Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
JohnPJones

Kirov class v Burke 1v1

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,259 posts
6,734 battles

I like this channel and have never found a reason to dispute their assessments on hypothetical conflicts but this one I do.

 

chaff isn't included but nulka is, just for a start, but let's hear your thoughts 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,338 posts
2,701 battles

I mean it's comparing a 'Battlecruiser' to a Destroyer, he said it himself. 

 

The Anti-ship capability of USN destroyers even with Harpoon missiles isn't the greatest anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,259 posts
6,734 battles
29 minutes ago, xX_Critical_ClopOut69_Xx said:

I mean it's comparing a 'Battlecruiser' to a Destroyer, he said it himself. 

 

The Anti-ship capability of USN destroyers even with Harpoon missiles isn't the greatest anyway.

The offensive capability isn't that great, but their defensive abilities are very good. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,066
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,177 posts
11,693 battles

That's about the outcome I'd expect; Kirov throwing the kitchen sink at the Burke and it just being enough. 

A ship optimized for surface combat vs an AA cruiser (let be real, Burkes are DD's only in name) is stretched to its limit to get the win...I think is a good reflection on the Burke.  I don't feel like they mis-represented the Burke's capability at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,099 posts
1 hour ago, JohnPJones said:

The offensive capability isn't that great, but their defensive abilities are very good. 

 

 

 

The Kirov's defensive capabilities is very very good.  Its a literal fortress.  S-300 is literally one of the best SAM systems in the world, an aerial area denial system.  The 48N6E2 used in Peter the Great up to Mach 8.5 and has ABM capabilities.  The Peter the Great can carry 96 of the 48N6s.  It has 6 CIWS in the form of Kashtans, and these things not only have guns, but point defense missiles.  The ship has another 128 point defense Tor plus another 40 OSA missiles.   Correct that, in addition to 6 Kashtan CIWS, it also has 8 AK-630 guns, which is another CIWS.  The Tombstone radars have frequency hopping and LPI (Low Probability of Intercept) that can make them difficult to detect by radar warning receivers.   Its got 400 rockets for decoys.

 

One thing about the S-300.  The containers can potentially be be quad packed with 9M96E2 missiles, and each of these has a range up to 120km and has active radar seekers.   We might probably see this when the ships are upgraded.

 

The Kirovs are being refitted one by one, one being operational and two in the state of deep refit.  

 

The Kirov's biggest issue is its very design.  Its not stealthy at all.  Like all old designs, it will reflect radar like there's no tomorrow.  Its certainly going to need all those defenses.   The AB is much stealthier but the AB isn't as stealthy as many of the more modern designs that have integrated masts.

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
405 posts
4,794 battles

Kirov is an old hull, it's design, purpose and doctrine of use is very different than any USN vessel.  The only question really is how exactly can they be compared when operational costs are factored in?  As we've seen in conflicts around the globe since the USSR fell, just because it looks good on paper doesn't make it capable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,022 posts

A vessel that weighs 9K tons is only just defeated by a vessel 2.5 times it's displacement. That's pretty damn good. He raises the better question that the USN needs a replacement for the Harpoon because on the whole each Burke carries very few ASMs in awkward tube emplacements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
340
Beta Testers
2,580 posts
4,699 battles
1 hour ago, Eisennagel said:

The Tombstone radars have frequency hopping and LPI (Low Probability of Intercept)

Did not know they have LPI mode :Smile_amazed:

 

Elsewhere I recently saw comments on a Peter the Great image along the lines 'all good until a Tomahawk comes along' to which the correct answer is :Smile_teethhappy::Smile_teethhappy::Smile_teethhappy:

Someone else said a 12* missile salvo, its a better guess but I'm pretty sure PtG would have a very good chance to survive at least three sequential 12* Tomahawk/Harpoon salvoes.

 

Regarding Burke defences: I was of the understanding Standard & ESSM still need the fire-control radar for terminal guidance (newer missiles coming that won't) -> severely limiting its ability to survive a saturation attack.

 

1 hour ago, Eisennagel said:

The AB is much stealthier but the AB isn't as stealthy as many of the more modern designs that have integrated masts.

Thing I don't get about that is whats the point in having the RCS of a small fishing boat if modern surface search radars detect fishing boat size RCS at radar horizon?

And Russia/China use over the horizon radar too...

 

Quote

A vessel that weighs 9K tons is only just defeated by a vessel 2.5 times it's displacement. That's pretty damn good. He raises the better question that the USN needs a replacement for the Harpoon because on the whole each Burke carries very few ASMs in awkward tube emplacements.

Now imagine what Nakhimov vs Burke would look like.

Nakhimov will have an 80* anti-ship missile salvo with newer missiles, updated SAMs, radars/ECM/combat systems.

On the other hand an LRASM equipped Burke would also be a much more serious opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,022 posts

It's funny, because an 80s Tich would be a bigger threat because of the TASM saturation it could carry out at extreme ranges and then leave before the Kirov could even approach. (Open water engagement against a large surface vessel was the one thing the TASM was actually good at given it's old Harpoon A guidance package.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,099 posts
3 hours ago, hoom said:

Did not know they have LPI mode :Smile_amazed:

 

Elsewhere I recently saw comments on a Peter the Great image along the lines 'all good until a Tomahawk comes along' to which the correct answer is :Smile_teethhappy::Smile_teethhappy::Smile_teethhappy:

Someone else said a 12* missile salvo, its a better guess but I'm pretty sure PtG would have a very good chance to survive at least three sequential 12* Tomahawk/Harpoon salvoes.

 

Regarding Burke defences: I was of the understanding Standard & ESSM still need the fire-control radar for terminal guidance (newer missiles coming that won't) -> severely limiting its ability to survive a saturation attack.

 

Thing I don't get about that is whats the point in having the RCS of a small fishing boat if modern surface search radars detect fishing boat size RCS at radar horizon?

And Russia/China use over the horizon radar too...

 

Now imagine what Nakhimov vs Burke would look like.

Nakhimov will have an 80* anti-ship missile salvo with newer missiles, updated SAMs, radars/ECM/combat systems.

On the other hand an LRASM equipped Burke would also be a much more serious opponent.

 

LPI said to come with the S300PMU2 which means the 30N6E2 radar, which might be also be what the PTG has.   Utilizing frequency hopping along with complex scan patterns, something a phase array like 30N6E2 can do, can produce LPI qualities.

 

Burke is only limited to three illuminators, Tico has four.  Three illuminators is pretty low, Russian frigate using Shtil-1 would have four Orekh illuminators, which appears to me like a small phase array rather than a parabolic antenna.  

 

What AEGIS does to cope with the illuminator shortage is to do time sharing --- only the missiles that are in their terminal phase gets their targets illuminated.  During midphase, the Standards are guided by a datalink using data from the SPY-1D.  So you can put much more missiles in the air than the number of illuminators.  However, this juggling system has its limits as well, which is why ultimately you need a dedicated X-band phase array (coming with Block III).  ESSM is expected to get an active seeker as well (by 2020), so you don't have to dedicate illuminators for that, only the Standards.  

 

As for the Burke and its ASMs, didn't I already posted it before that Tomahawks are going to get a dual mode (new seeker) that enables it to attack both land and moving naval targets?  So basically combines the land attack and sea attack versions into one missile without a dedicated variant for one purpose.  This version though is only coming past 2020.  Finally awakened to the presence of other missiles that have a dual naval and land attack, considering that Brahmos Block III has both sea and land attack dual purpose seekers, and the seekers are supplied by Russia.  The Chinese export CM-302 supersonic missile also lists both sea and land attack in its sales pitch.  

 

The thing about Tomahawks, with all the decades in service, its radar signature is already well known and shouldn't be considered stealthy to modern air defense radars.  Which is why its not a substitute to LRASM, but a stopgap and a supplement.  Its an ability that is better to have than not at all, despite not being a silver bullet.

 

OTH radars don't seem to do that well against stealthy ships, hence why you need aircraft, satellites and now drones for target finding.  Passive radars on the other hand, which is a capability of some Russian radars like Mineral-ME, can pick up radar emissions from a "noisy" target beyond the horizon.  

 

As for the Nakhimov, all the older supersonic ASMs I expect to be gone, Granits and all.  They will all get replaced by Kalibrs and Oniks, maybe even Zircons, and the air defense system upgraded to the S400 standard, so potentially a 400km area denial for aircraft.

 

Block III AB might be a more appropriate comparison to the refit Kirovs.
 

Edited by Eisennagel
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
289
[JFSOC]
Members
934 posts
2,818 battles

It's a fantasy exercise in logical fallacies for all intents.  What the person making the video does is eliminate all sorts of variables between the two, but particularly for the Burke.

The Burke was never designed to stand alone as a ship.  It was designed to be part of a larger battle group.  Reduced to the absurd the analogy might be a Tiger tank versus a 155mm howitzer.  They are put up against each other on a billiard table surface and then their weaknesses and strengths assessed.

This is the same thing.  A Burke was designed to be part of a carrier battlegroup.  The Kirov was to be the centerpiece for a surface action group.  So, many of the Burke's strengths become weaknesses when put up against the Kirov.  Even stuff like satellite and other outside data links and sensors are denied to the Burke.  The Kirov isn't as badly hurt by a lack of these as the Soviets had few of them in place for their navy away from Russian shores.

The Burke would likely be counting on off ship weapons for offensive firepower rather than carry its own.  Why would it need to use its helicopter to find the Kirov when it might reasonably expect that to be done by an E-2, P-8, or even an F-18 in reconnaissance mode?

Because the Russian Navy lacks carriers, they are more reliant on shipboard weapons for their offensive capacity.  Hence, why they put more emphasis on SSM's than the USN does.

So, the exercise is really meaningless.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,099 posts

 

Cold War Soviet Navy, the surface fleet is meant to protect its submarine fleet.   There is also heavy dedication in the Soviet Navy for ASW.  

 

The new Russian corvettes and frigates interest me much more than the Kirovs and other Cold War ships.  Especially ships like the Admiral Gorshkov which in my opinion is probably among the best frigates in the world today.  I also think that smack down the Russian Navy has the best corvettes today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
340
Beta Testers
2,580 posts
4,699 battles
22 minutes ago, Eisennagel said:

Burke is only limited to three illuminators, Tico has four.  Three illuminators is pretty low, Russian frigate using Shtil-1 would have four Orekh illuminators, which appears to me like a small phase array rather than a parabolic antenna.  

Yes, the video indicated the Burke splitting targets between the SPY arrays rather than the illuminators which is my major concern there.

Has to directly point at the target & physically turn to new target which significantly limits ability to deal with saturation attack.

 

Shtil-1 has at least PESA illuminators, some time back when I was looking into them I found reference to newer model being AESA but never found proof that Grigorovich got that version.

Has the advantage that it can simultaneously guide missiles to different targets within the cone without extra physical turning of the antenna.

 

50 minutes ago, Eisennagel said:

didn't I already posted it before that Tomahawks are going to get a dual mode (new seeker) that enables it to attack both land and moving naval targets?

Probably but I'm aware of it anyway.

As you said its still a slow & not stealthy missile going up against stuff designed to cope with saturation supersonic attacks.

 

58 minutes ago, Eisennagel said:

OTH radars don't seem to do that well against stealthy ships

Do they not? :cap_old: I thought they tend to be longer wavelengths that stealth doesn't work very well on?

 

1 hour ago, Eisennagel said:

As for the Nakhimov, all the older supersonic ASMs I expect to be gone, Granits and all.  They will all get replaced by Kalibrs

Not just Kalibr but Onyx & later the hypersonic Zircon, 80 of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,099 posts
1 hour ago, hoom said:

Yes, the video indicated the Burke splitting targets between the SPY arrays rather than the illuminators which is my major concern there.

Has to directly point at the target & physically turn to new target which significantly limits ability to deal with saturation attack.

 

Shtil-1 has at least PESA illuminators, some time back when I was looking into them I found reference to newer model being AESA but never found proof that Grigorovich got that version.

Has the advantage that it can simultaneously guide missiles to different targets within the cone without extra physical turning of the antenna.

 

Probably but I'm aware of it anyway.

As you said its still a slow & not stealthy missile going up against stuff designed to cope with saturation supersonic attacks.

 

Do they not? :cap_old: I thought they tend to be longer wavelengths that stealth doesn't work very well on?

 

Not just Kalibr but Onyx & later the hypersonic Zircon, 80 of them.

 

 

Ships are meant to be stealthy against long wavelengths used by long range radar  (B-2 bomber is stealthy against longer wave search radars).  However, when stealthy against a certain band, it isn't stealthy against other bands.   A design that is stealthy against longer wavelengths is vulnerable to shorter wavelengths and vice versa.   However X-band doesn't get very far, not like S or L band.  

 

There are some design principles that reduce radar cross section for all wavelengths, and one of them being, no 90 degree angles anywhere in the ship.  This includes the angle between the water surface and the ship's hull.  90 degree angles create corner reflections.  The second principle is no large metallic spherical or rounded or cylindrical surfaces which create reflection highlights.  (Radomes are excluded since they are composite, either absorb radar and let selected radar pass through).   All this explains why ships nowadays look so angular and polygonal.

 

Would be interesting to see which Orekh is AESA.  My understanding is that the Orekh also is a pulse doppler?  That means it can also do target tracking.

 

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles

Consider me skeptical about Russian claims of the Zircon's capabilities, even if the missile will likely be formidable. All the reason for us to hurry up with the HSSW. In the interim, I believe in terms of anti-ship missile, the LRASM with a booster attached can fit in one of the Mk.41 VLS cells.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
917
[LEGIO]
Members
2,991 posts
5,408 battles

The Standard Missile series has always been excellent but it's a bit unfair pitting a battlecruiser of over twice the displacement loaded with anti-ship missiles to a destroyer largely designed for AAW.

 

The USN never saw the need for the truck-sized AShMs the Soviets fielded. The Harpoons were always something of a secondary capability thrown onto ships to give them some sort of dedicated AShM. Anti-ship work would have been primarily handled by carrier air wings and of course every USN attack submarine captain would be trying to score one of the big Soviet surface ships had war broken out.

 

Anti-ship Tomahawks were also a thing back in the 1980s but the concern then was a lack of systems to enable their very long range. I think they were supposed to have some on-board IFF mechanism designed to prevent them from going after friendly ships but it seems they didn't have much faith in it since they were retired and only now is the capability being reintroduced. That's nice and all but LRASM will be a better choice against any ship that has decent missile defense systems.


What the USN needs in my opinion besides for LRASM is a low-observable subsonic Tomahawk successor (which should also serve as an ALCM successor) and a supersonic or hypersonic cruise missile with anti-ship capabilities. The latter may require VLS cells larger than 21" in order to achieve a long range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,099 posts

 

Well now the USN is seeing the need.  

 

As for IFF, every ship should have one placed in or near their main radars.  If the ship is scanned by another ship, aircraft or any radar, the IFF transponders would reply back.  Its not something you put on the missile.  

 

The old TASM is basically a Tomahawk body with a Harpoon seeker.  The new Tomahawks with antiship capability are not dedicated ASMs but land attack cruise missiles with a secondary ship attacking ability.  This is possible with all the miniaturization of electronics in the last few decades that enable you to literally put two or more seekers in one guidance system. 

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
On 9/27/2017 at 7:35 PM, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

The Standard Missile series has always been excellent but it's a bit unfair pitting a battlecruiser of over twice the displacement loaded with anti-ship missiles to a destroyer largely designed for AAW.

 

The USN never saw the need for the truck-sized AShMs the Soviets fielded. The Harpoons were always something of a secondary capability thrown onto ships to give them some sort of dedicated AShM. Anti-ship work would have been primarily handled by carrier air wings and of course every USN attack submarine captain would be trying to score one of the big Soviet surface ships had war broken out.

 

Anti-ship Tomahawks were also a thing back in the 1980s but the concern then was a lack of systems to enable their very long range. I think they were supposed to have some on-board IFF mechanism designed to prevent them from going after friendly ships but it seems they didn't have much faith in it since they were retired and only now is the capability being reintroduced. That's nice and all but LRASM will be a better choice against any ship that has decent missile defense systems.


What the USN needs in my opinion besides for LRASM is a low-observable subsonic Tomahawk successor (which should also serve as an ALCM successor) and a supersonic or hypersonic cruise missile with anti-ship capabilities. The latter may require VLS cells larger than 21" in order to achieve a long range.

 

Is there even anything under development that takes advantage of the new and larger Mark 57 VLS on the Zumwalts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[CUTIE]
Beta Testers
359 posts
5,285 battles

Personally, I do not see the Burke emerging victorious from a 1v1 battle with the Kirov. As mentioned before, the Arleigh Burke-class isn't a ship that can operate by itself in battle but rather a component in a battle group. However, I can see three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers taking on a Kirov-class missile cruiser. I also feel that the RGM-84 Harpoon needs to be replaced.  

 

Spoiler

59cec86acce4e_ThreeArleighBurke.thumb.jpg.5da573646178f086ac2625ee523b201c.jpg

 

Edited by Cruiser_Kumano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,022 posts

The Harpoon was intended as a secondary missile compliment to the TASM VLS on the Tichs. The problem is that it's become our primary and suffers as a SSM, but shines as a air launched AShM. (And with CAGs being the golden calf, guess why we've been stuck with the Harpoon for so long.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,259 posts
6,734 battles
12 hours ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Think it also depends on if they decide to use tactical Nukes as well...

The US has no more nuclear tipped tomahawks (officially) and as far as I know none of the missiles on a Kirov class are nuclear capable either..,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,271
[RKLES]
Members
7,210 posts
8,982 battles
1 hour ago, JohnPJones said:

The US has no more nuclear tipped tomahawks (officially) and as far as I know none of the missiles on a Kirov class are nuclear capable either..,

Lol key word being "Officially"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,022 posts
3 hours ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Lol key word being "Officially"

USN Fleets never deployed or recieved the Army's GLCM, not to mention that such a weapon would violate the MRBM byline of the START II treaty that the USA is a part of. (And why the Pershing 2s and GLCMs were decommissioned and destroyed in the first place.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,259 posts
6,734 battles
5 hours ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Lol key word being "Officially"

You can't make a scenario based on suspicions with no foundational evidence to support them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×