New design for Loghman-Class destroyer

[The Last of us]

interesting. Well, though it might take several years for us to see this warship floating, its still a remarkable achievement that Iranians have the ambition and skills to even dare design and try to build one. That in itself is commendable. They might not be at par/close to that of western powers but still a great achievement for a middle eastern country if/when they are built.

By the way, to Iranian members here: Does Iran have the capabilities to build an ingenious engine to power such a 6000 tons warship? or will they be imported?
Very few countries do in the world. Remains to be seen though. We will have to wait and see which engines it will use and its performance. kudos to the effort though.


hmmmm........i think building a carrier ingeniously is kind of out of Iran capabilities to be honest. need decades to even get close.
The Chinese who are wayyyyyyyyyyy ahead of Iran in all fields are still in the process of building their first EVER carrier themselves after all these decades. Iran should first focus on other lesser things before even dreaming of a carrier.IMO.
No hard feelings though.

Well I am not under the delusion Iran can build aircraft carries or the VTOL planes any time soon. First Iran needs to develop the economy to have the budget for these things and then take it one step at a time.
Iran will build a helicopter carrier before it builds an aircraft carrier. But even that is a while away.

As for your question about the engines, Iran has no problem in this sector. It has a whole array of gas turbines developed by companies like MAPNA which can be used, one example is shown below:

There are many other examples of larger gas turbines being in production.

Iran has also diesel marine engines, about 5 years ago the 5000BHP engine was unveiled and now it is being used in Iranians ships, it is called bonyan-4.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Well I am not under the delusion Iran can build aircraft carries or the VTOL planes any time soon. First Iran needs to develop the economy to have the budget for these things and then take it one step at a time.
Iran will build a helicopter carrier before it builds an aircraft carrier. But even that is a while away.

As for your question about the engines, Iran has no problem in this sector. It has a whole array of gas turbines developed by companies like MAPNA which can be used, one example is shown below:

There are many other examples of larger gas turbines being in production.

Iran has also diesel marine engines, about 5 years ago the 5000BHP engine was unveiled and now it is being used in Iranians ships, it is called bonyan-4.

Not bad if Iran already uses them in its ships.

 

[AmirPatriot]

interesting. Well, though it might take several years for us to see this warship floating, its still a remarkable achievement that Iranians have the ambition and skills to even dare design and try to build one. That in itself is commendable. They might not be at par/close to that of western powers but still a great achievement for a middle eastern country if/when they are built.

By the way, to Iranian members here: Does Iran have the capabilities to build an ingenious engine to power such a 6000 tons warship? or will they be imported?
Very few countries do in the world. Remains to be seen though. We will have to wait and see which engines it will use and its performance. kudos to the effort though.


hmmmm........i think building a carrier ingeniously is kind of out of Iran capabilities to be honest. need decades to even get close.
The Chinese who are wayyyyyyyyyyy ahead of Iran in all fields are still in the process of building their first EVER carrier themselves after all these decades. Iran should first focus on other lesser things before even dreaming of a carrier.IMO.
No hard feelings though.

This is the sort of comment I like. Intelligent, respectful and any criticism is constructive. Very British comment

Iran has built very large ships before, even 100 000+ ton aframax oil tankers. Logically I would assume they have the capability to build an engine for a 6000 ton destroyer.

Mike, will you agree with me that this Loghmaan model, especially its far forward radar mast, looks very similar to the Royal Navy's Type 45 destroyer?

Just imagine if we had an AC in mediterranean sea !

We need at least one AC to help our friends or target our enemies !



Are you playing clash of clans?

What friends do we have in the Mediterranean? Syria. And thats it. Why not just have the IRIAF conduct operations there when they need help, like the Russians are doing now?

And about enemies... if you mean Israel, there's no point, the Americans would have a pair of aircraft carriers there to counter ours. The Mediterranean is much more open than the Persian Gulf, thats where the Americans will be very effective.

@The Last of us, thanks for the engine info, I wanted to know about that myself.

 

[mike2000 is back]

This is the sort of comment I like. Intelligent, respectful and any criticism is constructive. Very British comment

Iran has built very large ships before, even 100 000+ ton aframax oil tankers. Logically I would assume they have the capability to build an engine for a 6000 ton destroyer.

An carrier is VERY VERY DIFFERENT from an oil tanker bro. We cant even compare the two when it comes to complexity/technology/skills required to build and operate. lol They are like night and day.

Even the Philippines/Vietnam build oil tankers, but can they build an aircraft carrier? not in 100 years. lol
An aircraft carrier is not just a ship with a flat top. It is a warship + cruise ship + nuclear reactor+ airport all rolled into one. It is a fortified, floating city. A floating military base. The technologies involved have evolved over a hundred years. The lessons learned from so many wars, especially the two world wars, is incorporated in it. You just cant sit at the drawing board and decide to gain expertise and build a carrier at the first attempt. The countries which have operated/built aircraft carriers like U.S,U.K,France and Russia(Japan did but hasn't built any modern fixed wings carrier for over half a century now due to political reasons) have almost a century of naval warfare experience with them- something which is not readily available.

So an aircraft carrier is not just a floating platform for aircraft. In order to be an effective military asset, she has to be able to carry, launch, maintain, control, recover and rearm a fleet of aircraft that sometimes is larger than the air forces of some countries.

An aircraft carrier also has to be stable enough to launch and recover her air wings, even in bad weather conditions, while going around 30 knots against the wind. She has to carry fuel (for herself and the aircrafts), ordinance, personnel, food, replacement parts... She has to be a self-sufficient city, far away from home.

Then, you have to consider:

• She is very expensive to build; the engineering alone to build her take decades to develop;
• She is very expensive to maintain; the huge complexity of ship that size makes the maintenance costs at least as high a the building costs; and the personnel.
• She is a extreme valuable target; so she must not go to combat alone; she must have a battle group alongside, with destroyers, submarines, missile cruisers, tender and taker ships... not to mention the lot of high skilled and trained personnel it carries, their lost would be an immense blow to the morale of your ranks;
• You can't have them all the time; their maintenance cycle are long, with about six month for modernization, more six month for training and certification for every two years of deployment (and don't forget months for "light" maintenance, crew rotation, etc.lol); so, if you want to have one deployed at all times, you need at least three(so even our 2 QE class are still not enough, we need 1 more. lol);
• She serves only one purpose: power projection; so, unless you have assets or interests far from homeland, you really don't need it.

As an example, last conflict were both sides had aircraft carriers was the Falklands War we fought against the Argentinians. The Argentinians had a reformed WWII Colossus class, the Vinticinco de Mayo; we had the Invincible and the Centaur class Hermes. They air wings never clashed, but they were so valuable to their fleets that, after the cruiser General Belgrano was sank, the Vinticinco de Mayo was retreated to a port and stayed there for the duration of the conflict; air operations were conducted from land bases. On the other side, we used our helicopters as decoys to protect their carriers, employing inclusive HRH Prince Andrews, at time second in the line of succession.

So, the answer is: unless you need a carrier, you don't want a carrier. So i will say Iran doesn't need one(and can't build one anyway) and shouldn't want one.

Mike, will you agree with me that this Loghmaan model, especially its far forward radar mast, looks very similar to the Royal Navy's Type 45 destroyer?

Well, they do have some similarities.

 

[like_a_boss]

@mike2000 is back hi , i have a question
how do u see the future of ummah? can u explain us?

 

[xenon54 out]

@mike2000 is back hi , i have a question
how do u see the future of ummah? can u explain us?

He is the Caliph of it, Mike bin al UK.

 

[AmirPatriot]

An carrier is VERY VERY DIFFERENT from an oil tanker bro. We cant even compare the two when it comes to complexity/technology/skills required to build and operate. lol They are like night and day.

Even the Philippines/Vietnam build oil tankers, but can they build an aircraft carrier? not in 100 years. lol
An aircraft carrier is not just a ship with a flat top. It is a warship + cruise ship + nuclear reactor+ airport all rolled into one. It is a fortified, floating city. A floating military base. The technologies involved have evolved over a hundred years. The lessons learned from so many wars, especially the two world wars, is incorporated in it. You just cant sit at the drawing board and decide to gain expertise and build a carrier at the first attempt. The countries which have operated/built aircraft carriers like U.S,U.K,France and Russia(Japan did but hasn't built any modern fixed wings carrier for over half a century now due to political reasons) have almost a century of naval warfare experience with them- something which is not readily available.

So an aircraft carrier is not just a floating platform for aircraft. In order to be an effective military asset, she has to be able to carry, launch, maintain, control, recover and rearm a fleet of aircraft that sometimes is larger than the air forces of some countries.

An aircraft carrier also has to be stable enough to launch and recover her air wings, even in bad weather conditions, while going around 30 knots against the wind. She has to carry fuel (for herself and the aircrafts), ordinance, personnel, food, replacement parts... She has to be a self-sufficient city, far away from home.

Then, you have to consider:

• She is very expensive to build; the engineering alone to build her take decades to develop;
• She is very expensive to maintain; the huge complexity of ship that size makes the maintenance costs at least as high a the building costs; and the personnel.
• She is a extreme valuable target; so she must not go to combat alone; she must have a battle group alongside, with destroyers, submarines, missile cruisers, tender and taker ships... not to mention the lot of high skilled and trained personnel it carries, their lost would be an immense blow to the morale of your ranks;
• You can't have them all the time; their maintenance cycle are long, with about six month for modernization, more six month for training and certification for every two years of deployment (and don't forget months for "light" maintenance, crew rotation, etc.lol); so, if you want to have one deployed at all times, you need at least three(so even our 2 QE class are still not enough, we need 1 more. lol);
• She serves only one purpose: power projection; so, unless you have assets or interests far from homeland, you really don't need it.

As an example, last conflict were both sides had aircraft carriers was the Falklands War we fought against the Argentinians. The Argentinians had a reformed WWII Colossus class, the Vinticinco de Mayo; we had the Invincible and the Centaur class Hermes. They air wings never clashed, but they were so valuable to their fleets that, after the cruiser General Belgrano was sank, the Vinticinco de Mayo was retreated to a port and stayed there for the duration of the conflict; air operations were conducted from land bases. On the other side, we used our helicopters as decoys to protect their carriers, employing inclusive HRH Prince Andrews, at time second in the line of succession.

So, the answer is: unless you need a carrier, you don't want a carrier. So i will say Iran doesn't need one(and can't build one anyway) and shouldn't want one.



Well, they do have some similarities.

Thank you for the extensive explanation Mike, but I'm afraid you wasted a big chunk of your time as you misunderstood my point.

I said Iran has the capacity to build engines for large ships like oil tankers. Just engines.

With this knowledge I reasoned that Iran would have the capacity to power much smaller destroyers. Not aircraft carriers.

Overall, I think the concept of the aircraft carrier is approaching the concept of the battleship after WW2. They are still to easy sink. An enemy with a much smaller force like Iran's - midget subs, small patrol boats and coastal missiles - can overwhelm the defences of a carrier (air defence destroyers and the like) with a carefully executed swarm. The smaller force would spend maybe a maximum of a $1 billion to get a force that can destroy a carrier, whereas a single American supercarrier costs over $10 billion. The difference in losses is huge.

So thanks anyway for the time and effort but not needed

 

[mike2000 is back]

@mike2000 is back hi , i have a question
how do u see the future of ummah? can u explain us?

The future of 'Everyone for himself' or 'my version of ummah is superior to yours' or 'i am the sole legitimate leader of Ummah'??

 

[AMCA]

Its a very interesting design. Congratz to our Iranian Brothers.

 

[scythian500]

Not bad if Iran already uses them in its ships.

Yes, Iran already built and used Made-in-Iran marine engines in its navy.

The next warship with an Iranian engine is the 2500 tonnes Sahand-Class frigate almost completed and will be operational very soon.

 

[Malik Alashter]

Great work from Iranian engineers.

10 years and Iran will leave the third world to become a developed country not bad at all for nation depend on it's own.

 

[HAIDER]

An carrier is VERY VERY DIFFERENT from an oil tanker bro. We cant even compare the two when it comes to complexity/technology/skills required to build and operate. lol They are like night and day.

Even the Philippines/Vietnam build oil tankers, but can they build an aircraft carrier? not in 100 years. lol
An aircraft carrier is not just a ship with a flat top. It is a warship + cruise ship + nuclear reactor+ airport all rolled into one. It is a fortified, floating city. A floating military base. The technologies involved have evolved over a hundred years. The lessons learned from so many wars, especially the two world wars, is incorporated in it. You just cant sit at the drawing board and decide to gain expertise and build a carrier at the first attempt. The countries which have operated/built aircraft carriers like U.S,U.K,France and Russia(Japan did but hasn't built any modern fixed wings carrier for over half a century now due to political reasons) have almost a century of naval warfare experience with them- something which is not readily available.

So an aircraft carrier is not just a floating platform for aircraft. In order to be an effective military asset, she has to be able to carry, launch, maintain, control, recover and rearm a fleet of aircraft that sometimes is larger than the air forces of some countries.

An aircraft carrier also has to be stable enough to launch and recover her air wings, even in bad weather conditions, while going around 30 knots against the wind. She has to carry fuel (for herself and the aircrafts), ordinance, personnel, food, replacement parts... She has to be a self-sufficient city, far away from home.

Then, you have to consider:

• She is very expensive to build; the engineering alone to build her take decades to develop;
• She is very expensive to maintain; the huge complexity of ship that size makes the maintenance costs at least as high a the building costs; and the personnel.
• She is a extreme valuable target; so she must not go to combat alone; she must have a battle group alongside, with destroyers, submarines, missile cruisers, tender and taker ships... not to mention the lot of high skilled and trained personnel it carries, their lost would be an immense blow to the morale of your ranks;
• You can't have them all the time; their maintenance cycle are long, with about six month for modernization, more six month for training and certification for every two years of deployment (and don't forget months for "light" maintenance, crew rotation, etc.lol); so, if you want to have one deployed at all times, you need at least three(so even our 2 QE class are still not enough, we need 1 more. lol);
• She serves only one purpose: power projection; so, unless you have assets or interests far from homeland, you really don't need it.

As an example, last conflict were both sides had aircraft carriers was the Falklands War we fought against the Argentinians. The Argentinians had a reformed WWII Colossus class, the Vinticinco de Mayo; we had the Invincible and the Centaur class Hermes. They air wings never clashed, but they were so valuable to their fleets that, after the cruiser General Belgrano was sank, the Vinticinco de Mayo was retreated to a port and stayed there for the duration of the conflict; air operations were conducted from land bases. On the other side, we used our helicopters as decoys to protect their carriers, employing inclusive HRH Prince Andrews, at time second in the line of succession.

So, the answer is: unless you need a carrier, you don't want a carrier. So i will say Iran doesn't need one(and can't build one anyway) and shouldn't want one.



Well, they do have some similarities.

Annual budget of two carrier dry dock with full maintenance is around 650 million dollars.

 

[aliaselin]

Looks strange. Put SSM on top of hanger? Moreover, the stern is still open.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Best wish for Iran.

 

[danish_vij]

Are you playing clash of clans?

i am