Military Review

Kirov vs. Iowa

113

In the ranks and under the flag. Thus ... Source: Wikimedia Commons
250 meters of steel structures. 25000 tons of displacement. Dozens of anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles. Two nuclear reactors. Hundreds of crew members. The pride of a country gone into oblivion.


The pride that went away with the country itself.

Given the unobvious future and very impartial past of "Admiral Kuznetsov", in the Russian navy there are no ships more priority and more dangerous than the Orlan-class heavy nuclear missile cruisers.

The mighty steel titans of the Cold War are also the largest and most powerful warships in the world with the exception of aircraft carriers.

Once there were four of them, but the creators turned out to be merciless to them - now only two rocket giants are destined to surf the seas. The new country, perhaps, hardly understands their importance and necessity, and the former kings of the oceanic fleet of the USSR no longer have a worthy retinue - but they are still deadly and still stir up the worries of the old enemy.

According to NATO classification, Project 1144 TARKs are classified as "battle cruisers" - by the way, the Eagles that entered service in the late stages of the Cold War were the only ships honored to enter this class after the end of World War II.

“Kirov-class battlecruisers ... You know, that sounds proudly. This is reminiscent of the times when the country threw down the gauntlet of a challenge to the entire military bloc, and the blue and white flag with a scarlet star, hammer and sickle evoked fear and admiration.

We will move away from our usual "Orlan", and in this material we will take the name of the atomic firstborn born in the USSR as a tribute to the achievements of a bygone era. The name that was remembered and became a household name for the enemies of the Fatherland.

Kirov.

Our nuclear-powered cruisers were viewed by the adversaries as "High Value Units", priority targets in the upcoming naval war. Built in the late 80s, the Kirovs were designed - like much of the Soviet naval arsenal at the time - to neutralize American carrier groups. Deck aviation NATO posed a threat not only to the coast of the Soviet Union, but also to missile submarine cruisers, and the USSR gave priority to eliminating them. The secondary purpose of the TARK can be called the role of an ocean raider - a similar task was considered in the framework of a non-nuclear conflict in Europe, and its essence was in attacks on Atlantic convoys of Americans and Canadians, designed to reduce the flow of reinforcements sent to the rescue of the rest of the NATO bloc.

In the United States to this day, there is a widespread opinion that it was to confront the Kirovs that the administration of President Ronald Reagan withdrew other steel monsters from the naval reserve - four battleships of the Iowa type, which underwent modernization and partial rearmament, precisely to combat the Red Banners missile cruisers. Now it is difficult to say why it was decided to return veterans of the Second World War from the "naphthalene fleet" (as the Americans call their ship reserve), and whether our "Kirov" had anything to do with this - but such a hypothesis, however, can be called at least interesting, but also extremely flattering - although this is doubtful, but were the Yankees really so uncertain about more modern ships that they decided to reanimate as many as four battleships?


The pride of the Soviet fleet, which was destined to rot at the pier ... Source: Wikimedia Commons

Of course, the return of "Iowa" was dictated primarily by their use as the most powerful artillery platforms for strikes on the coast - the Americans managed to test them in a similar capacity during the war in Korea, and later in Vietnam, appreciating the role of the main the caliber of battleships supported by Marine operations.

However, since the Yankees themselves have an alternative opinion on this matter, why not consider it to us?

Nuclear battle cruiser


"Kirov" became the first Soviet warship with a nuclear power plant. By the time it entered service in 1980, the US Navy already had nine nuclear-powered cruisers and three nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. However, its enormous size and armament significantly distinguish it from its American counterparts.

Initially, the USSR planned to build seven ships of this project - but all hopes for this, as you know, went to pieces, and only four cruisers were destined to see the light of day.

In general, Kirov suffered a lot during the design process - the fleet wanted everything at once, and for quite a long time the developers did not have a clear enough understanding of the tasks assigned to them. They tried to divide the project twice, trying to go along the path of creating highly specialized ships - strike missile and nuclear anti-submarine cruisers. And then they combined it again, trying to fit the functionality in one body. We know the result: a multipurpose giant, carrying in its belly almost all available types of weapons.

The nuclear power plant provided the ship with unlimited cruising range, which rested solely on the "human factor" (the crew suddenly needed rest and provisions), the presence of ammunition and breakdowns. By the way, with the latter, everything was very, very good - some protracted design process played into the hands of nuclear engineers. The KN-3 reactor unit was developed specifically for Kirov on the basis of the well-run OK-900 unit (created in the mid-1960s for second-generation nuclear icebreakers). Such a "trump card" made the ship a deadly enemy for the AUG: the missile cruiser could go on an equal footing with the American nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, leaving them no advantage in speed and maneuverability.

Armed and dangerous


By the way, all four ships of Project 1144 had slight differences among themselves - the head "Kirov", for example, carried two 100-mm AK-100 guns, while the next Frunze only one 130-mm AK-gun. 130. In a word, the composition of auxiliary weapons and radio-technical equipment differed from cruiser to cruiser - this, however, did not prevent them from being one of the most formidable ships in the world, noticeably ahead of the American Virginia and California.

20 supersonic anti-ship missiles P-700 with high-explosive fragmentation or special (nuclear) warhead weighing 750 kilograms - a real masterpiece of the Soviet defense industry. It can be characterized like this: it is a kind of supersonic unmanned kamikaze aircraft with an inertial and active radar guidance system (to call Granite simply a cruise missile - this is the modesty of the highest measure), covering the distance to the target at high altitude at a speed of Mach 2,5, and then actively maneuvering when approaching it. Allied engineers distinguished themselves in the creation of the P-700 electronic "filling", originally solving the problem of targeting and distribution of targets - "Granites" were able to create a single network for data exchange (one of the missiles at the maximum height took the role of the leader and indicated the target - in case of its defeat, this function was assumed by the following, etc.). Primary target designation was provided by the Legend space-based satellite guidance system, shore-based aircraft (based on long-range bombers) or shipborne AWACS helicopters.

Kirov was not just designed as an "aircraft carrier killer" - taking into account the specifics of the main enemy, the cruiser was equipped with a multilevel air defense system, the first echelon of which can be called the S-300F "Fort" air defense system, capable of hitting any targets at an altitude of 27 km and a range up to 200 km. Next comes the M-4 "Osa-M", which intercepts targets at altitudes from 5 to 4000 meters at a distance of up to 15 km, and all this splendor is completed by eight 30-mm "Gatling guns", as it is now fashionable to talk about multi-barreled rapid-fire guns - of course , as you already understood, we are talking about the AK-630 installations.

Looking at all this firepower, Western experts even put forward theories that the Kirov alone could completely replace the entire British squadron during the war for the Falkland Islands.

And to fight this titan, NATO brings from the depths stories a giant of a completely different order ...

"Fist Fighter" of the American Navy


Built in the 1940s, the Iowa-class battleships were designed to be extremely fast battleships designed to interface with carrier formations. "Iowam" was never destined to face opponents equal to their class in battle, but many wars fell on the long life of battleships: World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, the Persian Gulf ...

However, another world war could have fallen to their fate, and America carefully prepared its veterans for it.

After the withdrawal from the reserve in the early 80s, there was a lot of controversy about how exactly the Iowa should be modernized - however, all options for a deep restructuring of the battleship were rejected, and the basis of their weapons, as before, were massive gun turrets, each of which contained three 406-mm guns, capable of sending an armor-piercing projectile weighing 1225 kg to a distance of 38 kilometers. Such firepower could playfully tear apart any ship of modern construction, only there was one "but" - in the era of guided missile weapons and aviation, the enemy still had to be reached, which is why the Iowa's solid main caliber was losing its combat value.


Deadly power, but only for those who were too stupid to be around. Source: Wikimedia Commons

The Americans naturally decided to increase the firepower of their monsters - fortunately there was enough room for creativity on the battleships - and in place of the four dismantled 127-mm installations, eight armored quadruple Mk.143 launchers with BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles were erected for firing at ground targets (total ammunition of 32 units), four Mk.141 installations for 16 RGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship turbojet missiles and four Mk.15 Vulcan-Falanx anti-aircraft artillery systems, which provide short-range anti-missile defense.

Separately, it is worth mentioning, perhaps, much more important elements of modernization - all radio-electronic equipment was completely updated on the Iowa: radar for surface target detection and early air detection, a new navigation system, an air situation control system, a satellite communications complex, electronic warfare equipment and much other. According to the Pentagon, the battleships could continue to serve until 2005 without updating their weapons and electronics.

As befits ships of this class, the Iowas had excellent protection - especially by the standards of post-war shipbuilding. An armored belt made of case-hardened steel, 307 mm thick, could withstand the impact of any conventional naval weapons 80s, and the high speed, coupled with excellent maneuverability, made the battleship a deadly sea killer - of course, provided that the enemy was stupid enough to get close ...

Scramble


In general, modeling such fights is a rather pointless exercise. Not so long ago, a similar scenario was played out in The National Interest, but such stories take into account the confrontation of only two combat units, torn out of the framework of the conceptual system in which they are designed to operate - however, to be honest, I do not dare to try to paint the confrontation of the American "surface battle group "And the Soviet" cruising shock ". Since we are considering the "urban legend" from the United States, we will somewhat ease our task and return to the impossible confrontation between battleship and missile cruiser.

So, let's imagine that it's 1987. The OVD and NATO came together in a non-nuclear confrontation, and the Red Banner Northern Fleet bears the burden of intercepting the Allied Atlantic convoys. "Kirov" goes out into the operational space through the broken Faroe-Icelandic line and goes on a mission as a raider (in general, under the Soviet Union, this was impossible even in theory - the "Eagles" were built for operations as part of the KUG, and such a formidable ship would never would be sent to solve such secondary tasks) ...


This is what the real composition of the compound would look like, in which "Iowa" could take part in the Third World War. Source: Wikimedia Commons

It is vitally important for the United States to keep Iceland and keep the Keflavik airbase - an Iowa-backed landing force is sent to the island. The battleship will have to provide fire support for the Marine Corps units, as well as act as a strike force in the event of a direct collision with surface ships of the Soviet fleet.

Suppose the Kirov is ordered to intercept an American force, which in turn detects the cruiser at a distance of 250 km. The commander of the ship group sends the battleship as the only possible means, if not to destroy, then at least to thwart the attack and drive the Soviet TARK away from the convoy - the rest of the ships are too important to ensure the landing.

In fact, despite the heavy armor, the Iowa has no advantage over the Kirov - the speed of the opponents is equal, and the advantage in electronic and weapon systems is obviously in our cruiser. The "pistol" range of the battleship's main battery towers, on which it really has a combat advantage, is ridiculous to consider - of course, the TARK would not have survived the hits of such weapons, but it is naive to believe that Soviet sailors were idiots or amateurs.

If we assume that both ships established radar contact, then Kirov will have an advantage in the first salvo - it was not for nothing that the P-700 had a huge range and flight time by the standards of those years, which raises a reasonable question: how many Granites are required to overcome the systems Missile defense and armor belt "Iowa"?

According to unconfirmed reports, the American aircraft carrier of the "Nimitz" type needed to hit 9 anti-ship missiles P-700 for a complete loss of combat capability and possible destruction. But the aircraft carrier does not carry tons of armor on itself (although it has a greater displacement) ...

All further variations of the confrontation depend solely on how many missiles will go off in the first salvo of Kirov - taking into account the need to overcome the battleship's anti-missile defense and completely disable the TARK-u, it may be necessary to release all the ammunition of its anti-ship missiles.

It is important for the Soviet cruiser to stay as far away from its rival as possible - even in the RGM-84D modification, the Harpoons had a range of 220 km, that is, almost half the size of Granit, and the danger of the main battery guns was repeatedly mentioned above. Here, however, we are directly faced with the problem of issuing target designation, but in the American fantastic scenario under consideration, we will forget about it, so be it.

"Iowa" as such is defenseless against the firepower of "Kirov". If our cruiser has an echeloned air defense and, plus or minus, can easily cope with the battleship's "Harpoons" (of which, we recall, there are only 16 - and the TARK was designed to fend off a real storm of rocket fire), then the veteran World War II veteran will receive hits under any circumstances RCC.

Of course, in reality, the battleship would be covered by Ticonderoga-class cruisers, but ...

So, suppose that to destroy such a heavily armored and priority target, Kirov sends out a full salvo of 20 anti-ship missiles, and then ... retreats. Further battle is unprofitable for our cruiser - the battleship will receive critical damage in one way or another, and the TARK has already used up the entire stock of offensive weapons. It is ridiculous to talk about the AK-100 guns, and the fire from the air defense missile system on the surface targets of the airborne formation covered by the "Aegis" is unlikely to be effective.

In fact, the fate of "Iowa" is a foregone conclusion - she has no way to escape from the 20 "Granites". It all depends solely on luck - even if the ship is able to go under its own power, the damage will be critical, and in the course of hostilities no one will waste resources on restoring the old battleship. Most likely, the veteran will still stay afloat - he was designed to withstand such attacks, but as a combat unit it will cease to exist for sure.

In a sense, the Americans will win - the Kirov's ammunition is empty, now it needs to load anti-ship missiles, and the cruiser will be forced to abandon the tactics of single raiding. The combat mission has been disrupted, and now the Red Banner Northern Fleet will be forced to regroup its forces for a new attack.

However, this is a symbolic consolation - "Iowa" is out of action and will not be able to provide fire support to its unit.

Conclusion


As we can see even on the example of such a conditional and primitive modeling, dear readers, any hypotheses about the reactivation of Iowa to fight our nuclear missile cruisers can be called absolutely untenable - this is nothing more than a tale for a gullible listener who is ready to believe in an equal confrontation between a ship of forty years ago and the latest (at the time of the 80s) carrier of guided missile weapons.

In no hypothetical situation, a battleship will not be able to fight a cruiser designed to destroy aircraft carriers.

The TARK will always have the advantage in the first salvo, and even such a powerful artillery ship like the Iowa will have nothing to oppose.

