What's new

Iran plans to build aircraft carrier, boost naval warfare capabilities

@Penguin what even are the advantages of carriers anymore. Historically it was range, but now we have all sorts of long range cruise missiles and SAMs. Are they even cost effective compared to something like an Arleigh Burke? For the price of one Gerald Ford class you could have about 10 Arleigh Burkes! And thats not even mentioning aircraft or crew or maintenance all or most of which I suspect are cheaper on an Arleigh Burke.
 
.
I do not know for what Iran need Aircraft carrier. Do they have any plan to operate fr away from the Iran Main land?
 
.
I know right. If he thinks that my argument is scientifically wrong, he just could show their aerial factories, plane production lines, fyber-carbon technologies etc and show that i am wrong,

instead of uses his racial insult on one person he doesnt even know o_O really strange
iranian huge sadra ship factory that is producing heavy tanker ships for venezuela
139411171431191137052534.jpg
img_7395.JPG
tanker-ship-made-in-iran-2.jpg

Iranian noor huge aframax ship in building stages
IMG_6376.jpg


I know right. If he thinks that my argument is scientifically wrong, he just could show their aerial factories, plane production lines, fyber-carbon technologies etc and show that i am wrong,

instead of uses his racial insult on one person he doesnt even know o_O really strange
bro iran can make aircraft carrier so easy

I do not know for what Iran need Aircraft carrier. Do they have any plan to operate fr away from the Iran Main land?
i think yes bro because irgc general bagheri said that iran wants so make maritime bases in yemen and syria
 
. .
Good for them , it will help protect our port Chabahar makes the region safer.

You mean billion dollars aircraft carrier for safe guarding your $500 million investment on Chabahar? :D :D :D

Iran is doing this to boost their naval capabilities but with aircraft carrier they need more and better fighter jets probably 5th gen jets.
 
.
@Penguin what even are the advantages of carriers anymore. Historically it was range, but now we have all sorts of long range cruise missiles and SAMs. Are they even cost effective compared to something like an Arleigh Burke? For the price of one Gerald Ford class you could have about 10 Arleigh Burkes! And thats not even mentioning aircraft or crew or maintenance all or most of which I suspect are cheaper on an Arleigh Burke.
Range:
  • This advantage still applies even with the advent of long range cruise missiles (which are not a new phenomenon)
  • F/A-18E/F Combat radius: 390 nmi (449 mi, 722 km) for interdiction mission
  • F-35A Combat radius: 625 nmi (1,158 km) interdiction mission on internal fuel, 760 nmi (1,407 km) for internal air to air configuration
    • Compared to the F-35A, the F-35C carrier variant features larger wings with foldable wingtip sections, larger wing and tail control surfaces for improved low-speed control, stronger landing gear for the stresses of carrier arrested landings, a twin-wheel nose gear, and a stronger tailhook for use with carrier arrestor cables. The larger wing area allows for decreased landing speed while increasing both range and payload.
  • Above ranges are on internal fuel, any aerial tanking increases effective range (e.g. KV-22, buddy-to-buddy, other).
  • Since there is no fixed airfield, the carrier can move closer to where the aircraft are actually needed and optimized stand-off range.
Survivability:
  • Due to size, design and eleborate damage/fire control practises, the carrier is still one of the most difficult vessels to put out of action permamently. It has enormous potential to abosorb damage, relative to smaller naval units. It's ability to move around ads to that, as it is not an easy asset to locate and keep track of without very significant investments in surveillance assets of various kinds.
Flexibility:
  • Relative to cruise-missile armed submarines and destroyers, the carrier's air combat group can deliver a far wider range or munitions and ordnance, tailored to the specific targets (there are currently e.g. no ARM versions of cruise missiles, which home on radar emissions, for SEAD)
  • Packages of aircraft can be put together tailored to defeat specific defences, in combination with ship- and sub-launched cruisemissiles and munitions from long range aviation (B52, B1B, B2) and tanker/control/EW assets (EC/RC-130, EC/RC-135, EV-22, E2, E3 etc)
Staying power:
  • A carrier has a large stock of aviation fuel and ordnance, which it can also have replenished while at sea. By comparision, once a sub or destroyer expends its cruisemissile load it has to return to port to reload, which means another boat or ship will have to take up its place. Since port is not necessarily nearby, additional boats/vessels are needed (i.e. ships/boats in transit to/from the combat zone). So, unless you have a substantial numbers of DDGs or SSNs to spare, the carrier clearly has some advantages here.
Cost effectiveness:
  • One large carrier is more cost-effective than 2 or 3 smaller ones with the same cumulative airgroup size: fewer personnel, less fuel consumption etc. Moreover, fewer escorts are needed. Likewise, it may well be that the number of SSN and DDG required to offer equivalent firepower to that of a carrier is such that the carrier option is more cost-effective, even if its escorts and logistical train are included in the equation.

iranian huge sadra ship factory that is producing heavy tanker ships for venezuela
139411171431191137052534.jpg


bro iran can make aircraft carrier so easy


Tankers and bulk carriers, while big, are somewhat simpler vessel to construct than aircraft carriers

tanker%20cross%20section.jpg

Oil_tanker_%28front_view%29.PNG

Chemical%20tanker%20and%20a%20product%20tanker.jpg


bulk3.png


aircraft-carrier-cross-sect.jpg


c7c26ee61872205cab30a0d90459d557.jpg


ea1dec88c0e86b287fa424fd6be6254f.jpg


59fa2ff59474582ff96a8d56a3405e97.jpg

hms-qe-5.png
 
Last edited:
.
Iran has already announced nuke reactor propulsion systems for it carriers and subs.

