Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    And yet the Americans still refitted them to counter the Kirov threat.
    Could you provide any documentary evidence of this? The wikipedia citation is two books and I do not own either of them.

    I think the US re-activated the Iowas because they were flush with money and the Iowas, while useless as surface combatants, could carry a lot of tomahawks at a time when there were no truly efficient ships for this purpose, i.e. those designed around the Mk 41 VLS.

    The significance of the tomahawk was nothing to do with naval warfare as such but rather the fact that it could carry a nuclear warhead and was, at that time, extremely difficult for the Soviets to intercept. Although I don't think the USN ever explicitly denied it, the internet believes that nuclear warheads were never carried by the Iowas; nonetheless, Reagan's message is clear: if you don't sign the arms limitation treaties I am proposing, there will be nuclear-tipped tomahawks threatening your country at unpredictable times and in unpredictable locations. Defending against this threat will be disproportionately expensive for you. It is in your best interest to deal.

    When Mk 41 ships entered service the Iowas vanished along with the collection of big cruisers to which the US also fitted the tomahawk ABL, and which followed the Iowas to the chop. A single Ticonderoga class on 10,000t can carry as many tomahawks as all four >45,000t Iowas.

    You may want to double check the tomahawk Info. It was most definitely used as an ASM.

    It was even more effective when it was the block N types.
    As I said in my post there was a variant of the tomahawk used for this purpose, the TASM, which replaced some fuel with a radar for terminal guidance. However it's anyway irrelevant for the reasons I gave.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Could you provide any documentary evidence of this? The wikipedia citation is two books and I do not own either of them.

    I think the US re-activated the Iowas because they were flush with money and the Iowas, while useless as surface combatants, could carry a lot of tomahawks at a time when there were no truly efficient ships for this purpose, i.e. those designed around the Mk 41 VLS.

    The significance of the tomahawk was nothing to do with naval warfare as such but rather the fact that it could carry a nuclear warhead and was, at that time, extremely difficult for the Soviets to intercept. Although I don't think the USN ever explicitly denied it, the internet believes that nuclear warheads were never carried by the Iowas; nonetheless, Reagan's message is clear: if you don't sign the arms limitation treaties I am proposing, there will be nuclear-tipped tomahawks threatening your country at unpredictable times and in unpredictable locations. Defending against this threat will be disproportionately expensive for you. It is in your best interest to deal.

    When Mk 41 ships entered service the Iowas vanished along with the collection of big cruisers to which the US also fitted the tomahawk ABL, and which followed the Iowas to the chop. A single Ticonderoga class on 10,000t can carry as many tomahawks as all four >45,000t Iowas.


    As I said in my post there was a variant of the tomahawk used for this purpose, the TASM, which replaced some fuel with a radar for terminal guidance. However it's anyway irrelevant for the reasons I gave.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov..._battlecruiser

    There's. Link to a New Yorker article on that. I'm also pulling off personal experience from so many lessons from when I was in the military that dissected the Cold War. I believe that 'the Cold War, a military History' by david miller touches on it.

    There were many variants of tomahawk. The TASM was the anti ship variant that the us navy used until it as withdrawn from service in the 90s. That was mainly due to the lack of range that the Harpoon had, but also because it have plausible deniability when carrying the fun ones with the W80 warheads on that CND loved so much.

    Ships like the Kirov would've absorbed huge amounts of battle damage with conventional weaponry and would've needed something like a low yield nuclear warhead taking it out or a something like a 16" naval gun.

    The Falklands demonstrated the threat to modern ships that a WW2 vintage cruiser could cause. Sandy Woodward highlighted in a documentary about the Falklands that he was worried bout the Belgrano because he had little in his arsenal that could take it on because it was built for a different era. Exocet would've bounced if it. They assessed that they'd have to use direct hits from 2000 lb bombs to sink it, but fortunately due to a rather crap torpedoe design, the navy took a load of ww2 era torpedoes along, because they didn't trust their smaller war headed, newer torpedoes.