Thus, all speculations about the withdrawal of battleships from the reserve for the sake of naval battles with Soviet ships of the first rank can be called absolutely untenable.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikimedia Commons
113 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Runway
    Runway 30 March 2021 05: 12
    +16
    “Maybe it's better - about the reactor? There, about your favorite lunar tractor ?! ... "(V.S. Vysotsky)
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 30 March 2021 05: 37
      +3
      250 meters of steel structures. 25000 tons of displacement. Dozens of anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles. Two nuclear reactors. Hundreds of crew members. The pride of a country gone into oblivion.
      one photo is breathtaking ... and the understanding that we asked ... fell ...
  2. Comrade
    Comrade 30 March 2021 05: 18
    +4
    The idea is interesting, but not new.
    In "The National Interest" for September 16 of the year before last, "Kirov" and "Iowa" have already been compared in a similar way.
    1. bayard
      bayard April 1 2021 16: 48
      +1
      The author missed a number of important aspects in his article.
      1. The so-called "Reagan's program" to build up the US fleet to 600 pennants - to impose on the USSR such a pace of the arms race that it cannot withstand. For these (including) purposes, and were withdrawn from the reserve "Iowa" - to support the landing and strengthen the expeditionary forces. The factor of our "Eagles" also played a role.
      2. The informational and psychological factor. It was necessary to demonstrate to everyone (both enemies and allies) that the United States has something to oppose to the new Soviet monsters. Reagan paid a lot of attention to propaganda, he made a career on it and won the Cold War.
      3. The rearmament of the Iowa provided for the presence of not only light Harpoons on board as anti-ship missiles, but also an anti-ship version of the Tomahawk, whose range was up to 780 km. And the author did not take this into account at all in his calculations. So in the event of a duel battle, the Iowa would have not only 16 Harpoons, but also up to 32 Tomahawks in the anti-ship missile version (and to cover the landing forces from the ships of our Fot, Iowa would have been loaded exclusively with such CDs.
      4. The Soviet anti-ship missiles "Granit" in the head part were provided with shaped charges (not one, and not in tandem) to overcome the armor of enemy battleships (and constructive protection of the most important parts of the aircraft carrier). So the chances are that 750 lbs. The warhead will explode in the armored space of the battleship very high.
      Based on all of the above, a duel battle does not look so unambiguous anymore, but with an unconditional and obvious advantage of our cruiser.
      What is the ambiguity?
      If radar contact occurred at about the same time and both sides know the location of their enemy, then a salvo can occur at about the same time. The range of the Tomahawk and Granita anti-ship missiles is approximately equal, but ours is much faster, more powerful, equipped with electronic warfare equipment and a more powerful seeker.
      The American one, in turn, is subsonic, but has a very low flight profile and will be detected by our cruiser at a distance of approx. 30 - 35 km (taking into account the height of the radar posts). But if the cruiser has an AWACS helicopter (and they were), then the detection will occur much earlier and the calculations will have time to prepare to repel the raid.
      At the same time, our Granites will be detected by the enemy at a distance of several hundred kilometers (with a high-altitude flight profile, and they have a high-altitude flight profile), but this will not help them much - the Iowa has no long-range air defense systems. And "Vulcan-Falanx" will not have any serious opposition. As a result, about 80% of the missiles will reach their target.
      How many do you need?
      No more than 10.
      Even if the battleship is not sunk, it will be disabled and will not interfere with further missions.
      ... But in a real battle, this would not be the case. Such ships do not go without an escort. And as part of the escort, there will probably be at least one MAPL, but rather a SSGN ... which will fire at the battleship, having received target designation from the cruiser AWACS helicopter. And after the exchange of blows, she would finish him off with torpedoes ... if the enemy's MAPLs did not interfere with such a noble and necessary cause.
      And yes, survive the raid of the Tomahawk anti-ship missile system in up to 32 pcs. ... you still need to be able to ... the S-300 "Fort" will be almost useless here, but here's how the means of the near zone will work out ... And the survivability of our cruiser is not at all like that of a battleship ...
      Hence the ambiguity ...
      It also needs LUCK.
  3. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 30 March 2021 06: 00
    +6
    In a sense, the Americans will win - the Kirov's ammunition is empty, now it needs to load anti-ship missiles, and the cruiser will be forced to retreat.

    In general, yes, it's funny.
    A huge, expensive ship, stuffed with all kinds of weapons, electronics, stuffed with people and all this for one shot.
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 30 March 2021 08: 15
      +1
      Actually, that's why it's more interesting from a submarine.
    2. garri-lin
      garri-lin 30 March 2021 09: 07
      +2
      90 points of Orlan's defensive weapon. Its purpose was simple and straightforward. Break through to the distance of a salvo to the enemy's AUG and release anti-ship missiles. And that's all. Break through alone or with minimal escort. Well, and, accordingly, part of the anti-ship missiles in nuclear design. Exchange of the ship for a shock connection.
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 30 March 2021 18: 32
        0
        Quote: garri-lin
        Its purpose was simple and straightforward. Break through to the distance of a salvo to the enemy's AUG and release anti-ship missiles.
        No, actually. Initially, it was a long-range anti-submarine. And the anti-ship missile system and the zonal air defense system were added to him so that he could cover himself.
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 30 March 2021 18: 57
          0
          It was originally a completely different ship. But they built Orlan. Changing everything from the armament to the displacement several times.
    3. Anzhey V.
      30 March 2021 09: 21
      +2
      In general, yes, it's funny.
      A huge, expensive ship, stuffed with all kinds of weapons, electronics, stuffed with people and all this for one shot.


      Well, if we consider the "Kirov" as part of the KUG and when performing a real combat mission, then even a single salvo should have radically changed the strategic situation at sea - whatever one may say, it was created to destroy aircraft carriers.
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 30 March 2021 10: 17
        +5
        Quote: Anjay V.
        even a single salvo of it was supposed to radically change the strategic situation at sea

        With what strategic fright? You even in your fantasy assigned Kirov and Iowa the role of one-time duelists, who did not solve anything with their mutual murder. And the convoy is already abeam Celtiadnares - the American fleet has fulfilled the task set by you.
      2. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 30 March 2021 17: 41
        -5
        it was created to destroy aircraft carriers.
        - It was created exclusively for show-off. He could only destroy the aircraft carrier if the USSR was the first to declare war. Otherwise, enemies would destroy him first. For the destruction of aircraft carriers were submarine cruisers pr.949 and 949A.
        And the title of the article will give you inexplicable pleasure. I look forward to the article "TARK" Kirov "against" Dreadnought "," RKR "Slava" against "Monitor", "FR" Gorshkov "against the sailboat" Bon Homme Richard ". Keep it up!
    4. Kalmar
      Kalmar 30 March 2021 10: 22
      +1
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      A huge, expensive ship, stuffed with all kinds of weapons, electronics, stuffed with people and all this for one shot.

      Correction: for one crushing shot. In the artillery era, destroying a large ship took a long time and tediously to throw shells at it in order to inflict critical damage. "Kirov" was supposed to achieve a similar effect in one salvo. Now it all works like that, in essence.
    5. Pavel73
      Pavel73 30 March 2021 11: 32
      +5
      Ships of this class in a modern high-precision nuclear war are a mass grave. That Iowa, that Kirov. Ten corvettes or five frigates of the same total displacement would be much more stable and efficient. Especially when using modern drones for reconnaissance and target designation. The giant is beautiful, but vulnerable precisely because of its size.
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 30 March 2021 12: 26
        +2
        Quote: Pavel73
        Ten corvettes or five frigates of the same total displacement would be much more stable and efficient.

        Yes and no.

        A large ship has better seaworthiness compared to corvettes and frigates, which makes it possible to work even in strong seas. The large size also simplifies the placement of large-sized weapons like long-range missiles, which will have nowhere to put on a corvette or frigate (in significant quantities, at least).

        On the other hand, five frigates give much more flexibility: they, unlike one RCC, can be in five different places at the same time. Well, speaking about the domestic Navy, do not forget that we can still build five frigates, but a hefty cruiser with a VI of 25 thousand tons is hardly possible.
      2. Ryusey
        Ryusey 30 March 2021 19: 48
        -1
        Of course, but MRK and corvettes are a model of stability)) 10 frigates and corvettes AUG will grind and not sweat.
  4. Professor
    Professor 30 March 2021 06: 52
    +10
    No, the author is not drawn to Kaptsev, he is not. He had epithets so epithets ...
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 30 March 2021 08: 26
      +6
      Quote: Professor
      No, the author is not drawn to Kaptsev, he is not. He had epithets so epithets ...

      There is nothing to mock the Author, at least he expressed his opinion, which is worthy of respect.
      1. Professor
        Professor 30 March 2021 08: 59
        +5
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Quote: Professor
        No, the author is not drawn to Kaptsev, he is not. He had epithets so epithets ...

        There is nothing to mock the Author, at least he expressed his opinion, which is worthy of respect.

        Not. The article was published under the heading "Armament / Fleet", not "Opinions".
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 30 March 2021 11: 04
          +7
          Quote: Professor
          Not. The article was published under the heading "Armament / Fleet", not "Opinions".

          Professor, at least you are wrong, scolding the above work in that the heading is chosen not by the author, but by the editor.
          1. Professor
            Professor 30 March 2021 12: 58
            0
            Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Quote: Professor
            Not. The article was published under the heading "Armament / Fleet", not "Opinions".

            Professor, at least you are wrong, scolding the above work in that the heading is chosen not by the author, but by the editor.

            This means my heartfelt greetings to the editor. negative
        2. Ryusey
          Ryusey 30 March 2021 19: 52
          +3
          Interestingly, 20 granites with a special warhead can erase one aggressive little coastal boorish country?
  5. sergo1914
    sergo1914 30 March 2021 07: 00
    -3
    ... According to unconfirmed reports, the American aircraft carrier of the "Nimitz" type needed to hit 9 anti-ship missiles P-700 for a complete loss of combat capability and possible destruction.


    9 it is tight. Guaranteed, taking into account the work of the air defense. That is, we launch 9, what reaches it leaves a rainbow spot from the aircraft carrier. 9 starts, not hits.
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 30 March 2021 08: 15
      +2
      It is not a fact. 750 kg is a head. Dynamite in it is even less. If it gets into a reactor, tanks, arsenal or catapult - yes, there will be an effect. But this is not 100% of the aircraft carrier's area, even with an attack on the side. But if here in the forehead, then there is nothing of value at all in front, the nose can be turned without much difficulty
    2. Professor
      Professor 30 March 2021 09: 03
      0
      Quote: sergo1914
      ... According to unconfirmed reports, the American aircraft carrier of the "Nimitz" type needed to hit 9 anti-ship missiles P-700 for a complete loss of combat capability and possible destruction.


      9 it is tight. Guaranteed, taking into account the work of the air defense. That is, we launch 9, what reaches it leaves a rainbow spot from the aircraft carrier. 9 starts, not hits.

      It is guaranteed if there are no failures in the missile itself, if it does not get lost, if the electronic warfare on the aircraft carrier is forgotten to turn on, if the missile does not hit the escort ship, if the air defense miss, if it hits successfully, if the sailors forget to fight for survivability. What ifs have I forgotten?
      1. sergo1914
        sergo1914 30 March 2021 09: 58
        +1
        Quote: Professor
        Quote: sergo1914
        ... According to unconfirmed reports, the American aircraft carrier of the "Nimitz" type needed to hit 9 anti-ship missiles P-700 for a complete loss of combat capability and possible destruction.


        9 it is tight. Guaranteed, taking into account the work of the air defense. That is, we launch 9, what reaches it leaves a rainbow spot from the aircraft carrier. 9 starts, not hits.

        It is guaranteed if there are no failures in the missile itself, if it does not get lost, if the electronic warfare on the aircraft carrier is forgotten to turn on, if the missile does not hit the escort ship, if the air defense miss, if it hits successfully, if the sailors forget to fight for survivability. What ifs have I forgotten?


        Who's arguing? Therefore, option B. SpetsBCH in an empty barrel floating next to it. Everything is thin. When approaching, the target is visible in the last few seconds. If you manage to spread over there, there is a chance. No - maybe it will fly by. I would not want to be part of the ship's air defense team.
        1. Professor
          Professor 30 March 2021 12: 48
          -3
          Quote: sergo1914
          Quote: Professor
          Quote: sergo1914
          ... According to unconfirmed reports, the American aircraft carrier of the "Nimitz" type needed to hit 9 anti-ship missiles P-700 for a complete loss of combat capability and possible destruction.


          9 it is tight. Guaranteed, taking into account the work of the air defense. That is, we launch 9, what reaches it leaves a rainbow spot from the aircraft carrier. 9 starts, not hits.

          It is guaranteed if there are no failures in the missile itself, if it does not get lost, if the electronic warfare on the aircraft carrier is forgotten to turn on, if the missile does not hit the escort ship, if the air defense miss, if it hits successfully, if the sailors forget to fight for survivability. What ifs have I forgotten?


          Who's arguing? Therefore, option B. SpetsBCH in an empty barrel floating next to it. Everything is thin. When approaching, the target is visible in the last few seconds. If you manage to spread over there, there is a chance. No - maybe it will fly by. I would not want to be part of the ship's air defense team.

          CD with a nuclear charge can be launched from a penny missile boat. Why did they build such a giant then?
          1. sergo1914
            sergo1914 30 March 2021 13: 04
            +3
            Quote: Professor
            Quote: sergo1914
            Quote: Professor
            Quote: sergo1914
            ... According to unconfirmed reports, the American aircraft carrier of the "Nimitz" type needed to hit 9 anti-ship missiles P-700 for a complete loss of combat capability and possible destruction.


            9 it is tight. Guaranteed, taking into account the work of the air defense. That is, we launch 9, what reaches it leaves a rainbow spot from the aircraft carrier. 9 starts, not hits.

            It is guaranteed if there are no failures in the missile itself, if it does not get lost, if the electronic warfare on the aircraft carrier is forgotten to turn on, if the missile does not hit the escort ship, if the air defense miss, if it hits successfully, if the sailors forget to fight for survivability. What ifs have I forgotten?


            Who's arguing? Therefore, option B. SpetsBCH in an empty barrel floating next to it. Everything is thin. When approaching, the target is visible in the last few seconds. If you manage to spread over there, there is a chance. No - maybe it will fly by. I would not want to be part of the ship's air defense team.

            CD with a nuclear charge can be launched from a penny missile boat. Why did they build such a giant then?


            In the article, it seems, it is written. High seas fleet. Convoys, AUG on distant approaches, the coast of a potential enemy ... Everything beyond the horizon.
          2. bk0010
            bk0010 30 March 2021 18: 37
            0
            Quote: Professor
            CD with a nuclear charge can be launched from a penny missile boat. Why did they build such a giant then?
            This is an anti-submarine ship. Was at the beginning. Then they began to provide him with stability. He grew up. Not enough, by the way: when they went beyond 25000 tons, they began to cut. The armor was cut, for example, only the main caliber and reactors remained reserved, the rest was local.
      2. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 30 March 2021 15: 44
        +1
        Curiously, the Iowa projectile, as it were, was not more mass than a warhead of granite.
      3. garri-lin
        garri-lin 30 March 2021 19: 09
        0
        The most important thing is if. Nuclear warhead and more than one. The breakthrough of which to the goal was provided by the entire swarm / flock.
      4. Newone
        Newone April 4 2021 22: 50
        +1
        Considering all these, if 9 Granites are necessary.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 30 March 2021 17: 17
      +1
      Quote: sergo1914
      9 it is tight. Guaranteed, taking into account the work of the air defense. That is, we launch 9, what reaches it leaves a rainbow spot from the aircraft carrier. 9 starts, not hits.

      Hmm ... this is some very great optimism. smile
      EMNIP, on the Northern Fleet in the first half of the 80s, the minimum outfit for guaranteed destruction of the AV, following as part of the AUG "wartime", were two "loaves", two "seagulls" and one or two regiments of MRA.
  6. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 30 March 2021 08: 12
    +3
    And the difficulty lies in the fact that a single "Kirov" will have to come even closer than 200 km. The radio horizon, however.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 30 March 2021 08: 39
      +4
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      And the difficulty lies in the fact that a single "Kirov" will have to come even closer than 200 km. The radio horizon, however.

      For the use of artillery, the American battleship would need to approach a distance six times less, since the ability to sink Kirov with a volley of harpoons is rather dubious, given the air defense of the vis-a-vis. Moreover, 200 km, this is the maximum distance for the Harpoon CD.
      So hypothetically. Two ships detect each other at a distance of 200 km, fire a salvo of CD and disperse. KR Gorpoons have a chance and will not reach Kirov. Kirov has no problems with the range of Granites, given the luck and the presence of the helicopter, the latter could swing and more distant detection and strike at Iowa, without entering the Harpoon response zone.
      Although all this is sewn with white thread, such ships do not sail alone on the sea.
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 30 March 2021 09: 14
        0
        So the radio horizon at the heights of both ships of 40 meters will be 50 kilometers ...
      2. Kalmar
        Kalmar 30 March 2021 10: 30
        +2
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        the ability to sink Kirov with a volley of harpoons is rather dubious, given the air defense of the vis-a-vis

        I wonder why only "Harpoons" were mentioned. In the 80s, the anti-ship version of the Tomahawk was still in use, and it had a launch range of maybe 200 km. With air defense, everything is not so simple: it was noted that the S-300F is more focused on fighting aircraft; to shoot down "Harpoons" and TASMs would have to be a short-range air defense system. Those. with a full salvo, "Iowa" could (in theory) spoil the "Kirov" skin.

        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Although all this is sewn with white thread, such ships do not sail alone on the sea.

        Overall, yes, the script is presented very contrived. From the series "an elephant fought a whale". So you can dream up a lot of things here.
        1. Anzhey V.
          30 March 2021 11: 55
          +5
          I wonder why only "Harpoons" were mentioned.


          From the data on the modernization of the Iowa that I found, we can conclude that the Tomahawk cruise missiles on the battleships were not in anti-ship performance ...

          Therefore, I did not indicate this option.
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar 30 March 2021 12: 17
            0
            Quote: Anjay V.
            From the data on the modernization of the Iowa that I found, we can conclude that the Tomahawk cruise missiles on the battleships were not in anti-ship performance ...

            And it was some kind of fundamental limitation (say, there was no corresponding control equipment), or was it just that the anti-ship "tomahawks" in its launcher were not regularly loaded (like, there should be enough "Harpoons" to fight the enemy's NK)?
        2. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 30 March 2021 17: 33
          0
          Quote: Kalmar
          So you can dream up a lot of things here.

          "Read:" Ten people dragged the rocket out of the water, easily pulling a 230-kilogram "cigar" onto the deck. And here is the "goldfish" at our feet - a four-meter prototype of the Harpoon anti-ship missile, the BQM-74E radio-controlled target, produced by the Northrop corporation at the Ventura plant. Remember your childhood and the feeling when you receive the Long-awaited toy? Puppy delight! We felt this, stroking the wet back of the "fish" and trying to discern every detail, but the sun had already gone beyond the horizon, and no one noticed the marker paint flowing from it, and no one remembered the still working radio beacon built into the rocket, but groped a large sign on board, illuminated with a lantern and read: “This target is the property of the American government. Please return it to US officials or any US Navy ship. The remuneration is five hundred dollars. "

          - Five hundred divided by one hundred and eighty ... It will not be enough! - the RTS engineer [18], nicknamed Pchel, remarked mercantilely, not knowing that the purchase of each BQM-74 costs the American fleet two hundred and eighty thousand.

          - Have you called the locksmith? - Bee sighed, throwing a bag on the deck
    2. alstr
      alstr 30 March 2021 10: 11
      +1
      They forgot that Kirov had a helicopter. Here from him there will be target designation.
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 30 March 2021 15: 43
        -2
        Is there a helicopter with a radar normally in the metal? Especially in the eighties.
        1. alstr
          alstr 30 March 2021 16: 19
          +2
          There is. And the 80s were already.
          1. Sancho_SP
            Sancho_SP 30 March 2021 17: 27
            0
            And this is exactly what? Which radar?

            Ka-27? In anti-submarine equipment?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 30 March 2021 17: 39
              +1
              Quote: Sancho_SP
              And this is exactly what? Which radar?


              The process of combat use of the helicopter version of the "Success" complex looked something like this: the helicopter takes off from the aft platform and leaves for a distance of up to 200 km for reconnaissance. The onboard radar provides a typical target detection range of up to 250 km, and the ASPD transmits a radar image of the area to the carrier ship in real time. After detecting targets (sea or land), the ship launches the CD. The helicopter itself does not have guidance equipment, but with its help the operator on the ship constantly "sees" the missile and the target of the strike and performs course correction. Thanks to this, the entire flight of the CD, up to the capture of the target by its homing head, can be performed at low altitude, outside the detection zone of the enemy's air defense.
              © Ka-25 - "long arm" of Admiral Gorshkov
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 30 March 2021 17: 22
          +2
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          Is there a helicopter with a radar normally in the metal? Especially in the eighties.

          It has been in existence since 1971. And not just a "helicopter with a radar", but an integral part of the over-the-horizon reconnaissance and target designation complex - the Ka-25Ts.
      2. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu April 4 2021 21: 54
        -1
        They forgot that Kirov had a helicopter. Here from him there will be target designation.

        Yeah. But the enemy will have a faster target designation. And that would be very sad for both Kirov and its helicopter. No one would have allowed neither the Ka-25Ts nor the Tu-95RTs to reach the aircraft carrier within the range of its detection, let alone missile guidance, and the Kirov would not have allowed the range of an anti-ship missile salvo.
    3. Nikon OConor
      Nikon OConor 30 March 2021 12: 41
      0
      No need, on Kirov, the state had a K-27 turntable (3 pieces.) It was planned to carry out guidance for granites from them
    4. Ryusey
      Ryusey 30 March 2021 19: 55
      0
      That's right - a shotgun at the temple of imperialism.
  7. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 30 March 2021 08: 36
    +6
    How long can you spend too much time on a 2016 NI article?
    Skomorokhov in 2018 was already noted with a replica to this crypto-militaristic nonsense.
    1. Anzhey V.
      30 March 2021 09: 19
      +10
      I recently came across a story on the English-speaking Internet that the Iowas were supposed to sink Soviet missile cruisers in batches, and decided to try to briefly disassemble this myth-making, but with minimal reliance on NI :)

      I am sorry that you do not like
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 30 March 2021 10: 01
        +1
        Quote: Anjay V.
        but with minimal reliance on NI

        Well, any other defendants would have been chosen. And another theater. Why chew on expiration?
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 30 March 2021 11: 12
          +7
          Dear Paragraph, well, do not find fault with the Author for God's sake! He apparently has not yet felt the harmfulness of your character and love to beat on the hands.
          Anzhey tried his hand at what is bad? In my opinion, the article is not without flaws, but it was a success.
          If, without irony, the authors will stop writing, what will we read and comment on? hi
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 30 March 2021 11: 44
            +2
            Well, why parasitize on a chewed topic? ))
            But I liked the Icelandic theme. Need to develop laughing
          2. Anzhey V.
            30 March 2021 11: 52
            +5
            Thank you for your support)
      2. Nikon OConor
        Nikon OConor 30 March 2021 12: 48
        +4
        No, very interesting. I even read a book in the genre of Alternative History, where Peter the Great came to the Pacific Ocean in the early 80s, the 1st Kirov was only in completion. And the author painted the battle of a single "elephant" with AUG USA in a picturesque way. As a result, the AUG was destroyed, Peter with severe wounds was nevertheless recognized by the Soviet authorities as his own and he was taken under the wing by the forces of the USSR Pacific Fleet. That such a gift does not go to the United States.
        1. Nikon OConor
          Nikon OConor 30 March 2021 12: 50
          +2
          interestingly the ratings are considered here ... "for -5 against - 2" as a result minus 1
          1. Anzhey V.
            30 March 2021 14: 18
            +6
            I gave you the pros to remove the cons)

            The devil knows what kind of Sonderkommando went through the comments, everything was minus me too
            1. Andrey Korotkov
              Andrey Korotkov 30 March 2021 17: 00
              +4
              Yes, guys spit on these cons) I corrected everyone +. Advice to the new author to pay attention to the comments, if possible to answer them and not to +/-) And yes- completely agree with the fluffy (Kote).
              1. Anzhey V.
                30 March 2021 17: 19
                +5
                Thank you)

                I will take your advice into account)
  8. garri-lin
    garri-lin 30 March 2021 09: 17
    +4
    Here is a controversial twist in the initial premises. Kirv's task is to destroy the landing group. Why would he start swinging with Iowa? As far as I remember during WWII, cover fighter pilots were not distracted to hunt for the enemy. It was fraught. The task was set clearly and clearly. I don’t think that something has changed in the Armed Forces. If the task was to destroy the convoy, then Kirov would break through to the convoy and beat not the cover ships but the landing transports. Moreover, he could really avoid the fight with Iowa. The speed advantage of the latter is minimal.
    1. Nikon OConor
      Nikon OConor 30 March 2021 13: 15
      +2
      Indeed, 20 Iowa missiles or 2 missiles for each transporter .... The problem was solved without killing the "battleship".
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 30 March 2021 16: 27
        +1
        The fact of the matter is that it was decided even by a single cruiser. And with an escort, Iowa could be poured in for last.
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 30 March 2021 18: 52
      +1
      Quote: garri-lin
      As far as I remember during WWII, the pilots of cover fighters were not distracted to hunt for the enemy.
      We have it. The states did the opposite, they used bombers as bait for German fighters, they had to defend themselves. And the fighters hunted for the enemy, and did not cover them.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 30 March 2021 19: 00
        +1
        This was said for the sake of the phrase "It was fraught." The task was put at the head of everything. And for the distraction for other purposes, even if it led to victory, they could be punished. If Kirov is given the task to destroy the convoy, he will break through to the convoy.
  9. timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 30 March 2021 09: 27
    +5
    Of course, the return of "Iowa" was dictated primarily by their use as the most powerful artillery platforms for strikes on the coast - the Americans managed to test them in a similar capacity during the war in Korea, and later in Vietnam, appreciating the role of the main the caliber of battleships supported by Marine operations.


    That's just in the American documents of the 80s about the return to service of battleships, something completely different is written, although yes, they were used precisely along the coast in Lebanon and Iraq, but they PLANED to use it in a completely different way.

    Hence, we call into question all other conclusions.

    Regarding the hypothetical battle - the Iowas had 16 Harpoons, 1144 this salvo could not be repulsed.

    Likewise, Iowa could not have repulsed the Orlan's salvo. Accordingly, the side that won the fight for the first salvo would have won the battle. With three helicopters on board, this should have been our cruiser. If you do not take into account the possible mistakes of the commander and crew
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 30 March 2021 10: 38
      0
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      If you do not take into account the possible mistakes of the commander and crew
      Here it is already necessary to take into account the mistakes of those who would have sent "Iowa" alone, unaccompanied. Most likely, the battleship would be part of a grouping with an aircraft carrier.

      In general, it is not correct to compare a battleship of the Second World War, albeit a modernized one, with a nuclear missile cruiser. In fact, these are ships with different missions, where the United States used its battleships from the conservation mainly to suppress coastal targets. What's the point of such comparisons, so "the rustle of nuts", the duel of "an elephant and a whale."

      Another question is whether Project 1144 could be embodied as an atomic missile and cannon battleship? Perhaps, of the existing battleships, the layout of the "Richelieu" for this would be the closest.

      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 30 March 2021 10: 55
        +4
        Most likely, the battleship would be part of a grouping with an aircraft carrier.


        On the contrary, they were planned to be used as part of "surface combat groups" without aircraft carriers, in areas where the threat of an air attack would be low.
    2. Anzhey V.
      30 March 2021 11: 59
      +3
      That's just in the American documents of the 80s about the return to service of battleships, something completely different is written, although yes, they were used precisely along the coast in Lebanon and Iraq, but they PLANED to use it in a completely different way.


      May I ask you to tell us more about this?

      It has always been interesting how the Americans saw the Iowa naval battle in the 80s.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 30 March 2021 16: 27
        +3
        The moderators have deleted the comment. Did you manage to view the links?
        1. Anzhey V.
          30 March 2021 16: 56
          +3
          No, unfortunately, I didn't have time.

          If it's not difficult for you, please dump it in a personal.
    3. garri-lin
      garri-lin 30 March 2021 16: 23
      +2
      Is 16 harpoons power? This salvo could not overload Kirov's air defense. The probability of intercepting all missiles is very high.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 30 March 2021 17: 31
        +1
        Quote: garri-lin
        Is 16 harpoons power? This salvo could not overload Kirov's air defense. The probability of intercepting all missiles is very high.

        Kirov has two problems with air defense.
        The first is traditional - the radio horizon. That is, you can immediately forget about the tens of kilometers of the air defense missile system's reach - at the working altitudes of the "harpoons", the target's radio visibility range is reduced to 30-35 km.
        The second is the features of the S-300 air defense system. In short, two antennas of the complex had a working sector width of 90 degrees. That is, at the same time, the complex could fire at targets only in a sector of 180 degrees out of 360.
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 30 March 2021 18: 53
          0
          How long is 35 km at subsonic speed? 16 slow targets for 3 air defense echelons is not a problem at all.
        2. Nikon OConor
          Nikon OConor 31 March 2021 07: 42
          0
          You do not take into account that an air group of 2 Ka-27 AWACS and one K-27 PLO was specially made on the Kirov. For Pointing onyx, excuse the "Granites" demanded to go beyond the radio horizon. Also, these turntables would have discovered and would have guided the forts to the harpoons ...
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 31 March 2021 11: 35
            0
            Quote: Nikon OConor
            You do not take into account that an air group of 2 Ka-27 AWACS and one K-27 PLO was specially made on the Kirov. For Pointing onyx, excuse the "Granites" demanded to go beyond the radio horizon. Also, these turntables would have discovered and would have guided the forts to the harpoons ...

            Over-the-horizon guidance of missiles with RKTU according to data from an AWACS helicopter is unscientific fantasy.
            Under the terms of the article, it is 1987. This means that the drums are 5V55RM. And if the radar of the air defense missile system does not see the target, then you can only shoot "somewhere there", in the target area.
            And you can also forget about the Ka-27DRLO (Ka-31) - for 1987 there is only Ka-25Ts for work on sea targets.
            1. Nikon OConor
              Nikon OConor 31 March 2021 13: 24
              0
              Of course, Vicki, she discredited herself enough, but all the same, it was on the "Kirov" were 3 Ka-27
              (c) Aviation group 3 Ka-27 PL
              At the expense of AWACS, I may have been mistaken, but it makes sense to put a 700-km missile range with a radio horizon of about 200? And I very much doubt that in the USSR there were those who did not put equipment on the target designator that detects anti-ship missile launches with the ability to target air defense systems at it.
              Perhaps you relied on this
              "Since the flight time of the rocket at a long range is significant, and the target can go beyond the detection radius of the missile's seeker, the complex needs precise target designation, carried out by the Uspekh aviation complex from Tu-95RTs aircraft or Ka-25Ts helicopters, or by the space reconnaissance complex and target designation MKRTs "Legend" [note 3] The missile can also be used to destroy ground targets "
              Well, this is not necessarily the Ka-25Ts, all new things were installed on the Kirov, and the 25th could well become the 27th.
              With respect.
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 30 March 2021 18: 39
        0
        This is power. Real.
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 30 March 2021 18: 55
          0
          What is the reality of this power?
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 30 March 2021 19: 57
            +1
            The fact that in order to repel such a volley at least up to a third of the distance from the entrance to the direct radio line of sight from the ship and to the ship itself, you need to have something at the Aegis level, with the firing performance of the Mk.41 launcher or higher, plus only with missile homing ( without channel restrictions or with a greater number of guidance channels than 16), and with the guarantee that each of the anti-ship missiles will be hit by the first suitable missile defense system, without gaps.

            Then in the first 50-55 seconds you can dump everyone.

            But the fact is that even the United States does not have such guarantees with its naval air defense systems. In 1144, all the more, no.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 30 March 2021 20: 53
              0
              35 km is more than one and a half minutes of flight time. The fort can start working immediately. I honestly can't count how many goals it will have time to complete. But 6 channels of 2, two missiles per target is not bad at all. Two volleys in time should be in time. 2 × 2 Wasps with a maximum of 6 missiles. AK 630 as the last frontier. And 100 can be dreamed of. If some of the missiles go to traps, then it may well turn out to be fought back. Sorry for the amateurish estimates. I understand that there are pitfalls that I cannot even think of.
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 31 March 2021 11: 36
                0
                . honestly I can not count how many goals will have time to work out


                I calculated for Aegis with the condition of 100% effectiveness of each missile and the opening of fire in automatic mode.
                The last missile in a salvo is shot down at the 53rd second from the moment it enters the direct radio line of sight. On any miss of the missile, you need to add 2 seconds and 0,5 km of the rocket's approach to the ship.

                But this is, firstly, with a stretch on the effectiveness of missiles (in real life there should be misses), and secondly, with missiles with ARLGSN, which work according to the "fire-forget" scheme. Third, 1144 is not Arleigh Burke.
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 31 March 2021 19: 34
                  0
                  Did you take into account the duration of the volley? Do not run them at the same time.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 31 March 2021 19: 46
                    0
                    They can also set the angles of rotation so that they go to the target with the front. Roughly speaking, they got together.
                    1. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 31 March 2021 19: 48
                      0
                      It is truth too. I didn't think.
            2. bk0010
              bk0010 30 March 2021 22: 15
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              In 1144 even more so, no
              It is necessary to return the special warheads to the ships. In SAM, in anti-ship missiles, in PLUR.
    4. Nikon OConor
      Nikon OConor 31 March 2021 07: 34
      0
      16 harpoons would break through 96 three hundred? doubtful, I don't even take into account the "Osu" and several AK-630s
  10. Abram Ivanovich
    Abram Ivanovich 30 March 2021 09: 36
    +2
    NATO carrier-based aircraft posed a threat not only to the coast of the Soviet Union, but also to missile submarine cruisers, and the USSR gave priority to eliminating them.

  11. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 30 March 2021 09: 51
    +2
    It is vitally important for the United States to keep Iceland and keep the Keflavik airbase - an Iowa-backed landing force is sent to the island

    Why is this procession rushing to Iceland? Well, okay, let's say, out of some fright, the OVD decides to seize AB Keflavik - it is more logical to assume that the OVD command will do this with the Airborne Forces, probably. That is, while the valiant Marines vomit in the holds of Tarawa (well, or Wasp smelling of fresh paint), blue berets are already receiving medals for taking Søydaurkroukur. Or forcing Skjaulvandaflyut. In general, you can't read the captions under the photos in the demobilization album right away.
    1. Kayuk
      Kayuk 30 March 2021 11: 41
      +2
      Why is this procession rushing to Iceland? Well, okay, let's say, out of some fright, the OVD decides to seize AB Keflavik - it is more logical to assume that the OVD command will do this with the Airborne Forces, probably.

      Not out of fear and probably not .... Read the novel "Red Storm" by American writer Tom Clancy about the Third World War between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. The novel is based on three American team games. Ronald Reagan, shortly after the Reykjavik meeting (1986), recommended the novel to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for understanding Soviet intentions and strategies ...
  12. Andy
    Andy 30 March 2021 09: 59
    +2
    I was the only one to remember Kaptsov? By God, I was sure to the end ...
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 30 March 2021 18: 54
      0
      Quote: Andy
      I was the only one to remember Kaptsov? By God, I was sure to the end ...
      Yeah. It has been a long time since he wrote something.
  13. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 30 March 2021 11: 25
    0
    Compare on the other hand ..... support for the landing or strikes against coastal cities.
    At the weekend I was in Novorossiysk, went on an excursion to an art cruiser. It was built in 1956 and is far from Iowa in terms of technical level. I don’t take calibers and sizes.
  14. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 30 March 2021 12: 00
    0
    ... the fire from the air defense missile system on the surface targets of the amphibious formation covered by the "Aegis" is unlikely to be effective.

    1. Fire from the Fort air defense missile system at the battleship for 30-40 km. can hit very effective if some of the missiles have armor-piercing warheads. For example, if the Fort warhead replaces an armor-piercing projectile with 180-203 mm at a terminal speed of about 1500 m / s, it passes through the thickest armor in Iowa.
    2. The cruiser also has 10 mm torpedo units with guided torpedoes and a very high probability of hitting a battleship 533-15 km away.
    So Kirov has a chance in close combat, especially if Iowa has already received heavy damage in ranged combat.
  15. Angry Alt-Right
    Angry Alt-Right 30 March 2021 13: 32
    +1
    But there was a moment in the article when one could hope for the conceptual adequacy of the author. Well, the one where it was mentioned about the fight against anti-submarine aircraft. Indeed, why pretend that 20 Granites can clog the missile defense capacity of a whole order, when you can simply defend a certain place with your air defense / missile defense capabilities, to ensure launches already from a submarine, which will obviously have more offensive potential?
  16. Undecim
    Undecim 30 March 2021 13: 42
    +1
    According to NATO classification TARK project 1144 pass as "battle cruisers"
    Project 1144 was never called a battle cruiser in official documents. So he was called only by all sorts of "experts" like our Kaptsov.
    In official documents - nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser.
  17. 501Legion
    501Legion 30 March 2021 16: 12
    0
    real monsters of their time. It's good that not all the Eagles were sent to Junk ... we are waiting for reincarnation
  18. Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 30 March 2021 18: 16
    0
    Shaw? .. Again ??? (with)
  19. bk0010
    bk0010 30 March 2021 18: 48
    0
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    Curiously, the Iowa projectile, as it were, was not more mass than a warhead of granite.
    Iowa shells weighed from 400 (serially not made) to 1200 kg plus, explosives in them were 1.5% (for armor-piercing) -8.5% (for high-explosive) of their weight. So, at best, a centner. Granite's warhead weighs up to 750 kg, explosives account for, probably, half. So, 400 kilograms with one rocket will arrive. And not 1 ton flies into the board, but all 7, but not at the end, but at two speeds of sound.
  20. Holuay T.O
    Holuay T.O 30 March 2021 20: 47
    -4
    We could not compete with the US Navy even then.
  21. Maks1995
    Maks1995 30 March 2021 21: 52
    -1
    There has already been a similar article, relatively recently.
    What to compare is - a relatively new ARC, sharpened to fight the AUG, and a much older battleship - and according to the article, Iowa was modernized not against ships, but against the coast in conjunction with a squadron ...
  22. japan-k
    japan-k 31 March 2021 12: 55
    0
    There is no longer any point in comparing now. Time passes, technologies do not stand still, which was serious and relevant 30-40 years ago, alas, at the moment it is not.
    Taking into account the development of missile, hypersonic, almost artificially intelligent missile weapons, satellite navigation systems, etc. There is no point in building huge ships, tk. a carrier of such a weapon can be a fairly small ship, an aircraft, a drone, or a coastal missile system. Already, rockets fly at a range of 500-2500 km. And go into mass production. Even some American analysts are already talking about their aircraft carriers as huge coffins for seafarers. And in fact, AUG can only be used for certain countries without a serious fleet of its own, missile weapons and air defense systems.
  23. lomax77
    lomax77 April 3 2021 21: 56
    0
    Hmm ... Taking into account the fact that “Iowa” can most likely be in the group, as in the fourth photo, and the presence of special projectiles for the Main Committee, the alignment may become different.
  24. Sunstorm
    Sunstorm April 4 2021 11: 35
    0
    Speaking of "fantasies". And if you replace the warhead with something exotic? Maybe napalm or vacuum ammunition? And if at all the first to fly is the rocket knocking out all the electronics? The topic of fantasies is not disclosed)
    PS All ammunition to spend on 1 is not a fact ... that the sunken ship ... It's sad.
  25. Sasha_rulevoy
    Sasha_rulevoy April 12 2021 06: 18
    0
    According to my estimates, “Iowa” must defeat “Kirov” one-on-one. Let's analyze the Kirov's salvo. Yes, there are indeed 20 missiles on board, but the full salvo is only eight. The ship can fire two volleys, four more missiles with nuclear warheads will probably be ordered to be reserved for some extremely important purposes.

    Next, speed. Mach 2,5 at "Granit" is not flight speed, but the maximum speed that it develops in a relatively small area at the time of the completion of the descent from a great height and until the moment it enters the dense layers of the atmosphere. As for the speed immediately before hitting the ship, it is only Mach 1,2, only one and a half times higher than that of the Harpoon.

    With autonomous targeting, eight Granites use the following algorithm: four attack the largest target in a given search square, the rest distribute smaller targets, one missile for each. If the Iowa fires enough passive interference, it has a good chance of being attacked by one missile (if some cloud is large enough), in the worst case, four missiles.

    The "Iowa" has a good modern radar AN / SPS-49, three-axis with vertical electronic scanning, with a high speed of all-round view. This radar will detect large targets such as Granites at 300 km, depending on the weather. While the "Granites" will turn on their radar only 140 km from the target. The Americans have 4 minutes to react, prepare active jamming stations, put more passive jamming on both sides, turn the ship towards missiles in order to reduce the RCS, increase the number of Vulcan-Phalanxes firing to three, the main thing is to protect containers with Tomahawks from damage. ", which are in the stern of the ship and are the most flammable material on the battleship. The Iowa's nose is specially made so long and with a bunch of bulkheads inside to receive shells from enemy battleships without much damage to the battleship.

    It is as if the Granites have only one missile looking for a target with a radar, after which it must share information with other missiles. This greatly facilitates the work of operators of active jamming stations. Ideally, in general, all missiles blinded by the aiming interference of the head missile will fly by.

    The last and most important thing: the interval of launches of "Granit" is ten seconds. The cycle of guidance "Vulcan-Phalanx" from one target to another - five seconds. As you can see, for four missiles, the power of the air defense is more than sufficient. The Phalanx cartridge has a uranium core, which will pierce the armor of the anti-ship missile warhead and cause the ammunition to detonate. But even if this does not happen, with a high probability, at supersonic speed, the rocket will start to somersault until it collapses from overloads.
    1. lomax77
      lomax77 April 13 2021 01: 56
      0
      Iow's nose is made long for hydrodynamic reasons to increase speed. Because of this, they have problems with seaworthiness.
      Turning to missiles from the point of view of "Phalanxes" will not add anything: there are 4 of them and they are located in the corners of the superstructure, and located further in the stern will be blocked by the superstructure.
      1. Sasha_rulevoy
        Sasha_rulevoy April 14 2021 03: 55
        0


        All the photographs taken from the nose show three Phalanxes at the same time. I really don't know how things are in practice. Nowhere did I find the angles of fire.
        1. lomax77
          lomax77 April 14 2021 16: 56
          0
          Only part of the dome is visible from the "Phalanx" on the starboard side. In the direction of the photographer, he definitely cannot shoot because of the director and antennas on the bridge. Even straight ahead, shooting will be difficult. And, here, five-inches can. And to the stern "Phalanx", the bow corners, possibly, will be covered by the "Harpoon" launcher raised to the combat position.
          The firing angles (I also did not see specific ones) are about 180 degrees, otherwise they risk catching their own superstructure.
    2. Sasha_rulevoy
      Sasha_rulevoy April 14 2021 03: 47
      0
      Now the situation is reversed.

      Iowa approached 84 miles and fired 8 Harpoon missiles at Kirov. It must be understood that the Harpoon at that time was the height of perfection, an all-killing superweapon against which all existing air defense systems were outdated at once. Like battleships with the Dreadnought.

      Rate of fire 3 s. Volley solution 21 s. But if we take 1988 and later, then the Iowa may already have RGM-84Ds, and these are missiles with several waypoints that can reduce the salvo solution even more, providing the so-called. saturation of air defense.

      The range of the "Harpoon" radio horizon is 35-40 km. But, given that at their very low altitude they will be in the illumination zone for some time (splashes, dust, tops of waves), the real range will be even lower, about 25 km. At a distance of 25 km "Harpoon" will also turn on its radar. Passive interference will be ineffective because The "Harpoon" will already lock onto the target and will not pay attention to the target away from the course. Active interference is unlikely to be delivered in 40 seconds. In addition, the "Harpoon" provides for automatic frequency tuning in case of interference.

      Attempts to shoot down the "Harpoons" will also be unsuccessful. "Wasp" can have a lower limit of 5 m only in the latest version of "Osa-MA2", and this version is on only two newest corvettes. On the Kirovs (not counting the Petr) there was the very first version of the Osa-M with a lower boundary of 60 m. It was never modernized, and the modernization was not even planned. Useless against "Harpoon". Fort is useless for the same reason.

      Remains the AK-630. Four on board, on antenna posts only two on board. Effective firing range 1 km. Those. they can fire the first two missiles and the last two, provided that the 3-6 missiles do not hit the side and their explosions do not turn off the power supply for a while, or the fragments do not damage the antennas or the installations themselves. The efficiency of the AK-630 is low. For stern installations, the radars are too far away, which will add errors at such small firing distances. The guidance commands from the radar to the guns are transmitted in the old analog way, which also leads to low accuracy.

      With a high probability, "Kirov" would have received 3-4 missiles from the first salvo. After the turn of the Iowa, Kirov would receive 5 more missiles from the second. Most likely it would have ended in the death of the ship.
      1. lomax77
        lomax77 April 14 2021 17: 19
        0
        They have about the same story with the Iowas as we have with the Kirovs: the modernization went on all the 80s and the composition of the new equipment on them is different. Only on "Wisconsin" does it correspond to the "Burkes" of the first generation. it was the last one to be upgraded.
        And about analog devices ... A controversial statement. the Americans did not change the firing mechanical computers as in terms of accuracy, they are not worse than numbers, and their reliability is ten times higher.
        Personally, it seems to me a sane scenario when “Iowa” goes ahead, having AUG with “Aegis” beyond the horizon.
  26. lomax77
    lomax77 April 13 2021 01: 06
    0
    But what the Americans themselves think about such a clash:
    1. Sasha_rulevoy
      Sasha_rulevoy April 14 2021 03: 56
      0
      I'll take a look. You can also simulate Command MANO in the game.
  27. Max PV
    Max PV April 15 2021 21: 49
    0
    And for some reason, all the authors of publications on the topic of confronting WWII battleships or conventional modern battleships with a modern fleet do not take into account the factor of using nuclear weapons. How they do not take it into account when scheduling attack scenarios on AUG. Meanwhile, it is nuclear weapons that will be used for such purposes if something happens, because the sinking of a battleship or an aircraft carrier, and even with escort ships, is not even an incident, but a declaration of a war of destruction, which will inevitably grow into a nuclear war. Or does someone think that the United States, having lost, say, an aircraft carrier with a part of the AUG (and this is at least 5-7 thousand zhmurov) will get lost and introduce new sanctions? Yes, a destroyer may also be swallowed, and that is far from a fact, but an aircraft carrier or battleship (if it appears) will definitely not be forgiven. So an attack on such targets is the automatic start of a nuclear war, with no options. And no one will be exchanged for strikes with conventional weapons, but at such "fat" targets will immediately hit with a pair of missiles with a special charge, possibly sending a couple of more conventional missiles, to increase the chances of a breakthrough to the target. And we get a situation where conventional anti-ship missiles are designed against destroyers at the most, and there is special ammunition for everything else. Hence, it seems to me, the reduction in the mass of the warheads of modern anti-ship missiles to 150-300 kg - the destroyer will be enough, and 150-300, nl already kilotons, will also be used on the aircraft carrier.