What's new

Iranian Navy | News and Discussions

And how are you planning to acquire the data sets/data for terrain mapping?
Thanks to the widespread availability of high quality topographical maps for virtually every inch of the planets surface that shouldnt present any real problem at all.
 
. .
And how are you planning to acquire the data sets/data for terrain mapping?

Image mapping you can get the size shape of a building road.... at a specific altitude using google earth & compare it's accuracy or flaws compared to buildings roads on your own territory if you collect enough data then you can write an algorithm!

And even if google earth and other mapping tech didn't exist using covert methods by sending micro UAV's to take images at specific altitudes will allows you to map specific routs to specific locations!

Most of all INS tech in terms of building more accurate measuring devices, timing devices, compasses, faster processing and more memory storage devices.... allows for far more advanced Internal Navigation Systems that will allow you to fly Cruise Missiles to an accuracy of a few hundred meters of a target & that's when your terrain and imaging sensors come into play!
Right now imaging software can recognize faces on small simple devices which means a pictures of known Saudi, Israeli, & US Aircraft Bunker & it's layout can easily be detected and targeted

Also using the same method you can better correct your route by calculating your turns at area where you have UAV or sat images to use to compare them too

When it comes to Cruise Missiles for Iran Targeting of known fixed sites like Airbases, refineries, power plants, ports,.... IS NOT A PROBLEM the main problem is finding a safe path to get there! Cruise Missiles are fairly easy to target if they are NOT placed on a safe route or if your route is compromised!

Iran is also fully capable of sending imaging sat with a short lifespan into space!
Also, covert methods using airlines to map routes for terrain mapping is used by many countries although limited, but I'm sure before Iran did that before they had the capability to send sat's up today distance measuring devices & imaging sats with limited life span is as easy as pie for Iran!
 
Last edited:
.
Good luck with finding military grade mapping datasets.
IRan also lanched Simorgh and its satellite can do reconnasance and image mapping i believe.

When it comes to Cruise Missiles for Iran Targeting of known fixed sites like Airbases, refineries, power plants, ports,.... IS NOT A PROBLEM the main problem is finding a safe path to get there! Cruise Missiles are fairly easy to target if they are NOT placed on a safe route or if your route is compromised!

I suppose it could be part of Irans saturation strategy, a combination of TEL based ballistic missiles, silo based ballistic missiles, land based cruise missiles, and air launched cruise missiles for saturation of the airspace with hundreds of missiles within like 1 hour, all in one grand decapitation operation. To overwhelm with quantity and quality, win the war in like 1 day. I'd really like to see Ya Ali air launched platform available, and maybe soumar if thats even possible. I think it gives alot more flexibility for Iran to launched more complex and effective operations. Like say we need to strike targets in Southern Saudi arabia, we can basically fly to the indian ocean and fire from the south or something like that. But we'd need a improved airforce to allow this to be reliable strategy.
 
.
I'd really like to see Ya Ali air launched platform available, and maybe soumar if thats even possible. I think it gives alot more flexibility for Iran to launched more complex and effective operations. Like say we need to strike targets in Southern Saudi arabia, we can basically fly to the indian ocean and fire from the south or something like that. But we'd need a improved airforce to allow this to be reliable strategy.

A good option in that regard would be to outfit irans kilo class subs with soumars as this would allow you to target both saudi and israel from the red sea and indian ocean.
As for air launching a simple option would be to convert one or more of the larger transport aircraft such as the il76 into a cruise missile carrier.
 
.
IRan also lanched Simorgh and its satellite can do reconnasance and image mapping i believe.



I suppose it could be part of Irans saturation strategy, a combination of TEL based ballistic missiles, silo based ballistic missiles, land based cruise missiles, and air launched cruise missiles for saturation of the airspace with hundreds of missiles within like 1 hour, all in one grand decapitation operation. To overwhelm with quantity and quality, win the war in like 1 day. I'd really like to see Ya Ali air launched platform available, and maybe soumar if thats even possible. I think it gives alot more flexibility for Iran to launched more complex and effective operations. Like say we need to strike targets in Southern Saudi arabia, we can basically fly to the indian ocean and fire from the south or something like that. But we'd need a improved airforce to allow this to be reliable strategy.

No country would be stupid enough to keep it's Air Assets within 600km of Iranian territory in an attack on Iran & Saddam leaned that the hard way even when Iran didn't have Missiles! So I would say Iran has to be carful not to empty out it's missiles on empty Air Bases in a deluded belief that you can somehow win a war in a few day's! And I believe Iranian general are smart enough to know that!

Iran has a very capable intel network & if assets are at a base then Yes you strike & you strike hard! But Iran's 1st retaliatory strike will likely be against assets that can't be moved like Power plants, refineries, large radars, ports, Communication,.... & as for Air Bases you have to hit them but you'll have to hit them at the right time!
You don't have an unlimited supply of missile & Tel's and Iran is NOT likely to go after Air Bases (In a large scale) without proper intel so a war wouldn't last a day or a week & Iran is just not going to win a war by simply targeting Air Bases! It will be bloody, messy and Iran will have to go after infrastructure that will cause widespread pain, suffering & hatred!

As for Cruise Missiles the time & materials required to build a 700km Turbojet engine vs 1500km Turbojet engine is really not that different same is true with everything else & you have more room for upgrades & increased payload... And unless you have a large bomber that could launch a good number of missiles the better way to go would be to build the larger version in greater numbers & build the smaller version for specific missions! A fighter would have to fly out 800km to get the same range as the Soumar & that wouldn't make much sense unless you can carry a large number so it would be cheaper to produce Soumar in a larger scale & it would require far less fuel overall
As for Soumar I think Iran should 1st work towards a design with better hidden and protected engines
 
.
No country would be stupid enough to keep it's Air Assets within 600km of Iranian territory in an attack on Iran & Saddam leaned that the hard way even when Iran didn't have Missiles! So I would say Iran has to be carful not to empty out it's missiles on empty Air Bases in a deluded belief that you can somehow win a war in a few day's! And I believe Iranian general are smart enough to know that!

Iran has a very capable intel network & if assets are at a base then Yes you strike & you strike hard! But Iran's 1st retaliatory strike will likely be against assets that can't be moved like Power plants, refineries, large radars, ports, Communication,.... & as for Air Bases you have to hit them but you'll have to hit them at the right time!
You don't have an unlimited supply of missile & Tel's and Iran is NOT likely to go after Air Bases (In a large scale) without proper intel so a war wouldn't last a day or a week & Iran is just not going to win a war by simply targeting Air Bases! It will be bloody, messy and Iran will have to go after infrastructure that will cause widespread pain, suffering & hatred!

As for Cruise Missiles the time & materials required to build a 700km Turbojet engine vs 1500km Turbojet engine is really not that different same is true with everything else & you have more room for upgrades & increased payload... And unless you have a large bomber that could launch a good number of missiles the better way to go would be to build the larger version in greater numbers & build the smaller version for specific missions! A fighter would have to fly out 800km to get the same range as the Soumar & that wouldn't make much sense unless you can carry a large number so it would be cheaper to produce Soumar in a larger scale & it would require far less fuel overall
As for Soumar I think Iran should 1st work towards a design with better hidden and protected engines


I never said we only target airbases, I didn't even mention that at all. I said that all these large quantities of missiles would be used in a decapitation strike. Which is exactly what you had just mentioned. Thats how the war ends in one day or two days. Large saturation strikes on critical infrastructure and warfighting infrastructure is how you win, you force capitulation. I read somewhere that if Riyadh's water desalination plant is destroyed the capital would literally be forced to evacuate in 12 days. Under those circumstances any war would be over after that.

Theirs nothing scarier than losing control of your airspace, look what saudi arabia have done to yemen. So saturation of their airspace with missiles would be a win and as you said, occasional attack on airbases to disrupt operations. It so lethal for countries like america which with ease can bomb countries 200 years behind by bombing critical infrastructure with cruise missiles. I'd like to see Iran have the ability to do the same, which I think we can.

By the way, in terms of costs, are cruise missiles generally cheaper than ballistic missiles?
 
Last edited:
.
I never said we only target airbases, I didn't even mention that at all. I said that all these large quantities of missiles would be used in a decapitation strike. Which is exactly what you had just mentioned. Thats how the war ends in one day or two days. Large saturation strikes on critical infrastructure and warfighting infrastructure is how you win, you force capitulation. I read somewhere that if Riyadh's water desalination plant is destroyed the capital would literally be forced to evacuate in 12 days. Under those circumstances any war would be over after that.

Theirs nothing scarier than losing control of your airspace, look what saudi arabia have done to yemen. So saturation of their airspace with missiles would be a win and as you said, occasional attack on airbases to disrupt operations. It so lethal for countries like america which with ease can bomb countries 200 years behind by bombing critical infrastructure with cruise missiles. I'd like to see Iran have the ability to do the same, which I think we can.

By the way, in terms of costs, are cruise missiles generally cheaper than ballistic missiles?

The cost of both Ballistic Missiles & Cruise Missiles will vary on the various sub systems it has onboard & the support systems it has behind it!
But overall it would be cheaper to build a cruise missile with same range & accuracy than a Ballistic Missile with the same range and accuracy!

Ballistic Missiles in general will have 50-100% more payload! And the ones capable of guidance have a much higher survivability against Air Defense systems! (As long as it's not a fixed trajectory BM that allows for easy interception with advanced but cheap algorithm based Ballistic Missile Defense systems!

With Cruise Missiles it's all about getting them to the target safely because they are easier to hit if you don't have that capability

Iran can't pick one over the other they need both!
 
. .
.

What is the purpose of such videos? Propaganda for domestic audience? There is nothing impressive here. Another prototype of reverse engineered system that will probably never see day light.

All they are showing here is the engine block and the cylinder head. You can even hear the guy say we built 2 samples. If they are really building such systems domestically , then they show the critical components of the engine such as the piston, the crank, the camshaft, the valves, the connecting rods, the push rods. Show how they are manufacturing them stead of some abstract parts of a disassembled engine block.
 
.
Iran is messing around with internal combustion engines. Even our old Alvand class ships have gas turbines, whereas the Mowj class have diesel engines. That destroyer we're working on isn't going to run on diesel engines, or at least I hope not.
I don't think that we nor other countries are going to remove diesel engines from their naval ships. Iran is trying to firstly make these engines completely domestic products and secondly to combine gas turbines and diesel engines for future corvettes. If we want to reach a range between 2000-5500 Km, we need to use a combination of those engines.
The efficiency of such combination :
The combined cycle makes use of the waste heat in the exhaust gas from the Diesel engine or the gas turbine. Adding a steam cycle to the combined Diesel engine or gas turbine cycle makes it possible to increase the power of the combined system, i.e. increase the system efficiency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_diesel_and_gas
 
.
I don't think that we nor other countries are going to remove diesel engines from their naval ships.

It isn't a matter of going to, it is a matter of other countries having done so decades ago. Combat vessels like Corvettes, Frigates and Destroyers simply do not use diesel engines. Gas turbine powered vessels are much faster.

Diesel powered ships are almost exclusively either small patrol craft which are small enough for the diesel to provide sufficient speed, or large vessels like amphibious assault ships and helicopter carriers where speed is not a requirement.
 
.
It isn't a matter of going to, it is a matter of other countries having done so decades ago. Combat vessels like Corvettes, Frigates and Destroyers simply do not use diesel engines. Gas turbine powered vessels are much faster.

Diesel powered ships are almost exclusively either small patrol craft which are small enough for the diesel to provide sufficient speed, or large vessels like amphibious assault ships and helicopter carriers where speed is not a requirement.
Please read the specifications of Turkish MILGEM, the section of it's engine :
https://www.gemarinesolutions.com/c...rvette-launched-powered-lm2500-ge-gas-turbine
Gas turbine is inevitable to use, i understand that but to have a speed faster than cruise speed, you need to engage Gas turbine with diesel engines.
1200px-CODAG-diagram.svg.png
 
. .

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom