Iran plans to build aircraft carrier, boost naval warfare capabilities

[gambit]

Since you're a veteran of the USN,...

USAF. F-111 and F-16.

...which special forces is better, SEALS or British SAS? I guess what I'm really trying the ask is do we have the best specials forces (Delta, Rangers, Green Berret, etc, etc...)

This is a question that everyone loves to have the answer. THE answer. The reality is that none is better than the other.

Here is the reality...

In the US military, there is only one 'special forces' group, and that is the US Army Special Forces Command, aka the 'Green Berets', although they do not like that label. Everyone else, from Navy SEALs to Army Rangers to USAF SpecOps to Marines Force Recon, are 'special operations' units. Rangers could be called 'extreme infantry'. Force Recon would be 'extreme Marines'. SEALs would be 'extreme sailors'. Combat Controllers would be 'extreme airmen'.

When most people ask 'who is better', the unspoken question is 'who could kick whose @ss'. And that is the wrong question.

Extraordinary forces are not created to hunt other extraordinary forces. Spetsnaz were not created to hunt Rangers or SEALs.

If you are a SEAL, your mission is to support naval operations that requires exceptional preparations such as close up reconnaissance of a particular target designated for future operations by the 'regular' navy forces, for one example.

If you are a Ranger ( @jhungary ), your mission is to support Army long term goals thru short term operations such as seizure of a vital airfield, for one example.

If you are USAF Pararescue (PJ), your mission is to recover downed pilots because we believe the pilot is worth the effort.

If you are Marine Force Recon, your mission is to provide the main Marine force with important target intelligence for impending operations.

Of all these missions, the highest threats to your success are not enemy special operations forces but -- believe it or not -- the weather and the terrain. These men -- and so far these units are entirely staffed by men -- are trained to operate as teams. The 'lone wolf' theme is Hollywood. A single sprained ankle can fail the mission, if the team leader deems it necessary. They carry limited resources so the teams must carefully husband what they have. That means avoidance of open combat if possible. If anything, if combat occurs while on course to the target, the mission, whatever that maybe, will be aborted. The enemy can pretty much guess where you are heading. Fighting to the objective is Hollywood where the good guys seems to have unlimited ammunition and grenades, and air support is seconds away.

If there is a question of who is 'better' than whom, the real question is who is better than whom at achieving the same objective by way of training. You can designate any unit as 'special whatever' but that does not automatically make that unit comparable to other country's 'special whatever'. Landlocked Mongolia would not have an amphibious force like the US Marines, correct ? Likewise, it would be absurd for a naval power like the US or Russia or the United Kingdom NOT to have amphibious capable forces. So for the US, Russia, and the UK, the question would be whose marines are 'better' at landing on beaches and holding their objectives, not whose marines can kill more of the other marines.

Also I wanted to add that the idea of the Arsenal ship just sounds bad.

Not really. A battleship is an arsenal ship, of sorts. And do not dismiss the battleship as a relic. The USS Iowa battleship can carry over 1200 16 in shells.

For example...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armament_of_the_Iowa-class_battleship

The Mk. 8 APC (Armor-Piercing, Capped) shell weighed 2,700 lb (1225 kg) and was designed to penetrate the hardened steel armor carried by foreign battleships.[2] At 20,000 yards (18 km) the Mk. 8 could penetrate 20 inches (500 mm) of steel armor plate.[24] At the same range, the Mk. 8 could penetrate 21 feet (6.4 m) of reinforced concrete.

Due to lack of funding, we do not know beyond the conceptual level of how large a missile type of arsenal ship must be to match the old battleship in terms of sheer firepower.

I predict that we will see the return of the battleship, not the kind we know from WW II, but a modern battleship whose capabilities have yet to be conceptualize.

Well, I don't think I have.

YOU may not have. But what I am saying is that most people have not done proper study of air power at sea, aka 'naval air power', starting with WW II.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/ten-propositions-for-modern-air-power.472753/

Air power fundamentally changed warfare and changed it at the atomic level. I do not mean dropping the nuclear bomb. I mean changed warfare to the point where the air component, as in attack from the third dimension or being attacked from the same, became ingrained in every commander's thoughts. Every battleplan must make provisions in the event that an attacking force can count on air support or that it would be on the receiving end of an air assault. Air power in WW I was more about experimentation and glamour. Air power in WW II finally became an efficient instrument of killing. Since then, no one is better than US at exploiting the third dimension as an arena of war.

 

[giger]

Grabbing carriers is easier than making however I prefer sinking .
fake news

 

[truthseeker2010]

Thank for joining and contirbuting to the discussion (but none of us need 'lessons' here)
As you may have noticed, basing on the USN Arleigh Burke, we arrived at 6 DDGs via 2 different routes. That is not much different from 5 Sejong the Great variants. That gets you a certain number of VLU cells (not necessarily the missile in those cells too, if we are talking ship acquisition cost). We did not use/count Harpoon on those ships due to its relative short range (instead, we used LRASM from MK41).

Sir, in your opinion what would be the unit cost of Type 055 and Lider class?

 

[Blue In Green]

Lol, you just listed the 2 types of procurement Iran didn't pursue.

All our current surface warships are either procured whole from abroad before the revolution or made in Iran based on foreign designs but there is no licensing its all reverse engineering. Our submarines are Kilos procured already constructed from Russia, Ghadir sub based on NKorean Yono class and completely indigenous Fateh class.

I don't know why I waste my time with you trolls who have no idea what they are talking about.



Thats why you have 500 VLS cells in each Arsenal ship, to shoot down the missiles or outright destroy the launchers with the barrage of Tomahawks at your disposal.

Ah I see, shoot first ask questions later.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Building an aircraft carrier isn't the hardest thing in the world, the Imperial Japanese Navy had 10 aircraft carriers way back in 1941. Of course not with the kind of equipment that modern ones have, but they were still functional aircraft carriers.

If Iran wants to build one, they'll build one. But is it really the best use of resources, in terms of asymmetric warfare they should really be focusing on conventional submarines, ideally with AIP. Which will provide a lot more deterrence value for the cost.

Thailand just bought some AIP submarines from China in the past few days, there are few other things that can provide such a large amount of deterrence for a low cost.

 

[HannibalBarca]

Building an aircraft carrier isn't the hardest thing in the world, the Imperial Japanese Navy had 10 aircraft carriers way back in 1941.

If Iran wants to build one, they'll build one. But is it really the best use of resources, in terms of asymmetric warfare they should really be focusing on conventional submarines, ideally with AIP. Which will provide a lot more deterrence value for the cost.

Thailand just bought some AIP submarines from China in the past few days, there are few other things that can provide such a large amount of deterrence for a low cost.

AC has no deterence value...it's a projection one.

Building an AC is not easy... you need al the industry behind it... whatever it's steel/turbines etc...

And What Iran gonna put on it? which aircraft? F-14? you need some sort of catapult working... What about all the Radar suit? missiles? etc...

And Last for what purpose? playing in the Persian Gulf?

Even Subs is useless for Iran... before subs you need at least a Navy fleet... Iran do not have any... 80% of vessels are patrol boat/fast attack boats... IR has no good/last tech Corvette or Frigate etc...

Who gonna follow & protect that AC? Patrol boat?

 

[Blue In Green]

USAF. F-111 and F-16.


This is a question that everyone loves to have the answer. THE answer. The reality is that none is better than the other.

Here is the reality...

In the US military, there is only one 'special forces' group, and that is the US Army Special Forces Command, aka the 'Green Berets', although they do not like that label. Everyone else, from Navy SEALs to Army Rangers to USAF SpecOps to Marines Force Recon, are 'special operations' units. Rangers could be called 'extreme infantry'. Force Recon would be 'extreme Marines'. SEALs would be 'extreme sailors'. Combat Controllers would be 'extreme airmen'.

When most people ask 'who is better', the unspoken question is 'who could kick whose @ss'. And that is the wrong question.

Extraordinary forces are not created to hunt other extraordinary forces. Spetsnaz were not created to hunt Rangers or SEALs.

If you are a SEAL, your mission is to support naval operations that requires exceptional preparations such as close up reconnaissance of a particular target designated for future operations by the 'regular' navy forces, for one example.

If you are a Ranger ( @jhungary ), your mission is to support Army long term goals thru short term operations such as seizure of a vital airfield, for one example.

If you are USAF Pararescue (PJ), your mission is to recover downed pilots because we believe the pilot is worth the effort.

If you are Marine Force Recon, your mission is to provide the main Marine force with important target intelligence for impending operations.

Of all these missions, the highest threats to your success are not enemy special operations forces but -- believe it or not -- the weather and the terrain. These men -- and so far these units are entirely staffed by men -- are trained to operate as teams. The 'lone wolf' theme is Hollywood. A single sprained ankle can fail the mission, if the team leader deems it necessary. They carry limited resources so the teams must carefully husband what they have. That means avoidance of open combat if possible. If anything, if combat occurs while on course to the target, the mission, whatever that maybe, will be aborted. The enemy can pretty much guess where you are heading. Fighting to the objective is Hollywood where the good guys seems to have unlimited ammunition and grenades, and air support is seconds away.

If there is a question of who is 'better' than whom, the real question is who is better than whom at achieving the same objective by way of training. You can designate any unit as 'special whatever' but that does not automatically make that unit comparable to other country's 'special whatever'. Landlocked Mongolia would not have an amphibious force like the US Marines, correct ? Likewise, it would be absurd for a naval power like the US or Russia or the United Kingdom NOT to have amphibious capable forces. So for the US, Russia, and the UK, the question would be whose marines are 'better' at landing on beaches and holding their objectives, not whose marines can kill more of the other marines.


Not really. A battleship is an arsenal ship, of sorts. And do not dismiss the battleship as a relic. The USS Iowa battleship can carry over 1200 16 in shells.

For example...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armament_of_the_Iowa-class_battleship

Due to lack of funding, we do not know beyond the conceptual level of how large a missile type of arsenal ship must be to match the old battleship in terms of sheer firepower.

I predict that we will see the return of the battleship, not the kind we know from WW II, but a modern battleship whose capabilities have yet to be conceptualize.


YOU may not have. But what I am saying is that most people have not done proper study of air power at sea, aka 'naval air power', starting with WW II.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/ten-propositions-for-modern-air-power.472753/

Air power fundamentally changed warfare and changed it at the atomic level. I do not mean dropping the nuclear bomb. I mean changed warfare to the point where the air component, as in attack from the third dimension or being attacked from the same, became ingrained in every commander's thoughts. Every battleplan must make provisions in the event that an attacking force can count on air support or that it would be on the receiving end of an air assault. Air power in WW I was more about experimentation and glamour. Air power in WW II finally became an efficient instrument of killing. Since then, no one is better than US at exploiting the third dimension as an arena of war.

Thank you for your explanation of the special forces, I was always confused on that topic. Same to Penguin.

The area of concern with regards to the Arsenal ship is the design. I'll be level and say that what I'm going to post is all conjecture but it still should be given a thought ( I'm bored lol).

If we were look at the blocks containing the cells on a Areleigh Burke class destroyer, can I assume that the missiles housed in the blocks are indeed right under the surface of the ship where the missile would fire up and out of? Meaning they're both indeed in the front and back of fhe ship (depending on the the placement of the cell blocks). So if a cruise missiles hits the ships sides it may have a chance at hitting the missiles housed in the cell blocks.

But what seems to be the case with the Arsenal ship is a large section nearly 80-90 (closer to 70% I presume) percent of the ship is missiles. One good hit from a, let's say Khalije Fars missiles or russian Yakhont, or other numerous other types of anti-ships missiles and the whole thing goes to kingdom come.

If I was a Navy Brass I wouldnt sink billions into the Arsenal for fear of putting all my eggs literally in one basket aka Arsenal ship. That's a decent chunk of expansive cruise missiles and interceptors that will go quite easily if not backed up properly.

The current form of the USN truly beats everyone else's. Having the Aegis ships with the X and i S band radars and other radars creating a vibrant but seemingly effective battle network supporting other ships planes submarines (I think) along with the SM line of missile interceptors seems like a better alternative. Each ship doesn't have 500 missiles but a ship smaller onboard missile stockpile.

Just the idea of huge ships with a lot of firepower seems dumb given the era we're in. And you're completely right. The idea and implementation of the battleship might come again to naval warfare but just in a modernized form.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

AC has no deterence value...it's a projection one.

Building an AC is not easy... you need al the industry behind it... whatever it's steel/turbines etc...

And What Iran gonna put on it? which aircraft? F-14? you need some sort of catapult working... What about all the Radar suit? missiles? etc...

And Last for what purpose? playing in the Persian Gulf?

Even Subs is useless for Iran... before subs you need at least a Navy fleet... Iran do not have any... 80% of vessels are patrol boat/fast attack boats... IR has no good/last tech Corvette or Frigate etc...

Who gonna follow & protect that AC? Patrol boat?

Well that's my point, I don't think it would be useful for Iran to build an aircraft carrier, given the geography of the Gulf, they don't need to extend the range of their planes very much.

Submarines however will be very useful. AIP submarines can turn off their engines and sit dormant on the sea floor, waiting for enemy ships to pass by virtually undetected. Nobody in the world wants to lose an expensive capital ship to a hidden submarine.

 

[Penguin]

Sir, in your opinion what would be the unit cost of Type 055 and Lider class?

How would I know? They are built in a non-market settings ;-)

"The unit cost of Type 055 is in excess of 5 Billion Yuan (approx. $750 Million USD)."
http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...55-destroyer-under-construction-in-china.html

"Initial cost estimates for the first of the four planned Type 055 DDGs is in excess of $5 billion Yuan ($750 million USD). The GOA reported in 2016, that the per-unit cost of an Arleigh Burke Flight IIA is approximately $1.19 billion USD. If the Chinese estimate is correct, this denotes a significant cost savings per vessel for a platform that is at least as capable, if not superior to its U.S. counterpart in comparison."
https://southfront.org/chinas-type-055-destroyer-from-blueprint-to-reality-2/

Can't verify the accuracy of the number but navyrecognition generally reports information correctly, so this probably is indeed the initial estimate. Time will tell if this initiatial estimate (of which I don't know the original source) is actually correct.

Besides the cost of a Burke, consider the cost of e.g. FREMM

• €670m/unit(FY 2014)(France)
• €598m/unit(FY 2016)(Italy)
• €470m/unit (Morocco)

Or Horizon class

• France: €1.08 billions FY 2009 (~US$1.5b)
• Italy: € 1.5 billions FY2016

Type 45 Daring

• Over £1,050M per ship incl. R&D

LCF/Zeven Provincien

• €600 million ($816 million) each

Alvaro de Bazan class

• F101/4 €453m (~US$600m) each
• F105 €834m (~US$1.1bn)

Bazan-based Hobart class

• A$8 billion for 3 ships (original contract cost)

 

[AmirPatriot]

YOU may not have. But what I am saying is that most people have not done proper study of air power at sea, aka 'naval air power', starting with WW II.

Most people on this "defence" forum seem not to have done any proper study of anything "defence" related, let alone naval airpower.

Ah I see, shoot first ask questions later.

Hmm... I'm not quite sure what you mean.

But what seems to be the case with the Arsenal ship is a large section nearly 80-90 (closer to 70% I presume) percent of the ship is missiles.

I'm just speculating here, but damage limitation may be possible through compartmentalisation of "boxes" of VLS cells separated by some sort of internal barrier, in order to limit the effects of an explosion.

 

[Penguin]

Building an aircraft carrier isn't the hardest thing in the world, the Imperial Japanese Navy had 10 aircraft carriers way back in 1941. Of course not with the kind of equipment that modern ones have, but they were still functional aircraft carriers.

I think the number is 11: 6 fleet carriers proper, 4 light carriers and 1 escort carrier. As follows:
CVL Hōshō (1922)
CV Akagi (1927)
CV Kaga (1928)
CVL Ryūjō (1931)
CV Soryu (1937)
CV Hiryu (1937)
CVL Shōhō (1939)
CVL Zuihō (1940)
CV Shokaku (1941)
CV Zuikaku (1941)
CVE Taiyō (1941)

By comparision, at that time (late1941):

The Royal navy had 10-12 (Courageous sunk 1939, Glorious sunk 1940): 7-9 fleet carrier proper, 3 escort carriers. As follows:
CV(L) Argus (1918)
CV Courageous (1916)+
CV Glorious (1916)+
CV Furious (1917)
CV Hermes (1923)
CV Eagle (1924)
CV Ark Royal (1938)
CV Formidable (1940)
CV Indomitable (1941)
CV Victorious (1941)
CVE Archer (1941)
CVE/MAC Empire Audacity (1941)

The USN had 11: 9 fleet carrier proper, 2 escort carriers. As follows:
CV(L) Langley (1913)
CV Lexington (1927)
CV Saratoga (1927)
CV Ranger (1934)
CV Torktown (1937)
CV Enterprise (1938)
CV Wasp (1940)
CV Hornet (1941)
CVE Chenango (1941)
CVE Long Island (1941)

I don't quite see how the fact that the Imperial Japanese Navy had 10 or 11 aircraft carriers in 1941 says anyting at all about how easy or hard it is to build an aircraft carrier. Consider:

Following the Sino-Japanese War, Japan began to build up its military strength in preparation for further confrontations. Japan promulgated a ¥215 million 10-year naval build-up program in which the Japanese commissioned 109 warships, for a total of 200,000 tons, and increased its Navy personnel from 15,100 to 40,800. The new fleet consisted of:

• 6 battleships (all British-built)
• 8 armored cruisers (4 British-, 2 Italian-, 1 German-built Yakumo, and 1 French-built Azuma)
• 9 cruisers (5 Japanese, 2 British and 2 U.S.-built)
• 24 destroyers (16 British- and 8 Japanese-built)
• 63 torpedo boats (26 German-, 10 British-, 17 French-, and 10 Japanese-built)

These dispositions culminated with the Russo-Japanese War. The Russian fleet was almost completely annihilated: out of 38 Russian ships, 21 were sunk, seven captured, six disarmed, 4,545 Russian servicemen died and 6,106 were taken prisoner. On the other hand, the Japanese only lost 116 men and three torpedo boats. During the Russo-Japanese war, Japan also made frantic efforts to develop and construct a fleet of submarines. Naval losses for the Japanese Navy during the war amounted to two battleships, four cruisers, one armored cruiser, seven destroyers, and at least 10 torpedo boats; the majority of them were lost due to hitting Russian mines.

Japan continued in its efforts to build up a strong national naval industry. Following a strategy of "copy, improve, innovate", foreign ships of various designs were usually analysed in depth, their specifications often improved on, and then were purchased in pairs so as to organize comparative testing and improvements. Over the years, the importation of whole classes of ships was progressively substituted by local assembly, and then complete local production, starting with the smallest ships, such as torpedo boats and cruisers in the 1880s, to finish with whole battleships in the early 20th century. The last major purchase was in 1913 when the battlecruiser Kongō was purchased from the Vickers shipyard. By 1918, there was no aspect of shipbuilding technology where Japanese capabilities fell significantly below world standards.

By 1920, the Imperial Japanese Navy was the world's third largest navy and a leader in naval development:

• Following its 1897 invention by Marconi, the Japanese Navy was the first navy to employ wireless telegraphy in combat, at the 1905 Battle of Tsushima.
• In 1905, it began building the battleship Satsuma, at the time the largest warship in the world by displacement, and the first ship to be designed, ordered and laid down as an "all-big-gun" battleship, about one year prior to the launching of HMS Dreadnought. However, due to a lack of material, she was completed with a mixed battery of rifles, launched on 15 November 1906, and completed on 25 March 1910.
• Between 1903 and 1910, Japan began to build battleships domestically. The 1906 battleship Satsuma was built in Japan with about 80% material imported from Great Britain, with the following battleship class in 1909, the Kawachi, being built with only 20% imported parts.

Between the world wars, Japan took the lead in many areas of warship development:

• In 1921, it launched the Hōshō, the first purpose-designed aircraft carrier in the world to be completed, and subsequently developed a fleet of aircraft carriers second to none.
• In keeping with its doctrine, the Imperial Navy was the first to mount 356 mm (14 in) guns (in Kongō), 406 mm (16 in) guns (in Nagato), and then completed the only battleships ever to mount 460 mm (18.1 in) guns (in the Yamato class).
• In 1928, she launched the innovative Fubuki-class destroyer, introducing enclosed dual 127 mm (5 in) turrets capable of anti-aircraft fire. The new destroyer design was soon emulated by other navies. The Fubukis also featured the first torpedo tubes enclosed in splinterproof turrets.
• Japan developed the 610 mm (24 in) oxygen fuelled Type 93 torpedo, generally recognized as the best torpedo of World War II.

 

[Draco.IMF]

buy f..ing helmets and body armour for your soldiers, no need to waste money on sitting ducks....

 

[Blue In Green]

Most people on this "defence" forum seem not to have done any proper study of anything "defence" related, let alone naval airpower.



Hmm... I'm not quite sure what you mean.



I'm just speculating here, but damage limitation may be possible through compartmentalisation of "boxes" of VLS cells separated by some sort of internal barrier, in order to limit the effects of an explosion.

No you're quite on track with sealing off the separate cell blocks from each other to prevent a cascading effect. But the issue still remains of what type of explosive is being used in the warheads themselves, if they are highly reactive to shock and energy then a single cell block exploding can really damage if not just total the entire ship losing 500 or so expensive missiles in the process.

It just comes off as some sort of overkill machine.

And yeah lol what I meant by shoot first ask questions later was that this beast would destroy the most likely place that it would be attacked from mitagating the damage it can possibly take.

But I'm fully aware this would be working in tandem with a fleet and not on its own so, yeah my bickering is really useless.

 

[AmirPatriot]

It just comes off as some sort of overkill machine.

Not when you're trying to use it as an alternative to a carrier.

But I'm fully aware this would be working in tandem with a fleet and not on its own so, yeah my bickering is really useless.

Not at all. Reasonable discussion on this forum is a rare commodity these days.

 

[Penguin]

• Ship Systems proposed a Peripheral Vertical Launching System [PVLS] alternative to the traditional VLS configuration of centralized missile magazines. The DD(X) team's launcher concept consists of a PVLS that distributes the missile launchers in separate four-cell launcher compartments along the ship's hull starting at the forward gun and ending just aft of midships. The PVLS launcher configuration was chosen due to the significant enhancement in ship survivability.
• The four-cell missile launcher housed in the PVLS launcher compartment is called the advanced vertical launching system (AVLS). The AVLS is the actual mechanical and electrical subsystem associated with storing and launching missiles, while the PVLS is the shipboard launcher compartment in which the AVLS is installed.
• The 162-ton full-scale peripheral vertical launch system (PVLS) test article constructed at Northrop Grumman Corporation's Ship Systems sector in Pascagoula, Miss., underwent a live-fire test at Aberdeen Test Center in Maryland Oct. 22, 2002. The test verified the DD(X) magazine protection system, which is designed to relieve pressure from exploding ordnance while forcing blast damage away from a ship.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/pvls.htm

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/arsenal_ship.htm

Earlier artist impresssion: 6x16x4 cells