Fateh Submarine | News & Discussions

[Penguin]

I think its Korean design one...
Although I wish Pakistan would start up JV with China on:
700 Tons
1600 Tons
3500 Tons
7000 Tons

Nishan, please be more specific, what are you referring to? A text, a link, a picture?

Please show us a similar Nkorean submarine

I don't think he means NORTH Korean (rather the SOUTH Korean minisub indicated above (KSM 500A)

well there is no direct word for those class of ships , you must make the word by combining ship and boat with appropriate adjective and adverbs and get the words like "قایق گشتزنی - Patrol Boat" or "ناو جنگی - Nave-Jangi or Combat ship" and "کشتی اقیانوس پیما - Ocean Going Ship"


honestly its easier and more elegant to sum all of them together. unles they invent some word for those class of ships and even if they do that it take years for people to accept those word .
let put it like it people accept some word and don't accept some other , here everyone knew the new word for Helicopter is بالگرد - Bal-Gard but hardly anybody knew the accepted word for Pizza is کش لقمه - kesh-loghmeh

Well, the rest of the world pretty much categorizes warship that way. If you choose that approach then 'warship' rather than 'destroyer' would be best used to refer to Alvand/Moudge ships. Unless willing to use adjectives, one common term for all warships really isn't informative, even confusing in discussions about naval issues. At least use the name of the lead ship to indicate the class and avoid the whole 'what kind of ship is it?' discussion.

 

[The SC]

It is telling you criticize sources, which in the case of wiki (which is convenient, but onvisouly not the only source I have acces to) are only indicative / illustration i.e. caes in point. "just concepts' is balony, for in the casae of South Korea they are being built and a builder like Fincantieri only waits for a commercial order (no need to start building without customer, is there?). So, bla on your side.

I haven't mentioned any north korean subs in my list of contemptory minisubs.

A 1400 ton lightly armed ship, that is not a FAC, is a corvette by any standard, it is not a destroyer. In the time it was first produced (Alvand class) they were rated destroyer-escort, which us US terminology equivalent of Royal navy term 'frigate' in the era WW2-start of cold war. That is were the confusing originates from, plus it is in Iran's interest to hype those ships. But mind you e.g. Turkish Ada class (MILGEM) corvette is already nearly twice the displacement. Italian Folgosi class likewise. Even the Italian Minerva class corvettes are significantly bigger, so it is NOT a destroyer. That does not change depending on where you live or how you view the world, unless your name is Joseph Goebels.

Hollow rethoric.

Modern warships
Modern warships are generally divided into seven main categories, which are: aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, corvettes, submarines and amphibious assault ships. Battleships encompass an eighth category, but are not in current service with any navy in the world. Only the deactivated American Iowa-class battleships still exist as potential combatants, and battleships in general are unlikely to re-emerge as a ship class without redefinition. The destroyer is generally regarded as the dominant surface-combat vessel of most modern blue water navies. However, the once distinct roles and appearances of cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and corvettes have blurred. Most vessels have come to be armed with a mix of anti-surface, anti-submarine and anti-aircraft weapons. Class designations no longer reliably indicate a displacement hierarchy, and the size of all vessel types has grown beyond the definitions used earlier in the 20th century. Another key differentiation between older and modern vessels is that all modern warships are "soft", without the thick armor and bulging anti-torpedo protection of World War II and older designs.
Warship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Classification
While the Jamaran has been described by the press as a [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_missile_destroyer']guided missile destroyer, within some western military analysis circles such as Jane's Information Group and Globalsecurity.org it has instead been designated a frigate based on its displacement;[3][4][5] the latter acknowledged that there are no "rules in these matters". Furthermore Globalsecurity.org states: 'Iran calls these ships "destroyers" but they would be classed as a light Frigate by the reckoning of all other countries.' [4] PressTV and Iranian military are themselves describing Jamaran as a "frigate class ship"[18] in the same article where they claim it as a "destroyer".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaran (frigate)

[/URL]

 

[The SC]

I suppose you could technically call these aircraft carriers....

Yes, one aircraft towed carrier, technicaly speaking.?

