Lets also not forget that only one American battleship has ever been destroyed do to enemy action. This minor footnote in history occurred on the morning of Dec. 7 1941. The victim's name was the USS Arizona. So the obsolete arguement is highly dependant on how the ship and overall fleet are operated. The damage obsorbing ability of a battleship is incredible. The West Virginia obsorbed 7 torpedoes during the Pearl Harbor attack and was able to return the punishment at the Battle of Surigao.
Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser
- Thread starter F40Racer
- Start date
Lets also not forget that only one American battleship has ever been destroyed do to enemy action. This minor footnote in history occurred on the morning of Dec. 7 1941. The victim's name was the USS Arizona. So the obsolete arguement is highly dependant on how the ship and overall fleet are operated. The damage obsorbing ability of a battleship is incredible. The West Virginia obsorbed 7 torpedoes during the Pearl Harbor attack and was able to return the punishment at the Battle of Surigao.
No assurance that they would be able to shoot down the helos...or the UAVs. And if the Iwoa helos or UAVs found the Kirov before she came into shipwreck range, the advatage would be to the Iowa.Also, the Iowa would benefit from sat intelligence.
That would be because the Iowa has a longer range and larger offensive punch in missiles. 32 Tomohawks and 16 harpoons.
If the Iowa found the Kirov, I believe a large Tomohawk strike would overwhelm her defenses. If they had to get in closer with the harpoons, then the advantage would go to the Kirov because her shipwrecks have a much longer range than the harpoons.
At the next stage, I believe the harpoons hold the advantage.
If they expended their missiles and had to get close enough for other weapons...then the Iowa wins hands down. The Kirov would never sail within range of those nine 16" guns.
Pointblank
Senior Member
Yep... with 2,700 lbs. (1,224.7 kg) AP Mark 8, those guns can hit targets around 42,345 yards (38,720 m) away, with a total flight time of around 80.0 seconds, can fire two rounds a minute, and will penetrate 9.51" (241 mm) of side armour, 14.05" (357 mm) of deck armour. And since the Kirov's aren't armoured, the ship will be turned into Swiss cheese very quickly, if the Iowa's didn't use their HC Mark 13 rounds, which would be blowing large sections off the Kirov's...
The simple fact of the matter is that neither ship went anywhere unescorted. I know, I was assigned to Surfron 1 out of Long Beach when the Missouri and the New Jersey were stationed there, so we got a large part of the duty for them.
In an Iowa vs Kirov scenario, barring the possibility of the Iowa's escorting Submarine picking off the Kirov with Mk. 48s, Initial shots would have gone to the Kirov, with it's Shipwreck missiles. Now, since Russian Missile factories have a ho-hum attitude about quality control, count on a certain percentage of failures at launch or in flight.
Parking a helix at about 15-20 miles is an iffy proposition at best, because usually at least one of the BB's escorts was a Ticonderoga Class cruiser, which would have picked them off like skeet pucks. this leaves the Shipwrecks in master-Slave configuration, with one missile up high scouting and linking data to the rest of the flight, or depending entirely on an ESM solution on the U.S. radars (and the U.S. formation will likely have the same data on the Russians if they are radiating). This would give the U.S. formation plenty of time to prep countermeasures, such as CIWS, Super-RBOC decoys and Sidekick ECM suites, as well as defensive fire from the Tico. A fair portion of the missiles would get within detection range at low level, but the Tico could pick off the Master unit whenever one climbed, frequently requiring another to climb to take its place.
Say maybe 5 will track the BB, most will be lost in the Chaff and ECM, CIWS would handle the most threatening, so maybe a chance of 1 or 2 striking the armor belts.
Had they remained in service to today, the CIWS would likely have been upgraded to the RAM missile system, with 4 21 round launchers. Those things simply don't miss.
If the U.S. formation can get UAV's or Helicopters to link target data, the Tomohawk missiles could likely do some damage, but frankley, being subsonic, they would be much easier for the Russians to intercept.
It would then come down to whether the Russian commander had the Huevos to close with the US formation, at which time it would be a matter of US harpoons, STANDARD missiles, 16" shells and 5" - 3" shells vs russian SAMS, 130mm, 100mm cannons and 21" torpedoes. In that case, the U.S. formation would likely win.
In an Iowa vs Kirov scenario, barring the possibility of the Iowa's escorting Submarine picking off the Kirov with Mk. 48s, Initial shots would have gone to the Kirov, with it's Shipwreck missiles. Now, since Russian Missile factories have a ho-hum attitude about quality control, count on a certain percentage of failures at launch or in flight.
Parking a helix at about 15-20 miles is an iffy proposition at best, because usually at least one of the BB's escorts was a Ticonderoga Class cruiser, which would have picked them off like skeet pucks. this leaves the Shipwrecks in master-Slave configuration, with one missile up high scouting and linking data to the rest of the flight, or depending entirely on an ESM solution on the U.S. radars (and the U.S. formation will likely have the same data on the Russians if they are radiating). This would give the U.S. formation plenty of time to prep countermeasures, such as CIWS, Super-RBOC decoys and Sidekick ECM suites, as well as defensive fire from the Tico. A fair portion of the missiles would get within detection range at low level, but the Tico could pick off the Master unit whenever one climbed, frequently requiring another to climb to take its place.
Say maybe 5 will track the BB, most will be lost in the Chaff and ECM, CIWS would handle the most threatening, so maybe a chance of 1 or 2 striking the armor belts.
Had they remained in service to today, the CIWS would likely have been upgraded to the RAM missile system, with 4 21 round launchers. Those things simply don't miss.
If the U.S. formation can get UAV's or Helicopters to link target data, the Tomohawk missiles could likely do some damage, but frankley, being subsonic, they would be much easier for the Russians to intercept.
It would then come down to whether the Russian commander had the Huevos to close with the US formation, at which time it would be a matter of US harpoons, STANDARD missiles, 16" shells and 5" - 3" shells vs russian SAMS, 130mm, 100mm cannons and 21" torpedoes. In that case, the U.S. formation would likely win.
Last edited:
I agree with u to a certain aspect. But while u had said that the US would have some escort for her Iowa class batteship, wouldn't the Russian also have escort for their Kirov.
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.
Grishas and Krivaks would contribute 21 inch torpedoes and 100 mm cannon fire. However, they were generally considered expendable in a fight.
Pointblank
Senior Member
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.
Ambivalent
Junior Member
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.
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.