ships) of her own battlegroup with the CIWS namely USS Jarrett whose CIWS was engaging Missouri's decoy chaff. Jarret sprayed the side of Missouri with approximately 400-600 rounds very quickly. Being heavily armored Mo absorbed it with a few crew members injured. Had Missouri opened fire(with 2 CIWS instead of Jarrets 1) the very same might not be said for any of Jarret's crew who were in the open.

[Shipwreck]

Which do you think handles the sea better in rough or smooth conditions.

Which ship has the best seakeeping in rough weather ? Kirov without the shadow of a doubt !

[Shipwreck]

The cause for hope in this instance is that Missouri did not open fire because if she had she definatley would have injured members (ships)

USS Missouri actually opened fire against the second Silkworm (the one eventually shot down by the Brits) with her 5"/38 popguns.

[Shipwreck]

"4) Lebannon (1 of the class)

The deployment of USS New Jersey off the coast of Beirut in 1983-84 was a MISERABLE (dare I say CRIMINAL ?) FIASCO !!!