    Not a great shock though. The atom bomb tests in the pacific saw an awful lot of old style battleships/cruisers lost lot because of nuclear weapons detonating a few hundred metres away, but because of lack of damage control parties on the ships.

    That's why the Kirov class were a potential threat. They carried a massive arsenal of SAM systems that posed a huge threat to NATO aircraft. Were fast as hell and very heavily armoured.

    I the 80s when the Iowa's were reactivated there was only one major concern for the US and NATO navies. Keeping the convoy routes open in the North Atlantic to conduct Reforger ops. Closing down the UK, Iceland, green land gap to stop any soviet SSNs threatening those convoy lanes And to stop soviet ssbns getting off the eastern sea board without a US SSN behind it.

    Kirov posed. A threat to that. Something like a modern day Bismarck that would just smash its way through any picket line.

    edit. What's a ship who's to
    bob around in the Atlantic going to do with a cruise missile when more effective, cheaper systems are variable.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov..._battlecruiser

    There's. Link to a New Yorker article on that. I'm also pulling off personal experience from so many lessons from when I was in the military that dissected the Cold War. I believe that 'the Cold War, a military History' by david miller touches on it.

    There were many variants of tomahawk. The TASM was the anti ship variant that the us navy used until it as withdrawn from service in the 90s. That was mainly due to the lack of range that the Harpoon had, but also because it have plausible deniability when carrying the fun ones with the W80 warheads on that CND loved so much.

    Ships like the Kirov would've absorbed huge amounts of battle damage with conventional weaponry and would've needed something like a low yield nuclear warhead taking it out or a something like a 16" naval gun.

    The Falklands demonstrated the threat to modern ships that a WW2 vintage cruiser could cause. Sandy Woodward highlighted in a documentary about the Falklands that he was worried bout the Belgrano because he had little in his arsenal that could take it on because it was built for a different era. Exocet would've bounced if it. They assessed that they'd have to use direct hits from 2000 lb bombs to sink it, but fortunately due to a rather crap torpedoe design, the navy took a load of ww2 era torpedoes along, because they didn't trust their smaller war headed, newer torpedoes.

    Not a great shock though. The atom bomb tests in the pacific saw an awful lot of old style battleships/cruisers lost lot because of nuclear weapons detonating a few hundred metres away, but because of lack of damage control parties on the ships.

    That's why the Kirov class were a potential threat. They carried a massive arsenal of SAM systems that posed a huge threat to NATO aircraft. Were fast as hell and very heavily armoured.

    I the 80s when the Iowa's were reactivated there was only one major concern for the US and NATO navies. Keeping the convoy routes open in the North Atlantic to conduct Reforger ops. Closing down the UK, Iceland, green land gap to stop any soviet SSNs threatening those convoy lanes And to stop soviet ssbns getting off the eastern sea board without a US SSN behind it.

    Kirov posed. A threat to that. Something like a modern day Bismarck that would just smash its way through any picket line.

    edit. What's a ship who's to
    bob around in the Atlantic going to do with a cruise missile when more effective, cheaper systems are variable.
    The Kirovs were certainly a threat but I am not sure you understand why. They carried very little armour and would never have come within gun range of any ship except by accident. They could outrun any gun ships built or in service. They would not have been charged headlong into enemy ships and were nothing like WWII battleships or WWI battlecruisers. Their defence was to remain undetected a long distance from enemy ships. They, along with the Oscar class submarine and the Legenda satellite network, were part of a dedicated system for destroying aircraft carriers that attempted to breach the Soviet SSBN bastions. Iowa did not carry TASM and had no way of targeting it. A Kirov would have been attacked by aircraft or, better, an SSN.

    A number of people have claimed that the Iowa reactivation was related to the building of the Kirov but without a convincing explanation why I do not accept it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    The Kirovs were certainly a threat but I am not sure you understand why. They carried very little armour and would never have come within gun range of any ship except by accident. They could outrun any gun ships built or in service. They would not have been charged headlong into enemy ships and were nothing like WWII battleships or WWI battlecruisers. Their defence was to remain undetected a long distance from enemy ships. They, along with the Oscar class submarine and the Legenda satellite network, were part of a dedicated system for destroying aircraft carriers that attempted to breach the Soviet SSBN bastions. Iowa did not carry TASM and had no way of targeting it. A Kirov would have been attacked by aircraft or, better, an SSN.

    A number of people have claimed that the Iowa reactivation was related to the building of the Kirov but without a convincing explanation why I do not accept it.
    The USN deemed them a big enough threat to invest in refitting the Iowa class out with them.

    Yes the Kirovs main armament out ranged the main gun armament of the Iowa, but not the tomahawk armament.

    Bear in mind that a lot of the times ships are running without radar because it gives their location away.

    Remember that although the Kirovs main target may have been carriers, carrier operations normally involve the carrier at the centre of an awful lot of ships. At the time, the us navy had no other real option to dealing with the Kirov other than aircraft, which surprisingly the navy preferred to keep on station to fend away soviet naval aviation, or destroyers and the occasional cruiser.

    Edit, remember that Iowa's were faster than Kirovs.

    youu may not accept it. But that's a considerable justification for it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    The USN deemed them a big enough threat to invest in refitting the Iowa class out with them.
    If they did it for that reason, I'd say they considered them a small threat. Significant threat would warrant a response with a modern, new build weapon, not the reheated leftovers of 40 years ago.

    Yes the Kirovs main armament out ranged the main gun armament of the Iowa, but not the tomahawk armament.
    An armament which was not fitted to the Iowa, which could not be targeted by the Iowa, and which was neither exclusively nor even particularly efficiently carried by the Iowa.

    Bear in mind that a lot of the times ships are running without radar because it gives their location away.
    To ships within line of sight, so within about 30km of one another. Neither ship would have been able to see the other with its radar or detect the other's radar emissions.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    If they did it for that reason, I'd say they considered them a small threat. Significant threat would warrant a response with a modern, new build weapon, not the reheated leftovers of 40 years ago.


    An armament which was not fitted to the Iowa, which could not be targeted by the Iowa, and which was neither exclusively nor even particularly efficiently carried by the Iowa.


    To ships within line of sight, so within about 30km of one another. Neither ship would have been able to see the other with its radar or detect the other's radar emissions.
    A significant threat that could be contained more effectively by modifying an existing asset.

    Tomahawks were fitted on the Iowa class from the 80s. Iowa class bate ships were the centre piece of surface action group with other tomahawk capable ships, who also had quite a cheeky SAM capability capable if intercepting big soviet style cruise missiles.

    Although a ship may not have picked up another ship thirty miles away if neither were using radar. Other ships or aircraft in the vicinity using their radar would've seen ships and fed that info back. That's the joys of having a picket ship. You can send it off by itself and let it bang away with its radar and sonar acting a suite eyes and ears knowing that if somebody does attack the more expendable picket ship, they've given away their position to you. Not a new idea. The type 42s in the Falklands adopted that very tactic.

    Battleships have used everything from other ships, to radar to balloons to sea planes And UAVs watch the fall of shot for their big guns. Iowa engaged a Japanese ship at 32km in 1944 using radar. There's also some frightening optics on top Of the masts. And let's not forget the RQ2 drones for spotting that was fitted in the mid 80s
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I know nothing about ships and this is all very interesting!

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schleigg)
    I know nothing about ships and this is all very interesting!

    Sorry. We appear to have gone off topic a bit.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    A bit late to this debate but I'll join in on just one point, our new CVF's.

    I am a massive advocate for them. They can do a lot more than just carry aircraft (of which, the F35B's are the correct variant for us), they can act as a launch platform for SF, humanitarian work, act as a 2/3 acre piece of Britain. Whilst they are expensive, they will provide the British Armed Forces (not just the RN) with a much-needed upgrade in capability!
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.