 

[The SC]

It is telling you criticize sources, which in the case of wiki (which is convenient, but onvisouly not the only source I have acces to) are only indicative / illustration i.e. caes in point. "just concepts' is balony, for in the casae of South Korea they are being built and a builder like Fincantieri only waits for a commercial order (no need to start building without customer, is there?). So, bla on your side.

I haven't mentioned any north korean subs in my list of contemptory minisubs.

A 1400 ton lightly armed ship, that is not a FAC, is a corvette by any standard, it is not a destroyer. In the time it was first produced (Alvand class) they were rated destroyer-escort, which us US terminology equivalent of Royal navy term 'frigate' in the era WW2-start of cold war. That is were the confusing originates from, plus it is in Iran's interest to hype those ships. But mind you e.g. Turkish Ada class (MILGEM) corvette is already nearly twice the displacement. Italian Folgosi class likewise. Even the Italian Minerva class corvettes are significantly bigger, so it is NOT a destroyer. That does not change depending on where you live or how you view the world, unless your name is Joseph Goebels.

Hollow rethoric.

First , yes you mentioned the Nkorean subs as the basis of the Iranian subs, it is OK for the first Ghadirs external design , but not the tonnage nor the tech utilized, and does not hold for the Fateh. What you missed mostly is the fact that even these very old tech subs of NKorea can still sink a modern warship. Besides that, the SKoreans are building their midget subs based on one Song-O that they have "captured", in reality it was abandoned after it hit some rocks.

 

[Penguin]

 

[Nishan_101]

Check this:
Yono-class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hack-Hook]

Check this:
Yono-class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

well hope you are aware that Fateh is 2 time larger than SanG-O class submarine and 3 time larger than Yono Class Submarine , and it's appearance is totally different .

 

[Nishan_101]

well hope you are aware that Fateh is 2 time larger than SanG-O class submarine and 3 time larger than Yono Class Submarine , and it's appearance is totally different .

Will IRAN and Syria be the next target of US....

 

[Hack-Hook]

Will IRAN and Syria be the next target of US....

not related to this thread .

 

[Penguin]

First , yes you mentioned the Nkorean subs as the basis of the Iranian subs, it is OK for the first Ghadirs external design , but not the tonnage nor the tech utilized, and does not hold for the Fateh. What you missed mostly is the fact that even these very old tech subs of NKorea can still sink a modern warship. Besides that, the SKoreans are building their midget subs based on one Song-O that they have "captured", in reality it was abandoned after it hit some rocks.

Ill informed.

Don't blabber, I've not said a word about the capability of any north korean midget subs, or midget subs in general. ANY submarine should be considered a danger.

As for the South Koreans, they've operated the domestically built Dolgorae class midgets since 1982, with 2nd and 3rd units in 1990 and 1991 respectively. With the Type 209 project completed there is less need for these submarines.

The SangO class midget submarines by North Korea, and are that country's largest home-built submarines. A single unit was captured by the ROKN (South Korea) after it ran aground on 18 September 1996 in theGangneung submarine infiltration incident. That is about 14 years AFTER the first Dolgorea class.

The Sang-O's predecessor was the Yono or Yugo, so named because it was built to plans supplied to North Korea by Yugoslavia in 1965. In 1998 one out of the 6 submarines was captured by the South Koreans .

In 2011, South Korea unveiled its plans for a new mini-sub designated KSS-500A.
Малая подлодка KSS 500A (Южная Корея) » Военное обозрение

Dolgorae (KSS-1)

Yono

Sang-O

KSS 500A

 

[The SC]

Ill informed.

Don't blabber, I've not said a word about the capability of any north korean midget subs, or midget subs in general. ANY submarine should be considered a danger.

As for the South Koreans, they've operated the domestically built Dolgorae class midgets since 1982, with 2nd and 3rd units in 1990 and 1991 respectively. With the Type 209 project completed there is less need for these submarines.

The SangO class midget submarines by North Korea, and are that country's largest home-built submarines. A single unit was captured by the ROKN (South Korea) after it ran aground on 18 September 1996 in theGangneung submarine infiltration incident. That is about 14 years AFTER the first Dolgorea class.

The Sang-O's predecessor was the Yono or Yugo, so named because it was built to plans supplied to North Korea by Yugoslavia in 1965. In 1998 one out of the 6 submarines was captured by the South Koreans .

In 2011, South Korea unveiled its plans for a new mini-sub designated KSS-500A.
Малая подлодка KSS 500A (Южная Корея) » Военное обозрение

Dolgorae (KSS-1)

Yono

Sang-O

KSS 500A

Nothing new to me, but glad you made the effort to search things up.
Still does not change the fact that the South Korean midget Sub is just a concept that is faraway in realization, it will also be a test bed for the S Korean domestic heavy submarines in the classes of their own type 209 and type 214 that they have not finished yet.
So, by all means, the Iranian Fateh Submarine is the only modern operational one today as we speak.

 

[Penguin]

Nothing new to me, but glad you made the effort to search things up.
Still does not change the fact that the South Korean midget Sub is just a concept that is faraway in realization, it will also be a test bed for the S Korean domestic heavy submarines in the classes of their own type 209 and type 214 that they have not finished yet.
So, by all means, the Iranian Fateh Submarine is the only modern operational one today as we speak.

Indeed, I bother to research beforehand. Testbed for 209 and 214?

From 1993 to 2001 South Korea commissioned 9 Chang Bogo (modified Type 209 1200) submarines, built by Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering. A Daewoo upgraded model of the Chang Bogo class Type 209 is being independently exported by South Korea to Indonesia (DSME signed a contract with Indonesia on for the supply of three Improved Chang Bogo class submarines in 2012). The variant is being considered for possible purchase by Thailand as well, as both newly built and second-hand options. South Korea ordered its first 3 KSS-II/ Type 214 boats in 2000, which were assembled by Hyundai Heavy Industries, and commissioned 2007-2009. A Batch 2 order will add 6 more submarines to the Navy, to be built by Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering. Testbed for what?

The Iranian Fateh Submarine is the only operational 500-600 ton boat, mainly because those nations operating small submarines like that have either moved up to larger boats (e.g. Norway, Germany, Israel), or disbanded their submarine services (e.g. Danmark). That should tell you something. Rubin of Russia has offered the modern AMUR range of boats, which starts with a 550 ton model and has 2 more models under 1000 ton, but these found no takers in the market. That should also tell you something.

As for only operational small submarine, Poland currently operates four 535 ton modernized ex-Norwegian Kobben (type 207) boats alongside a single russian Kilo class boat and has an additional Type 207 that is used for spares. While the boats are old (from 1964-1967), they were fully modernized and upfitted to the most recent NATO standards In 1990 - 1992. They were refurbished and given to Poland by Norway in 2002 - 2004, modified in Gdansk, Poland, before entering Polish navy service and are expected to be withdrawn from service by 2015, when new boats become available (The German BWB proposed leasing 2 of the Deutsche Marine’s U212A submarines to Poland as interim boats). The Polish MOD announced that four companies answered its invitation to tender: France's DCNS, German company ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems GmbH, Kockums from Sweden (in partnership with government agency FMV Forsvarets Materielverk.) and Navantia of Spain. The Polish Navy wishes to acquire the first two submarines before 2022 and a third one by 2030 as part of its modernization effort. They are set to replace Polish Navy existing submarine fleet: Four Kobben-class submarines (former Royal Norwegian Navy) and one Kilo-class submarine. Hence an interim lease of German boats.So this fits the pattern described earlier.

The fact that there are few if any boats today in the 500 ton class does not reflect on the design and building capabilities of the submarine producers in question, which are all capable of producing very modern boats. Rather, it reflects on the needs and specifications of their customers. For example, unlike their European cousins, the now-retired Israeli Gal class submarines (IKL Type 540, a slightly modified 600 ton variant of the HDW Type 206, dating from 1976) was modernized to carried sub-launched Harpoon around 1983-1985.

 

[The SC]

Iran had an actual need and it fulfilled it, the others although capable are just conceptualizing in view of markets. S Korea have seen a need for itself, otherwise it would not have gone to such a length in conceptualization.
So, you might understand that when someone is making something for himself based on his needs, he will throw in everything he has got to have it the best possible product or the optimum product for himself.

