What's new

Iranian Navy | News and Discussions

sahureka2

FULL MEMBER
Apr 23, 2016
846
0
2,627
Country
Italy
Location
Italy
put the hanger in middle of the ship
Not in the center.
The SH-3D helicopter is 22.1 meters long and 5.13 meters high, the bridge currently measures a length of "80 meters".
In order to build an adequate hangar in such dimensions as to be able to receive at least 3 SH-3D helicopters and the maintenance structures (for example 2 parked ready to exit in front of the shutter openings and 1 centrally located in the maintenance area), in the photoshop I expanded the deck forward, but it shouldn't be enough, so a portion of the current flight deck would also have to be sacrificed.
However, a large flight deck would still be usable.

Before


After


Certainly mine is just a photoshop to evaluate how it could look with the hangar and command structures at the bow and it absolutely does not want to be a project, for this certainly the Iranian engineers are the most qualified people to make it.
 
Last edited:

Muhammed45

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 2, 2015
6,373
-2
9,445
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
put the hanger in middle of the ship
The main Structure of this naval ship belonged to an oil tanker. You cannot put consider able amount of load in the Middle of the ship without calculating the bending strength of the main Structure in that specific point. The one that @sahureka2 chose we can claim without calculation that is most suitable point for placing a hangar given the fact that placing hangar near the forecastle part of the ship could make a Balance of force with accommodation part of ship. However, if it was a Container ship then your suggestion could be suitable also.
 

Shawnee

FULL MEMBER
Jan 22, 2020
1,330
0
2,337
Country
United States
Location
United Kingdom
Not in the center.
The SH-3D helicopter is 22.1 meters long and 5.13 meters high, the bridge currently measures a length of "80 meters".
In order to build an adequate hangar in such dimensions as to be able to receive at least 3 SH-3D helicopters and the maintenance structures (for example 2 parked ready to exit in front of the shutter openings and 1 centrally located in the maintenance area), in the photoshop I expanded the deck forward, but it shouldn't be enough, so a portion of the current flight deck would also have to be sacrificed.
However, a large flight deck would still be usable.

Before


After


Certainly mine is just a photoshop to evaluate how it could look with the hangar and command structures at the bow and it absolutely does not want to be a project, for this certainly the Iranian engineers are the most qualified people to make it.
This might look a bit like a fantasy now.
I am thinking of Shahed 129 and its possible STOL on this deck.

In that case the bow hangar would be a barrier.

Shahed 129 take off:

 

sahureka2

FULL MEMBER
Apr 23, 2016
846
0
2,627
Country
Italy
Location
Italy
This might look a bit like a fantasy now.
I am thinking of Shahed 129 and its possible STOL on this deck.

In that case the bow hangar would be a barrier.

Shahed 129 take off:

Makran 441 in that configuration it is certainly not suitable for conventional take-offs and landings, instead it fits for helicopters, tiltrotors, VTOL take-off aircraft,
 

Bahram Esfandiari

FULL MEMBER
Jan 9, 2017
1,202
-2
2,385
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
This might look a bit like a fantasy now.
I am thinking of Shahed 129 and its possible STOL on this deck.

In that case the bow hangar would be a barrier.

Shahed 129 take off:

I would prefer Karrar UCAVs for the Makran. Karrar is easy to launch, can carry a much larger payload including Anti-Ship missiles/ Mk-46 Torpedo and is much faster while still having a descent operational range. The biggest challenge would be recovery but i don't see why it cant be fitted with floatation air bags and a parachute.
 
Last edited:

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,164
-10
5,267
Country
United States
Location
United States
I would prefer Karrar UCAVs for the Makran. Karrar is easy to launch, can carry a much larger payload including Anti-Ship missiles/ Mk-46 Torpedo and is much faster while still having a descent operational range. The biggest challenge would be recovery but i don't see why it cant be fitted with floatation air bags and a parachute.
It could be caught with a net similar to other UAVs that lack landing capability (scan eagle)

As the drone approaches Makran, it kills the engine and glides into a net that is hoisted up.

Drone falling into water is not advised as salt water can wreck havoc on electronic subsystems.
Iran just fired a ballistic missile over 1800km into Indian Ocean 100 miles from USS Nimitz. Very impressive.


I'm thinking Khaliji-e-Fars?
PG doesn’t have that range.

Had to be a Ghad-r or Sejill. Slight chance it was a modified Haj Gassem missile
 

WudangMaster

FULL MEMBER
Apr 17, 2014
505
0
932
Country
United States
Location
United States
Drone falling into water is not advised as salt water can wreck havoc on electronic subsystems.
I was thinking the same for the engine, even with dorsal intake, salt water can easily splash into the engine and the whole thing will have to dismantled and rebuilt. I think pelicans are the most ideal for this platform as I think they are something like a vtol scan eagle in essence.
 

Shawnee

FULL MEMBER
Jan 22, 2020
1,330
0
2,337
Country
United States
Location
United Kingdom

I add this to HI Sutton paper:

Possibilities:
- There is service/repair issues. Then why not doing it in a covered dry deck for more secrecy!??
- Iran has more Fateh or similar semi heavy subs than we think and she can afford to do this. This argument opens a can of worms.
- These are just good decoys and the goal is causing confusion.
 
Last edited:

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,164
-10
5,267
Country
United States
Location
United States

I add this to HI Sutton paper:

Possibilities:
- There is service/repair issues. Then why not doing it in a covered dry deck for more secrecy!??
- Iran has more Fateh or similar semi heavy subs than we think and she can afford to do this. This argument opens a can of worms.
- These are just good decoys and the goal is causing confusion.
The reality is Iran cannot service these as well as the Russians. And the service it does do ends up creating the need for more frequent servicing.

Not to mention theses subs are approaching 25 years of service and were built using export technology at the time.
 

Shawnee

FULL MEMBER
Jan 22, 2020
1,330
0
2,337
Country
United States
Location
United Kingdom
The reality is Iran cannot service these as well as the Russians. And the service it does do ends up creating the need for more frequent servicing.

Not to mention theses subs are approaching 25 years of service and were built using export technology at the time.
Maybe you are right.

Logically there are more decoys than real stuff.
Everything is real for the OSINT guys. I wonder where the decoys are.
 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,164
-10
5,267
Country
United States
Location
United States
Maybe you are right.

Logically there are more decoys than real stuff.
Everything is real for the OSINT guys. I wonder where the decoys are.
A satellite has a variety of ways to detect a decoy.

If they can figure out the atmosphere composition of a planet thousands of light years away (or more), they can figure out if the sub is fake or not.

Decoys help more against UAVs now a days.
 

sha ah

FULL MEMBER
Mar 2, 2018
761
0
1,066
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
They could be doing extra maintenance or modernizing, upgrading various parts. We simply don't know.

Maybe you are right.

Logically there are more decoys than real stuff.
Everything is real for the OSINT guys. I wonder where the decoys are.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom