This is a discussion on Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser within the World Armed Forces forums, part of the World Strategic Defence Area category; Yes, the Kirov class generally had around 2 Krivaks or Grishas in attendance to extend their ASW curtain. For Anti-Surface ...
Yes, the Kirov class generally had around 2 Krivaks or Grishas in attendance to extend their ASW curtain. For Anti-Surface and Anti-Air, the Kirov at the heart of the group provided area defense. They sometimes cruised with Sovreminey class and Uladoy class destroyers, but these were major fleet units and were often on other duties.
Grishas and Krivaks would contribute 21 inch torpedoes and 100 mm cannon fire. However, they were generally considered expendable in a fight.
Maybe back in the 80s & early 90s.. The USN decommissioned it's last Spruance in 2005.The USN using a SAG centred around a Iowa class battleship would provide a couple of Sprucane class destroyers to provide the anti-submarine support
ASW shield for a BB?? That would go to the remaining FFs or SH-60 embarked on a Arliegh Burke or and LCS...
Something interesting about the Iowas. When New Jersey was recommissioned the last time, it was fitted with Sea Sparrow for a time, but the shock from the main battery was so great there was no illumination radar in our inventory that would stay together. Sea Sparrow had to be removed. Perhaps a modern APAR would survive ( and look extremely cool on the superstructure above the bridge ;-) ) or maybe not?
Over looked in the discussion are rocket propelled guided munitions. There were concepts for these as far back as the 1970's for the Iowas. Combine some UAV's and a 100nm range rocket propelled guided munition for the 406 mm main guns of an Iowa. Toss all the old 127 mm guns and replace these with more modern M-45 mounts or even better the successfully protptyped and tested Mk-71 MCLGS, a 203 mm/55 cal fully auto gun. Replace the Tomahawk box launchers with a modern VLS system, a conversion that was designed but never implemented. Now we're talkin!
Last, review the damage caused to USS Missouri when a bomb laden Zero Kamakazied her in the Pacific. The railings were destroyed and there is a dent in the hull to this day, but the ship's fighting ability was not impaired. For some idea of what it requires to sink such a ship, review the amount of oridinance both Yamato and Musashi absorbed before sinking. I don't think either would have sunk without the multiple torpedo hits, upwards of 17 per ship, each absorbed.
The US Navy gave up on the Iowas after an accidental explosion showed that they would need to build new ammo, and studies demontrated that the ships where getting too old to be economically viable. One must remenber that the real reason nobody built new Battleships after 1945 (the french finished building Jean Bart and the British the Vanguard) was that they made extremely tempting targets for nuclear weapons. They can absorb nearly anithing else, and apart from multiple torpedo hits the amount of armour on even a WWI era Battleship makes them extremly hard to sink. Even the ligter (compared to Battleships) German Battlecruisers survived multiple hits by 12'', 13.5'' and 15'' shells on the Jutland and fighted on. To take out the Tirpitz the RAF had to use 5 ton bombs and score multiple hits. So if you send a Battleship againts a target the other side must deffend at all cost you're giving them a strong incentive to dust off all those cold war era nuclear warheads... But at a time when all navies hare short on money keeping 70 years old ships with 1000 plus crews active is a waste of money.
It is not particularly true that the Bismark is less armored than the Iowas, the Bismark is designed to fight in the north Atlantic where with the heavy seas, the fight will mainly against the horizontal projectile. hence, the Bismark belt is 320 mm thick where the Iowa's is 305mm (12") thick. We also have to consider the quality of the armor, which in some estimates is 5% better than USN ones, while if we look at tanks, up to 30% better.
This close in nature of the Atlantic is also represented by the Bismark's guns which fires at a higher velocity at a flatter trajectory.
I will think that a modern anti ship cruise missile will likely sink the Iowa. the Vittorio Veneto with superior deck armour and weaker main belt than the Iowas were sunk by the Fritz-X of only a 320 kg warhead at 770 MPH compared to a SSN-22 Moskit with a 300 kg warhead at 1750 MPH. now if we talk multiples....
Those BBs you mentioned that were sunk how good was there damage control? How well was the crew trainedf in it's warfighting ablity? What sort of defenses did it have?
And where's the Bismark now? In Davey Jones locker.(bottom of the Atlantic)
Where's the Iowa class BBs??..
Iowa - Iowa is currently berthed with the National Defense Reserve Fleet at Suisun Bay, near San Francisco, California, and is awaiting donation to a not-for-profit entity for use as a museum ship.
Missouri - Museum ship in Pearl Harbor HI
Home | USS Missouri
New Jersey - Museum ship in New Jersey
Battleship New Jersey
Wisconsin - Museum Ship in Norfolk VA
Battleship Wisconsin | Nauticus
I wander what purpose would the BB serve in modern day warfare?
Having to spent all those resources guarding it and using it to bombard coastal areas seems like a big waste of resources for very little gain.
The ship will give its location away almost immediately, and no amount of defense is sufficient when the missiles really start flying.
The only scenario I can think of is a bully war when you are completely safe from retaliation and the damage/cost ratio of using cannon balls is cheaper than bombs or missiles.
I think you are asking about the latter. My statement's purpose is to illustrate that a 300 kg warhead can sink a battleship with similar armor scheme as the Iowas. which is really responding to Pointblank's statement that a hit will give the Iowa a bloody nose; where I am quite certain the damage from a hit can probably mission kill her if not sink her.
of course this is all under the presumption that the anti ship missile can hit. F40racer's question is a direct ship comparison. if each belligerent is to bring it's own fleet, the comparison is rather pointless?
I don't think the Iowa's have faced what the Bismark had faced, nor the Yamato for the sake of discussion. if we substitute the the Iowa for the Bismark, the Alaska for the Prinz Eugen, would the task force been able to survive the British pursuit fleet of BB: KGV, Prince of Wales, 3 X revenge class. BC :Nelson, Hood, Repulse, Renown. CV: Ark Royal, Victorious. 4 cruisers, 9 light cruisers, 28 destroyers + allied forces?
or if we sub in Iowa for Yamato for operation Ten-Go, do you think the Iowa can survive US task force 58 with 5 fleet carrier 6 escort carrier, 6 battle ship.
The reason the Iowas are still afloat is not just because of her design and her build quality but also the industrial prowess of the USA to keep her escorted, protected and well scouted.
Well stated Letz.
100% correct. To the best of my knowledge the Iowas never had to "slug it out" with an enemy BB.I don't think the Iowa's have faced what the Bismark had faced
She'd be sunk like all the rest.do you think the Iowa can survive US task force 58 with 5 fleet carrier 6 escort carrier, 6 battle ship.
My point exactly. That's why they still exist. Magnificent vessels.The reason the Iowas are still afloat is not just because of her design and her build quality but also the industrial prowess of the USA to keep her escorted, protected and well scouted.
I'm not sure but that ammo may have come from the Naval Magazine at Subic Bay. Also at Subic the USN had stored the massive 16 inch diameter gun barrels of the Iowa class BBs.Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I read somewhere that they found some WWII era shells for the Iowa class main guns just before the Gulf War and that they were actually used in offshore bombardment. What a sight that must've been.
On the side note, I wish the US had kept the Nagato, I am sure some Japanese men would pit their life savings to buy it back, but now she lies at the bottom of the bikini atoll.
I will think that a modern anti ship cruise missile will likely sink the Iowa. the Vittorio Veneto with superior deck armour and weaker main belt than the Iowas were sunk by the Fritz-X of only a 320 kg warhead at 770 MPH compared to a SSN-22 Moskit with a 300 kg warhead at 1750 MPH. now if we talk multiples....[/QUOTE]
The Roma (VV Class) was sunk by a Fritz-X while on a surrender trip. Damage control and battle readiness precautions where probably not at their best. The US Navy claimed the Iowas would be extremly difficult to sink by SSM, but at the time they where asking for money to reactivate them...
The VV class is usually regarded as an inferior design in terms of the way it used it's armour. Iowas have a rather extreme all or nothing design, and a hit on the bow would probably mean she would take in a lot of water, but the turrets, machinery and command spaces are well protected. But no US ship has ever been tested against the kind of punishment german or japanese ships had tio endure. Remember that even the much lighter Schannorst proved very hard to sink...
Can the Iowa be confident that it can take 5 SSM and keep fighting?, or do you think that she can still be operational after taking an air burst 500 kt nuke from above of the side? The Nagato survived the cross road air burst nuke test, but I highly doubt any sensors and external gears will still be working - mission killed at the least.