Iran plans to build aircraft carrier, boost naval warfare capabilities

[gambit]

Questioning and discussing the capabilities if carriers is not a crime, is it? Carriers are not some infallible Gods of the sea that one cannot oppose even with words.

You can speculate all you want. But the common issue that I see on various Internet forums is that people in their nationalistic passions takes their speculations as probabilities, not merely possibilities.

Right now, probably the only navy in the world that have any significant institutional knowledge of fleet engagements is the US Navy due to the fact that we have ten carrier fleets on duty at any time in a yr, and even then, the preeminent combat component is naval air power, for both offense and defense, and NO ONE comes even half way close to US in those regards. I am not bragging because I am an American. I am speaking facts and logic because I have seen these combat components up close and personal -- as a veteran.

So no, it is not a crime to question the status quo. Just do not violate common sense while you are doing it. THAT would be a crime.

 

[Penguin]

So for each Nimitz you could get 6 Arleigh Burkes.

Thats an additional 576 VLS cells. Which could mean anything from 48 to 192 extra AShMs.

So you've got a CSG on one side, with 1 CVN, 2 CGs and 6 DDGs. And on the other is the hypothetical DDSG (Destroyer Strike Group[?] ), with 12 DDGs and 2 CGs (6 of those DDGs are part of the DDGF).

All right, so via two different routes we ended up at the same guestimate of an "exchange rate" of 6 Burke-like DDG for 1 CVN. Now consider what would be more cost effective: 6 Burke-like DDGs, 3 larger Lider-like 'strike cruisers' (possibly nuclear powered), 2 modern day Kirov-like nuclear powered battlecruisers or - perhaps - a single arsenal ship with as many as 500-750 vertical launch cells and a unit cost of $450 million (1998 dollars)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lider-class_destroyer

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion....iration-of-russias-newest-naval-warfare-tech/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battlecruiser_Admiral_Nakhimov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_ship

http://armedforcesjournal.com/1987-a-battleship-for-the-21st-century/

Concept by artis J. M. Caiella. Note 12 groups of 16 Mk57 4-cell modules: 768 VLS cells. In this artist’s concept, the arsenal ship’s upper hull features stealth technology, while the lower hull, of traditional hydrodynamic design construction and form, would typically cruise at a lower waterline (WL2) for relatively high-speed transit. In combat the ship would be ballasted down to the higher waterline (WL-1), presenting only its stealth surfaces to enemy sensors and a much smaller profile.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-05/breaking-anti-access-wall
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/arsenal_ship.htm

 

[HannibalBarca]

No one in those Iranians navy "Dreamers" told them to start with 100% Indegenious Patrol boat first...

 

[AmirPatriot]

All right, so via two different routes we ended up at the same guestimate of an "exchange rate" of 6 Burke-like DDG for 1 CVN. Now consider what would be more cost effective: 6 Burke-like DDGs, 3 larger Lider-like 'strike cruisers' (possibly nuclear powered), 2 modern day Kirov-like nuclear powered battlecruisers or - perhaps - a single arsenal ship with as many as 500-750 vertical launch cells and a unit cost of $450 million (1998 dollars)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lider-class_destroyer

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion....iration-of-russias-newest-naval-warfare-tech/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battlecruiser_Admiral_Nakhimov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_ship

http://armedforcesjournal.com/1987-a-battleship-for-the-21st-century/

Concept by artis J. M. Caiella. Note 12 groups of 16 Mk57 4-cell modules: 768 VLS cells. In this artist’s concept, the arsenal ship’s upper hull features stealth technology, while the lower hull, of traditional hydrodynamic design construction and form, would typically cruise at a lower waterline (WL2) for relatively high-speed transit. In combat the ship would be ballasted down to the higher waterline (WL-1), presenting only its stealth surfaces to enemy sensors and a much smaller profile.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-05/breaking-anti-access-wall
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/arsenal_ship.htm

The arsenal ship is certainly a very interesting concept and I'm surprised it hasn't been explored outside of a DARPA research program. Estimating its cost at around $680 million (in 2017 dollars), yet having over 500 of these means you have as many VLS cells in 1 Arsenal ship (BB?) as a 6 DDGs.

Have say, 5 of these with the associated escort vessels, and you have what, 2500 VLS cells for a half the price of a CVN without its aircraft (or a quarter the price of one with its aircraft, but I don't think the USN included the price of the armament of the arsenal ship).

For the same price of a CVN (minus aircraft) you could have 10-11 arsenal ships, giving you (based on DARPA estimates) 5000+ VLS cells for the price of 1 CVN.

Together with associated escorts you can have over 6000 VLS cells.

Using a non-specialised (multirole) DDG combination of missile loadout as a baseline/reference point, that could mean roughly 1000 LRASM, 1500 Tomahawks, 1000 ASROC, 2000 ESSM, 2000 SM2MR/SM3/SM6. What is going to get through that?

And besides, I don't know what you'd want 1000 ASROCs for, maybe cut that down to only 500 and you could have, say, an extra 2000 ESSM, or 500 Standard missiles.

So what are the downsides?

No one in those Iranians navy "Dreamers" told them to start with 100% Indegenious Patrol boat first...

You once again show your ignorance, Iran did that years ago.

 

[truthseeker2010]

The arsenal ship is certainly a very interesting concept and I'm surprised it hasn't been explored outside of a DARPA research program. Estimating its cost at around $680 million (in 2017 dollars), yet having over 500 of these means you have as many VLS cells in 1 Arsenal ship (BB?) as a 6 DDGs.

Have say, 5 of these with the associated escort vessels, and you have what, 2500 VLS cells for a half the price of a CVN without its aircraft (or a quarter the price of one with its aircraft, but I don't think the USN included the price of the armament of the arsenal ship).

For the same price of a CVN (minus aircraft) you could have 10-11 arsenal ships, giving you (based on DARPA estimates) 5000+ VLS cells for the price of 1 CVN.

Together with associated escorts you can have over 6000 VLS cells.

So what are the downsides?



You once again show your ignorance, we did that years ago.

Few lessons for you:
Arsenal ship is a concept, nothing more up-till now.
The ship with highest no of VLS cells currently in Sejong the great with 128 cells.
It cost around $1.3 billion each. A carrier costs are :Gerald ford which is current $13B, and Nimitz around 6.2b each
So for a cost of 1 CVN, you can have 5 to 10 VLS ships.
Which makes 640 to 1280 VLS cells.
Add 16 harpoon other than vls,
U get 720 to 1440 missiles for a price of Aircraft carrier.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Just do not violate common sense while you are doing it. THAT would be a crime.

Well, I don't think I have.

 

[Blue In Green]

You can speculate all you want. But the common issue that I see on various Internet forums is that people in their nationalistic passions takes their speculations as probabilities, not merely possibilities.

Right now, probably the only navy in the world that have any significant institutional knowledge of fleet engagements is the US Navy due to the fact that we have ten carrier fleets on duty at any time in a yr, and even then, the preeminent combat component is naval air power, for both offense and defense, and NO ONE comes even half way close to US in those regards. I am not bragging because I am an American. I am speaking facts and logic because I have seen these combat components up close and personal -- as a veteran.

So no, it is not a crime to question the status quo. Just do not violate common sense while you are doing it. THAT would be a crime.

Hey Gambit real quick question, has nothing to do with the topic at hand though.

Since you're a veteran of the USN, which special forces is better, SEALS or British SAS? I guess what I'm really trying the ask is do we have the best specials forces (Delta, Rangers, Green Berret, etc, etc...)

Also I wanted to add that the idea of the Arsenal ship just sounds bad. It's a high risk high reward type of situation really. If the enemy gets a fix on the Arsenal ships locations and hits it with a top attack anti-ship ballistic missile or a modern anti-ship cruise missile the likely hood of the entire ship going off like a powder keg (an extremely powerful powder keg) increased due to all the cells being next to one another and adjacent to other blocks. I just don't see any navy rising such a ship for battle purposes.

I get the whole stealth aspect of having the ship be lowered into the water but still. One good hit and it's gone.

 

[HannibalBarca]

The arsenal ship is certainly a very interesting concept and I'm surprised it hasn't been explored outside of a DARPA research program. Estimating its cost at around $680 million (in 2017 dollars), yet having over 500 of these means you have as many VLS cells in 1 Arsenal ship (BB?) as a 6 DDGs.

Have say, 5 of these with the associated escort vessels, and you have what, 2500 VLS cells for a half the price of a CVN without its aircraft (or a quarter the price of one with its aircraft, but I don't think the USN included the price of the armament of the arsenal ship).

For the same price of a CVN (minus aircraft) you could have 10-11 arsenal ships, giving you (based on DARPA estimates) 5000+ VLS cells for the price of 1 CVN.

Together with associated escorts you can have over 6000 VLS cells.

Using a non-specialised (multirole) DDG combination of missile loadout as a baseline/reference point, that could mean roughly 1000 LRASM, 1500 Tomahawks, 1000 ASROC, 2000 ESSM, 2000 SM2MR/SM3/SM6. What is going to get through that?

And besides, I don't know what you'd want 1000 ASROCs for, maybe cut that down to only 500 and you could have, say, an extra 2000 ESSM, or 500 Standard missiles.

So what are the downsides?



You once again show your ignorance, Iran did that years ago.

Almost all patrol boat from Iran are either Kit or under licence ones... from China and RU... Have Fun.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Almost all patrol boat from Iran are either Kit or under licence ones... from China and RU... Have Fun.

Lol, you just listed the 2 types of procurement Iran didn't pursue.

All our current surface warships are either procured whole from abroad before the revolution or made in Iran based on foreign designs but there is no licensing its all reverse engineering. Our submarines are Kilos procured already constructed from Russia, Ghadir sub based on NKorean Yono class and completely indigenous Fateh class.

I don't know why I waste my time with you trolls who have no idea what they are talking about.

If the enemy gets a fix on the Arsenal ships locations and hits it with a top attack anti-ship ballistic missile or a modern anti-ship cruise missile

Thats why you have 500 VLS cells in each Arsenal ship, to shoot down the missiles or outright destroy the launchers with the barrage of Tomahawks at your disposal.

 

[Penguin]

Few lessons for you:
Arsenal ship is a concept, nothing more up-till now.
The ship with highest no of VLS cells currently in Sejong the great with 128 cells.
It cost around $1.3 billion each. A carrier costs are :Gerald ford which is current $13B, and Nimitz around 6.2b each
So for a cost of 1 CVN, you can have 5 to 10 VLS ships.
Which makes 640 to 1280 VLS cells.
Add 16 harpoon other than vls,
U get 720 to 1440 missiles for a price of Aircraft carrier.

Thank for joining and contirbuting to the discussion (but none of us need 'lessons' here)
As you may have noticed, basing on the USN Arleigh Burke, we arrived at 6 DDGs via 2 different routes. That is not much different from 5 Sejong the Great variants. That gets you a certain number of VLU cells (not necessarily the missile in those cells too, if we are talking ship acquisition cost). We did not use/count Harpoon on those ships due to its relative short range (instead, we used LRASM from MK41).

 

[Godman]

I guess he meant an LPH in the long term.

 

[Penguin]

Since you're a veteran of the USN, which special forces is better, SEALS or British SAS? I guess what I'm really trying the ask is do we have the best specials forces (Delta, Rangers, Green Berret, etc, etc...)

The United States Navy's "Sea, Air, and Land" Teams, commonly abbreviated as the Navy SEALs, are the U.S. Navy's primary special operations force and a component of the Naval Special Warfare Command.

SAS (Special Air Service) is UK army, as is SRR (Special Reconnaissance Regiment). The Royal Navy has the Special Boats Service (SBS).

UK's Special Forces Support Group (SFSG), consisting of the 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment (1 PARA), a company strength group of Royal Marines, and a contingent of RAF Regiment personnel, supports the Special Air Service, the Special Reconnaissance Regiment and the Special Boat Service on operations.

 

[usman jsmu21]

India might be providing development and Israel financial support to Iran for making air craft carrier ......
At this time they should use and play with toy air craft.....

 

[TopCat]

Perfect way to troll uncle sam.

 

[HannibalBarca]

Perfect way to troll uncle sam.

For troll to happen...you have to build it first...
And let's be honest... will not happen in the coming few decades... or even never... After all Elections are coming in Iran and "annoucement" like that is always a good publicity boost/stunt for incoming election... It has been like that before...and it will continue...