Look Vortex, i cannot image how you say about nukes, while the nuclear shells of the iowas were retired many years ago while the kirov have nuclear SSMs like the shipwrecks (dismantled because nuclear treaty 12 years ago or so). in an all-moded engagement, the iowa cannot have an advantage over the kirov with nukes, atleast for the range!

And about the “one hundred shells raining”, well, before that Iowa must closing on the Kirovs, and their radars must resist to the enemy ECMs.
When the iowa fires, they fires not more than 18 shells for minute. If the 16″ inches are closing enough to fire, and they get guided ammo, the Kirov could have a problem. Differently, the kirov target with a dozen SA-N 6 at once or others missiles like the silex, and the Iowa has a huge trouble. Within 1 minute, this tehorically could hitting the Iowa enough to take out her. Not a chance to fire for 5-7 minuts to shoot 100 projectiles.

But we here talk about the REAL kirovs vs real Iowa, like it could happened in the Reagan era. The Iowa are huge capabilities, and they are modernizable (theorically) with everything until to became an Aegis battleship, and in the ’80s even AV 8 arriers and over 320 VLS missiles were considered. But this never happened, regardless of the quality of these ships’s hulls.

mmh..

here the points i think about this clash, already ypothized by many analists 20 years ago ,and more.

-I don’t think that the UAV Pioneers are really comparable with the Ka- 27 Helix or whatever heli. The use of the Pioneer is to check the fire vs. “land” targets, not really to acquisition a ship and then fire the SSM missile. Sorry, no way to compare a real heli force with a UAV (expecially if the guys in the Helix takes their Kalshikovs and have fun to shot down the poineer by the Helix port sides).

Second point. Even excluding nuclear warhead use (with this even a SA-N-1 with nuclear warhead can be enough), i don’t see how a system like the Granit can be matched by the Tomawak system of teh IOWAs. If the (theorical) match is a ship vs the other and nothing more, the Iowas are matched and whipped by Granits.

-20 missiles are more than enough, the warhead and the speed of the granit assures a power so great to damage severly even a battleship, it’s a totally different history confronted to a Harpoon missile(X10 more energy,rougly). Theorically, the granit can be fired from beyond the max range of the anti-ship Tomawahk (official datas, 550 vs 450 for the anti-ship US cruise).

-To fire the cruise missiles vs a located, land target is totally different to lock and fire vs a moving target like a ship. You have to target the ships, not only reach the launch point like happens with a fixed target.

-in every case, i think that teh normal load of the Iowas was mainly the land -attack version of the Tomawahk, while the harpoon was the main anti-ship missile.

– The Kirov has a immensely advantage in AA defence, if 4 Pahlanx could be enough vs a 20 Granit, so teh complex AA of the Kirov should down 100 Harpoon, and the Tomawahk are perhaps a heasier target!(larger, slower).

-If the two ships are closing enogh, first the Kirov could lock and fire with the granit, then the Iowa could eventually answer with tomawahks, then they could fire the Harpoons.

By what after? Here the funniest things.

Do you really think that the Kirov could be an easy pray for the guns of the Iowa? Ever heard about the SSN-14 silex? with 55 km range, this weapon is more than enough to pose a serious treath and ourange the 16″ guns of the battleaships by a large degree. The warhead is 150 kg of the torpedo plus 320 of the missile.
Expecially if we look what happened in real combats to ships like the Scharnorsts, or the South Dakota,well, I Don’t think that the FCS of the Iowa could still function after one or two missiles aboard. Radars are delicated things, not armour plates can protect them!

-But, at the end , we could have the iowa facing with a new model of “gun”, the SA-N 6 of the Kirov. Like the most naval missiles, even is not to well known, the Sa-N 6 should be able to hit surface ships. No Ciws can protect by an hipersonic missile like this (1000-1700 m-s) and even if the damages should not caused in vital areas, the extensive splinter damage and the wave of the explosion can effectively blind the radars and cause a lot of others damage. If the Kirov fires let’s say, 15-20 missiles, it’s likely that at combat range (20-25 km) they reach the target in less tahn a minute, too short to be matched by the shells of the Iowa. The impact of let’s say, 10-12 Sams like this, wheighting 1500 Kg each at the launch, should be enough to “mission kil” even a Iowa, and sink every other warship.

So i think, if a Iowa and a Kirov facing one vs the other in a sea area like, let’s say, the black sea or the Gulf or mediterranean or so ( a “ring”, like two boxeus), i think that the Iowa alone have no chances to lock and shot the kirov before this latter do the same thing, and after this, i think that the Iowa should be not more able to launch any “tomawak attack” vs everyone except the fishes under the sea.

With ,however, the maximum respect for the beauty and mighty Iowas, clearly.

True, the political aspect is a key to understund how and why some things happens.With a labour leadership perhaps the british hadn’t tried anything similar, and even with ironlady they had their trouble to organize and go to Malvinas.

I have remaked the strong political decision of british since the first post. Perhaps that the Frenchs could have done it (“op. Corporate”) as well but they had retreat the day before the V day, while the germans or the Spanish have to do this because they have run out of refuels.

As the UK US special relaton as a mith: HAHAHA it’s just i say. Also in the Falklands this was clear. The forniture of the AIM 9L was an aspect but not all knows that aslo several Stingers were swifty delivered, and Srhike missiles and Ciws Phalanx also. And this to a country involved in a war.

Before this, okay, someone remenber something about the UK SSBNs and they reactors and missiles Polaris delivered or built with US tecnology? Just for an example.
And the actual situation in OIF and post war operations don’t deserve ausiliary remarks.

This is essentially, however, a topic with the main theme as the tecnical capability of the European Navies of the time. I’d say, insthead to loose time to discuss what’s hte strongest navy, i think that it’s more intersting to judice this to see if a certain military operation made by one of these navies could have done by others.

As the non importance of the operativity given the bad weather: tell this to who has fought the land battles. If the carrier cannot assure the air support and protection it could happen only a serious trouble, and in htis side the RN carriers could have assured much more than the more powerful frenchs: what’s the worth of a carrier if her planes cannot operate because the weather? this could be a serious problem i’d say, in the weather of the South Atlantic!

And as the Argentinian Navy not be big: at the time the MEKOS weren’t yet delivered, but just tell me if a navy like that, perhaps hte most powerful in the s.a., could be called “small”. What other navy had tried to face with a western navy like argentians done? they weren’t enough strong but atleast they posed a serious treaht to the RN, perhaps the only time in the post war conflicts. Thisi s what i mean: almost happened even aa carrier airbattle!