AmirPatriot
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,156
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
I wouldn't say so. They are big enough, they just need to have some components reconfigured and moved around to accommodate the cells.
New Pictures of Sahand Frigate
- Thread starter Arminkh
- Start date
Arminkh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2014
- Messages
- 3,036
- Reaction score
- 15
- Country
- Location
I don't think they have enough depth and width to accommodate an array of lunch tubes next to each other. So they need to stack them in a row parallel to the length of the ship which then will occupy the space of the front gun. I have not seen VLS on ships smaller than 1800 ton.
They could do it on Khalije Fars Frigate though.
AmirPatriot
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,156
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
@Arminkh
Sa'ar 5 corvettes (pic below) displace less than 1300 tons full load, yet they carry 16 Barak-8 SAMs in VLS cells, and 8 Harpoon missiles. It only has a slightly wider beam and deeper draft, but is about 10-15 metres shorter.
Iranian ship designers need to get a bit more creative IMHO. The Sahand has been speculated to be in the 2,000-2,500 ton range. It is visibly bigger from satellite pictures than the 1500 ton Jamaran.
Move the gun further forward. The VLS does not need to be flush with the deck. I'm aware that the Sayyad-2 type missile is larger than the Barak-8, but surely it is possible to fit it. And one or two CIWS.
Sa'ar 5 corvettes (pic below) displace less than 1300 tons full load, yet they carry 16 Barak-8 SAMs in VLS cells, and 8 Harpoon missiles. It only has a slightly wider beam and deeper draft, but is about 10-15 metres shorter.
Iranian ship designers need to get a bit more creative IMHO. The Sahand has been speculated to be in the 2,000-2,500 ton range. It is visibly bigger from satellite pictures than the 1500 ton Jamaran.
Move the gun further forward. The VLS does not need to be flush with the deck. I'm aware that the Sayyad-2 type missile is larger than the Barak-8, but surely it is possible to fit it. And one or two CIWS.
sahureka2
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,480
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Corvette class project 21631 ("Buyan- M") with VLS system for Caliber cruise missile.
949 tons full
Length : 75 m (246 ft)
Beam: 11 m (36 ft)
and various upgrades, with external VLS systems
www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/Mk-48-missile-launcher.htm
949 tons full
Length : 75 m (246 ft)
Beam: 11 m (36 ft)
and various upgrades, with external VLS systems
www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/Mk-48-missile-launcher.htm
Arminkh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2014
- Messages
- 3,036
- Reaction score
- 15
- Country
- Location
Yes, but in this picture as you can see they had to remove the gun and buildup the deck to fit the launchers the hull itself is not deep enough to accommodate the VLS.@Arminkh
Sa'ar 5 corvettes (pic below) displace less than 1300 tons full load, yet they carry 16 Barak-8 SAMs in VLS cells, and 8 Harpoon missiles. It only has a slightly wider beam and deeper draft, but is about 10-15 metres shorter.
Iranian ship designers need to get a bit more creative IMHO. The Sahand has been speculated to be in the 2,000-2,500 ton range. It is visibly bigger from satellite pictures than the 1500 ton Jamaran.
Move the gun further forward. The VLS does not need to be flush with the deck. I'm aware that the Sayyad-2 type missile is larger than the Barak-8, but surely it is possible to fit it. And one or two CIWS.
On the other hand, the whole point of going to VLS, in addition to its 360 degree coverage is to reduce the space that the missiles will occupy. Fitting vls into small ships seem to somehow defeat that purpose.
and various upgrades, with external VLS systems
www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/Mk-48-missile-launcher.htm
I don't think this is a wise arrangement. It takes only one hit by a shell to disable the ships offensive capacity all together.
sahureka2
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,480
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
maybe you have to explain it to Canadians, Japanese, Dutch and Danish, which as you can see in the web address attached to upgrade their ships, not prepared to receive VLS underbridge, have opted for this configuration -
, with some minor modifications to the superstructure 
Arminkh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2014
- Messages
- 3,036
- Reaction score
- 15
- Country
- Location
I think for them it is more a matter of being compatible with what is available. Does any Nato country still produce non VLS launched seaborne missiles?
Any way this is my opinion as of why Iranian army leaders are going without VLS. I'm sure they have good reasons for doing that.
Jamaran is the name of an old neighborhood in Tehran where the former Iranian leader "Ayatollah Khomeini" used to live.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaran
Sahand is the name of one of many mountain peaks in Iran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahand
Kiarash
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2008
- Messages
- 451
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Fafnir
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2016
- Messages
- 831
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Sadly irans navy seems to be very,very conservative when it comes to ship design,not to mention that irans warships lack basic systems like ciws/anti-missile protection and have done for years,so really if the navy top brass are going to ignore things like that its not surprising they probably wouldnt even consider things like a vls add to that the obsolescence of the sams and other systems and you can see that in many ways irans navy is stuck back in the early 70s.
Then again with the new 6000+ ton khaliije fars hull iran has the potential,in theory at least,to design a very modern,very capable destroyer,the question of course is will they and frankly I`d have to say that based on current performance I`m not that optimistic.Personally I think irans navy needs to acquire some very modern state of the art ships from russia and china just so they can get a good look at what a modern state of the art ship is,because lets be honest theres only so much you can learn from copying and conservatively redesigning 1960s era ships fitted with 1970s era technology.
AmirPatriot
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,156
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
They didn't build up the deck. The deck is the same in terms of level/height, but it's just got VLS cells poking out of it. These VLS cells are just surrounded with same plating presumably to maintain stealth and prevent water going in through the gap in the deck. Something like what @sahureka2 made with the edited picture of Jamaran.
As for the gun, just move it forward. Sahand is 10-15 metres longer than the Sa'ar 5 and can accommodate a gun if it is repositioned.
As well as what you mentioned, the thinking behind VLS is mostly to maximise firepower with the space you have, not necessarily save space for other components. It also increases the number of missiles that can be fired in quick succession.
I have to agree with @Fafnir here, Iranian naval designers are being too conservative armament wise.
eagle2007
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 1
AmirPatriot,
With respect, any talk of the Sahand being "visibly" larger than the earlier Mowjs (Jamaran and Damavand) is 100% incorrect. It's measurements via Google Earth match the earlier vessels almost exactly (~94 meters x ~11 meters). The only major superstructure difference (size-wise) is that the bridge is more raised than the earlier vessels. The layout of the deck/superstructure is nearly identical however. Don't let the RCS-reducing appearance fool you, it's layout hasn't changed all that much, just its outside appearance.
ALCON,
The real trick to incorporating VLS is this: compact and smart deck/superstructure layout. Case in the point: The Sa'ar V not only has two VLS modules (& a Phalanx mounted just ahead of those), but also has a helipad AND hangar large enough for a medium-type helo like the AS565, just enough room for a set of quad-Harpoon launchers. All on a vessel 9-10 meters shorter than the Sahand. How? Besides some major differences in superstructure designs, there are likely many INTERNAL differences at play as well. The arrangement "below deck" can have major impact on the way you layout the above deck. Why for example, have Iranian engineers retained the stepped structure that is a Vosper hallmark? Can what is contained in that structure be moved below decks?
That's the kind of thinking that needs to be done to make maximum use of deck space on any combat vessel today. The Sa'ar V is no longer an outliner in terms of compactness/potency for vessels its size (traditionally called corvettes or light frigates).
Here are some figures for those wishing for a Sayyad-2 based VLS:
Mk 57 VLS (4-cells)
>Width- 2.21 meters
>Length- 4.33 meters
>Height- 7.93 meters --> This is deeper than required for the intended SAMs & is meant to allow for launching Tomahawks. If ONLY for launching SAMs, the height required could be reduced to ~5.3 meters.
Lets assume for the moment, Iranian engineers work out how to make the stepped structure below the bridge into a VLS platform of sorts. Even using the smaller 5.3 meter figure above, that means the launcher would extend half-way below deck (based on my guesstimate of this stepped structure being <2.5 meters from top to bottom). Given the dimensions of this existing structure, I'd wager you could fit a VLS like the existing 8-cell Mk41 without it being too cramped. You might want to extend the structure forward towards the gun another 1/2-1 meter just to be safe tho..
To make that work of course, Iranian engineers need to miniaturize the existing Sayyad-2 launch canisters as much as possible (see the Mk25 missile canisters the Mk41s use), develop a centralized venting/exhaust system (due to the hot-launch method used), re-arrange the compartments that stepped structure houses presently, and re-arrange below deck as well.
Not remotely impossible but definitely a lot of work. Ideally, you can develop the VLS on-land and then "drop it" (quite literally) into the hull of the redesigned vessel.
With respect, any talk of the Sahand being "visibly" larger than the earlier Mowjs (Jamaran and Damavand) is 100% incorrect. It's measurements via Google Earth match the earlier vessels almost exactly (~94 meters x ~11 meters). The only major superstructure difference (size-wise) is that the bridge is more raised than the earlier vessels. The layout of the deck/superstructure is nearly identical however. Don't let the RCS-reducing appearance fool you, it's layout hasn't changed all that much, just its outside appearance.
ALCON,
The real trick to incorporating VLS is this: compact and smart deck/superstructure layout. Case in the point: The Sa'ar V not only has two VLS modules (& a Phalanx mounted just ahead of those), but also has a helipad AND hangar large enough for a medium-type helo like the AS565, just enough room for a set of quad-Harpoon launchers. All on a vessel 9-10 meters shorter than the Sahand. How? Besides some major differences in superstructure designs, there are likely many INTERNAL differences at play as well. The arrangement "below deck" can have major impact on the way you layout the above deck. Why for example, have Iranian engineers retained the stepped structure that is a Vosper hallmark? Can what is contained in that structure be moved below decks?
That's the kind of thinking that needs to be done to make maximum use of deck space on any combat vessel today. The Sa'ar V is no longer an outliner in terms of compactness/potency for vessels its size (traditionally called corvettes or light frigates).
Here are some figures for those wishing for a Sayyad-2 based VLS:
Mk 57 VLS (4-cells)
>Width- 2.21 meters
>Length- 4.33 meters
>Height- 7.93 meters --> This is deeper than required for the intended SAMs & is meant to allow for launching Tomahawks. If ONLY for launching SAMs, the height required could be reduced to ~5.3 meters.
Lets assume for the moment, Iranian engineers work out how to make the stepped structure below the bridge into a VLS platform of sorts. Even using the smaller 5.3 meter figure above, that means the launcher would extend half-way below deck (based on my guesstimate of this stepped structure being <2.5 meters from top to bottom). Given the dimensions of this existing structure, I'd wager you could fit a VLS like the existing 8-cell Mk41 without it being too cramped. You might want to extend the structure forward towards the gun another 1/2-1 meter just to be safe tho..
To make that work of course, Iranian engineers need to miniaturize the existing Sayyad-2 launch canisters as much as possible (see the Mk25 missile canisters the Mk41s use), develop a centralized venting/exhaust system (due to the hot-launch method used), re-arrange the compartments that stepped structure houses presently, and re-arrange below deck as well.
Not remotely impossible but definitely a lot of work. Ideally, you can develop the VLS on-land and then "drop it" (quite literally) into the hull of the redesigned vessel.
