What's new

Iranian Navy | News and Discussions

1310302_472.jpg

1310298_891.jpg
1310281_750.jpg
1310295_110.jpg
1310277_712.jpg
1310278_473.jpg

I'm guessing the reason why they don't put 4 missiles on each of the boats is because of speed and cost-effectiveness.

Very weird but I truly do feel like Iran could easily develop and produce a larger missile boat that carry 4+ AshCM, I guess they're very much into this "Swarm" tactic for now and the larger boats are regular Iranian Navy's business I guess lol.
 
.
If you can produce a ship like this then producing any kind of standard ship hull below that weight class is within your infrastructural capability to produce. Get that through your head!
Even if you end up loosing 5 knots due to lack of proper R&D facilities and experience in hull building at the end of the day the ability to produce the hull has been there



View attachment 715868
If you can produce a ship like this then producing any kind of standard ship hull below that weight class is within your infrastructural capability to produce. Get that through your head!
Even if you end up loosing 5 knots due to lack of proper R&D facilities and experience in hull building at the end of the day the ability to produce the hull has been there



View attachment 715868

Again you are wrong, the hull of a tanker is a very simple design compared to the compartmentalized bull of a warship designed to not sink even if multiple compartments are flooded. I mean with that logic an aircraft carrier is nothing more than one massive hull. Let’s not use water down logic.

Many countries can make oil tankers or cargo ships. But few countries can make destroyers or cruisers and even less can make aircraft carriers.
 
.
I'm guessing the reason why they don't put 4 missiles on each of the boats is because of speed and cost-effectiveness.

Very weird but I truly do feel like Iran could easily develop and produce a larger missile boat that carry 4+ AshCM, I guess they're very much into this "Swarm" tactic for now and the larger boats are regular Iranian Navy's business I guess lol.
I agree,the larger catamaran type facs could certainly carry 4 ashcms in 2 staggered rows.
rmrcSlX.jpg

You can certainly see all the extra space at the rear,now imagine if instead of a single launcher you had something like this.......scaled down of course :sarcastic:
hqdefault.jpg

Interesting possibilities......
 
Last edited:
. . .
ابی هفت سال پیش اینو گذاشته
نظرش هم بعد عوض شد و ادم جدیدی شد
شش ساله اینجا نیومده
پاک کن کامنتتو
فکر کنم تو من یات رفته بچه مایه دار که پول داری برای خودت معلم خصوصی زبان بگبری عنکلیسیت خوبه من همش اینجا میام میخوانم بعضی کامنتها را ولی مثل استاد گرامی نظرات مسخره نمیدم انگار که حالا درجه ارتش بدی داشته باشم بزار اول شاشت کف کنه بعد ادعا کن وجالبه که با ان پرچم های نکبتی خودتم ایرانی میدونی فارسی بلغور میکنی سپه بد کارشناس حقوق بین ملل شرطمیبندم تا الان اب پاش هم دستت نگرفتی و یک تیر مشقی هم صداش نشنیدی چه برسه به ... دوست داشتم ببینم یه خمپاره 120 صداش میشنیدی شلوارت چه رنگی میشد اقا زاده استاد زبان شیطانی عنگلیسی
 
.
فکر کنم تو من یات رفته بچه مایه دار که پول داری برای خودت معلم خصوصی زبان بگبری عنکلیسیت خوبه من همش اینجا میام میخوانم بعضی کامنتها را ولی مثل استاد گرامی نظرات مسخره نمیدم انگار که حالا درجه ارتش بدی داشته باشم بزار اول شاشت کف کنه بعد ادعا کن وجالبه که با ان پرچم های نکبتی خودتم ایرانی میدونی فارسی بلغور میکنی سپه بد کارشناس حقوق بین ملل شرطمیبندم تا الان اب پاش هم دستت نگرفتی و یک تیر مشقی هم صداش نشنیدی چه برسه به ... دوست داشتم ببینم یه خمپاره 120 صداش میشنیدی شلوارت چه رنگی میشد اقا زاده استاد زبان شیطانی عنگلیسی

چن بار خوندم نفهمیدم درست چی میگی
خوبه فارسی نوشتی
متنتو بخون
اصلا نقطه نداره

مگه دیگه ایران رزمی نداره
زمان ما تیربار ژ۳ هم میدادن دست اول دبیرستانی
چهل تا تیر میدادن
اما تیربارش هی گیر میکرد
اگر تو تجربه ای داری از همه ما جلویی
اغلب نظرات سایت بر اساس علایق یا تجربه ها و کتب مهندسی ه و کمتر کسی اینجا تجربه نظامی داره


ابی ایرانی وطن دوستی بود
گاهی کامنت هاش ازار دهنده است
کامنت قدیمی شش سال پیش رو جواب نده​
 
Last edited:
.

چن بار خوندم نفهمیدم درست چی میگی
خوبه فارسی نوشتی
متنتو بخون
اصلا نقطه نداره

مگه دیگه ایران رزمی نداره
زمان ما تیربار ژ۳ هم میدادن دست اول دبیرستانی
چهل تا تیر میدادن
اما تیربارش هی گیر میکرد
اگر تو تجربه ای داری از همه ما جلویی
اغلب نظرات سایت بر اساس علایق یا تجربه ها و کتب مهندسی ه و کمتر کسی اینجا تجربه نظامی داره


ابی ایرانی وطن دوستی بود
گاهی کامنت هاش ازار دهنده است
کامنت قدیمی شش سال پیش رو جواب نده​
خوب بخاطر این بود اون اول دبیرستانی احتمالا نمیدونسته که اون تیر بار تمیز کردن میخواهد.
بدترین مورد عدم توجه به نگهداری صحیح از اسلحه را من توی یک تیربار دوشکا توی یک پایگاه بسیج توی بلوچستان دیدم که مسوول بازرسی که با ما اومده بود یک چند ساعت مشغول نوشتن گزارش بود. اونجوری که من دیدم یک چند کیلو خاک از توی تیر بار در آورد باز هم گیرهای اسلحه برطرف نشد.
I agree,the larger catamaran type facs could certainly carry 4 ashcms in 2 staggered rows.
rmrcSlX.jpg

You can certainly see all the extra space at the rear,now imagine if instead of a single launcher you had something like this.......scaled down of course :sarcastic:
hqdefault.jpg

Interesting possibilities......
That single launcher is scaled down . but you see, in not so perfect world you must reach a compromise between weight and speed and fuel consumption and size of the boat.
 
.
خوب بخاطر این بود اون اول دبیرستانی احتمالا نمیدونسته که اون تیر بار تمیز کردن میخواهد.
بدترین مورد عدم توجه به نگهداری صحیح از اسلحه را من توی یک تیربار دوشکا توی یک پایگاه بسیج توی بلوچستان دیدم که مسوول بازرسی که با ما اومده بود یک چند ساعت مشغول نوشتن گزارش بود. اونجوری که من دیدم یک چند کیلو خاک از توی تیر بار در آورد باز هم گیرهای اسلحه برطرف نشد.

That single launcher is scaled down . but you see, in not so perfect world you must reach a compromise between weight and speed and fuel consumption and size of the boat.

@Sina-1 @Sineva

I was wondering if maybe the speed reductions introduced by more missiles would be compensated by a different engagement regime for the crafts carryig 4+ AshCM's on them.

Just throwing this idea out there, but would it be logical to say that the larger crafts that have more than 2 AshCM's have to be behind the line of smaller-lighter fast attack craft when engaging enemy vessels at sea? They would be in a staggered line with the less armed/quicker vessels at front and the heavier armed 4+ missile boats in the back. Essentially you'd get an extra more deadly (WAY more deadly) wave of missiles coming at the enemy since these line of boats have double the munitions.

Or am I thinking about these missile boats the wrong way? What is their engagement regime, or how does the IRGC plan to use them?
 
Last edited:
.
@Philosopher @TheImmortal @Sina-1 @Sineva

I was wondering if maybe the speed reductions introduced by more missiles would be compensated by a different engagement regime for the crafts carryig 4+ AshCM's on them.

Just throwing this idea out there, but would it be logical to say that the larger crafts that have more than 2 AshCM's have to behind the line of smaller lighter fast attack craft when engage enemy vessels at sea? They would be in a staggered line with the less armed/quicker vessels at front and the heavier armed 4+ missile boats in the back. Essentially you'd get an extra more deadly (WAY more deadly) wave of missiles coming at the enemy since these line of boats have double the munitions.

Or am I thinking about these missile boats the wrong way? What is their engagement regime, or how does the IRGC plan to use them?
Your theory makes sense! In the end it’s anybody’s guess how these vessels will be used since the swarm tactic is extremely unconventional. I mean, there is no playbook to go by here. Your outline could be one of many!
what I like most about IRGC is that they always think outside the box when it comes to both the military hardware and how they are deployed. Which, IMO, makes IRGC the most innovative military organization in the world.
 
.
Looking at this image, it like the mast for radar systems will be completed soon.
The lower part already made and where they are installing 2 supports for elettronic system (green arrow) , seems to indicate to an enclosed-mast, but at the bottom indicated with the orange arrow it seems to be a classic lattice element, or it is the internal reinforcement element that must bear the weight of the radar systems installed and on the outside of which they will then be position the metal sheets thus creating an e closed-mast.

fa66e27951a8f5f03e212ecf19717f26o.png
 
.
How many racing boats do you guys have now?
I think its a very good strategy to equip very small vessels with AS missiles between 35km to 200 km

1.)

Those boats can't carry heavy long range missiles.
 
.
Again you are wrong, the hull of a tanker is a very simple design compared to the compartmentalized bull of a warship designed to not sink even if multiple compartments are flooded. I mean with that logic an aircraft carrier is nothing more than one massive hull. Let’s not use water down logic.

Many countries can make oil tankers or cargo ships. But few countries can make destroyers or cruisers and even less can make aircraft carriers.

Any country who can produce a 10000 tanker, Naval surface and areal radars and targeting equipment, Anti-ship missiles & Torpedo's is already producing warships!

You can't find a single country capable of producing all those but is yet to master building a warship!!!

Also most takers that size have a twin hull and are far more complicated to produce than a 3000 ton hull of a warship!

The idea that closing off each compartment and throwing a water pump in each compartment is what makes a warship hard to produce is ABSURD and again building a twin hull tanker is by far more complicated and far more complex!

What make a warship far more expensive and more complex to produce is all the equipment that later gets installed on the hull.
On a warship you need to store and produce as much electricity as a small town! You need various types of com systems! You need various types of radars and sensors, various types of weapons systems from guns to cannons to torpedo's and missiles, you need various types of countermeasure,....
On a warship with a flight deck you need the ability to fuel and maintenance helos.... On a warship you need the facilities needed to maintain a large crew over an extended period.....

These are what makes a warship more complex and more expensive NOT A FREAKING hull or a few closed off sections with a few water pumps!
 
Last edited:
.
Again you are wrong, the hull of a tanker is a very simple design compared to the compartmentalized bull of a warship designed to not sink even if multiple compartments are flooded. I mean with that logic an aircraft carrier is nothing more than one massive hull. Let’s not use water down logic.

Many countries can make oil tankers or cargo ships. But few countries can make destroyers or cruisers and even less can make aircraft carriers.

Any country who can produce a 10000 tanker, Naval surface and areal radars and targeting equipment, Anti-ship missiles & Torpedo's is already producing warships!

You can't find a single country capable of producing all those but is yet to master building a warship!!!

Also most takers that size have a twin hull and are far more complicated to produce than a 3000 ton warship!

The idea that closing off each compartment and throwing a water pump in each compartment is what makes a warship hard to produce is ABSURD and again building a twin hull tanker is by far more complicated and far more complex!

What make a warship far more expensive and more complex to produce is all the equipment that later gets installed on the hull.
On a warship you need to store and produce as much electricity as a small town! You need various types of com systems! You need various types of radars and sensors, various types of weapons systems from guns to cannons to torpedo's and missiles and various countermeasures... On a warship with a flight deck you need the ability to fuel and maintenance helos.... On a warship you need the facilities needed to maintain a large crew over an extended period.....

These are what makes a warship more complex and more expensive NOT A FREAKING hull or a few closed off sections with a few water pumps!
 
Last edited:
.
Any country who can produce a 10000 tanker, Naval surface and areal radars and targeting equipment, Anti-ship missiles & Torpedo's is already producing warships!

You can't find a single country capable of producing all those but is yet to master building a warship!!!

Also most takers that size have a twin hull and are far more complicated to produce than a 3000 ton warship!

The idea that closing off each compartment and throwing a water pump in each compartment is what makes a warship hard to produce is ABSURD and again building a twin hull tanker is by far more complicated and far more complex!

What make a warship far more expensive and more complex to produce is all the equipment that later gets installed on the hull.
On a warship you need to store and produce as much electricity as a small town! You need various types of com systems! You need various types of radars and sensors, various types of weapons systems from guns to cannons to torpedo's and missiles and various countermeasures... On a warship with a flight deck you need the ability to fuel and maintenance helos.... On a warship you need the facilities needed to maintain a large crew over an extended period.....

These are what makes a warship more complex and more expensive NOT A FREAKING hull or a few closed off sections with a few water pumps!

Again the more you talk the more you make my point.

Your thoughts are borderline delusional. You say Iran could make 3000-4000 warship in 2008 because they can make VLCCs then contradict yourself shortly after to make my point.

Iran took a decade to bring Jamaran basically a modernized 1970’s frigate design to fruition. It’s shipyards are not as advanced and capable as Russian or Chinese shipyards.

So this notion that Iran could have built a modern destroyer in 2008 with the tools (radar, engines, sub systems, air defense, shipyard capability, etc) it had at its disposal is not rooted in reality.

And let’s say for sake of argument Iran created one 4000 destroyer in 2008 compared to 4-5 Mowj’s during the same time. What use is one destroyer again a Superpower?

Like I said Iran is taking the right approach in this field. The old Vevak has reared his head and like the past has wonderful ideas that hundreds of engineers were too stupid to consider at the time. I am sure that is the case. Add these ideas to your “wonder weapons” ideas you were sprouting 3-4 years ago and you get a pattern of delusional thinking.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom