What's new

Iranian Navy | News and Discussions

that's not the whole point of rws , RWS help you stabilize gun on target ,look at what happen when you fire from a stable target with M242 Bushmaster you become the laughing stock of all navy
now when they use another gun

by the way do you like to be the guy who is supposed to walk to back of the boat when it is at full speed and operate the gun
I understand but here it is simple waste.What is the point to stabilize machine gun on small boat?It is not stable platform number one...nuber two from where you.will control it ..you are literary sitting or standing next to it?..and when you finnaly make boat capable to carry 3 people instead of 6...what did you gain? It is small patrol boat that can only operate close to shore,will never be used in any role where you will use RWS...Putting RWS on jeep has sense for rapid deployement...you can leave it at position and control it from distance...but on small boat it is total waste...to use it ,you must park it or lower speed since these boats jumps half a meter when goes even at medium speed...to be able use it at some speed you need gyro-stabilizator but you can't put gyro-stabilizator under soldier ***......it is easier to operate machine gun manually than with joystick while boat jumps...so it has no sense...to put RWS at anything that size....maybe to look cool :). Also you must have manualy operated guns on boats,it is something will never been completly replaced....now.I,m sure if you try hard you will find use case for RWS on small boat but you can ask anyone who ever served in military it will tell you the same...small calibre RWS is useless on sea ...there is no infantry there and weapons of that size and caliber is used against infrantry(ior f you read description of company that produce it..you'll probably fimd "live force" ,maybe in english there is better term..).Now,maybe RWS with machine gun caliber 12+mm could have some AA role or vs other small vessel but again,these boats don't go far...so..
 
Last edited:
.
I understand but here it is simple waste.What is the point to stabilize machine gun on small boat?It is not stable platform number one...nuber two from where you.will control it ..you are literary sitting or standing next to it?..and when you finnaly make boat capable to carry 3 people instead of 6...what did you gain? It is small patrol boat that can only operate close to shore,will never be used in any role where you will use RWS...Putting RWS on jeep has sense for rapid deployement...you can leave it at position and control it from distance...but on small boat it is total waste...to use it ,you must park it or lower speed since these boats jumps half a meter when goes even at medium speed...to be able use it at some speed you need gyro-stabilizator but you can't put gyro-stabilizator under soldier ***......it is easier to operate machine gun manually than with joystick while boat jumps...so it has no sense...to put RWS at anything that size....maybe to look cool :). Also you must have manualy operated guns on boats,it is something will never been completly replaced....now.I,m sure if you try hard you will find use case for RWS on small boat but you can ask anyone who ever served in military it will tell you the same...small calibre RWS is useless on sea ...there is no infantry there and weapons of that size and caliber is used against infrantry(ior f you read description of company that produce it..you'll probably fimd "live force" ,maybe in english there is better term..).Now,maybe RWS with machine gun caliber 12+mm could have some AA role or vs other small vessel but again,these boats don't go far...so..
that small boat is at least 4-5 time longer and bigger than a jeep and a remote weapon station with automatic distance compensation for targeting is far easier to operate than going behind the gun and try to adjust the distance with target manually while you are being thrown up and down
and you don't need to search hard , the first google search find is this
Interceptor DV15 RWS
DV15_RWS30_Interceptor_CMN_Constructions_Mecaniques_de_Normandie_datasheet_specification_picture_top.jpg
 
. . . .

Iran is not going to build a kilo, that is BS by the clown journalists. Iran is designing it's own mid sized submarine:


"The new heavy submarine class would have a diameter of 10 meters and a length of 87 meters and will weight 3200 tonnes."

9113165_385.jpg


https://www.yjc.ir/fa/news/6765432/...جدید-و-پیشرفته-صنایع-دفاعی-کشور-بدانید-تصاویر
 
. .
Iran is struggling big time with small 600 tonne submarine, I don't see much progress on submarines for Iran in the foreseeable future.
Yes,the very fact that not only have we still to see the 500 ton boat officially inducted into the navy after so many years,but that they have also apparently restarted limited production of the ghadir class boats again,pretty much points to the failure of the design IMHO.I think this is where iran should be looking at working with the dprk on designing a new 500 ton boat as they have a far greater degree of experience in the design of these smaller boats.
 
.
Yes,the very fact that not only have we still to see the 500 ton boat officially inducted into the navy after so many years,but that they have also apparently restarted limited production of the ghadir class boats again,pretty much points to the failure of the design IMHO.I think this is where iran should be looking at working with the dprk on designing a new 500 ton boat as they have a far greater degree of experience in the design of these smaller boats.
yep, NK even built a 700 tonne (?) sub capable (and proven) of launching SLBM! I don't think that's a priority for Iran right now but the latent capability to do so would be useful if one day [you can finish the sentence :p:]...
 
. . .
yep, NK even built a 700 tonne (?) sub capable (and proven) of launching SLBM! I don't think that's a priority for Iran right now but the latent capability to do so would be useful if one day [you can finish the sentence :p:]...

approximate data collected from "H I Sutton" North Korea SLBM Submarine
Gorae Class SSB Specifications (Provisional)
Displacement: 1,455 tons (surfaced), 1,650 tons (submerged)
Length: 68m
Waterline length: 65m
Beam: 6.5m
Speed: <20kts
Range: TBC
Endurance: Approximately 1 month or less
Operating depth: TBC
Propulsion: Diesel-electric
Armament: 1 x NK-11 “북극성-1” (Pukgeukseong-1) SLBMs, possible 2-4 torpedo tubes

npUsXgz.jpg


YMzls6o.png

but I am convinced that the displacement is superior

always HI Sutton has made a hypothesis of how it could be the next North Korean SLBM, which should already be under construction
jN0N7Uo.jpg
 
Last edited:
.
approximate data collected from "H I Sutton" North Korea SLBM Submarine
Gorae Class SSB Specifications (Provisional)
Displacement: 1,455 tons (surfaced), 1,650 tons (submerged)
Length: 68m
Waterline length: 65m
Beam: 6.5m
Speed: <20kts
Range: TBC
Endurance: Approximately 1 month or less
Operating depth: TBC
Propulsion: Diesel-electric
Armament: 1 x NK-11 “북극성-1” (Pukgeukseong-1) SLBMs, possible 2-4 torpedo tubes

but I am convinced that the displacement is superior
my bad, thanks for correcting

disappointing how NK can build 1500+ ton submarine but Iran can't make a 400 ton sub!
 
.
my bad, thanks for correcting

disappointing how NK can build 1500+ ton submarine but Iran can't make a 400 ton sub!

We don't know anything about this N korean sub or its capability! Iran made Fateh but decided to increase the quality of some its components and that's why they spent longer on it. If you ask me, that is very pragmatic that they want to make sure their products are qualitatively up to the job. It's important to add, there was nothing wrong with the actual design of Fateh, just some of its material. If Iran wanted to just unveil something, they can have claimed Fateh was ready years ago!

If anything, we should be happy Iran spent this long on Fateh because we can bet our behind they learn tremendously from it and they now take what they learned to make this larger submarine. I'll bet my hand that they will be much more efficient now developing this next submarine.
 
.
We don't know anything about this N korean sub or its capability! Iran made Fateh but decided to increase the quality of some its components and that's why they spent longer on it. If you ask me, that is very pragmatic that they want to make sure their products are qualitatively up to the job. It's important to add, there was nothing wrong with the actual design of Fateh, just some of its material. If Iran wanted to just unveil something, they can have claimed Fateh was ready years ago!

If anything, we should be happy Iran spent this long on Fateh because we can bet our behind they learn tremendously from it and they now take what they learned to make this larger submarine. I'll bet my hand that they will be much more efficient now developing this next submarine.
The problem is that the first fateh was launched almost 4 years ago and has still not been inducted into the navy,it should not take 4 years to shake down a new boat and fix whatever problems were encountered,unless it was some very major design flaw that required a complete redesign and rebuild and even then it still should not take this long.The other problem could be that the development of vital systems like sonars are having problems and are yet to be installed or be considered operational.
The longer this continues without any word on the boat,or with repeated promises of it being unveiled/commissioned in a few months not ever eventuating,then frankly the worse it looks,after all if it had been successful we would have expected several other hulls to be under construction by now,but instead production of the ghadir has restarted,so it potentially doesnt look good.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom