San Diego Based Article?

[Olefin]

Kirov vs Iowa has to be the biggest mismatch in history.

In the first place the Kirov would never get within the 500km range to launch their SS-N-19 missiles due to the fact that such an important naval asset like a Iowa Class battleship would be under the air protection of a US Navy aircraft carrier.

Secondly the SS-N-19 has a maximum speed of between Mach 1.6 and 2.5 which is well within the interception velocity of US Navy air defence missiles on any number of US warships, while the Kirov only carried 20 SS-N-19.

Thirdly the Iowa Class were retrofitted with Tomahawk Cruise missiles which have a considerably longer range than the SS-N-19, and Iowa's carried 32 of them.

Fourthly the Iowa's 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns shot out 2,700 pound shells that travelled at 820 metres per second. I doubt any Soviet air defence missile could intercept and destroy a shell that size travelling at that speed at the time.

Fifthly the armour protection of a Kirov is wafer thin compared with an Iowa. A few direct hits by Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles would disable if not destroy it, while one 16 inch gun shell would disintegrate it.

Let alone her five inch guns which would be pumping out shells at the Kirov and nailing her over and over at 2300 yards.

[stormlion1]

In many ways a Iowa class would dominate in modern warfare even with there age. Remember that the main argument against them whenever anyone wanted to mothball them was high crew requirements (about 2000 men) and cost of fuel to run them and to support them. Plus the fact they just don't make the ammunition or the powder for them anymore.

And yet they are still considered the go-to source for a landing operation today. When we were converting the Jersey we were told outright that nothing major could be touched as it could be recalled at any point and I remember one Navy SOB telling us that the more work we did now was the less work they would need to do when they towed across the river to the Philly Shipyard when the ship would be needed again.

[kalos72]

This article brings up another good question...

US Armed Forces in the Pacific...Korea, Japan, Philippines...like the write about the Air Force in Europe.

[stormlion1]

Well the bottom of the original story does list the Air Force units and such in Japan. I remember because it said my old base had only two C-130's with no fuel left. But an actual map with a write up would be nice. Maybe update the whole thing though because quite a bit is just so off.

[kalos72]

Good call, I didnt see that the last time I read it.

Anyone have thoughts on San Diego itself I haven't seen anything that says it got nuked, which is odd to me.

[unkated]

One other thing that I thought was implausible was the fitting of the ships to sail. The size of sails needed to move even a small frigate would be huge. A couple of sails like those pictured would maybe move the ships at a knot or two, but the stress on the masts would be incredible. Don't know if it would even be possible.

It wouldn't. For several reasons;

1. No where near enough sail area.

2. Hull is a poor shape for sailing - and it gets worse if it starts to heel (like it would with wind pushing on the sails.

3. Modern naval hulls have no keel; if you had enough sails and avoided heeling over completely, you'd make horrible leeway (slide in the direction of the wind).

4. To run the hydraulics to steer (and weapons systems, electronics, ventilation and plumbing), you'd to run a generator system. And a small wind-powered thing is NOT going to cut it.

Uncle Ted

[unkated]

Kirov vs Iowa has to be the biggest mismatch in history.

In the first place the Kirov would never get within the 500km range to launch their SS-N-19 missiles due to the fact that such an important naval asset like a Iowa Class battleship would be under the air protection of a US Navy aircraft carrier.

Secondly the SS-N-19 has a maximum speed of between Mach 1.6 and 2.5 which is well within the interception velocity of US Navy air defence missiles on any number of US warships, while the Kirov only carried 20 SS-N-19.

Thirdly the Iowa Class were retrofitted with Tomahawk Cruise missiles which have a considerably longer range than the SS-N-19, and Iowa's carried 32 of them.

Fourthly the Iowa's 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns shot out 2,700 pound shells that travelled at 820 metres per second. I doubt any Soviet air defence missile could intercept and destroy a shell that size travelling at that speed at the time.

Fifthly the armour protection of a Kirov is wafer thin compared with an Iowa. A few direct hits by Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles would disable if not destroy it, while one 16 inch gun shell would disintegrate it.

There is no reason for the Kirov to wait around for Battleship to get within gun range; in fact, it would be criminal; the zampolit aboard would have the captain arrested and appoint a commander to maintain range at a few hundred nautical miles.

The Tomahawks are LAND attack missiles, and are not that effective at sea. Also, more to the point is the number of launchers available. Iowas carry 32 Tomahawks, but can only launch 8 at a time. Same for Harpoons.

Yeah, no CIWS system is going to protect against guns.

They are made to locate and target missiles, which move much slower, and have systems that can be hurt in the few seconds before the missile hits the ship. They cannot target incoming shell fire, and if they could, you have the mismatch of mv-squared - like me charging a semi-trailer to deflect it head-on.

Also... (from Iowa class page)

Owing to the original 1938 design of the battleships, the Tomahawk missiles could not be fitted to the Iowa class unless the battleships were rebuilt in such a way as to accommodate the missile mounts that would be needed to store and launch the Tomahawks. This realization prompted the removal of the anti-aircraft guns previously installed on the Iowas and the removal of four of each of the battleships' ten 5"/38 DP mounts. The mid and aft end of the battleships were then rebuilt to accommodate the missile magazines. At one point, the NATO Sea Sparrow was to be installed on the reactivated battleships; however, it was determined that the system could not withstand the overpressure effects from firing the main battery.[79] To supplement the anti-aircraft capabilities of the Iowas, five FIM-92 Stinger surface-to-air missile firing positions were installed. These secured the shoulder-launched weapons and their rounds for ready use by the crew

One 16-in shell would not disintegrate the Kirov. Kirov is a decent sized ship. There's a reason that other ship combat systems were developed.
But indeed Kirov is not armored and she would being to degrade (lose systems that she needs to fight) almost immediately.

[stormlion1]

The smart move for a Kirov would have been to missile spam the US Battlegroup alongside other missile firing ships and hope for the best. Then get the hell out of dodge. And at the same time the US Fleet would have continued the favor. The Russian fleet listed was nowhere near enough though to take on a US Battlegroup with both a carrier and a Battleship. Now if the spammed a single target (if they could pick one out that is) it would be possible to hit a Iowa enough times to knock it out of the fight.

Then again in this scenario I fully expect those missiles to have nukes so if even one got through it would be all she wrote for the target ship and those near it.

[unkated]

I did like the Boras

I did like the Boras - the light cruiser sized hovercraft. They are just the kind of slightly outre engineering concept that the Soviets could make work - where a western government would stop to consider the opportunity cost vs benefit, and go build three of something else instead.

However, note that such a beast would use a LOT of fuel at each outing; and, of course making it large enough to carry a lot of fuel will make it too heavy to operate, so it will not have a lot of range. And presumably the lack of fuel is what stopped their further use.

[On a side note, where we all laughed at the Soviet hovercraft designs in the Soviet Vehicle Guide, the Soviets did have a small number of hover-transports for seaborne landings - some 50 that were platoon sized, 10 that were company-sized (100t), and a few that were battalion sized (310t); the Boras would be ~10xs as heavy.]

However, the two that attacked USS Munro off Australia had no reason to get within visual range at all; somehow I doubt that Munro could close the range if they can make 40-45 kn. The Boras would enter their radar envelope, get a fix, fire, turn away. Radar would tell them if probably if there is a hit; major change in Munro's speed would be a giveaway, at which point they could turn back for survivors. if not, they are already opening the distance on Munro.

Uncle Ted

[kalos72]

So...thinking about ways to counter the Soviet navy in the Pacific, would you go PT boats again with torpedos or try and develop a simple anti-ship missile system perhaps

Or maybe sailing ships, with engine backups, with hidden torpedo tubes Maybe disguised as fishing boats

It would seem like some of the older torpedos are pretty simple tech wise...

[stormlion1]

Subs, lots of subs.

[kalos72]

And since making new Los Angeles class submarines MIGHT be out of the realm of realistic....

Creative options

Another question for me is, why do we still think we need to project into the South Pacific here None of those countries can help us rebuild...cept maybe Japan/Australia.

[unkated]

It's not creative, but it is simple and obvious, and would probably be done 5 minutes after the climax of the Battle of the Aleutians - (if not as soon as tac nukes start flying)

2 nukes to take out the Navy base in Petrapavolvsk and Vladivostok. Bye bye stocks of navy parts and ammo and fuel. And repair facilities. Pretty much done right there.

BTW, this can also be done by conventional TLAM attack launced by sub or by B-52 standing off a few hundred miles as soon as the US enters the war.

Uncle Ted

[RN7]

There is no reason for the Kirov to wait around for Battleship to get within gun range; in fact, it would be criminal; the zampolit aboard would have the captain arrested and appoint a commander to maintain range at a few hundred nautical miles.

That's right and you didn't hear me saying that as it would be obvious suicide for the Kirov.

The Tomahawks are LAND attack missiles, and are not that effective at sea.

But the RGM/UGM-109B variant of the Tomahawk is a anti-ship missile.

It was developed at the same time as the BGM-109A TLAM-N and was operationally deployed first. Instead of TERCOM (which is useless over water), the TASM uses a radar guidance system similar to Harpoon, including the strapdown three-axis attitude/heading reference system and AN/DSQ-28 J-band active radar seeker. The TASM was a very agile missile capable of flying at high or low altitude trajectories, and could include sea-skimming or pop-up high-angle diving in the terminal phase. The TASM was removed from warships in 1994 and all TASM missiles were converted to TLAM, but not in the Twilight War eh!

Also, more to the point is the number of launchers available. Iowas carry 32 Tomahawks, but can only launch 8 at a time. Same for Harpoons.

But the Kirov also only carries 20 SS-N-19 as the size of the missile limits the platforms on which it can operate and be launched from and the number of reloads. Can all of the 20 SS-N-19 be fired at once

Also... (from Iowa class page)

One 16-in shell would not disintegrate the Kirov. Kirov is a decent sized ship. There's a reason that other ship combat systems were developed.
But indeed Kirov is not armored and she would being to degrade (lose systems that she needs to fight) almost immediately.

Kirov is a very lightly armoured ship compared to an Iowa Class battleship. Its side armour in the area of the nuclear reactor compartments, command operations room and above the SS-N-19 battery is 100 mm, and everywhere else it ranges from 35mm to 70mm. Even in its best protected areas it would barely withstand a hit from a 5"/38 or Harpoon or Tomahawk TASM. But there is absolutely no way it could tank the firepower of a 16"/50 caliber Mark 7. Just how much damage do you think a 2,700 pound HE or AP shell or two travelling at 820 metres per second could do to a ship as lightly armoured as a Kirov with a practically unprotected nuclear reactor

[stormlion1]

Kirov Class was designed as a command ship and a missile cruiser. Not a battleship. It would spam missiles and get out of dodge because it outright couldn't stand in the line of battle like the scenario lists. Its got paper thin armor and a light gun. The armor is almost secondary to its design and the gun for shore bombardment and defense against light attackers of the day. Not a World War 2 battleship. If there had been a war the admirals of the Russian Navy would have done everything in there power to keep there ships as far away from an Iowa as they could. And they would gave wished they had those Sovetsky Soyuz Battleships they cancelled in the 40's.