Nuclear powered Iranian carriers, warships and subs will take to the seas within the next few years.
 
. . .
Reading your response @Penguin I think I should have made clear, that I am concerned about the efficiency of CVNs in naval warfare. Carriers are definitely very flexible but that's not what I wanted to ask you about to be honest.

This advantage still applies even with the advent of long range cruise missiles (which are not a new phenomenon)

Well, aircraft carriers have been around since the 1920s, and historically the advantage of carriers was that their aircraft had greater range than the big guns on battleships.

Survivability:
  • Due to size, design and eleborate damage/fire control practises, the carrier is still one of the most difficult vessels to put out of action permamently. It has enormous potential to abosorb damage, relative to smaller naval units. It's ability to move around ads to that, as it is not an easy asset to locate and keep track of without very significant investments in surveillance assets of various kinds.

Well, a large number of heavily armed destroyers like the Arleigh Burkes have high survivability in terms of active defence systems like missiles and CIWS. Realistically, if you have allowed your carrier to take physical damage, you have already failed to prevent the enemy from breaking down your numerous ranged defences like fighter aircraft and escorts.

Flexibility:
  • Relative to cruise-missile armed submarines and destroyers, the carrier's air combat group can deliver a far wider range or munitions and ordnance, tailored to the specific targets (there are currently e.g. no ARM versions of cruise missiles, which home on radar emissions, for SEAD)
  • Packages of aircraft can be put together tailored to defeat specific defences, in combination with ship- and sub-launched cruisemissiles and munitions from long range aviation (B52, B1B, B2) and tanker/control/EW assets (EC/RC-130, EC/RC-135, EV-22, E2, E3 etc)

Granted. Carriers are very flexible, allowing them to partake in wide offensives on enemy states. But what about naval warfare? In such a case, cruise missiles can do the job.

Cost effectiveness:
  • One large carrier is more cost-effective than 2 or 3 smaller ones with the same cumulative airgroup size: fewer personnel, less fuel consumption etc. Moreover, fewer escorts are needed. Likewise, it may well be that the number of SSN and DDG required to offer equivalent firepower to that of a carrier is such that the carrier option is more cost-effective, even if its escorts and logistical train are included in the equation.

Yes, but I am talking about a large number of DDGs to 1 CVN not 3 small CVNs to 1 large CVN.

Staying power:
  • A carrier has a large stock of aviation fuel and ordnance, which it can also have replenished while at sea. By comparision, once a sub or destroyer expends its cruisemissile load it has to return to port to reload, which means another boat or ship will have to take up its place. Since port is not necessarily nearby, additional boats/vessels are needed (i.e. ships/boats in transit to/from the combat zone). So, unless you have a substantial numbers of DDGs or SSNs to spare, the carrier clearly has some advantages here.

Yes, but this isn't this less relevant in ship-to-ship combat? After all, if you can afford 10 DDGs to 1 CVN, you have a lot of ordinance. Furthermore, naval battles aren't typically as long as what America uses its carriers for (anti-ground ops mostly) and there are a far more smaller number of combatants. It is conceivable that 1 DDG would have enough armament to destroy another DDG several times over (ceteris paribas). Same for 10 DDGs vs 10 DDGs, etc.
 
. . .
INS_Vikrant_being_undocked_at_the_Cochin_Shipyard_Limited_in_2015-e1492995658666.jpg


Iran and India can collaborate on ACs in the class of Vikrant (~45000-50000 tonne displacement). What say? @2800 @SOHEIL
I don't think Israel will then provide the Sensors, radars, missiles and all other electronics and armaments.

We want to produce fighters within Iran , if Russia agrees with TOT, that will be a great shift to our technological capabilities, if not, to hell. We will produce them with higher cost of cash and time.
Russia hasn't even given TOT to India.
 
.
We should probably plan to build an aircraft carrier too
 
.
@Penguin what even are the advantages of carriers anymore.
Persistence of presence. Other than a land army, no other method can do the job.

Realistically, if you have allowed your carrier to take physical damage, you have already failed to prevent the enemy from breaking down your numerous ranged defences like fighter aircraft and escorts.
Is this supposed to somehow mean the aircraft carrier as a naval weapon have become useless ?
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom