Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 64
Like Tree14Likes

Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser

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 ...

  1. #16
    scubafreak is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2

    Re: Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser

    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.

  2. #17
    Pointblank is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,761

    Re: Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser

    Quote Originally Posted by scubafreak View Post
    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.
    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, either one or two Ticonderoga class cruisers or Arleigh Burke class destroyers to provide AAW. Collectively, they bring more Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles to the mix plus the ubiquitous USN 5" guns.

  3. #18
    bd popeye's Avatar
    bd popeye is offline The Last Jedi
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cedar Rapids Iowa
    Posts
    18,597

    Re: Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser

    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
    Maybe back in the 80s & early 90s.. The USN decommissioned it's last Spruance in 2005.

    ASW shield for a BB?? That would go to the remaining FFs or SH-60 embarked on a Arliegh Burke or and LCS...
    Be sure to check out...

    Chinese Daily Photos 2014!

    "I am what I am.... Dat's all what I am"

  4. #19
    Ambivalent is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Near a military installation
    Posts
    491

    Re: Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser

    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.

  5. #20
    AdeA is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4

    Re: Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser

    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.

  6. #21
    Lezt is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    541

    Re: Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser

    Quote Originally Posted by Pointblank View Post
    Later in the service life of the Iowa class battleships, they carried UAV's.

    Furthermore, it is highly unlikely the missiles would be able to penetrate the armour. Remember that the Iowa class battleships were designed in the age of dodging hundreds of heavy naval shells, heavy armour piercing aircraft bombs, and many torpedoes. Remember that the much less armoured German battleship Bismark was still afloat and was scuttled by its own crew even though the Bismark took a terrible pounding, but remained afloat, and the interior remained undamaged. The Iowa class battleships is built to take severe punishment. Ships built after the Korean War tend to be built much less lightly, and place more of a emphasis on intercepting the threat, rather than being able to absorb damage. At most, you would give a Iowa class battleship a very bloody nose, but it would still be able to steam away.

    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....

  7. #22
    bd popeye's Avatar
    bd popeye is offline The Last Jedi
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cedar Rapids Iowa
    Posts
    18,597

    Re: Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser

    Quote Originally Posted by Lezt View Post
    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....
    I know the ships never battled but..But what make you make such statements? If the BBs were to battle today do you have any idea how the layered defense of a USN surface action group would work? Trust me the BB would not sail alone..There would be at least on LA class SSN. Two Arliegh Burke DDGs possibly a Tico and for sure two FFGs.(fodder)

    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
    Be sure to check out...

    Chinese Daily Photos 2014!

    "I am what I am.... Dat's all what I am"

  8. #23
    xywdx is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    241

    Re: Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser

    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.

  9. #24
    Lezt is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    541

    Re: Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser

    Quote Originally Posted by bd popeye View Post
    I know the ships never battled but..But what make you make such statements? If the BBs were to battle today do you have any idea how the layered defense of a USN surface action group would work? Trust me the BB would not sail alone..There would be at least on LA class SSN. Two Arliegh Burke DDGs possibly a Tico and for sure two FFGs.(fodder)

    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
    what part of my statement are you referring to? to that the the bismark's armor is not inferior to the Iowas? or the one about a modern cruise missile can sink a battle ship with heavy armor?

    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.

  10. #25
    bd popeye's Avatar
    bd popeye is offline The Last Jedi
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cedar Rapids Iowa
    Posts
    18,597

    Re: Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser

    Well stated Letz.

    I don't think the Iowa's have faced what the Bismark had faced
    100% correct. To the best of my knowledge the Iowas never had to "slug it out" with an enemy BB.

    do you think the Iowa can survive US task force 58 with 5 fleet carrier 6 escort carrier, 6 battle ship.
    She'd be sunk like all the rest.

    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.
    My point exactly. That's why they still exist. Magnificent vessels.
    Be sure to check out...

    Chinese Daily Photos 2014!

    "I am what I am.... Dat's all what I am"

  11. #26
    siegecrossbow's Avatar
    siegecrossbow is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cedar Park, Texas
    Posts
    2,901

    Re: Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser

    Quote Originally Posted by bd popeye View Post
    Well stated Letz.



    100% correct. To the best of my knowledge the Iowas never had to "slug it out" with an enemy BB.



    She'd be sunk like all the rest.



    My point exactly. That's why they still exist. Magnificent vessels.
    It is unfortunate that the Iowas served mainly as cruise missile platforms during the Gulf War. However I think it was a fitting end for a ship that served in four major conflicts in a span of 50 years. 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.

  12. #27
    bd popeye's Avatar
    bd popeye is offline The Last Jedi
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cedar Rapids Iowa
    Posts
    18,597

    Re: Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser

    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.
    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.
    Be sure to check out...

    Chinese Daily Photos 2014!

    "I am what I am.... Dat's all what I am"

  13. #28
    Lezt is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    541

    Re: Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser

    Quote Originally Posted by bd popeye View Post

    My point exactly. That's why they still exist. Magnificent vessels.
    It is a real pity that the UK scrapped most of her BBs - HMS Belfast as a museum ship is nothing compared to the Iowas, just imagine if they had kept some of the Queen Elizabeth, or the KGV or even the vanguard.

    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.

  14. #29
    AdeA is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4

    Re: Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser

    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...

  15. #30
    Lezt is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    541

    Re: Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser

    Quote Originally Posted by AdeA View Post
    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...
    lets put it this way, sure, a BB may survive one or two SSM. But the Iowa is up against the Kirov one on one. so, instead of 1 or 2 SSM, you are looking at 20 SS-N-19 armed with either 750 kg warhead or 500 kt nuke traveling at mach ~2.

    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.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. US Military Pictures thread
    By bd popeye in forum World Military Pictures
    Replies: 1631
    Last Post: 11-15-2014, 09:30 PM
  2. Bluffer’s guide: North Korean Naval Power 2007
    By planeman in forum World Armed Forces
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-05-2007, 09:10 PM
  3. Battleship and Battlecruiser in 21st century
    By kevin JJW in forum World Armed Forces
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 12-21-2006, 03:09 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •