New Pictures of Sahand Frigate

[Penguin]

As I said!
Their Anti Ship Missiles have far lesser range & and are fewer in number than Iran's Mowj Class

Operational ranges
Kh-35 = 130 km (70 nmi)
Kh-35U = 260-300 km (up to 160 nmi), depending on source.
Noor = 30-170 km depending on the model
Qader = 200 - 300km depending on the model/source

Mowj carries max. 4. (2x2) The DPRK corvette is quoted as having 2 launchers for Kumsong-3 anti-ship cruise missile. If you know about Uran and look at other DPRK ships, you can conclude 2 launchers = 4 missiles.

See e.g.
http://arstechnica.com/information-...-previously-secret-stealth-missile-hoverboat/
https://www.nknews.org/2015/02/state-media-highlights-test-launch-of-anti-ship-missile/
https://www.nknews.org/2015/02/n-korea-flaunts-new-stealth-ship-with-advanced-missile-capability/

They have rotary cannons so again a less advanced & less powerful cannon that Iran's Owj Class

2x 20mm Oerlikon 20 mm/85 KAA clones (in service since 1985) on GAM-BO1 like mounting and 1 x 40mm Bofors 40/L70 clone (in service since late 1940s) versus multiple 14.5mm gatlings (date unknown) and 30mm AK630 type gatlings (originally develop 1976).

1x 76mm/62 Oto Melara Compact clone (in service since early 1960s) installed versus space and weight reserved for a medium caliber gun.

Sure, that sounds like much less advanced an less powerfull gun armament....

Iran's Jamaran, Damavand & Sahand are equipped with antiaircraft missiles that can hit targets ~25km & +50KM(Sahand) & theirs is under 8km max

Sure, but Iran's ships have at best 4 rounds of these on board, and the launchers cannot be reloaded while at sea, and no spares are carried on board. The DPRK ships have at least 1x a 6-round launcher, which can easily be reloaded at sea and no doubt a sufficient number of spare rounds is carried. Also, the Iranian SAMs are semi-active radar homing and require target illumination. This is provided by a single radar illuminator i.e. the systems can engage only 1 target at a time, and one must wait for the target engagement to be complete before another target can be engaged. Whereas the DPRK boats have IR homing missiles, which are fire-and-forget, so that multiple targets can be engaged in very rapid succession.

So, there are some clear trade-offs made against range.

Iran has a far more advance electronics, sensors & radar almost more advanced everything!

And, since no info on or discussion of electronics and sensors (including radars) was provided, you know this how? At this point, this is just your (unsubstantiated) claim.

Their ship is 77meters long ours is 95 Meters with a much shorter Helo pad so it's far better equipped with a greater range.

No range and endurance data was provided on the DPRK ship, so I really wonder how youcan make such a claim. It is not necessarily the case that a longer ship automatically has greater range (more important is type of propulsion > fuel consumption), or is far better equipped. In the Dutch navy e.g. our 108m Holland class ships have longer range than our 122m Doorman class ships. The 122m ships are 3300 tons and the 108m ships 3750 tons. The former is a richly equipped but older frigate and the latter an more austerely equipped but newer OPV. In terms of quality of systems, the latter is more modern.

As indicated by e.g. Janes', DPRK actually has 2 versions of the same corvette: one with facilities for a helicopter, the other better armed and equipped but without helicopter.

ANYWAY: The whole point of comparison was to look at approaches taken by different states / navies operating under similar conditions i.e. not dong measuring and chest thumping.

 

[AmirPatriot]

And making cruise Missiles vertically launched wouldn't be that complicated!

Most navies don't bother.

Arleigh Burke class with 8x Harpoons launched "standard":

Russian Sovremennyy 8x forward firing Sunburns:

Same case with the Japanese, French, British etc. navies.

Though the Indian Navy does have 16x VLS BrahMos:

That seems to be a very powerful vessel, though as a trade-off it's anti-air capacity is less prolific a more anti-air focused ship like the Arleigh Burke.

 

[VEVAK]

Most navies don't bother.

Arleigh Burke class with 8x Harpoons launched "standard":

Russian Sovremennyy 8x forward firing Sunburns:

Same case with the Japanese, French, British etc. navies.

Though the Indian Navy does have 16x VLS BrahMos:

That seems to be a very powerful vessel, though as a trade-off it's anti-air capacity is less prolific a more anti-air focused ship like the Arleigh Burke.

They don't bother unless they have land attack cruise missiles onboard also because you can fire at higher speeds if you don't!
But that doesn't mean Iranian researchers aren't doing R&D on them!!!!!! So again it would surprise me if they weren't!

Operational ranges
Kh-35 = 130 km (70 nmi)
Kh-35U = 260-300 km (up to 160 nmi), depending on source.
Noor = 30-170 km depending on the model
Qader = 200 - 300km depending on the model/source

Mowj carries max. 4. (2x2) The DPRK corvette is quoted as having 2 launchers for Kumsong-3 anti-ship cruise missile. If you know about Uran and look at other DPRK ships, you can conclude 2 launchers = 4 missiles.

See e.g.
http://arstechnica.com/information-...-previously-secret-stealth-missile-hoverboat/
https://www.nknews.org/2015/02/state-media-highlights-test-launch-of-anti-ship-missile/
https://www.nknews.org/2015/02/n-korea-flaunts-new-stealth-ship-with-advanced-missile-capability/

2x 20mm Oerlikon 20 mm/85 KAA clones (in service since 1985) on GAM-BO1 like mounting and 1 x 40mm Bofors 40/L70 clone (in service since late 1940s) versus multiple 14.5mm gatlings (date unknown) and 30mm AK630 type gatlings (originally develop 1976).

1x 76mm/62 Oto Melara Compact clone (in service since early 1960s) installed versus space and weight reserved for a medium caliber gun.

Sure, that sounds like much less advanced an less powerfull gun armament....



Sure, but Iran's ships have at best 4 rounds of these on board, and the launchers cannot be reloaded while at sea, and no spares are carried on board. The DPRK ships have at least 1x a 6-round launcher, which can easily be reloaded at sea and no doubt a sufficient number of spare rounds is carried. Also, the Iranian SAMs are semi-active radar homing and require target illumination. This is provided by a single radar illuminator i.e. the systems can engage only 1 target at a time, and one must wait for the target engagement to be complete before another target can be engaged. Whereas the DPRK boats have IR homing missiles, which are fire-and-forget, so that multiple targets can be engaged in very rapid succession.

So, there are some clear trade-offs made against range.


And, since no info on or discussion of electronics and sensors (including radars) was provided, you know this how? At this point, this is just your (unsubstantiated) claim.


No range and endurance data was provided on the DPRK ship, so I really wonder how youcan make such a claim. It is not necessarily the case that a longer ship automatically has greater range (more important is type of propulsion > fuel consumption), or is far better equipped. In the Dutch navy e.g. our 108m Holland class ships have longer range than our 122m Doorman class ships. The 122m ships are 3300 tons and the 108m ships 3750 tons. The former is a richly equipped but older frigate and the latter an more austerely equipped but newer OPV. In terms of quality of systems, the latter is more modern.

As indicated by e.g. Janes', DPRK actually has 2 versions of the same corvette: one with facilities for a helicopter, the other better armed and equipped but without helicopter.

ANYWAY: The whole point of comparison was to look at approaches taken by different states / navies operating under similar conditions i.e. not dong measuring and chest thumping.

Sure, whatever you say!!!!!!!! LOL!
76mm cannon vs 40mm & you wanna compare 1 of Iran's cannons to all of their guns as if that's the only gun/cannon Iran's Owj class has onboard!!!!!!!! Pathetic!

As for our SAM if your deluded enough to think Iranian ships don't have MANPAD's onboard that's your problem!!!!!!!!!! Even Iranian speed boats carry MANPAD's let alone our ships! So we have IR missiles on top of radar guided missiles!!!!!!!

It's just hilarious that you think you know everything about Iranian ships! Their ships have spare parts but Iranian ships don't have any! yea because you've been onboard!!!!!

77Meters vs 95 Meters!!!!!! Which ship do you think can carry more weapons, parts & fuel the one that's 60feet smaller???????? My GOD!

Their ships is like an extended Iranian Kaman class missile boat with a helo deck with a bunch of AAA NOTHING MORE!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[AmirPatriot]

land attack cruise missiles

But LACMs can't fire on ships.

If the US or Russia don't use VLS AShMs, then I hardly think Iran is going to do so. Though it would be highly beneficial if they had more than just 4 Noors.

 

[eagle2007]

Vevak,

With all due respect, trying to claim a vessel is "better" simply because it has greater tonnage/longer length is about as uninformed as it gets.

Case in point: There are any number of vessels around the world today that are smaller than Iran's Mowj-class and MUCH better armed and have similar range figures. UAE's Baynunah-class for example. At ~1000 tons/71 meters, it sports an armament greater than TWO Mowj-class vessels, has a helipad AND hangar with very similar range (4400km vs 5000km).

How can this be? Because compared to the Mowj-class, the Baynunah-class has virtually NO wasted deck space. In addition, it likely has more compact machinery (aka propulsion) or its 4 diesel engines are more efficient than the Mowj-class (aka have better fuel economy), allow for the smaller vessel to have similar speed and 90% the range of the much larger Mowj-class.

Now, if the differences in vessel size is measured by THOUSANDS of tons of displacement, then that's another story but that's not the case here.

Long story short: Don't judge a vessel by its size, judge it by its kit!

 

[Penguin]

Most navies don't bother.

Arleigh Burke class with 8x Harpoons launched "standard":

NSM will be made available for Mk41, the new LRASM will be Mk41 compatible.

 

[VEVAK]

But LACMs can't fire on ships.

If the US or Russia don't use VLS AShMs, then I hardly think Iran is going to do so. Though it would be highly beneficial if they had more than just 4 Noors.

LACM can't fire on ships but the U.S. does have Tomahawk missiles that have been converted to anti ship missiles that are fired from VLS! And Iran would likely have to do the same with it's own cruise missiles if they at one point decide to build a VLS but their is no reason to do so unless you wanna put LACM on your ships!

Iran's Bavar 373 will be vertically launched so once that system goes into production it would make sense to build a ship with VLS system that can fire powerful Anti Aircraft Missiles, LACM & complimentary Anti ship missiles place in your VLS on top of your normal Ghadir anti-ship missiles for when your on the move....
But again, it doesn't make much sense unless you plan on having a good amount of LACM on your ship!

Personally, I would 1st love to see Iran arm some of it's ships & Sina class missile boats with the Mesbah-1 AAA system I believe it a perfect system to counter incoming anti-ship cruise missiles!

If it was me every other Sina Class I build I would arm with Mesbah-1 up front & a VLS system carrying 4-6 Ya Mahdi Cruise missiles in the back + 2 Ghadir & 2 Nasr AShMs...! & trust me they would all fit on the Sina Class
You can also add a couple of MANPAD's connected to the mesbah-1 search and track optics!

Not all of them just half of the new ones

 

[Penguin]

Sure, whatever you say!!!!!!!! LOL!
76mm cannon vs 40mm & you wanna compare 1 of Iran's cannons to all of their guns as if that's the only gun/cannon Iran's Owj class has onboard!!!!!!!! Pathetic!

I compared all the gun types on Mowj with all the known guns on the DPRK ship. I also pointed out that while the DPRK ship has no medium gun mounted, it has space and weight reserved for it. The Iranian 20mm and 40mm guns are in no way more advanced than the DPRK 14.5mm and 30mm gatling guns. In fact, the Iranian guns are clones of Western guns, some of which go as far back as the late 1940s. I'm very sorry that you can't handle facts very well.

Bofors 40mm/L70

Oerlikon 20mm/85 KAA on GAM-BO1 gunmount

Oto Melara 76mm/62 Compact Naval Gun

As for our SAM if your deluded enough to think Iranian ships don't have MANPAD's onboard that's your problem!!!!!!!!!! Even Iranian speed boats carry MANPAD's let alone our ships! So we have IR missiles on top of radar guided missiles!!!!!!!

I am very sorry you fail to understand the difference between a hand-held, shoulder fired MANPADS on a moving ship and a sensor cued, remotely controlled, stabilized, multiround pedestal mounted MANPADS. And, these ships have just 2 canister launched SAMs (2 rounds)

It's just hilarious that you think you know everything about Iranian ships! Their ships have spare parts but Iranian ships don't have any! yea because you've been onboard!!!!!

I have not spoken to spare parts. I spoke about additional rounds i.e. missiles (when your 4 missiles in launch containers are expended, there are no spares on board. And even if there were, how do you suggest they are moved from some alledge magazine to the on deck launch containers while at sea (these are Standard Missile equivalents i.e. about 5m long and weighing 700kg)? The hilariousness is provided by you, I am afraid.

See in front of bridge: SAM launch canisters (2x1)

Same on this Kaman class.

77Meters vs 95 Meters!!!!!! Which ship do you think can carry more weapons, parts & fuel the one that's 60feet smaller???????? My GOD!

Addressed by another poster already.

Their ships is like an extended Iranian Kaman class missile boat with a helo deck with a bunch of AAA NOTHING MORE!!!!!!!!!!!

It is really sad you can't move beyond dong measuring.

LACM can't fire on ships but the U.S. does have Tomahawk missiles that have been converted to anti ship missiles that are fired from VLS! And Iran would likely have to do the same with it's own cruise missiles if they at one point decide to build a VLS but their is no reason to do so unless you wanna put LACM on your ships!

RGM/UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile (TASM) – active radar homing anti-ship missile variant; withdrawn from service in the 1990s.

In 2014, Raytheon began testing Block IV improvements to attack sea and moving land targets. The new passive radar seeker will pick up the electromagnetic radar signature of a target and follow it, and actively send out a signal to bounce off potential targets before impact to discriminate its legitimacy before impact. Mounting the multi-mode sensor on the missile's nose would remove fuel space, but company officials believe the Navy would be willing to give up space for the sensor's new technologies. The previous Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile, retired over a decade earlier, was equipped with inertial guidance and the seeker of the Harpoon missile and there was concern with its ability to clearly discriminate between targets from a long distance, since at the time Navy sensors did not have as much range as the missile itself, which would be more reliable with the new seeker's passive detection and active millimeter-wave radar. Raytheon estimates adding the new seeker would cost $250,000 per missile.

The first Block IV TLAMs modified with a maritime attack capability will enter service in 2021

 

[AmirPatriot]

LACM can't fire on ships but the U.S. does have Tomahawk missiles that have been converted to anti ship missiles that are fired from VLS!

Only fielded briefly, and it wasn't because they wanted a VLS AShM, it was because they wanted a quick developed long range AShM.

IMHO VLS is not required for AShM, since they don't take up much deck space. Just look at the USN method.

As for Mesbah-1 thats dead, too much inaccuracy. We have an AK-630 clone instead.

 

[Penguin]

As for Mesbah-1 thats dead, too much inaccuracy. We have an AK-630 clone instead.

So much for "They have rotary cannons so again a less advanced & less powerful cannon that Iran's Owj Class"
Source: https://defence.pk/threads/new-pictures-of-sahand-frigate.465080/page-6#ixzz4SwjGasPw

 

[eagle2007]

ALCON,

Indeed the Mesbah-1 is an ungainly and impractical design for use on naval vessels. Weapons systems, regardless of type, need to be COMPACT if you are planning to fit them to naval vessels. The Mesbah-1 is arguably the LEAST compact design Iranian naval engineers could come up with and to be put one on one of the IRIN/IRGCN vessel would be an insult to their intelligence.

It's not to say the Mesbah-1 can't function as a CIWS, it's just a terrible design for use on naval vessels and should only be pursued as a last resort, which if the AK-630 clone is the real deal, is 100% NOT necessary since it a far superior design for a CIWS (better rate of fire, large projectiles, tighter groupings, and smaller footprint).

 

[VEVAK]

ALCON,

My first post here at this forum & y'all look like you're having plenty of fun so why not hop in?

My take on the comparison of NK's 77meter Corvette (both variants) and the Mowj-class Frigates:

-Point Defense: To date, the Mowj's defense against AshMs is definitely inferior to both variants of the NK corvette.
The single-barrel 40mm Fath (which CAN be automated but is clearly still configured for manned-used as well) can't compete with the rate of fire of NK's AK-630 based CIWS now standard on many of their new vessels. Iran did show a glimpse of a AK-630 being tested, so hopefully the Sahand will have better a better point-defense compared to her predecessors.

-SAM: Definitely a strong point but also a somewhat limited one at present, given the low number of rounds on the current Mowj-class vessels (Damavand-2 and Jamaran-4). We'll have to wait to see what the Sahand's SAM load-out ends up being. IMHO, she could end up sporting 8 SAMs depending on how they decide to use available deck space.

-Helipad: Actually, if that report is correct, the NK's corvette (helipad variant) has the larger helipad. The Mowj-class to date have a helipad measuring ~22 meters long vs 28 meters of the NK vessel. That said, the NK corvette helipad variant is a bit puzzling. Building a corvette with a helipad large enough for a light/medium type helos is fine and dandy but that's a nasty price to pay for limited armament (aka no AshMs apparently). Only IF those helos were ASW-equipped would that trade-off make sense.

-AshM: The article states that the NK corvette will likely sport two sets of launchers but I would bet they are likely two twin launchers, as this is the configuration seen on NK's latest missile boats. If that's the case, the non-helipad equipped variant of the NK corvette would be similarly equipped as the existing Mowj-class vessels.

--To-date, based on the design of the launchers, the Jamaran is fitted with *standard Noor/C-802 launchers, as opposed to the Damavand (which IS fitted with improved members of the Noor family). Assuming the Sahand is fitted with the improved members of the C-802/Noor family, she'll be better equipped than any NK-vessel to date.

-Sensor Suite: North Korea is clearly working on more advanced radar designs as seen in their KN-06 SAM system (can't remember their domestic designation for it at the moment). That said, there's little evidence NK has the same kind of radar/optic technology Iran is now fitting to her naval vessels.

Conclusion: The newly spotted non-helipad equipped NK corvette is definitely in the same class as the existing Mowj-vessels, though just a bit inferior in "kit". It has superior point-defense systems but is entirely dependent on land-based SAMs for BVR air defense. The helipad-equipped corvette is something of a mystery at this point. Unless NK gets their hands on proper ASW helicopters in the near future, with no AshMs equipped, it's going to be a sitting duck in any conflict scenario.

Cheers!

ALCON,

Indeed the Mesbah-1 is an ungainly and impractical design for use on naval vessels. Weapons systems, regardless of type, need to be COMPACT if you are planning to fit them to naval vessels. The Mesbah-1 is arguably the LEAST compact design Iranian naval engineers could come up with and to be put one on one of the IRIN/IRGCN vessel would be an insult to their intelligence.

It's not to say the Mesbah-1 can't function as a CIWS, it's just a terrible design for use on naval vessels and should only be pursued as a last resort, which if the AK-630 clone is the real deal, is 100% NOT necessary since it a far superior design for a CIWS (better rate of fire, large projectiles, tighter groupings, and smaller footprint).

Mesbah for Iran's Sina Class & it is smaller in diameter than the cannon it already has! And I didn't say on all but on every other one they build from now on

This is what I wanna see against incoming AShMs
One burst and done!

 

[AmirPatriot]

This is what I wanna see against incoming AShMs
One burst and done!

If you actually manage to hit the darn thing.

I don't think anybody needs to tell you why 8x 23 mm autocannons mounted on a modified chassis with little to no additional strengthening is bad for precision.

The AK-630 is, as @eagle2007 already said, a far better system in every measurable way. And Iran should be able to mount it on its next vessels.

Speaking of the AK-630 - is it possible Iran just acquired a few dozen from Russia, without bothering to produce them? It is, after, employed in small numbers. And it isn't too difficult to maintain. Even better, it's technically an Air Defence System, so it isn't covered by sanctions, just as the S-300 wasn't.

 

[VEVAK]

I compared all the gun types on Mowj with all the known guns on the DPRK ship. I also pointed out that while the DPRK ship has no medium gun mounted, it has space and weight reserved for it. The Iranian 20mm and 40mm guns are in no way more advanced than the DPRK 14.5mm and 30mm gatling guns. In fact, the Iranian guns are clones of Western guns, some of which go as far back as the late 1940s. I'm very sorry that you can't handle facts very well.

Bofors 40mm/L70

Oerlikon 20mm/85 KAA on GAM-BO1 gunmount

Oto Melara 76mm/62 Compact Naval Gun

I am very sorry you fail to understand the difference between a hand-held, shoulder fired MANPADS on a moving ship and a sensor cued, remotely controlled, stabilized, multiround pedestal mounted MANPADS. And, these ships have just 2 canister launched SAMs (2 rounds)


I have not spoken to spare parts. I spoke about additional rounds i.e. missiles (when your 4 missiles in launch containers are expended, there are no spares on board. And even if there were, how do you suggest they are moved from some alledge magazine to the on deck launch containers while at sea (these are Standard Missile equivalents i.e. about 5m long and weighing 700kg)? The hilariousness is provided by you, I am afraid.

See in front of bridge: SAM launch canisters (2x1)

Same on this Kaman class.

Addressed by another poster already.


It is really sad you can't move beyond dong measuring.


RGM/UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile (TASM) – active radar homing anti-ship missile variant; withdrawn from service in the 1990s.

In 2014, Raytheon began testing Block IV improvements to attack sea and moving land targets. The new passive radar seeker will pick up the electromagnetic radar signature of a target and follow it, and actively send out a signal to bounce off potential targets before impact to discriminate its legitimacy before impact. Mounting the multi-mode sensor on the missile's nose would remove fuel space, but company officials believe the Navy would be willing to give up space for the sensor's new technologies. The previous Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile, retired over a decade earlier, was equipped with inertial guidance and the seeker of the Harpoon missile and there was concern with its ability to clearly discriminate between targets from a long distance, since at the time Navy sensors did not have as much range as the missile itself, which would be more reliable with the new seeker's passive detection and active millimeter-wave radar. Raytheon estimates adding the new seeker would cost $250,000 per missile.

The first Block IV TLAMs modified with a maritime attack capability will enter service in 2021

A bomber at high altitude within 20km of N.Korean ship is way out of range for their SAM but it is not out of range of Iran's SAM's on the Mowj Class! & Sahand is set to have even a greater range!!!!!!!

So again cry all you want that is a fact of life!!!!!!!! Bombers can fly circles around that ship but not so with Iran!

Iran's ship clearly have superior Air & Sea radar! You can't hit what you can't see! Iran can build anti-ship cruise missiles with ranges over 1000km but what would be the point if you can't track & target at that range!

76mm cannon vs 40mm cannon! And Iran doesn't need to reinvent the wheel! Wheel goes round & and 76 mm is both more powerful and has a greater range than a 40mm & 20mm
Iran's 76mm cannon can hit Airborne targets at a greater distance than their Manpads

Bigger haul = longer range doesn't make a ship superior the other aspects do!

Reduced RCS is by no means stealth & every advanced radar that needs to will have it's signature saved

You can bang your head on the wall as much as you like Iran's Mowj call is superior in almost every aspect!

 

[AmirPatriot]

smaller in diameter than the cannon it already has

Which is the 76 mm Fajr-27. It would be better to replace the 40 mm gun at the back, but unfortunately I don't think the Navy will bother putting a CIWS on such small vessels.

A bomber at high altitude within 20km of N.Korean ship is way out of range for their SAM but it is not out of range of Iran's SAM's on the Mowj Class! & Sahand is set to have even a greater range!!!!!!!

So again cry all you want that is a fact of life!!!!!!!! Bombers can fly circles around that ship but not so with Iran!

Iran's ship clearly have superior Air & Sea radar! You can't hit what you can't see! Iran can build anti-ship cruise missiles with ranges over 1000km but what would be the point if you can't track & target at that range!

76mm cannon vs 40mm cannon! And Iran doesn't need to reinvent the wheel! Wheel goes round & and 76 mm is both more powerful and has a greater range than a 40mm & 20mm
Iran's 76mm cannon can hit Airborne targets at a greater distance than their Manpads

Bigger haul = longer range doesn't make a ship superior the other aspects do!

Reduced RCS is by no means stealth & every advanced radar that needs to will have it's signature saved

You can bang your head on the wall as much as you like Iran's Mowj call is superior in almost every aspect!

Nobody was saying one is better than the other, he only brought that forward in order to compare with what the Sahand may have, so we would better gauge its capabilities.