Arleigh Burkes vs Kirov

>>31760932
1 Burke > Admiral Memeov

stalemate

My CMANO expertise says Burkes.

Even new Kirov of the Nakhimov kind cannot beat Burkes. 80 antiship missiles and 98 anti air missiles with surface attack capabilities is not enough to dent the defense of a Burke.

Only Chinese ships can defend the mainland against American ships.

How would it even play out? Kirov launches 20 P-700 at long range, do any of them hit? The kirov has an absurd amount of AA, how many missiles can the burkes hope to throw at it?

Would it end up a fight with guns and torpedoes?

>>31762391
> Kirov launches 20 P-700 at long range, do any of them hit?
One or two assuming they launch at the same time. If staggered then the probably drops to none.

>The kirov has an absurd amount of AA, how many missiles can the burkes hope to throw at it?
A single Burke can track and engage more missiles than a Kirov can. The newer russian frigates can do much better than a Kirov in AA.

File: 1319405466134.jpg (229KB, 1679x1033px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1679x1033px

>>31760932
One on one duel? Kirov wins, hands down. Thou, that is stupid, since Burke is hardly an adequate target.

One Kirov on carrier group, protected by ordinary number of Burkes? Will most likely damage the carrier, but the amount of damage will depend on too many factors, that we hardly could estimate.

inb4:
>>hurr durr `murrica`s shit is better than slavshit!! hurr durr you are rusaboo!!

>>31762738
>Kirov wins, hands down.

kirov was not single day combat worthy in its miserable life ...

but i do have fastest car in the world, its only broken now, just you wait till i fix it

>One Kirov on carrier group

would not stand a chance, do you even understand how naval combat works ?

battle space control motherfucker

>>31762335
>80 antiship missiles and 98 anti air missiles with surface attack capabilities is not enough to dent the defense of a Burke.


Stop thinking that CIWS, RAM and SMs have a 100% success rate. A single missile going off only near a modern ship will shower the deck with shrapnel, disabling or damaging lot's of radar equipment.
Metall spall is basically chaff, anti missile and missile systems constantly fail, etc.

The answer to ops question is, we don't know.

>>31763602
It could but it won't.

My CMANO scenario says so.

Burkes.

>>31762738
both ships are one shot and dead, so I'll bet on the burke as it's smaller and has better EW.

>>31760932

Isn't it most likely that both sides would end up shooting down all incoming missiles and then it would turn into a gun fight?

>>31767400
Kirov is hardly a one shot kill, unless you use nuclear warheads (and that simplifies the result to mutual destruction). Size and partial armor do somewhat matter.
And in case of Burke, this magnitude of scale difference doesn`t matter much even for "Granit". There won`t be a miss unless missile is jammed or destroyed. Supposedly, "Onyx" is even more accurate and protected against EW.

>>31767726

>Kirov is hardly a one shot kill

Real life is not a video game. The Kirov does not get more "hitpoints" simply from being a larger vessel.

File: 3r41 volna radar on 1164 varyag.jpg (563KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 3264x2448px

>>31762525
>A single Burke can track and engage more missiles than a Kirov can
Lol. Burkes don't even have multi-channel radar, they use three radars for what Kirov does with one or its two "tits". And Petr Velikiy has one of these two radars changed for an S-400 radar that ever further extends its capabilities.

>>31768037
It does. A Granit warhead is enough to pretty much demolish almost every single system on any destroyer. One Harpoon hitting Kirov will cause significant damage, but nowhere near enough to knock out all of its weapon and control systems.

>>31768037
It does. Bigger vessel means more space, more space means more bulkheads and less chance something critical gets hit, as well as more time to get fires and leaks under control. That is directly translated in how many missiles you need for a guaranteed kill.

My money's on the Burkes. My heart tells me they are better maintained than any Kirov class at this point. Also the combined ewar suites of both Burkes seems like nothing to scoff at, but I'm no expert.

>>31768127

Burkes use multiple radars because you get better performance this way. The search radar never has to stop doing it's job of scanning for and tracking threats, while the fire control radar performs terminal guidance.

Also deluded vatniks think mechanically scanned radars will do nearly as well in a high threat count enviroment.

>>31768355
>think mechanically scanned radars will do nearly as well in a high threat count enviroment.
That explains the SPG-62s then.

>>31760932
Of course everyone will say Burkes because /k/ is filled with nogun Britbongs who still live on the "Britannia rules the waves" meme. But there isn't a single ship on earth that wouldn't be on the bottom of the sea after a 1x1 against a Kirov-class battlecruiser.

>>31768191
The Burkes would have the upper hand even if the Kirov was mint condition.

>>31762738
Dat rust.

>>31760932
I'm putting my money on the 2 Burkes.

>>31767726
Kirov is a one shot kill. Sorry buddy but this is the real world, what do you think happens when a ASM tears into it's reactor or all that ammo and rocket fuel it's loaded with?

>>31768935
Or it does not tear into it's reactor or all that ammo and rocket fuel, since it is a big fucking ship.

>>31768425
Burkes aren't British you retard. People say they're going to win is because they're proven and Aegeis is an outstanding battle system. Plus Russia has always had a sub par navy.

>>31769020
>because they're proven and Aegeis is an outstanding battle system
Proven by what, i am sorry? Shooting down a couple of silkworms, an Iranian airliner and two chinese missiles?

>>31769044
Russian naval vessels are only proven to be delayed for deployment or sinking in their own ports.

>>31768935
Hit it where the vls tubes are. The Kirov class's entire vls area is one bulkhead.

>>31768425
I thought burkes were american

>>31760932
Kirov suffers a reactor failure and gets sent to the bottom.

>>31769412
They are. He's just a retard.

>>31769412
USA is just an extension of the British empire.

>>31769356
Or spewing black smoke for everyone to see

>>31760932

Once AEGIS was introduced, the Kirov's entire reason for existing was thwarted.

>>31763602
Yes we do, a Burke would win one on one, unlike the Kirov a Burke actually has functioning EW capabilities.

>>31768127
Well that's just flat out wrong, S400 radar isn't nearly enough to track and engage multiple inbound missile threats. And the Burkes do have a multi channel radar...

>>31762738
>One Kirov on carrier group

> Kirov detected 600nm out
> Deadly strike sent out, reaches Kirov @ 500nm out
> Kirov confirmed sunk t minus 18 minutes from detection

>>31769707
>S400 radar isn't nearly enough to track and engage multiple inbound missile threats.
Whut? 30N6E2 tracks and engages 12 targets, AN/SPG-62 on Burke tracks and engages 3.

>>31769768
>12 targets, 3 targets

If by 12 you mean maybe 2.

And if by 3 you mean 6+

>>31769818
>If by 12 you mean maybe 2.
Nah, its 12.
>And if by 3 you mean 6+
Nah, its 3.

>>31760932
Russia, good CIWS, pick one.

The Russians don't have good missile interception, they never really have.

>>31769768

30N6E2 tracks and engages 12

AN/SPY-1 tracks well over 300, identifies them, then assigns threat values.

Then AN/SPG-62 engages 3, then engages another 3 in about 4 seconds, because it's only needed for terminal guidance in the last few seconds.

>>31769622
Aegis was made to work with a fleet of ships working together to protect each other. A lone ship(or two ships in OP's case) with Aegis are nearly useless and can easily be saturated, especially against Velikiy which is the cruiser made to saturate defenses.

>>31769833

>especially against Velikiy which is the cruiser made to saturate defenses.

What makes it so special?

>>31769830
>AN/SPY-1 tracks well over 300, identifies them, then assigns threat values.
Thats what 96L6E does.
>Then AN/SPG-62 engages 3, then engages another 3 in about 4 seconds, because it's only needed for terminal guidance in the last few seconds.
Thats what the whole system does.

>>31769833
Aegis can work with a fleet of ships, but it's perfectly capable of functioning alone, especially with SM-6 coming online with their active radar seekers and ESSM giving one Burke well over 100 interceptors.

>>31769826
nice refutation

>>31769888

> Thats what 96L6E does.

You've got 1 that faces forward on a pivoting mount, vs 4 that gives 360 coverage at all times.

That one also has less power output, less elements, and less computational power behind it than one of the 4 SPY-1 panels.

>>31769830
>>31769888
And the only missiles the US still uses that need terminal guidance are ESSM, until Block II's that is.

>>31769986
>You've got 1 that faces forward on a pivoting mount
Rotating pivoting mount.
>That one also has less power output, less elements, and less computational power behind it than one of the 4 SPY-1 panels.
Yet 300 is the amount of targets it tracks.

>>31770064

Almaz themselves say 100 max

http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/1219/1241/1333

Kirov's are going to be equipped with hypersonic Zircon missiles in the future.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a20565/russia-hypersonic-missiles-battlecruisers

>>31770105
Pardon, i fucked up. Its indeed 100.

>>31770160
Sure it will.

>>31760932

Has it ever been conclusively proven that the standard missiles are capable of engaging a supersonic missile like the P-700 Granit?

>>31770352

Well during R&D, they tested the Standards on old Talos missiles launched on a surface to surface profile. Those have ramjet engines and cruise at mach 2.5.

>>31770352
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GQM-163_Coyote

>>31770352
Exhaustively, you turd. Try using google before shitposting.

>>31770160
>mach 5
>hypersonic

Oh Russia. Bending the borders of language to pretend your crappy gear can keep up, and that's merely in the propaganda fight.

Technically hypersonic might, might include mach 5. If you stretch the definition to it's breaking point. In the American sense, it doesn't even start till around Mach 7-8, and usually refers to higher values around 8-12. 15-20, at the high end.

>>31768954
uhhh it's mostly VLS tubes. One hit = BOOM

>>31769829
Dat projections, coming from a country that has fucking Phalanx instead of CIWS.

>>31770739
He said like Granit, not like Moskit.

File: kh-22.jpg (241KB, 800x583px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 800x583px

>>31770814
List of hypersonic capable Russian missiles in service since the 70s: Kh-22M.
List of hypersonic capable American missiles in service, ever: 404 not found.
Stay mad.

Money is on the burke the kirov were famous for falling apart plus naval doctrine of the United States is pretty solid overall

>>31771150
Kh-22 are not hypersonic

>>31771231
Kh-22M goes M=5, so yeah, it is hypersonic.

>>31771256
4000 km/h is not mach 5

>>31771312
Yet Mach 5 is Mach 5. And that's how fast Kh-22M goes.

>>31771379

Do you have any proof of this?

>>31771392
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/x22/x22.shtml

>>31771392
His proof will be "about mach 5" statements from non Russian websites that rounded mach 4.6 to mach 5.

>>31771425
>Cкopocть пoлeтa 3.5-4.6M 4000км/ч (4-6M)

4000 km/h

>>31771444

Well, Mach 4.6 is still pretty damn fast, but it is still nothing that AEGIS can't easily defeat.

>>31771461
>(4-6M)
>>31771474
>1962
>Aegis

>>31771150
Superior American recon-strike complex means Americans could afford to use superior subsonic missiles until recently.

Supersonics are a shitty patch for poor sensors and datalinks.

It takes high-hypersonic speeds to make speed useful, which has only just just become important since the US is facing Pacific competition from a genuine competitor, China.

Boost/glide missiles are old American technology that was expended (alongside nuclear Tomahawks) as a deliberate political trump card, look up the Pershing II counter-airfield project.

>>31768355
You realize the mk99s are mechanically steered and must operate in time share mode when directing multiple missles, right?

>>31768425
Wtf? Are u fucking retarded?

>>31771515
Incidentally, for the inevitable, ignorant manchildren who think "more speed = more good": a good source is McEachron's 1997 paper "Subsonic and Supersonic Antiship Missiles- An Effectiveness and Utility Comparison."

tl;dr supersonic used to be shit, but thanks to modern electronics it become merely slightly inferior in the 00s time period.

>>31771515
>genuine competitor, China.
Lol. Even if they could gain actual near-parity, their economy would be hurt far more by a conflict with the US.

>>31771515
And superior American recon-strike complex meant that Americans could afford to use dumb iron bombs against ships, until Eilat was sunk by Termit missiles that is.

>>31771569
Yes, right now their calorie imbalance and oil importation routes render them exquisitely vulnerable to the US Navy.

But neither country is thinking about the immediate future except in terms of forcing economic competition through counter-arms races, like with the DF21.

Thucydides' dilemma revolves around the 15-30 year time range. China is only going upward, however trammeled its progress may be.

Russia, whatever it's short-term gains, or long-term prospects, is only going down in the mid term.

>>31771494
Yes, your citation said 4.6

>>31771530
Time share is for multiple targets per illuminator, and the only missile Burkes use that require SPG-62 are ESSM.

>>31771598
It wasn't even a concept, back in the late 1950s; because fusion bombs were the strategic news

But I'm sure you knew that and weren't just taking a cheap shot divorced from historical context as a kneejerk reaction to the revelation of vatnik inferiority in the microelectronics race of the 80s.

File: AdmiralKuznyecov_legvedelem[1].jpg (150KB, 900x1154px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 900x1154px

>>31769829

>Russia, good CIWS, pick one.

CIWS is something that Russia actually does very well.

>>31771720
ROFL.

So it takes 18 Russian PD systems for the Russians to be confident; while the Americans need 4?

I'd say that means the Russians think their PD is a fifth as effective as American PD...or maybe their area defense systems are simply inferior, that they need to spend extra effort on last-ditch defenses instead.

>>31771720
If something gets that close to a US carrier that it needs native missile defense, a great deal of things have gone horribly wrong.

A Kirov has 20 anti ship missiles. How many can it launch simultaneously? If 2 or less, then it's basically a stalemate because a Burke would easily handle one or two anti-ship missiles coming at it.

>>31772070
>How many can it launch simultaneously?
They are passive/active guided, so one every few seconds.

>>31771761
I believe the Russian's intent is to operate the carrier with fewer escort, which places a heavier air defense demand on the carrier.

>>31772218
No Russian ships just tend to have more CIWS than US ships. Their Udaloy and Sovremenny class destroyers have 4 AK-630 compared to 1 or 2 Phalanx of the Spruance and Arleigh Burke class.
The Slava class cruisers have 6 AK-630 compared to the 2 of the Ticos.

>>31771761

>So it takes 18 Russian PD systems for the Russians to be confident; while the Americans need 4?

American aircraft carriers are surrounded by AEGIS destroyers for neutralizing threats. Russia only has 1 carrier and Russia doesn't even have enough shops to give it a proper escort. So the carrier must be able to defend itself.

>>31768425
U WOT M8?

>>31772218
>I believe the Russian's intent is to operate the carrier with fewer escort, which places a heavier air defense demand on the carrier.
The Russian carrier isn't an actually carrier. It's a glorified cruiser with a runway. Its main mission is to defend itself like a Burke so it can get close enough to launch its 12 Granit missiles.

>>31771494
are you a retard?

>>31772470
>Its main mission is to defend itself like a Burke so it can get close enough to launch its 12 Granit missiles.
No, not really. Northern fleet was always pretty much a meatshield to defend SLBMs.

>>31772286
It's an aircraft cruiser, not a carrier.
>>31773923
Are you?
>>31773926
Yes, really. It is a cruiser with a runway and in does act like a cruiser in its role and function, only that it has aircraft instead of long range SAMs.

>>31772470
They are patrol boats.

The worst enemy of a submarine is an aircraft. The Kuz carries aircrafts to counter the aircrafts that are supposed to find subs. They don't project but just circle around the bastion.

>>31772218
Soviet intend was to have as stable BG as possible after nuclear shit. So, even 2 ships could be something capable of self-sufficient actions on sea. That's why so many weapons. As fleetfags say - Soviet build ship, then begin to put missiles on him. When ship begins to sink, they take one missile away.
>>31772470
>Its main mission is to defend itself like a Burke so it can get close enough to launch its 12 Granit missiles.
Nope, it's main mission is to protect submarines under him long enough (15 minutes) to launch all nukes. Same shit goes to Kirov class, which is, basically, swimming AA defence division. And that's why this ships (and all soviet-build ships after trident II) suck in everything not related to mutual nuclear destruction.

File: 1472262034408.png (1MB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x720px

>>31773980

>It's an aircraft cruiser, not a carrier.

>A large ship with a flight deck running the entire length of the ship

>Not a carrier

>>31772254

That's also cause Russian ship's combat information systems aren't good enough to handle a saturation attack, and their payload of SAMs is lacking.

Udaloy only has the equivalent of 4 Tors strapped to the deck, while Sovremenny has some naval Buks. Both are are far inferior to SM-2 in range and guidance power.

They are going to get a lot more "leakers" past the missiles based defenses, so they need more CIWS for point defense.

Slava vs Tico is the same story. S-300F is a closer match for SM-2, but Slava just doesn't carry enough of them. Once you run out of S-300's, it's only Osas left, and good luck shooting down missiles with that.

>>31774801
Even by russian classification Kuznetsov is "plane carrying cruiser"
It has more missiles than planes on it

>>31774902
In time when they build those it was top of the line and pretty impenetrable. Now, of course things are different. Udaloy-class will be modernized, same with Kirov(in process) and Slava class (already done). Anything else is so fucked up that it will be replaced with new ships. Maybe they will keep Krivak-class too.

>>31774918

"plane carrying"

Oh, so it carries planes? You mean, like an aircraft carrier? It might also be a cruiser, but that's not mutually exclusive.

>>31775055
It is what the builder and operator calls it, not what a neckbeard on the interwebs insists it is based on his personal classification.

>>31774801
And in the last thread we could hear all the vatniks sing us the song of how it is an aircraft cruiser and not a carrier, so they have an exuse for its performance carrier wise. Russboos are just fucking hypocrites, who will claim one thing and the opposite in the next thread to their fitting, while the rest of em sits silent beside the ever changing claims.

File: 1473204616997.jpg (70KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 800x600px

>>31775181

>It is what the builder and operator calls it

So then does that mean that the DPRK is a Democratic Republic?

>>31775278
>if the other person would say something like this i would call him an idiot
>but since i am the smug picture shitposter of /k/ i demand to be right
Kinda pretty repetitive with you.

>>31775278
Does that mean that the average orange isnt orange?

>>31775473
Oranges are naturally green and artificially induced aging turns them orange.

>>31775725
So you need flee to autism, because you cant understand others and discuss like a normal person? You would be the first to call others idiots, if they would try something like this.

>>31775725
>artificially induced aging turns them orange.
>artificially
You just went full retarded.

>>31760932
Kirov V. Iowa.

>>31774801
This board gets dumber by the day

>>31768425
Found the slavaboo

>>31770160
>in the future

I'll throw that in the same pile as the PAK50, AK12, and Armata tank. Especially since the drop in oil prices and sanctions over their fuckery in Ukraine, the Russians simply have no way to fund their decade old plan at modernising the military. Remember how they were still issuing potyanki until 2012-14?

File: kirovtt.jpg (2MB, 2000x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1440px

>>31760932
Can Granit be fired at land targets?

>>31777815
Yes, the submarine Smolensk fired a Granit at a ground target about a week ago.

File: kirovtopj.jpg (97KB, 985x572px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 985x572px

>>31777848
I see, thank you!

>>31777848
Do you have source on this?Cant seem to find one?

File: 3624479_original.jpg (305KB, 1300x829px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1300x829px

>>31778145
Yeah, only in Russian though.
>https://lenta.ru/news/2016/10/17/achtotakmozhnobylo/

>>31773980
>>31774801
>>31774918
Wasn't "Aircraft Carrying Cruiser" really a political thing? A treaty dodge or something like that?

File: clip+(2015-09-08+at+11.14.38).jpg (250KB, 1008x672px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1008x672px

>>31778240
>achtotakmozhnobylo
my sides