What’s Wrong With Iran’s Fake Aircraft Carrier

[Philosopher]

where is your proof that it had one

Given Iran has incorporated cluster warhead on its long range missile in the past, it is not a difficult thought process to think it is likely Khormashahr series missiles have this as well.

 

[Hack-Hook]

False information, again.

Iranian experts have made some changes to Shahab-3 missiles installing cluster warheads in them with the capacity to carry 1,400 bombs,"

https://web.archive.org/web/2006110...D/meast/11/02/iran.manoeuvres.reut/index.html

how many times IRIB reported nonsense ?

 

[Philosopher]

how many times IRIB reported nonsense ?

It is not IRIB that made the claim, but the general. I recall very nicely the General making that statement on Television, we were discussing it in the old IMF.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Given Iran has incorporated cluster warhead on its long range missile in the past, it is not a difficult thought process to think it is likely Khormashahr series missiles have this as well.

so no proof

It is not IRIB that made the claim, but the general. I recall very nicely the General making that statement on Television, we were discussing it in the old IMF.

the general said cluster warhead , the 1400 bomblet come from the mouth of IRIB arabic news reporter and all other news media began to report it

 

[Philosopher]

so no proof

If you chose not to follow a common sense trend, then so be it. We do not have to count Khoramshahr missile, however we do know of others Iranians missiles that use such a warhead.

the general said cluster warhead , the 1400 bomblet come from the mouth of IRIB arabic news reporter and all other news media began to report it

Except the fact I vividly remember the 1400 bomblet statement spoken directly from the General Safavi himself, and like I said we were discussing it in the old forum. Unless you have any actual proof that number is not valid, then perhaps don't make these claims.

 

[Blue In Green]

If you chose not to follow a common sense trend, then so be it. We do not have to count Khoramshahr missile, however we do know of others Iranians missiles that use such a warhead.



Except the fact I vividly remember the 1400 bomblet statement spoken directly from the General Safavi himself, and like I said we were discussing it in the old forum. Unless you have any actual proof that number is not valid, then perhaps don't make these claims.

There is plenty of sensitive equipment/mechanism located on the flight deck so I also do think 1,400 bomblets would do at least some level of appreciable damage. Although a single Khalijeh Fars missile or anything similar hitting the catapult assembly would be all that's required to render the main purpose of the AC inoperable.

 

[Philosopher]

There is plenty of sensitive equipment/mechanism located on the flight deck so I also do think 1,400 bomblets would do at least some level of appreciable damage. Although a single Khalijeh Fars missile or anything similar hitting the catapult assembly would be all that's required to render the main purpose of the AC inoperable.

That is correct. What people need to remember is as long as we can damage the vessel enough to take it out of service, then that is good enough. If you choose to sink it, then you can do that subsequently. Sinking a ship and causing mass casualties might not be a smart military move, especially if your opponent is a trigger happy nuclear armed nation. I recall an interview with General Salami where he said they will not necessarily look to sink the American naval assets. Now if you absolutely have to sink something, then you will. But it is not necessarily always your first aim. Even taking over their ships is more of a military and propaganda victory (but I will not go into this too much).

 

[Mithridates]

US Lexington class carrier was able to carry 90 aircraft, 4*200mm cannons and 12*127mm cannons. this things weight ~350 tons overall.
each oto melara-76mm multi purpose weights ~7.5 tons empty. each kamand/ak-630 point defense weights 1 ton empty. two 76mm+six 30mm cannons=21 tons empty.
240*6.296 kg (76mm ordinary ammunition weight)=1.5 tons==>1.5*2=3 tons
4000*853g (30*165mm ammunition weight)=~3.5 tons==>3.5*6=21 tons
overall weapons and ammunition weight=21+21+3=45 tons
each sayyad-2 missile alongside with it's canister weights 1.8 tons. considering this with a wild guess, sayyad 4 would weight around 6 tons with it's canister.
20*SD-4=120 tons
each hawk/shaheen missile weight 590 kg (shalamcheh-2 looks lighter but anyway we consider worst case scenario). if we consider the same canister weight to missile weight of sayyad-2 for shalamcheh-2, meaning 0.8 missile weight:
590 kg*40=23.6 tons==>23.6*1.8=42.5 tons.
overall air defenses weight=120+42.5=162.5 tons

350-207.5=142.5 tons weight saved for aerial vehicles and cruise missiles
each mil mi-17 has 13 tons max take off weight:
5*13=65 tons
each ah-1j has 4.5 max take off weight:
4.5*6=27 tons.
overall helicopters weight:
65+27=92 tons

162.5-92=70.5 tons weight saved for cruise missiles and drones

considering that the shahed s-191 uses tj-100 engine, and the fact that another small homemade airplane uses the same engine and it's range is similar and it weights around 600 kg, i assume each s-191 drone weights the same. so for 50 s-191 drones we will spare 30 tons.
considering the thrust/weight ratio of kh-55 missile and using tj-100 thrust (which we use it in ya ali cruise missile), each ya ali missile will weight around 600 kg. with 40.5 tons remaining after adding drones we can have around 70 ya ali missiles onboard of our aircraft cruiser. or 27 soumar cruise missiles.

so lets review our new aircraft carrier/aircraft cruiser capabilities:

-two oto melara-76/fajr-27 with 240 round per cannon
-six ak-630/kamand CIWS with 4000 rounds per cannon
-20 sayyad-4 long range missiles
-40 shalamcheh-2 short range missiles
-5 mil mi-17 medium transport helicopters
-6 ah-1j attack helicopters
-50 stealth s-191 drones
-70 ya ali or 27 soumar/kh-55 cruise missile

consider this fact that lexington used 16 water boilers to power it's propulsion, while we can use two or three of our f-4s engines with free running turbine in tandem to make more power compared to Lexington. it translates into lighter weights.

Lexington class carrier:

we already made a heavy weight oil tanker for Venezuela, the soracaima. specifications of soracaima:
length: 250 meters
height: 21 meters
beam: 44 meters
draft: 14.8 meters
speed:16 knots
displacement: 21000 tons, 134000 tons fully loaded

so we can build carriers, aircraft cruisers and LHD.
i want my aircraft carrier.
please if anyone from navy reading this, build one for me.

 

[Hack-Hook]

we already made a heavy weight oil tanker for Venezuela, the soracaima. specifications of soracaima:
length: 250 meters
height: 21 meters
beam: 44 meters
draft: 14.8 meters
speed:16 knots
displacement: 21000 tons, 134000 tons fully loaded

so we can build carriers, aircraft cruisers and LHD.
i want my aircraft carrier.
please if anyone from navy reading this, build one for me.

a warship with 16 knots of speed without any sort of maneuverability . also it nearly have no armor , and its survivability is questionable in case of war ,it literally have no armor .
your carrier would be peace time carrier, that lexington have more survivability.

 

[Muhammed45]

a warship with 16 knots of speed without any sort of maneuverability . also it nearly have no armor , and its survivability is questionable in case of war ,it literally have no armor .
your carrier would be peace time carrier, that lexington have more survivability.

What you said sir, is compensable through installing a nuclear powered engine.

This thread was started by a kid, dont know why it has gone for 5 pages. He obviously has no idea about a military exercise and damage assessment.

 

[Hack-Hook]

What you said sir, is compensable through installing a nuclear powered engine.

This thread was started by a kid, dont know why it has gone for 5 pages. He obviously has no idea about a military exercise and damage assessment.

even lack of maneuverability , even the body be as thin as paper , or , the fact that the welding techniqueof the plates of the body is only suitable for civillian ship and if the hule somehow manage to do a tight turn ,will rip itself apart ?
that nuclear engine solve power problem , but a millitary ship is a lot different from a civillian one .
and you are right this thread is just turned to wish list for some people.

 

[Muhammed45]

even lack of maneuverability , even the body be as thin as paper , or , the fact that the welding techniqueof the plates of the body is only suitable for civillian ship and if the hule somehow manage to do a tight turn ,will rip itself apart ?

Thats right. I am not against what you said but the body and superstructure would be completely different from a civilian or a commercial ship. A nuclear engine can compensate weight ratio since military ships are heavier hence more survivable in the naval battles. Not to mention that Artesh is looking for such an engine and if funded, then we would see an operational nuclear engine for ships in the near ftutre.

that nuclear engine solve power problem , but a millitary ship is a lot different from a civillian one .
and you are right this thread is just turned to wish list for some people.

 

[Mithridates]

a warship with 16 knots of speed without any sort of maneuverability . also it nearly have no armor , and its survivability is questionable in case of war ,it literally have no armor .
your carrier would be peace time carrier, that lexington have more survivability.

did you notice that it carries 113000 tons of oil?? I'm sure for a carrier it's not necessary to carry that much oil. so it can invest it in it's armour. also using armour in ships specially those that are not nuclear powered means you should burn fuel to carry something around which is not usefull most of the times. but you can add point defenses which are considerably lighter and neutralize the threats for your ship.

 

[Hack-Hook]

did you notice that it carries 113000 tons of oil?? I'm sure for a carrier it's not necessary to carry that much oil. so it can invest it in it's armour. also using armour in ships specially those that are not nuclear powered means you should burn fuel to carry something around which is not usefull most of the times. but you can add point defenses which are considerably lighter and neutralize the threats for your ship.

you can add point defence which are lighter and less reliable ,can be and will be saturated . USA still use Kelvar armore to protect its big ships.
by the way how fast those ships travel while empty ?
and don't forget.

The construction of a large aircraft carrier requires a wide variety of steel plates, and the general steel types are divided into three categories: hull plate, armor plate and structural plate. In order to prevent the bombardment of torpedoes and submarine missiles, the underwater part of the hull plate is made of 150-203mm thick, and it is also made into a double-layer or 3-layer hull.

the command of the whole ship. It is protected by armor plate and is the thickest part of the aircraft carrier. The maximum thickness is 330mm, which is similar to the tank plate.

The thickness of steel plates for general runway is 40-50mm.

n the United States, the yield strength of steel used to make aircraft carrier flight decks is generally above 550 MPa. The US HY series of special steel is also used to manufacture submarine and aircraft carrier flight decks. HY-80 has a yield strength of about 550 MPa and is used in aircraft carrier manufacturing. It is also an alloy steel of nickel chrome and titanium. Then, on the basis of HY-80 steel, the United States developed HY-100 steel with a yield strength of not less than 686 MPa, which is also the main material for the important parts of the US Navy aircraft carrier

https://www.artinox-hongsun.com/news/talk-about-steel-for-aircraft-carriers-19096667.html

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Seems to be that China is also having a fetish for carriers. Why build them when you have the technology to sink them easily now as you said? Even small countries like Iran could do it? Why not Vietnam or Taiwan in SCS?

Building the supercarriers can project your influence around the world.

But you cannot just use the hypersonic missiles in every small scuffle, but the aircraft carrier will be sufficient to do the job.