 

[Penguin]

KSS 500A:

The work on the concept of KSS 500A started in 2008. A model was presented by the Korean Agency for Defense Development - ADD (Agency for Defence Development) at Kormarine Expo 2011 Naval & Defense Show, accompanied by a statement ADD was at that time selecting key systems suppliers. The KSS 500A will fill a similar mission profile to the Dolgorae Class, tabbed for special operations within littorl/coastal regions. The submarine is a believed test bed for the ROKN’s final phase in their attack submarine program. It is understood that five new mini-submarines are required by the RoKN, with construction set to begin 2012, although induction timelines could not be ascertained.

‘Marine Week 2011′ Offers Insight into the ROK’s Current & Future Naval Warfare Trajectory (Part 2) | Asia Security Watch
DEFENSE STUDIES: South Korea Displays New Mini-Sub Concept
(Original source Jane’s Defence Weekly)

Iran had an actual need and it fulfilled it, the others although capable are just conceptualizing in view of markets. S Korea have seen a need for itself, otherwise it would not have gone to such a length in conceptualization.
So, you might understand that when someone is making something for himself based on his needs, he will throw in everything he has got to have it the best possible product or the optimum product for himself.

And another twist. What are you arguing, really? As you stated yourself, the NK midgets that formed the developmental starting point are not high tech. I'm sure in Fateh Iran has put the best Iran can do for itself, but neither does that automatically mean ' best in [submarine] business' (which is what you keep suggesting, without actual comparison), nor does it mean Iran is the only country that can produce a good midget sub.

 

[The SC]

KSS 500A:

The work on the concept of KSS 500A started in 2008. A model was presented by the Korean Agency for Defense Development - ADD (Agency for Defence Development) at Kormarine Expo 2011 Naval & Defense Show, accompanied by a statement ADD was at that time selecting key systems suppliers. The KSS 500A will fill a similar mission profile to the Dolgorae Class, tabbed for special operations within littorl/coastal regions. The submarine is a believed test bed for the ROKN’s final phase in their attack submarine program. It is understood that five new mini-submarines are required by the RoKN, with construction set to begin 2012, although induction timelines could not be ascertained.

‘Marine Week 2011′ Offers Insight into the ROK’s Current & Future Naval Warfare Trajectory (Part 2) | Asia Security Watch
DEFENSE STUDIES: South Korea Displays New Mini-Sub Concept
(Original source Jane’s Defence Weekly)


And another twist. What are you arguing, really? As you stated yourself, the NK midgets that formed the developmental starting point are not high tech. I'm sure in Fateh Iran has put the best Iran can do for itself, but neither does that automatically mean ' best in [submarine] business' (which is what you keep suggesting, without actual comparison), nor does it mean Iran is the only country that can produce a good midget sub.

Take a tour of what Iran has achieved in different scientific fields and you will have your answer. there is no twist in what I am saying, it is all facts, the only twisting guy I am seeing here is Penguin, and the name fits you well, although your legs are too short for a good twist dance, it is obvious that you are trying your best with no avail.
You just confirm what I am telling you with Wiki articles everytime and come back to your imagined incapacity of Iran to come up with high tech solutions. To your dismal Iran is not unveiling its specs, but they tell you that they have very advanced armaments in par with the West, and the proof can be found if you make a thorough tour of their achievements in the last 10 years.
They even came up with a fifth generation design of a fission nuclear bomb to fit their missiles warheads designs that baffled the world experts, just to show them where they are technology wise without wanting to build it.
Sejil2 and the latest UAVs are also good examples of Iran's unique high tech missile and aerospace designs, you can also look at Jamaran 1 and 2, their own Tanks, the 5th generation of their Saeqa fighter planes and their mastery of the whole cycle of nuclear technology to say the least .
They are not displaying much, but these samples show that they do not lie in their statements about their achievements, they usually prove it concretely. This is why I do not want to argue with you as I already told you; you are chasing a ghost, you can find more information on the Fateh submarine if you go back a few years in your search, and some of them are quite extensive, still, you won't find any specs since they just can not disclose them in this situation of heavy sanctions and threats.