Iran Equips Destroyer with Upgraded Surface-to-Air Missile

[Hack-Hook]

the first one I can think of is Molniya Class that carries 16 anti-ship missiles
and currently in service in Turkmenistan.

I don't even know what you are saying in second part , maybe you can comprehend my previous comment better.

Is it hard to understand the weapons can only be used against certain targets due to its launch angle?

you know by looking at this you see the key point is "Or" not "And"

Armament:

• 4 x P-15 Termit/SS-N-2 Styx or 4 x P-270 Moskit/SS-N-22 Sunburn or 8 x Kh-35 Uran/SS-N-25 Switchblade anti-ship missiles.

depending on the weapon of choice it can carry 4 to 8 missile , it can't carry any torpedo and the radars are weaker than what we put on our ships and it don't have a landing pad. and by the way that ship also don't have any VLS . and only can stay in sea independently for 10 day .
and don't forget the missile we use has 220km of range which is 100km more than the ones used in the ship you mentioned

by the way I'm still interested about that biggest shipyard in Caspian see as I've found this interesting article
Azerbaijan Buying Coast Guard Vessels From Israel | EurasiaNet.org

and what you don't understand is that why firing missile with an angle is considered restrictive for you

 

[Azeri440]

you know by looking at this you see the key point is "Or" not "And"

depending on the weapon of choice it can carry 4 to 8 missile , it can't carry any torpedo and the radars are weaker than what we put on our ships and it don't have a landing pad. and by the way that ship also don't have any VLS . and only can stay in sea independently for 10 day .

by the way I'm still interested about that biggest shipyard in Caspian see as I've found this interesting article
Azerbaijan Buying Coast Guard Vessels From Israel | EurasiaNet.org

I was talking about its armament not radars and etc.
The shipyard is built not for military purposes but for civilian with some future orders from Navy

where did I claim Azerbaijan builds its own naval ships , I was claiming Azerbaijan having the biggest shipyard in the Caspian can build a lot more than leisure boats that you claimed

Those OPVs are built in a shipyard that belongs to Border Guards
Azerbaijan has no base for its own development , so license is only option

maybe you can understand now.

 

[Oublious]

Every navy in the world are trying to make a destroyer and nobody is capable except americans with ther arleigh burke class. For some navy like uk is type 45 a destroyer, or the dutch with ther 7provicien class and others.

But the iranian version of the destroyer is really amongst the destroyers poor, starved and abused.

 

[The SC]

Every navy in the world are trying to make a destroyer and nobody is capable except americans with ther arleigh burke class. For some navy like uk is type 45 a destroyer, or the dutch with ther 7provicien class and others.

But the iranian version of the destroyer is really amongst the destroyers poor, starved and abused.

That like comparing a magnum 44 caliber against a pocket 9 mm pistol special edition. both can kill efficiently, and both have advantages and disadvantages...

 

[Oublious]

That like comparing a magnum 44 caliber against a pocket 9 mm pistol. both can kill, and both have advantages and disadvantages...

Then don't call it a destroyer. They put a lot of effort to show the world we did it, no you didn't succeeded. You made a corvet not a destroyer.

 

[The SC]

Then don't call it a destroyer. They put a lot of effort to show the world we did it, no you didn't succeeded. You made a corvet not a destroyer.

It is a destroyer in the sense that if it hits someone with its special munition it kills him as much as a magnum does. Call it a dingy if you want, it changes nothing to its capabilities.

 

[Oublious]

It is a destroyer in the sense that if it hits someone with its special munition it kills him as much as a magnum does. Call it a dingy if you want, it changes nothing to its capabilities.

So when a limited air to air capaballity bomber fighter hit a air superior fighter will be also a air superior fighter? Like that magnum and 9 mm comparing?

wher do you get your millitairy doctrine?

 

[The SC]

So when a limited air to air capaballity bomber fighter hit a air superior fighter will be also a air superior fighter? Like that magnum and 9 mm comparing?

wher do you get your millitairy doctrine?

You should ask yourself that question about military matters.
Damavand and Jamaran can fire "BVR" antiship missiles at about 300km. That makes your argument quite out of place.

 

[scythian500]

Then don't call it a destroyer. They put a lot of effort to show the world we did it, no you didn't succeeded. You made a corvet not a destroyer.

For thousandth time... In Persian, any kind of bigger than boat-size ships (ships with more than couple of hundreds of tonnes in displacement) are called "Nav or Nav shekan" that means a ship that can hit NAVY SHIPS... or Aircraft carrier as "Nav havapeyma bar" .....

Actually the word NAV is originally a shared Indo-European word meaning BOAT... shared by all Indo-european languages including Farsi (Persian);

Word Origin and History for navel:
n. Old English nafela, nabula, from Proto-Germanic *nabalan (cf. Old Norsenafli, Danish and Swedish navle, Old Frisian navla, Middle Dutch and Dutchnavel, Old High German nabalo, German Nabel), from PIE *(o)nobh- "navel" (cf. Sanskrit nabhila "navel, nave, relationship;" Avestan nafa "navel," naba-nazdishta "next of kin;" Persian naf; Latin umbilicus "navel;" Old Prussiannabis "navel;" Greek omphalos; Old Irish imbliu).
or
"Na khuda" from ناو nāv boat (from Old Persian) + خدا khudā master, from Middle Persian khutāi. a master of a native vessel.[234]
List of English words of Persian origin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iranian commanders know well what a frigate or destroyer or a "Missile Frigate" means... so it is not about Iranians trying to call these frigates Destroyer... We have bigger real destroyers in English scale that are called "Razm Nav" means Battle ship... It is a difference in language and translation... so where ever you see they said Destroyer it is a journalistic not military professional translation made by using PAR to PAR translation into English...

Professional translation:

"The 1,400 ton frigate is undergoing sea trials ahead of planned deployments in the Caspian Sea", Iranian Navy Rear Adm. Habibollah Sayyari said in an address to navy commanders at a base in Bandar Anzali on Tuesday.

or a non-pro translation:

Damavand faster, stronger than Jamaran: Iran navy commander | The Iran Project
or here;

and here;

So please stop this non sense arguments...

 

[The Last of us]

Its not AESA. Veooz is just social network - anyone can post there. Here examples of AESA radars:

These are PESA:

Iran is not at AESA level?
Educate yourself before commenting and wasting thread space with your non-sense.

Hafez AESA radar. Range 250km. Can simultaneously target 100 target and track them:
There is also basir and najim radar.

Iran has yet to show an aircraft AESA radar. But there are some talks of such radar being in development.

 

[500]

Iran is not at AESA level?
Educate yourself before commenting and wasting thread space with your non-sense.

Hafez AESA radar. Range 250km. Can simultaneously target 100 target and track them:
There is also basir and najim radar.

Iran has yet to show an aircraft AESA radar. But there are some talks of such radar being in development.

No evidence its AESA or even working radar.

 

[The Last of us]

No evidence its AESA or even working radar.

What a stupid childish comment. I suppose you did not have anything else to say other than your usual nonsense.
Here is a video of it alonside another longer range (600km range radar)

You're obvious a troll with pathetic attempts at trying to backtrack your moronic claims. You first claim AESA radar have to be "thick" then when I show you a radar which has been stated to be a AESA like a little buthurt kid you have nothing say except there is no evidence it is working. What evidence do you need? Do you have any such evidence your own Americans made , oops sorry I mean "Israelii" ground based aesa radars are working?


How did this guy become a think tank?

 

[500]

What a stupid childish comment. I suppose you did not have anything else to say other than your usual nonsense.
Here is a video of it alonside another longer range (600km range radar)

You're obvious a troll with pathetic attempts at trying to backtrack your moronic claims. You first claim AESA radar have to be "thick" then when I show you a radar which has been stated to be a AESA like a little buthurt kid you have nothing say except there is no evidence it is working.

You make 5 year old logic mistake. AESA should be thick =/= everything thick is AESA.

What evidence do you need? Do you have any such evidence your own Americans made , oops sorry I mean "Israelii" ground based aesa radars are working?

Israel is the first country in the world to make airborne AESA radars. Surely we can make ground based as well, from huge Green Pine to tiny Winguard.

 

[scythian500]

You make 5 year old logic mistake. AESA should be thick =/= everything thick is AESA.


Israel is the first country in the world to make airborne AESA radars. Surely we can make ground based as well, from huge Green Pine to tiny Winguard.

It is all propaganda... every sane observer knows that Occupied Palestine can make nothing by its own... They all are American funded and Foreign made only assembled and installed in there but by American agents...

By the way, there is no evidence that Green Pine is an AESA and it is working... if you wanna show me films or movies spare us...they are all photoshop as Israhellis are famous for deception... I won,t believe Those American built Radars are AESA and Working until I see them working by detecting, tracking and guiding a missile to an Iranian at least Sejjil-2 missile... mean while, there is no evidence you even have a country...

 

[Daneshmand]

We call frigates "destroyer" in Iran ... just sayin ...

Not at all. It is a mis-translation which is insignificant since these terms (frigate, destroyer etc) do not have clear distinctions and defintions themselves.

In Farsi, the term that is used, is Naav. It is the old Persian term for battleship. Later on this Persian word was loaned by European languages from which terms such as navy and navigation were later derived.

The English language does not have an equivalent technical word for Naav. That is where the confusion arises when translating.